GIORNALE ITALIANODI FILOLOGIA BIBLIOTHECA 21 EDITOR IN CHIEF Carlo Santini (Perugia) EDITORIAL BOARD Giorgio Bonamente (Perugia) Paolo Fedeli (Bari) Giovanni Polara (Napoli) Aldo Setaioli (Perugia) INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Maria Grazia Bonanno (Roma) Carmen Codoñer (Salamanca) Roberto Cristofoli (Perugia) Emanuele Dettori (Roma) Hans-Christian Günther (Freiburg i.B.) David Konstan (New York) Julián Méndez Dosuna (Salamanca) Aires Nascimento (Lisboa) Heinz-Günter Nesselrath (Heidelberg) François Paschoud (Genève) Carlo Pulsoni (Perugia) Johann Ramminger (München) Fabio Stok (Roma) SUBMISSIONS SHOULD BE SENT TO Carlo Santini carlo.santini@unipg.it Dipartimento di Lettere Università degli Studi di Perugia Piazza Morlacchi, 11 I-06123 Perugia, Italy GIFBIB_21.indb 1 03/12/19 12.27 GIFBIB_21.indb 2 03/12/19 12.27 The Roman Senate as arbiter during the Second Century bc Two Exemplary Case Studies: the Cippus Abellanus and the Polcevera Tablet Valentina Casella & Maria Federica Petraccia with an Appendix by Antonella Traverso F GIFBIB_21.indb 3 03/12/19 12.27 Translated by Oona Maria Smyth, revised by Roberta Pertegato (Alphaville). © 2019, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2019/0095/266 ISBN 978-2-503-58688-5 e-ISBN 978-2-503-58689-2 DOI 10.1484/M.GIFBIB-EB.5.118901 ISSN 2565-8204 e-ISSN 2565-9537 Printed in the E.U. on acid-free paper. GIFBIB_21.indb 4 03/12/19 12.27 H. W. Schmidt, Cicero Before the Senate (Denouncing Catilina), 1912. GIFBIB_21.indb 5 03/12/19 12.27 TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 GIFBIB_21.indb 6 03/12/19 12.27 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Illustrations 9 Preface 11 Introduction (Maria Federica Petraccia) 13 1. The Concept of ‘International’ Arbitration in the Roman World (Valentina Casella) 1.1. The anthropological and political value of intermediation procedures 1.2. The ius gentium and the concept of ‘international’ in the Roman world 1.3. Alternative dispute resolution methods in the classical world 1.4. Rome’s assimilation and rejection of the Greek interpoleis arbitration model 1.5. Private arbitration and archaic civil justice in Rome 1.6. Public arbitration and its ‘international’ vocation 2. Urban Areas and Territorial Disputes across the Italic Peninsula (Valentina Casella) 2.1. Roman intervention in Italy: similarities and differences with the approach used in the Greek world 2.2. The concept of boundary in the Roman world: juridicalreligious and fiscal value 2.3. Pisae vs Luna (168 bc) 2.4. Ateste vs Patavium (141 bc) and Ateste vs Vicetia (135 bc) 2.5. Genua vs Viturii Langenses (117 bc) 29 29 33 39 42 49 53 61 61 63 67 68 72 7 GIFBIB_21.indb 7 03/12/19 12.27 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3. The Impact of the Roman Road System on Border Disputes: Cisalpine Gaul (Valentina Casella) 3.1. Cisalpine Gaul between geographic imaginary and imperialist policies 3.2. Roman diplomacy in the Cisalpine region 3.3. Utilitas and libertas: a universal empire founded upon the city and upon mobility 77 77 84 93 4. The Role of the Roman Senate and its Function as arbiter within Border Disputes in the Italic Territory (Maria Federica Petraccia) 101 5. The Cippus Abellanus and the Dispute between Two Campanian Communities (Maria Federica Petraccia) 117 6. The Polcevera Tablet (Maria Federica Petraccia) 133 Appendix: The Ligurian Stretch of the Via Postumia. Reflections and Suggestions Arising from the Archaeological Evidence (Antonella Traverso) 1. Archaeological elements 2. Cartographic and toponymic data on the ancient road network of the Val Polcevera 3. Final considerations 181 186 Conclusions (Valentina Casella) 189 Bibliography 197 Index of Classical Sources 237 Geographical and Prosopographical Index 245 169 174 8 GIFBIB_21.indb 8 03/12/19 12.27 TABLE OF CONTENTS ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. front matter: H. W. Schmidt, Cicero Before the Senate (Denouncing Catilina), 1912. Fig. 1: The Cippus Abellanus, currently preserved in the Archiepiscopal Seminary of Nola [graphic reproduction by Morandi 1982]. Fig. 2: The Polcevera Tablet, currently preserved in the Museo Civico di Archeologia Ligure di Genova Pegli [Pasquinucci 2014]. Fig. 3a: Church of Santa Maria di Pedemonte also known as Izosecco/ Isosecco [Pianta degli effetti situati sul fiume Secca in Polcevera by S. E. Lazzaro Maria Cambiaso (ASGE 1761)]. Fig. 3b: Precise position of the place named Izosecco/Isosecco. Fig. 4: Three different proposals for the route taken by the Via Postumia from Genoa to Libarna. Fig. 5a: Finds from Isola del Cantone (Ge) [Traverso et al. 2018]. Fig. 5b: Finds from Libarna - Rio della Pieve (Al) [Pastorino, Venturino Gambari 1991]. Fig. 5c: Finds from S. Agata di Pressana (Vr) [Salzani 1996]. Fig. 6a: The new stretch of road (north of the Crocetta d’Orero Pass) proposed here. List of finds: 1-2. Maskenfibeln type; 3. Roman coins; 4. Church of Santa Maria de Ceta; 5. Sporadic Roman finds; 6. Second Iron Age fibula; 7. Niusci hoard. Fig. 6b: The new stretch of road (south of the Crocetta d’Orero Pass) proposed here. List of finds: 8. Roman finds; 9. Medieval finds; [10. Izosecco/Isosecco]. 9 GIFBIB_21.indb 9 03/12/19 12.27 GIFBIB_21.indb 10 03/12/19 12.27 PREFACE La storia giuridica è stata guidata, nel suo lungo cammino, dal ‘concetto’ del diritto: non una nozione elastica, provvisoria e strumentale per orientare la ricerca, ma una categoria precisa e vincolante, un’idea da ripercorrere attraverso i secoli e i millenni. Q uesta categoria, – l’ordinamento giuridico come un insieme coerente e autosufficiente di istituti o di norme, di figure o di definizioni, – si è posta come oggetto di una disciplina storica specifica. Osservata da questo angolo, la storia giuridica non è altro, in definitiva, che lo svolgimento diacronico di un’entità concettuale e (s’intende) delle sue articolazioni interne. Il ‘diritto romano’ vi rientra e ne occupa lo spazio più ampio, anche oltre i confini del mondo antico. (Bretone 1981, p. 103) This study grew out of various reflections arising in the wake of the authors’ involvement in the Postumia Project (still ongoing) launched by the Soprintendenza Archeologia della Liguria (Ligurian Archaeological Heritage Department) together with the City of Genoa with the aim of reviewing the documentation and material data relative to the route of the Via Postumia. The authors’ contribution to the recent conference on this important consular road, held in Genoa, on 1 June 2018, and organised by the aforementioned Soprintendenza, focused more specifically on the Sententia Minuciorum, linking the Tablet to its context, a series of boundary disputes involving the Roman Senate during the second century bc. Although the scientific community has carried out systematic in-depth studies into Roman intervention in territorial disputes involving the Greek poleis for some time now, the same cannot be said with regard to similar disputes in Italic territory. Such research must take into account the fact that the phenomenon of arbitration must be observed from two different perspectives: that of the legislator with iurisdictio and that of the petitioners who are in some capacity requesting its application. The complexity of its crucial aspects made it necessary to divide this volume into various sections to allow this work to be approached and organised in an exhaustive, systematic, and, one hopes, original manner. Each of these sections was edited separately – without losing sight of the overall framework of the study – by one of the authors. For the sake of simplicity, the author in question will be indicated by means of her initials at the end of each chapter: V. C. (Valentina Casella) and M. F. P. (Maria 11 GIFBIB_21.indb 11 03/12/19 12.27 PREFACE Federica Petraccia). Specifically, the Introduction and Chapters Four, Five, and Six were written by Maria Federica Petraccia, while Chapters One, Two, Three, and the Conclusions were written by Valentina Casella. Our warmest thanks go firstly to Giorgio Bonamente and Carlo Santini for believing in the originality of our project right from the beginning and deciding to include it in the prestigious editorial setting of the “Bibliotheca” to the “Giornale Italiano di Filologia” (GIF) series directed by them. As we all know, books would not exist without ‘illuminated’ publishers. The Brepols publishing house and its staff have shown themselves to be entirely worthy of their international fame, embracing with genuine enthusiasm the idea of publishing a volume dedicated to the study of arbitration in the specific context of Roman Italy in the second century bc. In fact, the mediation processes of antiquity can still teach a lot to those working in the field of international law today. In fact, even now arbitration is one of the most immediate instruments for the resolution of civil disputes in the world of business and finance. As we prepare to publish our work, we would also like to express our affection and gratitude to all the friends and colleagues consulted who unstintingly offered useful advice, suggestions, and even constructive criticism, thus helping this volume on its way: Alessandro Mannocchi, Sergio Pedemonte, Paolo Poccetti, Roberto Scevola, Rita Scuderi, Gianluca Soricelli, and Antonella Traverso who also wrote the Appendix to Chapter Five on the Polcevera Tablet. The influence of one academic, in particular, was instrumental for the drafting of this book: Franco Sartori, pupil of Attilio Degrassi and illustrious lecturer at Padua University, provided those studying issues concerning the relations existing between the constitution and/or constitutions prior to the Roman conquest of southern Italy and to its subsequent municipal organisation with a seminal work in his Problemi di storia costituzionale italiota. Lastly, we owe a debt of gratitude to all those who, in their different ways, helped stimulate our critical reflection. If this work has any impact upon the advancement of knowledge in this area it will be thanks to them. Valentina Casella Maria Federica Petraccia 12 GIFBIB_21.indb 12 03/12/19 12.27 INTRODUCTION Si officii nostri est omnibus sua jura defendere ac inter eos componere pacem, ac stabilire concordiam multo magis ratio exigit atque usus utilitatis exponit, ut sancimus charitatem inter maiores, quorum pax aut odium redundat in plurimos. (S. Gregorii papae operae I, reg. II, ep. 70, in Migne 1849-1855, col. 421) 1 A part of legal doctrine claims that it is inaccurate to speak of international Roman law with reference to antiquity. There is a tendency to deny the existence of international legal rules on the basis of the conviction that there was a natural perpetual hostility between states, that foreigners were identified as enemies, and that Rome did not recognise the independence and sovereignty of the peoples encountered. Such rules would imply the absolute political equality between states with reciprocal rights and duties, which would be in sharp contrast with the exclusivism of the Romans. 2 Consequently, the latter would be less likely to draw up true treatises or foedera with other peoples, because any such agreements would be no more than mere truces temporarily suspending a state of war. 3 The boundaries are very blurred between ‘making peace’, thereby guaranteeing and creating conditions for harmony between two or more diverging actors, and “imposing peace”, Gregory VII, born Hildebrand of Soana (Soana/Sovana between 1013 and 1024 - Salerno 1085), was the one hundred and fifty-seventh pope of the Catholic Church from 1073 to his death. He was one of the most innovative figures of the Middle Ages, responsible for a complex, highly articulated political and ecclesiological action. After his election as pope, he launched a major programme of reform in the Church: his Dictatus papae (1075-1076) comprising twenty-seven declarations affirmed the primacy of the papacy over all temporal authorities, and in the 1075 Synod he defended libertas Ecclesiae and the theocratic conception, thus entering into open conflict with Henry IV of Germany and giving rise to a period of conflict known as the “Investiture Controversy”. 2 Sini 2003, p. 32 n. 5. 3 Cf. Mommsen 1887, pp. 590 ff. 1 13 GIFBIB_21.indb 13 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC exercising a sovereign will conditioned neither by law nor by any form of agreement reciprocally shared and accepted by each of the conflicting parties. This mediation consists of a mandate conferred upon an impartial third party and has the aim of allowing the aforementioned parties to reach an agreement, which may take various forms, allowing them to overcome the conflict between them. Throughout the ages, all societies have developed a framework of rules referencing a specific material context as well as an autonomous set of ideas and values that are not a mere re-working of experiences drawn from the past but end up by assuming a wholly new dimension. In this sense, law can never aspire to becoming ‘eternal’ because in terms of application, it rises and falls with the society that has engendered it. However, this does not mean we cannot carry out a diachronic scientific study of the changing juridical context alone, provided that we remember to attribute the appropriate function to the past, considered not merely in juridical terms. In the complex framework of instruments intended to resolve disputes, whether directly or indirectly, an important role may be played by actions implemented between the parties involved through the intervention of a third party, extraneous to those parties. This may occur because this ‘actor’ can bring together their opposing positions, thus facilitating an agreement between disputing parties, or because, at their request, he formulates a decision with binding power, or lastly because he uses threats or force to bring about a solution in an authoritative manner, imposing himself upon their will. In each of these cases, albeit to differing degrees, the action of the third party acquires legal relevance, taking the form of arbitration in the second case hypothesised. 4 Most uses of the word arbiter in Latin imply the authority of the adjudicator, not the conciliating or enabling role of the mediator, although there were exceptions. The decision of the arbiter, like that of a judge, represented the adjudication of a person whose authority was accepted by the disputants either 4 Cf. Salvioli 1957, p. 118; Arangio Ruiz 1962, p. 384; Morelli 1967, p. 376; Villani 1981; Conforti 1987, pp. 396, 407; Starace 1988, pp. 2-3, 5-7; Villani 1989, pp. 155-156. 14 GIFBIB_21.indb 14 03/12/19 12.27 INTRODUCTION because, as judge, he was authorised by the state, or because, as arbiter, they had chosen him and thus signified their consent to whatever decision he might make. The connection between the two as adjudicators went back to the Twelve Tables; the ‘judex arbiterve’ were equally competent to deliver a judgement that would conclude the case. A further similarity, also dating from the early Republic, was that the iudex, like the arbiter, was ‘given’ (‘datus’) by the praetor in response to the wish of the parties to have their business settled, in the expectation that they would abide by his ruling. 5 This concept was clearly understood in Rome to the extent that, during the second century bc in particular, it was common practice to resolve territorial disputes by turning to arbitration rather than instituting legal proceedings, which could have placed Rome in a negative light with regard to outside observers. In origine la giustizia fu affidata agli arbitri, ossia a persone che nelle comunità primitive godevano di fiducia e di prestigio. Non infrequente dovette essere, in epoche in cui fas e ius apparivano mescolati e confusi fra loro, il ricorso ai sacerdoti per dirimere le controversie. Si comincia a distinguere l’arbitro dal giudice mano a mano che la collettività si organizza e impone la propria giustizia. Mentre quella degli arbitri era fondata sull’auctoritas, quella dei giudici trovava base sull’imperium. Il processo evolutivo è lento e accompagna quello della sovranità dello Stato e della completezza della sua organizzazione. É così possibile trovare epoche e luoghi – si pensi all’epoca del processo formulare in Roma – in cui l’imperium dello Stato è a base dell’erogazione della giustizia (fase in ius), che si concretizza attraverso l’opera di cittadini dotati di auctoritas (fase apud iudicem). 6 Much more than a legal institution, arbitration should be seen as an environment: a human environment, place, and type of relation between those being judged and those judging that is immune to that immeasurable yet very real extraneousness between the two categories characterising the experience of a trial in court. In fact, arbitration is an alternative form of civil dispute resolution to 5 6 Harries 2001, p. 175. Verde 2015, p. 1. 15 GIFBIB_21.indb 15 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC the courts and is still widely used today, especially in the world of trade and commerce. This procedure is typically characterised by two key features: firstly, the parties involved in the dispute freely appoint someone – the arbitrators, in fact – to decide and, secondly, it is these disputing parties who confer upon the arbitrators the power and authority to make a decision relative to the dispute they are called upon to settle. Arbitration is an institution founded upon and sustained by the will of the litigants; and the act by which this will is expressed is called ‘arbitration agreement’. 7 The arbitrators are ‘natural persons’ invested with the power to know and decide with regard to disputes arising between one or more parties. The impartiality of arbitrators (whether a sole arbitrator or member of a panel of arbitrators) is the salt or essence of the arbitration procedure, providing a guarantee, together with their eligibility to judge the dispute, that the petition cannot be rejected due to manifest inadmissibility or groundlessness. The final act or conclusive and decisive step in the arbitration procedure is the ruling, which is intended to resolve all the issues involved in the dispute, in either a single deliberation or succession of deliberations; 8 it is through this ruling that the arbitrators perform their function, fulfilling their obligation towards the parties and leading to the culmination, in as much as this concerns them, of the matter that began with the stipulation of the arbitration agreement and continued with their appointment and the establishment of the proceedings. In the West Roman law founded the culture of arbitral dispute resolutions which have ever since (in Middle Ages, Modern Ages and nowadays) conceptually and terminologically been relying on the Roman legal tradition. Therefore, the Roman arbitration is an important part of the legal heritage pertinent to the culture of dispute resolution. Roman law took interest on arbitration because it was perceived as a means of dispute resolution which might have considerable advantages to civil litigation which was based on law. Arbitration diverted the disputing parties from excessive civil litigation into various 7 8 Vanoni 2012, pp. 79-120. La China 2011, p. 209. Cf. Bove 2001 and Bove 2009. 16 GIFBIB_21.indb 16 03/12/19 12.27 INTRODUCTION modes of dispute resolution that were considered to be less confrontational. Roman law recognized variety of extra-judicial mechanism of dispute resolution to ensure that the controversies and differences between the disputing parties were indeed ended. […] Efficiency low cost effectiveness and procedural rapidity were promoted by immediacy. Immediacy is one of the major guidelines and working principles pertinent to all types of the Roman arbitration. 9 As far as the medieval period is concerned, it is worth referring to Bussi who describes how the formula adopted in the compromise intended to resolve a dispute through the conciliatory mediation of a third party soon took on a characteristic form whereby the subject was nominated as arbiter arbitrator seu amicabilis compositor. Q uesta è divenuta ad un certo punto una formula di stile, affermandosi come tale per lungo tempo. In un compromesso del 23 febbraio 1251, su cui si soffermò lo Sclopis, i signori di Lucerna e altri si rimettono alla decisione di Tommaso II di Savoia tamquam in arbitratorem et amicabilem compositorem. Nella sua versione completa la formula compare nel 1257 in un compromesso stipulato fra il conte di Ginevra Rodolfo e suo fratello Enrico, i quali con tale compromesso affidavano la soluzione di tutte le vertenze sussistenti fra di loro a sei cavalieri giurando di: observare et tenere dictum et laudum dictorum arbitrorum aut arbitratorum aut amicabilium compositorum et non contra venire super hiis, que pronunciaverint vel pronunciari fecerint, pro ut eis iure vel amicabili compositione aut voluntate, de plano et sine iuris solemnitate videbitur expedire. 10 This study aims to find a solution with regard to a fundamental problem in history of Roman law, regarding the birth of the institution of arbitration and the applications of this procedure in a number of particularly significant case studies (Stari autem debet sententiae arbitri quam dixerit sive aequa sit sive iniqua). 11 From a philological point of view, several suggestions have been made so far with regard to the origin of the noun arbiter. Milotić 2013. Bussi 2005; cf. Usteri 1955, p. 111 n. 70. 11 Dig. 4.8.27.2. 9 10 17 GIFBIB_21.indb 17 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC In a recent contribution, Cardinali proposed a new etymological hypothesis with regard to its formation: he postulates l’esistenza di un processo linguistico che da ‫٭‬ar-bh(ų)o evolve, attraverso la caduta di u semivocalica e la perdita di aspirazione, in ‫٭‬arbo, forma non attestata ma ricostruita […]. Da tale ‫٭‬arbo si sarebbe generato un intensivo ‫٭‬arbito, […] di cui arbiter sarebbe il nomen agentis di tipo radicale”. If we accept this reconstruction, the etymological meaning of the lemma arbiter would be “colui che si trova frequentemente, ed al tempo stesso costantemente, presso qualcun altro. 12 Despite the huge body of legal and historical literature on the origins and development of ancient Roman arbitration and the many etymological hypotheses put forward over the years, the history of the Latin term arbiter is still full of gaps. 13 The documentation containing the term dates back to the time of the Twelve Tables, 14 that is, to the mid-fifth century bc, and has no equivalent in other Indo-European languages, with the exception of the Umbrian term ařputrati 15 giving rise to the ‘vulgate’ of the Italic origin Cardinali 2015, pp. 73-74 (with previous bibliography). For an etymological analysis of the term, see: ThlL II, coll. 404-407 (s.v. arbiter); Ernout, Meillet 1979, pp. 42 ff. For its occurrence see Hey 1901, coll. 404 ff. 14 XII Tab. 12.9.3. In the fifth century bc the plebeians succeeded in obtaining a written recording of the system of laws governing life in Rome, a watershed moment that broke the patrician and priestly monopoly of knowledge and interpretation of civil law. This huge innovation was made possible by the defection of one of the leading members of the patrician class, head of the influential gens Claudia, Appius Claudius Crassus Regillensis Sabinus, who gave his support to this request, playing a key role in later developments. In the year 451-450 bc, instead of the two consuls, it was decided to appoint a committee of ten men, the decemviri legibus scribundis, who were tasked not only with governing Rome but also with leges scribere or drawing up the laws of the city. Appius Claudius Crassus was appointed to head this decemvirate. Cf. Broggini 1957, pp. 5-18; Ziegler 1971; Bretone, Talamanca 1981, pp. 147-153; Scevola 2004, pp. 74-77; Capogrossi Colognesi 2014, pp. 73-78. 15 “L’impossibilità di separare il lat. Arbiter dall’umbro ařputrati ‘arbitratu’ (Tabulae Iguvinae, 5a.12) ha dato credito all’etimologia più antica e diffusa accolta dalla maggioranza dei lessici e dei manuali di indoeuropeistica, e, universalmente, dai giuristi: ar-biter ‘il sopraggiunto’, con ar- dialettale da ad- +-bit, riduzione o abbreviamento della radice di lat. baeto, bito ‘andare verso, camminare’”; cf. Martino 1986, p. 11, who in pp. 12-18, provides an overview of the various etymological hypotheses developed so far, dismissing them as being rather weak and lacking the historical traits distinguishing a figure as unique as that of the arbiter in 12 13 18 GIFBIB_21.indb 18 03/12/19 12.27 INTRODUCTION of arbiter, a term representing an ‘isolated entry’ even within the Latin lexicon. The ‘an-Indo-European’ etymon emerged in Etruscan-Italic emporia open to Phoenician trade no earlier than the end of the eighth century bc and no later than the beginning of the sixth century bc; during the early Republic it began to be used as a specifically juridical term in the Roman forum, not so much in the context of the tribunal, Curia or Comitium but in the adjoining market where the Phoenician term rb designating a garantor and intermediary in commercial activities may have been diffused. 16 The hypothesis of the Phoenician lexical loan is supported by the fact that the Phoenicians played a preponderant role in trade exchanges between East and West in the eighth century bc. In the eighth and seventh centuries bc, the leading centres on the Etrusco-Latium-Campanian coasts developed into international emporia and meeting places for Etruscans, Italic, and Latin peoples, attracting even Phoenicians and Greeks, as shown by both literary and archaeological sources. 17 This is the context of the birth of Rome, which grew up around the area of the Roman forum, on the banks of the Tiber through a process of synoecism of Etruscan, Sabine, and Latin elements. Both the expression arbiter and the institutional figure initially designated by it made their first appearance in the multilingual context of the forum, which provided fertile ground for language transfer and the diffusion of foreign customs. 18 In monarchic Rome at least, this lemma referred to ‘brokers’ 19 in the sale of goods and mediators in disputes arising in markets, which not only explains how it came to be transferred to the legal system but also accounts for the antiquity of the name and the nature of the functions of this debated and problematical figure in Roman law. archaic Rome. Take by way of example the hypothesis formulated by Devoto with regard to the presence of the lemma ařputrati in the Tabulae Iguvinae (5a.12), which he translates as adventui: Devoto 1954, p. 407. See also the contributions of Pisani 1964, p. 215; Benveniste 1976, p. 119; Prosdocimi 1984; Prosdocimi 2015. 16 On the complex system of terms stemming from ‘rb’ (which belongs to the special category of Wanderwörter), see Martino 1986, pp. 73-85, p. 82 n. 193. 17 Cf. Maddoli 1982, pp. 43-64. 18 Cf. Martino 1986, p. 66 n. 148. 19 Busanel 2011. 19 GIFBIB_21.indb 19 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC If the hypothesis of a Phoenician lexical loan were to be accepted, it would be hugely important for the reconstruction of the history of the lemma as well as for establishing a consequent etymological relationship between the Latin arbiter and the Phoenician arra, opening up new perspectives for the historical reconstruction of the first contacts between Semitic civilisations and the Classical worlds, as well as for the history of institutions in early Rome. 20 Given that the semantic history of arbiter is undoubtedly connected to the genesis and evolution of an institution – that of arbitration – of primary importance in ancient Roman private law, it was decided to re-examine the historic sources and the authors relative to the figure of the arbiter and his jurisdiction in disputes involving discretion, technical expertise, and amicable settlements. On a historical and legal level, the etymology proposed above, suggesting that the figure of ‘broker’ was received in civil law in the early decades of the Republic, would explain the initial extraneousness of arbiters to trials and the extra-judicial character of the early arbitration procedure. After being taken up by the state trial, this procedure maintained some aspects of its ancient configuration. The origin of the term, initially present – as pointed out above – in the context of commercial language in use during the regal period of Rome in markets accessed by Phoenician traders, can be traced back to the Semitic cultures in the Near East; thanks to these particular historical and cultural conditions, an etymon from the commercial language diffused thanks to Phoenician and later by Punic navigation was able to penetrate into Etruscan-Latium trading posts and find a ‘formal and semantic’ acclimatisation in the Latin vocabulary for the designation of ‘broker’, sales mediator, and expert valuer. It is therefore possible to “giustificare il percorso seguito dal termine arbiter ‘sensale, intermediario e perito estimatore’” from the glossary of commercial exchanges to the Roman legal lexicon of the sixth century bc “per la designazione di una figura di ‘terzo’, operante inizialmente extra ius come privato conciliatore, ma poi gradualmente recepita 20 Martino 1986, pp. 22-23. 20 GIFBIB_21.indb 20 03/12/19 12.27 INTRODUCTION nel diritto del pretore e da questo disciplinata”. 21 This etymology makes it possible to provide a plausible explanation for certain negative connotations that some authors – like Plautus 22 – seem to attribute to the role of mediator. In questi anni turbolenti, in cui i capi della plebe, agitatori per lo più facinorosi, comunque potenzialmente pericolosi per le istituzioni, guadagnarono l’accesso alla magistratura (tribuni plebis), l’attività stragiudiziale degli intermediari che operavano nel Foro come periti e come arbitri, fu recepita nell’editto pretorio. 23 E non è un caso, forse, che la più remota menzione del termine arbiter sia quella delle XII Tavole, che sancirono l’uguaglianza di tutti i liberi, patrizi e plebei, di fronte alle leggi del ius civile. 24 Ultimately, the peculiar diffusion of the word arbiter in legal Latin, already in archaic Rome, has caused the recollection of its origins in commercial language to gradually fade. This is due to the fact that in the law of the praetor the term arbiter did not mean guarantor but assessor or technical expert; 25 it was later used as the equivalent of ‘private’ judge, thus transforming the arbiter’s original field of action and losing the original meaning. Martino 1986, p. 8. Plaut. Amph. 2.7-8. Cf. Traina 2005, pp. 44-87. 23 See legis actio per iudicis arbitrive postulationem for which we refer to n. 25. According to Lenel 1927, pp. 130 ff., the praetorian edict was required to include the clause Q ui arbitrium pecunia compromissa receperit, eum sententiam dicere cogam. The author completes the phrase cited in Dig. 4.8.3.2 (Ulp. 13 ad ed.: Ait praetor: ‘Q ui arbitrium pecunia compromissa receperit’) by including the expression eum sententiam dicere cogam, in particular through the reference made by Ulpian (13 ad ed.) in Dig. 4.8.15. According to Harries 2001, p. 177, “no one could be compelled to act as arbiter but once he had accepted the job, he was obliged to finish it, to avoid disappointing the disputants” (Dig. 4.8.3.1: tametsi neminem praetor cogat arbitrium recipere quoniam haec res libera et soluta est et extra necessitatem iurisdictionis posita). Talamanca 1958, pp. 20 ff., claims that the expression recipere arbitrium merely meant accepting the functions of arbiter and not, as previously suggested by La Pira 1936, p. 212, “accettare di esser arbitro in una controversia impostata entro le formule stipulatorie di un compromissum”. See also Torrent 1982, pp. 647 ff. Cf. also Capogrossi Colognesi 2014, pp. 140-146. 24 Martino 1986, pp. 119-120. 25 Gai. 4.17. Giomaro, Brancati 2005, p. 23: from the Twelve Tables onwards, debts arising out of a sponsio and judgements for the division of inheritence were regulated by a specific procedure known as legis actio per iudicis arbitrive postulationem. Cf. Marrone 2004; Lovato Puliatti, Solidoro Maruotti 2014. 21 22 21 GIFBIB_21.indb 21 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC In archaic Latin, the form arbitratus, used in the classical period to refer both to the sentence and role of the arbiter, usually designated the decision ensuing from evaluation carried out by the arbiter that was known as damni decisio. 26 Plauto conserva nelle locuzioni ‘tuo arbitratu’, ‘tuus arbitratus est’ ‘come vuoi tu’ l’accezione popolare che rimanda alla funzione di stima e garanzia del mediatore cui le parti affidano la disceptatio nella lite o la sequestratio della res. La formula arbitrium, infine, anche se è stata dubitativamente ricostruita nel testo delle XII Tavole, è probabilmente più tarda, costituita sull’analogia di iudicium. In definitiva, anche i derivati di arbiter (arbitror, arbitratus, arbitrium) mostrano di conservare, nelle varie tappe della loro storia semantica, memoria dell’antico impiego di arbiter nel registro tecnico del commercio, e rivelano la loro idoneità a una ricezione specialistica nel lessico giuridico che con il gergo commerciale si è sempre trovato, nel contesto delle attività del Forum, in una condizione assai favorevole alle reciproche interferenze. 27 Concluding, we could hypothesise that the figure of the arbiter probably entered ancient Roman trial procedures, alongside the figure of iudex, during the course of the political and social upheavals characterising the final years of the sixth century bc and the mid-fifth century bc, with the codification of the Twelve Tables, 28 in which the term arbiter occurs for the first time. In the classical period, the arbiter chosen by the parties undertook to deliver the judgement by means of an agreement known as receptum arbitri. The arbiter’s decision had to be accepted and respected by the parties. Failure to do so meant the losing party would incur penalties, 29 regardless of whether the sententia seemed fair or unfair. 26 Pisani 1974, p. 121. Cf. the consistently topical essential works by: Ernout, Meillet 1959; Benveniste 1976. 27 Martino 1986, pp. 118-119. 28 Cf. Broggini 1957, pp. 44-50; Kaser 1966, pp. 20-25; Albanese 1987, p. 12; Pugliese 1991, p. 74; Pugliese, Vacca, Sitzia 2012; Diliberto 2015, pp. 291-300. See also Talamanca 2015. 29 Penalties could involve property other than pecunia: Dig. 4.8.11.2 (Ulp. 13 ad ed.): Q uod ait praetor: ‘pecuniam compromissam’, accipere nos debere. non si 22 GIFBIB_21.indb 22 03/12/19 12.27 INTRODUCTION Neither the agreement between the parties to submit the dispute to an arbiter nor the arbiter’s pledge to deliver the judgement gave rise to an obligation. However, the entire negotiation process, whether in the typical form described or in a form respecting its essential characteristics, enjoyed the protection of praetorian coercitio with regard to an arbiter failing to fulfil the obligations assumed. 30 The penalty imposed upon parties infringing obligations assumed by means of the compromissum 31 corresponded to the sum promised in the stipulatio receivable through a normal action. The sources are quite clear in stating that if one of the parties were to appeal to an ordinary judge, despite the compromissum, the other party would not be able to raise an objection regarding the agreement but could act ex stipulatu. 32 There is a general scarcity of sources on arbitration dating to the post-classical period. 33 The compilation of the Code of Justinian contains no evidence of changes to this institution in this period. Nonetheless, the Code of Justinian 34 contains three edicts from the second and third century ad (the Constitutio Antoniniana; the Constitution of Carus, Carinus, and Numerianus; and the Constitution of Diocletian and Maximian) followed by three Justinian leges enacted between ad 529 and 531. The lack of changes dating to the post-classical period could be evidence that utrimque poena nummaria, sedsi et alia res vice poenae, si quis arbitri sententia non steterit, promissa sit: et ita Pomponius scribit. The promise could also concern the value of the proceedings or a facere; in this regard see Talamanca 1958, pp. 116 ff.). 30 If the arbiter failed to respect the receptum the magistrate could adopt coercive measures: Dig. 4.8.3.1-5 (Ulp. 13 ad ed.); Dig. 4.8.32.12 (Paul. 13 ad ed.). Most scholars maintain that the fragment of Paul confirms the existence of an “administrative” penalty: see, most recently, Scevola 2004, pp. 137 ff., D’Ors (1997, p. 280), and Paricio (1984, pp. 297 ff.) who claim that the parties involved were entitled to take action in factum against an arbiter who refused to pronounce a sentence despite the receptum. 31 Harries 2001, p. 178: “The jurists therefore spent much effort on picturing situations in which the arbiter might repeal, or be unable, to make his award, such as if one party was declared bankrupt and could therefore neither sue nor be sued. They also had to anticipate occasions when one or more of the parties might break the terms of the compromissum ‘with impunity’, that is, without forfeiting poena”. 32 Talamanca 1958, p. 19; Sotty 1984; Izzo 2013 (with preceding bibliography). 33 Cf. Harries 2001, pp. 175-184. 34 C.J. 2.55(56), de receptis. 23 GIFBIB_21.indb 23 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC no issues requiring imperial intervention had arisen during that time. 35 As Rinolfi rightly points out, we can be certain that: l’arbitrato continuò ad essere utilizzato, in forme probabilmente non lontane da quelle classiche, dato che in alcune costituzioni si menzionano gli arbitri sponte delecti ed anche il compromissum. 36 In this regard, there is a highly significant edict of Arcadius and Honorius that allows Jews to submit their civil disputes to their patriarch, provided that the forms of Roman arbitration are respected: 37 Sane si qui per conpromissum ad similitudinem arbitrorum, apud Iudaeos vel patriarchas ex consensu partium in civili dumtaxat negotio putaverint litigandum, sortiri eorum iudicium iure publico non vetentur. Thus in the post-classical era, we find a model resembling the classical one, at least as far as the agreement between the parties and the choice of arbiter are concerned. One example is the fact that in ad 529 Justinian issued an edict 38 which, recognising the practice of sworn submissions to 35 According to D’Ors 1997, p. 285, the introduction of the episcopalis audientia (cf. Rinolfi 2010, pp. 191-240) and the rise of Christianity contributed to the decline of the classical institution of arbitrium ex compromisso. 36 Rinolfi 2010, p. 198. 37 C.Th, 2.1.10. 38 C.J. 2.55(56).4: (Imp. Iustinianus a Demostheni): Ne in arbitris cum sacramenti religione eligendis periurium committatur et detur licentia perfidis hominibus passim definitiones iudicum eludere, sanctissimo arbitrio et huiusmodi rem censemus esse componendam. 1. Si igitur inter actorem et reum nec non et ipsum iudicem fuerit consensum, ut cum sacramenti religione lis procedat, et ipsi quidem litigatores scriptis hoc suis manibus vel per publicas personas scripserint vel apud ipsum arbitrum in actis propria voce deposuerint, quod sacramentis praestitis arbiter electus est, hoc etiam addito, quod et ipse arbiter iuramentum praestitit super lite cum omni veritate dirimenda, eius definitionem validam omnimodo custodiri et neque reum neque actorem posse discedere, sed tenere omnifariam, quatenus oboedire ei compellantur. 2. Sin autem de arbitro quidem nihil tale fuerit vel compositum vel scriptum, ipsae autem partes litteris hoc manifestaverint, quod iuramenti nexibus se illigaverint, ut arbitri sententia stetur, et in praesenti casu omnimodo definitionem arbitri immutatam servari, litteris videlicet eorum similem vim obtinentibus, sive ab initio hoc fuerit ab his scriptum vel praefato modo depositum, dum arbiter eligebatur, sive post definitivam sententiam hoc scriptum inveniatur, quod cum sacramenti religione eius audientiam amplexi sunt vel quod ea quae statuta sunt adimplere 24 GIFBIB_21.indb 24 03/12/19 12.27 INTRODUCTION arbitration (compromissum) – it is clear from the principium that iuraverunt. 3. Sed et si ipse solus arbiter hoc litigatoribus poscentibus et vel scriptis vel depositionibus, ut dictum est, manifestum facientibus praestiterit iuramentum, quod cum omni veritate liti libramenta imponat, similem esse etiam in praesenti casu prioribus eius definitionem et eam omnimodo legibus esse vallatam. 4. Et in his omnibus casibus liceat vel in factum vel condictionem ex lege vel in rem utilem instituere, secundum quod facti qualitas postulaverit. 5. Sin autem in scriptura quidem aut depositione nihil tale appareat, una autem pars edicat iuramentum esse praestitum, quatenus arbitrali stetur sententia, huiusmodi litigatorum vel solius arbitri sermones minime esse credendos, cum et, si quis iusiurandum datum esse non iudice suppositonec hoc scriptura partium testante concesserit, incerti certaminis compositio, quae inter homines imperitos saepe accidit, non aliquid robur iudicatis inferat, sed in huiusmodi casu haec obtineant, quae veteres super arbitris eligendis sanxerunt. 6. Si quis autem post arbitri definitionem subscripserit ἐμμένειν vel στοιχεῖν vel πληροῦν vel πάντα ποιεῖν vel διδόναι (Graecis enim vocabulis haec enarrare propter consuetudinem utilius visum est), etsi non adiecerit ὁμολογῶ, et sic omnimodo per actionem in factum eum compelli ea facere quibus consensit. qualis enim differentia est, si huiusmodi verbis etiam ὁμολογῶ adiciatur vel huiusmodi vocabulum transmittatur? 7. Si enim verba consueta stipulationum et subtilis, immo magis supervacua observatio ab aula concessa est, nos, qui nuper legibus a nobis scriptis multa vitia stipulationum multasque ambages scrupulososque circuitus correximus, cur non et in huiusmodi scripturato tam formidinem veteris iuris amputamus, ut, si quis haec scripserit vel unum ex his, adquiescere eis compellatur et ea ad effectum omnimodo perducere? cum non est verisimile haec propter hoc scripsisse, ut tantum non contradicat, sed ut etiam ea impleat, adversus quae obviam ire non potest. Recitata septimo miliario in novo consistorio palatii Iustiniani. d. III k. Nov. Decio vc. cons. [a. 529]. (The Emperor Justinian to Demosthenes, Praetorian Prefect. In order that perjury may not be committed in the case of arbiters, their selection should be confirmed by the solemnity of an oath, and that opportunity may not indiscriminately be afforded perfidious men to evade the decisions of judges, We order that questions of this kind shall be decided by the arbiter as follows: (1) Where the same judge has been selected by both plaintiff and defendant, who have agreed that the case shall proceed under the sanction of an oath, and the litigants themselves have consented to this either in writing or in the presence of public officials, or have stated it before the arbiter selected who reduced it to writing, and it shall also be added that the arbiter himself administered the oath for the purpose of disposing of the case in accordance with the truth, We order that the award shall, under all circumstances, remain unaltered, and that neither the defendant nor the plaintiff can disobey it, but that they shall be absolutely compelled to respect and comply with it. (2) If, however, nothing of this kind was either done or written by the arbiter, but the parties themselves produced a statement in their own handwriting, setting forth that they had bound themselves by oath to abide by the decision of the arbiter, in this instance, his award shall be maintained inviolate, for the reason that the statement of the parties themselves has the same force, whether it was made in the beginning, or drawn up in the above-mentioned manner at the time when the arbiter was chosen, or whether this written instrument was found after final judgment was rendered, either for the reason that the said parties confirmed the authority of the arbiter with the solemn formality of an oath, or because they swore to execute what had already been decided. (3) If it is evident by the instruments or the statements already mentioned that the arbiter himself alone took the 25 GIFBIB_21.indb 25 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC this was not a new practice introduced by the emperor 39 – regulates its form and consequences, and also provides for the case in which only the parties, or only the chosen arbiter, would swear an oath. As we have seen, the body of terminology including both the term arbitratus and the term arbiter experienced a number of changes in time that helped increase its ideological connotaoath, on the demand of the litigants, that he would decide the case in accordance with the truth, the award in the present instance, as in the former one, shall, in every respect, be valid according to law. (4) In all these cases, it shall be lawful for either an action in factum, a personal action for recovery under the law, or an equitable real action to be brought, according as circumstances may demand. (5) If, however, nothing of this kind should appear, either in writing or in the statements made, and only one party alleges that he has been sworn, no faith shall be given to the award of the arbiter alone or to the statements of one of the parties; for even if it should be admitted that an oath had been taken, but not in the presence of the court, and no written evidence of either of the parties was produced to show this, the conduct of an uncertain contest, which frequently takes place among ignorant men, does not in the least deprive the judgment of its force; but, in a case of this kind, all the rules should be observed which the ancient authorities laid down with reference to the selection of arbiters. (6) He who has stated in writing at the end of the award of the arbiter that he approved of it, or that he would comply with it (by using certain Greek terms for this purpose, which by custom are considered preferable), although he may not have added ‘I promise’, should be compelled by the action in factum to perform what he agreed to; for what difference is there when ‘I promise’ is added to these words, or when the expression is absolutely omitted? (7) For if We have corrected many defects in stipulations, as well as disposed of the innumerable circumlocutions and ambiguities with which they were overwhelmed, after having abolished the ordinary formulas and the subtle and superfluous statements which they contained, by means of laws recently enacted by Us, why should We not remove all the perplexities of the ancient law from instruments of this description, so that, where such an instrument is drawn up, one of the parties will be obliged to acquiesce in it, and be absolutely compelled to carry it into effect? For it is not probable that a document of this kind has been written only for the purpose of having it disputed; but rather in order that a decision, against which no opposition can be manifested, may be executed. Given on the third of the Kalends of November, during the Consulate of Decius, 529) [English translation: S. P. Scott, The Civil Law, XII, Cincinnati 1932]. 39 De Ruggiero 1893, pp. 190 ff., claims that this Justinian reform did not recognise an ancient practice given that in the classical period the arbiter ex compromisso did not need to swear an oath. Cf. also: Bonifacio 1958, p. 926, who, in reference to the classical period, claims that despite the presence of the oath of arbitration in CIL IX 2827 (epigraph dating to the second century ad: C(aius) Helvidius Priscus arbiter ex conpromisso inter Q (uintum) Tillium Eryllum procuratorem Tilli Sassi et M(arcum) Paquium Aulanium actorem municipi Histoniensium utrisq(ue) praesentibus iuratus sententiam dixit in ea verba q(uae) inf(ra) s(cripta) s(unt), this did not represent the ‘general rule’. See also Paricio 1987, pp. 69, 107 ff., 119, who believes that the oath was introduced by Justinian as part of a policy intended to reduce the differences between this type of arbiter and ordinary judges. 26 GIFBIB_21.indb 26 03/12/19 12.27 INTRODUCTION tion, even when specific lemmas were transferred into the field of public law and used in this context (think, for example, of the description of Petronius as arbiter elegantiae 40). Nevertheless, it was their use in the public sphere, in close connection with justice, that gave rise to extensive discussions and led to the development of sophisticated reflections with regard to historical and political events. The Roman legal practice, which drew extensively upon early jurisprudence, perfecting its intrinsic meaning, proved to be extremely aware of the public ‘dimension’ of arbitratus and arbiter in the central phases of the expansionist process. These are features emerging from a consultation of the sources with the aim of grasping original material as it appears immediately, and this in order to understand which principles and archetypes framed a long and complex conceptual path. Finally, having established that the notions of arbitration, considered an alternative instrument to ordinary civil law for the resolution of disputes, and of arbiter, considered as the person carrying out the function and with the power to effectively resolve a dispute between two or more parties in response to the wishes expressed by the litigants or by some means linked to them, are still used in modern jurisprudence, 41 we should underline that they refer to concepts codified in classical Roman law and whose basic forms were outlined by the jurisprudence dating back to the second century bc onwards; it was in this period that Rome began to ‘perfect’ its relationships with other urban realities, both Italic and non-Italic, and this is the area that we decided to focus on in our thorough re-examination of the sources, so as to identify its original requisites and subsequent developments. The research that we intend to investigate in depth in the following pages begins by looking at an application of the ‘principle of relativity’ of the legal phenomena that aspires to be both reasonable and rigorous, in the context of an analysis aiming to reconstruct the diachronic stratifications and modes characterising the institution of arbitration, without which the evolutive connotation of the figure of the Roman Senate arbiter in territo40 41 2019. Tac. Ann. 16.18. Cf. Compatangelo, Galli 2016; Cassano, Capo, Freni 2018. See also Dusi 27 GIFBIB_21.indb 27 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC rial disputes, particularly those occurring in the second century bc, would not be perceivable. It is no coincidence that this century was marked by the start of what Capogrossi Colognesi would define as “l’interna trasformazione dell’impero di una città in un impero di città”. 42 It may be useful to recall De Francisci’s 43 affirmation regarding the impossibility of uprooting a legal phenomenon from a specific spatial and temporal dimension, given the need to examine, study, and interpret it in the light of the context from which it emerges and in which it is applied, always taking into account the various phases of the evolution of law. Jurisprudence is a science that is capable of shaping political, social, and economic contexts. It would lose its meaning and function if it were to be stripped of the contexts providing the material content for its analysis. If it is true that scientific jurisprudence considers the law as an expression of politics, this means that it is not something standing outside of history. Una giurisprudenza astratta e distaccata esiste tanto poco quanto un’intelligenza dello stesso tipo. Il pensiero giuridicoscientifico si perfeziona solo in connessione con un concreto ordinamento storico. 44 Since the time of Savigny we have known that jurisprudence confers a scientific form to the material originating from history. 45 In fact, Savigny made it clear that a real legal system, which is the foundation of law, cannot be isolated from its history – considered not just as mere erudition but the place where law acquires its true meaning – not just with respect to the past but above all with respect to the present and possibly even to the future. Legal science will only continue to exist if it “riesce ad affermare in una dimensione storica rettamente conosciuta e resa fruttuosa il terreno della propria esistenza”. 46 m. f. p. 42 43 44 45 46 Capogrossi Colognesi 2014, p. 16. De Francisci 1926, pp. 46-65. Schmitt 1972, p. 274. von Savigny 1814. Cf. Garofalo 2007, pp. 299-323. Schmitt 1991 [1950], p. 14. 28 GIFBIB_21.indb 28 03/12/19 12.27 1. THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD Les Romains avaient porté les choses au point que les cités et les rois étaient leurs sujets, sans savoir précisément à quel titre. (M. De Montesquieu, Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, Paris 1734) 1.1. The anthropological and political value of intermediation procedures While it is true that the concept of violence, with its various meanings, plays a key role in the creation (and continual modification) of social norms and balances, 47 it is equally true, that from the earliest times, humans have sought to develop ‘alternative’ systems that are less costly – in terms of human lives as well as of political energies 48 – with the aim of resolving the situations of conflict that may arise within a single organisation or between different institutions. In the latter case, which is our primary concern, there is evidence dating to the earliest times of the existence of institutions falling within the scope of the ‘international’ legal system in the Mediterranean area, the most significant example of which are the documents found in Tell el-Amarna 49 containing diplomatic correspondence between Egypt and the Near Eastern kingdoms during the second millennium bc. Despite the success of the Hobbesian model of interpretation – which had such an influence upon nineteenth- and twentieth-century Roman Law studies, 50 diffusing the idea of human 47 2005. Richer 2005. On the relationship between power and violence, see Balibar Copeland 1999. An archive written in Akkadian cuneiform on 380 clay tablets found in 1887 (see Liverani 1998 and 1999). 50 Mommsen 1854; Frezza 1938. Contra Heuss 1933; De Martino 1973 [1954]; Catalano 1965. 48 49 29 GIFBIB_21.indb 29 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC relationships, at least those in a so-called “state of nature”, exclusively directed at hostility and perennial war (the so-called bellum omnium contra omnes) – the evolution of the meaning of the term hostis 51 seems to show that the gradual identification of ‘stranger’ with ‘enemy’ tout court in the Roman world was linked to Rome’s imperialistic expansion: 52 Equidem etiam illud animadverto, quod, qui proprio nomine perduellis esset, is hostis vocaretur, lenitate verbi rei tristitiam mitigatam. Hostis enim apud maiores nostros is dicebatur, quem nunc peregrinum dicimus. Indicant duodecim tabulae […] Q uamquam id nomen durius effect iam vetustas; a peregrino enim recessit et proprie in eo, qui arma contra ferret, remansit. This negative specialisation of the term hostis is certainly a sign that even in the Latin lexicon ‘extraneousness’ (“usually in a spatial sense”) represented a recurrent trait of political alterity where a virtuous “shared centrality” stood in opposition to a “harmful and discriminating” distance. 53 However, this indisputable cultural trait must also take into account the many facets of this process, recognising the original positive quality of the term hostis, which reveals a specific wish to equate subjects individually distinguishable by geographic origin but ideally united by the fact that they all belong without distinction to the human race. 54 In fact, according to the Ciceronian theory of the gradus societatis, which is indebted to the Stoic doctrine of oikeiosis, 55 the broadest societas vitae was the one grouping together by all men (societas 51 Serv. ad Aen. 4.424; Cic. Off. 1.37.12; Varro LL 5.3; Fest. p. 416 L. Cf. Sini 1991, pp. 145-183. 52 Cic. Off. 1.37.12: “This also I observe – that he who would properly have been called ‘a fighting enemy’ (perduellis) was called ‘a guest’ (hostis), thus relieving the ugliness of fact by softened expression; for ‘enemy’ (hostis) meant to our ancestors what we now call ‘stranger’ (peregrinus). This is proved by the usage in the Twelve Tables […] And yet long lapse of time has given that word a harsher meaning: for it has lost its signification of ‘stranger’ and has taken on the technical connotation of ‘an enemy under arms’”. 53 Maiuri 2017, p. 458. The analysis of the following terms seems significant in this sense: per-egrinus, ad-vena and extra-neus. 54 Maiuri 2017, p. 460. 55 Stob. Anth. 4.84.23. 30 GIFBIB_21.indb 30 03/12/19 12.27 THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD hominum) 56 by natura 57 and towards which the bonus vir had duties. This consideration is even more significant when seen in the context of a tradition, like the Roman one, recognised by Lintott as being particularly tolerant of the use of violence within political and private disputes: 58 Roman tradition tolerated and even encouraged violence in political and private disputes, and both the law and constitutional precedent recognized the use of force by private individuals. This had wide influence, especially on aristocratic politicians, when great issues were at stake and feelings were running high. Moreover, it was reinforced by the Roman cult of expediency in matters where the physical coercion of people, whether legal or illegal, was involved. While we certainly do not wish to attribute to the Romans some kind of ‘natural’ inclination towards the use of force as a hegemonic instrument, it is undeniable that the historiographers of antiquity already recognised the key role played by terror (phobos and kataplexis) 59 in maintaining power. On the other hand, if we examine the celebrated opinion of Diodorus Siculus (who may have been inspired by Polybius 60), we will see that a decisive contribution – in the extending of political supremacy – was also made by moderation 61 and consideration for others (epieikeia and philanthropia): 62 Ὅτι οἱ τὰς ἡγεμονίας περιποιήσασθαι βουλόμενοι κτῶνται μὲν αὐτὰς ἀνδρείᾳ καὶ συνέσει, πρὸς αὔξησιν δὲ μεγάλην ἄγουσιν ἐπιεικείᾳ καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ, ἀσφαλίζονται δὲ φόβῳ καὶ Cic. Off. 1.16.50-51; 1.17.54; 3.17.69. Cic. Off. 3.12.53. 58 Lintott 1968, p. 4. 59 Thornton 2006. 60 Carsana 2013. 61 D’Agostino 1973, p. 38. 62 Diod. Sic. 32, fr. 2: “Those whose object is to gain dominion over others use courage and intelligence to get it, moderation and consideration for others to extend it widely, and paralyzing terror to secure it against attack. The proofs of these propositions are to be found in attentive consideration of the history of such empires as were created in ancient times as well as of the Roman domination that succeeded them”. 56 57 31 GIFBIB_21.indb 31 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC καταπλήξει: τούτων δὲ τὰς ἀποδείξεις λάβοις ἂν ταῖς πάλαι ποτὲ συσταθείσαις δυναστείαις ἐπιστήσας τὸν νοῦν καὶ τῇ μετὰ ταῦτα γενομένῃ Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίᾳ. The concept of epieikeia 63 is particularly worth considering in this context. This idea, semantically rich enough to embrace both moral philosophy and law, was fully applied in the context of political strategy probaly from Thucydides onwards although, in line with his city’s imperialism, he does not seem to accord it the same ethical and moral value as Aristotle later would. Unlike Aristotle, Thucydides directly linked the application of epieikeia to the modus imperandi, 64 underlining the opportuneness of reserving this indulgence for those “intending to remain loyal”, also in the future, rather than for those with the intention of remaining enemies. 65 Although his view was the result of a certain sophistic pragmatism arising from the historic circumstances at that time, 66 it was not far removed from the complex Aristotelian interpretation considering epieikeia as a “special form of justice” to be applied whenever a law revealed flaws caused by its universal nature and therefore needed ‘guiding’ towards the proper form of application for the case concerned. 67 The attempt to reconcile a formal aspect of law with those aspects defined by D’Agostino as “valori extragiuridici quali la convivenza, l’umanità, la ragionevolezza” 68 must have led Aristotle to identify epieikeia with a complex system of intellectual, moral, and relational qualities 69 not ascribable to the ruler alone but to every virtuous man. 63 Depending on the context in which it is used, this term can mean ‘equity’, ‘convenience’ or ‘moderation’. On the impossibility of superimposing the Latin clementia upon the Greek epieikeia cf. Grimal 1984 who attributes an exclusively individualistic value lacking an a priori concreteness to the latter term while recognising in the former an intrinsic meaning preceding the military conquest that would become ingrained in the Roman collectivity, shaping it. 64 Prandi 1998. 65 Thuc. 3.40. 66 D’Agostino 1973, pp. 34-39. 67 Ar. Eth. Nic. 5.1137a 31-1138a 3. Cf. Rodríguez Luño 1997. 68 D’Agostino 1973, p. 82. 69 Piazza 2009. 32 GIFBIB_21.indb 32 03/12/19 12.27 THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD Even in its strictly technical sense, epieikes referred above all to someone revealing “the capacity to adapt to circumstances” and a marked “sense of opportunity”. 70 Significantly, a preference for arbitration with respect to legal proceedings was attributed to those in possession of this quality – “for the arbitrator keeps equity in view, wherease the dicast looks only to the law, and the reason why arbitrators were appointed was that equity might prevail” 71 – in an attempt to mitigate legislative absoluteness by adapting general criteria to the concrete case. 1.2. The ius gentium and the concept of ‘international’ in the Roman world In Rome – just like in Greece during the transition from Draconian to Solonian legislation – the juridical-moral and political meanings of the term epieikes seemed to have particular links to the practice of arbitration, which significantly developed just as the traditional and legalistic idea of justice was being thrown into crisis and there was an increasing tendency to value the individual over the universal, concrete over abstract, ius aequum over ius strictum. 72 Although undoubtedly rooted in the Greek philosophy of law with its dialectic relations between physis and nomos, 73 this process became tangible in a truly Roman cultural Di Piazza, Piazza 2017, p. 393. Ar. Rhet. 1.13.1374a-b. Frosini’s analysis proves to be of key importance in this context (Frosini 1966, p. 71): “Aristotele mostra di voler dare dell’equità una interpretazione propriamente ‘giuridica’, e non già astrattamente etica (come pure è stata intesa non di rado l’equità). Si può dire che, in definitiva, egli distingua le leggi scritte dalle leggi non scritte, e che riconosca il principio di valutazione giuridica, che è proprio delle seconde, nel principio della ‘equità’, che compendia per lui anche quelli della natura dei fatti, dei princpii generali del diritto, e di altri ancora, cui possa farsi ricorso, per integrare le lacune di un ordinamento giuridico. L’equità è dunque per Aristotele il metodo di applicazione della legge non scritta. Essa è intesa perciò a rimediare a quella applicazione della legge, ‘che espelle dal proprio seno la giustizia, e si appaga della mera legalità’ (Piazzese), senza per questo che si debba fare ricorso alle norme del diritto naturale, che sarebbero anch’esse, comunque, delle norme, cioè delle regole generali, destinate ad infrangersi, senza potersi piegare, sulla dura pietra del fatto singolo da giudicare”. Cf. Hewitt 2008; Piazza 2007. 72 Falcón y Tella 2008, p. 20. 73 Domingo Oslé 2010, p. 6: “Greek thought, like no other, recognizes a limit on free will imposed by nature, custom, reason, law, or religion”. 70 71 33 GIFBIB_21.indb 33 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC product: the ius gentium, considered in some way a law common to all peoples. 74 While recent studies have shown that this notion was not linked to a specific field of law 75 – at least in the Republican period – from the earliest Ciceronian attestations 76 it was clear that its application extended beyond the boundaries of private law, crossing over into the scope of ‘international’ law, 77 although without attributing a ‘universalistic’ value to this terminology, inconceivable in such a context. 78 In fact, internationalists usually date “il sistema delle norme che regolano le relazioni tra gli Stati dall’esterno dei rispettivi ordinamenti” 79 to no earlier than the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when the concepts of sovereignty and ‘international community’ both emerged. Although sound in many respects, the idea that ancient peoples lacked a ‘law of the peoples’ – intended in the modern sense and therefore capable of presupposing “il volontario riconoscimento del diritto da parte degli Stati organizzati in libera coesistenza eguale ed autonoma” – should not exclude a priori the existence of ‘vertical’ relations For the transition from the three societates to the ius gentium/ius civile dualism where the contents attributed to the lex naturae are like principles present in each gens and are therefore referrable to the ius gentium, see Falcone 2013, pp. 265-266. For a comparison with the lex naturae based in Stoicism, see Fiori 2016, p. 122. 75 According to Talamanca it is possible to distinguish between a “descriptive use” and a “dogmatic use” of the syntagm ius gentium. In the former case, it refers to the part of Roman law corresponding to the customs diffused among civil populations; in the latter, to the sector of the ius civile concerning foreigners (Talamanca 1998, pp. 192 ff.). 76 Cic. pro Rosc. Am. 49.143; de har. resp. 14.32; de orat. 1.13.56; part. or. 37.129; pro Rab. Post. 15.42. These writings document a jurisprudence that had been established for some time, probably at least since the second century bc if not earlier. Cf., again for the Republican period, Bell. Hisp. 42.4; Nep. Them. 7.4; Sall. Bell. Iug. 22.4; 35.7. 77 Fiori 2016. Cf. Lombardi 1947. On the birth and evolution of the term ‘international’ in the legal sector, see Suganami 1978. 78 Fernández de Buján 2010, pp. 287-289: “El ius gentium no es un derecho de los extranjeros, sino un derecho accesible a los extranjeros, formado por instituciones romanas y no romanas, pero aceptadas estas últimas por los pueblos del mundo mediterráneo; de ahí que se hable en ocasiones de un pretendido derecho universal que no es tal en realidad, sino que es al universo romano al que se alude con la expresión” (p. 287). 79 Ziccardi 1964, pp. 988 ff. 74 34 GIFBIB_21.indb 34 03/12/19 12.27 THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD between the communitas orbis and the single political entity, even in historical periods prior to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. 80 In such cases, according to Schmitt, it is possible to refer to a kind of “pre-global international law”, 81 whose ability to take the concrete form of a legal system is based on the existence of geopolitical areas “nelle quali è possibile stabilire un modus vivendi, mediante un sistema di norme” 82 and not merely on the existence of national states – considered as entities superiorem non recognoscentes – willing to interact with each other. 83 As far as the ancient world is concerned, it may actually be more appropriate – as pointed out by Giliberti 84 – to also include ‘transnational’ procedures implying an idea of deterritorialisation, given that the transprefix is more suited to conveying both the idea of principles that transcend ‘national’ law by going ‘beyond’ it while englobing it and the idea of a law ‘without’ a state – like the ius commune, the lex mercatoria, or Islamic law. 85 In a Roman context, ius fetiale and ius gentium collaborated within this complex system of ‘vertical’ relations: the former by exercising its universalistic vocation 86 while the latter, which brought together elements from juridical and philosophical speculation and placed itself under the domain of the primitive fides and of the praetorian bona fides, answered both public and private practical demands arising in the course of the third century bc. Although relations with foreigners could not be described as egalitarian, they were inspired, in both ideal and practical terms, by the virtues of beneficentia, liberalitas, bonitas, and iustitia: 87 80 This particular date was chosen because the Peace of Westphalia is generally identified as the moment when a “system of co-existence” came into being between the States based on the fact that, regardless of the faiths professed by their respective sovereigns, these States can be assimilated to each other in that they are sovereign state entities and members of a single international community. See Sapienza 2013, pp. 4-7. 81 Schmitt 1991 [1950]. According to the author, “global law” comes into existence from 1492 onwards, following the discovery of the new world. 82 Giliberti 2015, p. 3. 83 Q uadri 1968, p. 25. 84 Giliberti 2015. 85 Ferrarese 2006, pp. 103-138. 86 Sherman 1918. 87 Cic. Off. 3.6.28: “Others again who say that regard should be had for the rights of fellow-citizens, but not for foreigners, would destroy the universal broth- 35 GIFBIB_21.indb 35 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Q ui autem civium rationem dicunt habendam, externorum negant, ii dirimunt communem humani generis societatem; qua sublata beneficentia, liberalitas, bonitas, iustitia funditus tollitur; quae qui tollunt, etiam adversus deos immortales impii iudicandi sunt. Ab iis enim constitutam inter homines societatem evertunt, cuius societatis artissimum vinculum est magis arbitrari esse contra naturam hominem homini detrahere sui commodi causa quam omnia incommoda subire vel externa vel corporis … vel etiam ipsius animi, quae vacent iustitia; haec enim una virtus omnium est domina et regina virtutum. According to Cicero, utilitas and ratio were the guiding principles of those in charge of the res publica as well as of those appointed to wage wars, thus ensuring that battles were only fought with the aim of brokering peace. 88 However, he also criticised a certain ruthlessness in Roman imperialism, 89 admitting that Rome was not always inspired by such noble ideals in its ‘international’ relations. Nevertheless, the golden rule of pragmatic moderation in the administration of ‘international’ affairs must have continued to resonate with historians and princes even several centuries after Aristotle’s death, if Cassius Dio could put these prophetic words into the mouth of Livia, who draws a highly effective comparison with the physician’s art: 90 erhood of mankind; and when this is annihilated, kindness, generosity, goodness, and justice must utterly perish; and those who work all this destruction must be considered as wickedly rebelling against the immortal gods. For they uproot the fellowship which the gods have established between human beings, and the closest bond of this fellowship is the conviction that it is more repugnant to nature for man to rob a fellow-man for his own gain than to endure all possible loss, whether to his property or to his person … or even to his very soul – so far as these losses are not concerned with justice; for this virtue is the sovereign mistress and queen of all virtues”. Cf. Cic. De inv. 2.53.160; Off. 1.14.42. 88 Cic. Off. 1.23.79-80; 1.2.35. 89 Cic. Rep. 3.8-11; 3.13-19. 90 Cass. Dio 55.17.1-3: “Do you not observe that physicians very rarely resort to surgery and cautery, desiring not to aggravate their patients’ maladies, but for the most part seek to soothe diseases by the application of fomentations and the milder drugs? Do not think that, because these ailments are affections of the body while those we have to do with are affections of the soul, there is any difference between them. For also the minds of men, however incorporeal they may be, are subject to a large number of ailments which are comparable to those which visit our bodies. Thus there is the withering of the mind through fear and its swelling through passion; in some cases pain lops it off and arrogance makes it grow with conceit; the disparity, therefore, between mind and body being very slight, they 36 GIFBIB_21.indb 36 03/12/19 12.27 THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD Ἢ οὐχ ὁρᾷς ὅτι καὶ οἱ ἰατροὶ τὰς μὲν τομὰς καὶ τὰς καύσεις σπανιώτατά τισι προσφέρουσιν, ἵνα μὴ ἐξαγριαίνωσιν αὐτῶν τὰ νοσήματα, τοῖς δὲ αἰονήμασι καὶ τοῖς ἠπίοις φαρμάκοις τὰ πλείω μαλθάσσοντες θεραπεύουσι; μὴ γάρ, ὅτι ἐκεῖνα μὲν τῶν σωμάτων ταῦτα δὲ τῶν ψυχῶν παθήματά ἐστι, διαφέρειν τι νομίσῃς αὐτὰ ἀλλήλων. Πάμπολλα γὰρ ὅμοια τρόπον τινὰ καὶ ταῖς γνώμαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κἂν τὰ μάλιστα ἀσώματοι ὦσιν, καὶ τοῖς σώμασι συμβαίνει· συστέλλονταί τε γὰρ ὑπὸ φόβου καὶ ἐξοιδοῦσιν ὑπὸ θυμοῦ, λύπη τέ τινας κολούει καὶ θάρσος ὀγκοῖ, ὥστ´ ὀλίγον σφόδρα τὸ παραλλάττον αὐτῶν εἶναι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ παραπλησίων ἰαμάτων αὐτὰ δεῖσθαι. Λόγος τε γὰρ ἤπιός τῳ λεχθεὶς πᾶν τὸ ἀγριαῖνον αὐτοῦ χαλᾷ, καθάπερ τραχὺς ἕτερος καὶ τὸ ἀνειμένον ὀργίζει· καὶ συγγνώμη δοθεῖσα καὶ τὸν πάνυ θρασὺν διαχεῖ, καθάπερ ἡ τιμωρία καὶ τὸν πάνυ πρᾷον χαλεπαίνει. Αἱ μὲν γὰρ βίαιοι πράξεις ἀεὶ πάντας, κἂν δικαιόταται ὦσι, παροξύνουσιν, αἱ δὲ ἐπιεικεῖς ἡμεροῦσι. So while rejecting an excessively benevolent vision of a lenient universal patrocinium 91 as an imperialistic model, we should also recognise that the Roman political and legal system had at its disposal various instruments that were far less costly – in terms of human and financial commitment – in order to promote advantageous ‘international’ relations. An example of this can be found in Livy’s tripartite institutional classification (tria genera) of foedera, whose enforcement was, in Livy’s opinion, one of the issues linked to the ius gentium. 92 According to Livy, foedera could take the shape of a diktat imposed upon a conquered population or of treaties drawn up at the end of conflict that did not conclude with the unequivocal victory of one side over the other. However, there was also a third type of treaty involving parties who had not been at war with each other. Unlike the other two treaties described, the sociale foedus did not only establish a future relationship of everlasting peace but was also accordingly require cases of a similar nature. Gentle words, for example, cause all one’s inflamed passion to subside, just as harsh words in another case will stir to wrath even the spirit which has been calmed; and forgiveness granted will melt even the utterly arrogant man, just as punishment will incense even him who is utterly mild. For acts of violence will always in every instance, no matter how just they may be, exasperate, while considerate treatment mollifies”. See Gabba 1955. 91 Cic. Off. 1.11; 2.27; 3.31. Cf. Liv. 5.27. 92 Liv. 4.19.3; 42.41.11. See, in general, Gandolfi 1954. 37 GIFBIB_21.indb 37 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC based on a pre-existing situation of harmony. 93 Moreover, this type of treaty draws attention to another issue that is unavoidable for the comprehension of Roman supranational relations. Given that this is the only foedus to explicitly mention the relationship of societas underpinning Rome’s relations with the Italic peoples and to associate it with the establishment of amicitia that regulated Rome’s overseas relationships, 94 this third category of treaty once again confirms the Roman capacity to ‘personalise’ an ancient Mediterranean practice that first emerged in the Hurrian-Hittite sphere. The Romans would interpret this ideal of brotherhood and love (aḫ ḫ ūtum u ra’ amūtu 95) lacking military or commercial benefits but based on fraternal solidarity 96 according to the principles of an instrumental alliance, ascribing to it a pronounced political connotation that would be capable of meeting the various demands arising during the various phases of expansion of Roman power. Clearly, the instruments permitting the Roman rise to leading Mediterranean power did not all come from Rome’s arsenal of war. In fact, Rome’s political ascent is a superb example of a well-balanced combination of brutal strategies – that were never repudiated – and a shrewd, carefully considered use of diplomacy. While supremacy could only be attained by military means, it might be maintained by resorting to a more extensive range of resolutive measures, also by way of precaution. It was only recently that the centuries-old debate between advocates of a “defensive” 97 or “offensive” 98 Roman imperialism recognised the role played by Rome’s ability to establish a wide-reaching network of alliances in its ‘international’ ascent to power. According to Eckstein, this was inevitable in a context like the Mediterranean where the balance of power was so fluid as to be explained as a “multipolar anarchy”. 99 Liv. 34.57.7-9. See Cursi 2014. In general, on the various interpretative lines connected to the amicitia et societas clause, see Cursi 2013, pp. 203-205. On the terminological switch between formula amicorum/formula sociorum see Valvo 2001. 95 On the continuity between the Near East and the Greek world, also in terminological terms, see Weinfeld 1973; Tadmor 1990; Weinfeld 1990; Gazzano 2002. 96 Westbrook 2000. 97 Among others, see Frank 1914; Holleaux 1921. 98 In particular, see De Sanctis 1923; Musti 1978. 99 Eckstein 2006. 93 94 38 GIFBIB_21.indb 38 03/12/19 12.27 THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD 1.3. Alternative dispute resolution methods in the classical world In recent decades in particular, such considerations have contributed to the wide diffusion of studies, mainly in the legal area, into methods related to ADR-Alternative Dispute Resolution and to the diachronic and synchronic socio-anthropological variations 100 among these ‘alternative’ procedures for the resolution of disputes in the civil sector. While it is no easy task to find a univocal definition for the multifarious system of procedures 101 for the settlement of disputing parties, scholars have often acknowledged the debt owed to the Graeco-Roman experience of the diplomacy of compromise by these methods underpinning our modern legal system. Although this phenomenon 102 is widespread throughout the world, confirmed by recent studies revealing the use of such systems both by the warlike tribes living between Namibia and Botswana as well as by the more pacific descendents of Confucius, 103 its success in the Western world 104 is usually attributed to the Greek experience – principally with regard to Solon one 105 – and traced back to the archetypal model of that fatal mythical choice made by Paris. 106 As we have to some extent already shown, the arbitration procedure played a key role within the complex system of practices See Roberts 1979. These procedures range from negotiations to so-called neutral fact finding, from mediation to arbitration, etc. (see Gumbiner 2000). 102 La China defines arbitration as a “human environment”, in the sense of “place and mode of relations between those being judged and those judging” that should be considered as the result of a “substratum of practical and psychological behaviours” more than as a legal institution (La China 2011, pref.). 103 Barrett, Barrett 2004, pp. 2-6. Even today, China and Confucian ethics are considered the geo-philosophical cradle of alternative dispute resolution methods. The cultural significance of this legal approach is confirmed by the fact that in early 2000s there were still around six million mediators – a higher ratio to the entire national population than that of attorneys-at-law in the United States (Jia 2002). 104 The three great monotheist religions also played a key role in this regard (Barrett, Barrett 2004, pp. 9-14). 105 See Panzarini 2002 and, more recently, Fernández de Buján 2014, pp. 41-52. Cf. Cuniberti 2011. 106 Cf. the doubts raised by Paulsson (Paulsson 2013, pp. 7-13) concerning the inevitability of this ascendency. 100 101 39 GIFBIB_21.indb 39 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC involving a third party for the resolution of disputes. According to Eckstein 107 and Kaščeev, 108 this procedure was a “quasi-judicial” practice, which, unlike mere mediation, was endowed with some form of binding (although rather weak as we shall see) authority. Mediation, which is basically a practice intended to encourage and facilitate the conciliation of the disputing parties, is usually perceived as a more cooperative form of intermediation. Arbitration experienced its golden age in classical Greece, with possible harbingers in the “social framework described in the works of Homer and Hesiod”. 109 From at least the fifth century bc to the Hellenistic period, public arbitration was a completely codified institution both within Attic law 110 and in other cities. 111 In this context public arbitration must have been a mandatory step before civil suits eventually reached the courts while private arbitration represented an alternative route that was not exactly institutional but nonetheless very ancient. 112 According to Cozzo, this frequent recourse to informal, improvised arbitration (even in the case of everyday divergences 113) confirms that this practice was almost a default mindset or forma mentis for Greeks considering the resolution of disputes. In fact, just a handful of philosophers were capable of systematically opposing this type of intermediation, doing so only in the name of the innate human ability to autonomously repress anger. 114 In Athens, in the classical age, public and private intermediation based on the principle of fairness (no mere formal objective but rather a specific resolutive practice capable of removing the Eckstein 1988, p. 415. Kaščeev 1997. 109 Cozzo 2014, p. 73. 110 Harris 2018, p. 226: “the most important feature of the new system was that it incorporated the advantages of mediation and arbitration into formal private legal procedures without several of the disadvantages of private arbitration. In this way public arbitratio encouraged litigants to compromise instead of fighting it out in court”. 111 Gernet 1939. 112 With specific reference to the Athenian case, which is the one for which we have most information, see Karabélias 1996. 113 Cozzo 2014, p. 112. 114 Iambl. Vita Pyth. 126. 107 108 40 GIFBIB_21.indb 40 03/12/19 12.27 THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD motives for any dispute 115) co-existed within the various cities. Nonetheless, from at least the seventh century bc onwards, 116 forms of intermediation had also been successfully adopted between different cities. 117 In such cases, mediation was mainly used to resolve disputes arising with regard to boundary lands described by Daverio Rocchi as the expression of “un fenomeno circoscritto nello spazio e circostanziato nelle motivazioni”, which would not therefore have been capable of completely overturning the territorial sovereignty of the poleis involved and of unleashing a war of occupation … 118 unless, of course, the powers involved in the dispute had such a disproportionate military capacity as to risk destabilising the delicate ‘international’ equilibrium: 119 Ἐνθυμώμεθα δὲ καὶ ὅτι εἰ μὲν ἡμῶν ἦσαν ἑκάστοις πρὸς ἀντιπάλους περὶ γῆς ὅρων αἱ διαφοραί, οἰστὸν ἂν ἦν· νῦν δὲ πρὸς ξύμπαντάς τε ἡμᾶς Ἀθηναῖοι ἱκανοὶ καὶ κατὰ πόλιν ἔτι δυνατώτεροι, ὥστε εἰ μὴ καὶ ἁθρόοι καὶ κατὰ ἔθνη καὶ ἕκαστον ἄστυ μιᾷ γνώμῃ ἀμυνούμεθα αὐτούς, δίχα γε ὄντας ἡμᾶς ἀπόνως χειρώσονται. Regardless of whether they were motivated by a firm belief in the strength of their case or merely wished to prevent the dispute from dragging on, those opting for arbitration could choose between two types of procedure: – the compromissory type, which was established on the basis of an agreement drawn up at the time of arbitration; – the mandatory form already provided for under previous treaties between the conflicting parties, which was particularly widespread during the Peloponnesian War in a phase of clashes described as ‘structural’. 120 Cozzo 2014, p. 72. Piccirilli 1973, pp. 7 ff. 117 Collection of sources in: Tod 1913; Raeder 1912; Piccirilli 1973; Ager 1996; Magnetto 1997. 118 Daverio Rocchi 1988, p. 227. 119 Thuc. 1.122.2: “And let us reflect also that, if we individually were involved in a dispute about mere boundary-lines with an enemy who was no more than our equal, that might be borne; but as the case stands, the Athenians are quite a match for us all together, and still more powerful against us city by city. Hence, unless all of us together, every nation and town, with one accord resist them, they will easily overpower us because we shall be divided”. 120 Cozzo 2014, p. 363. 115 116 41 GIFBIB_21.indb 41 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC In any case, the third party chosen was generally an arbitrator considered to be impartial with regard to the matter of dispute but who often had ties to the disputing parties, either through relations to ethnic group or geographic vicinity. 121 The three factors capable of influencing the choice of the third party were not necessarily a guarantee that the arbitration sentence would be respected, which explains why military force soon became binding in the choice of arbitrator, who had to appear capable of standing as a guarantor of the enforceability and mandatory nature of the judgement, which, at a legal level, could only be guaranteed by a judge. 122 The authority demanded of and granted to a third party in order to guarantee compliance with their ruling not only explains why Rome was so often called upon to resolve disputes between Greek cities in the second century bc but also why Rome generally refused to be subjected to this practice, opting, if necessary, for a solution that did not compromise its maiestas, something that Ager has defined as “(apologetic) deprecation”. 123 1.4. Rome’s assimilation and rejection of the Greek inter-poleis arbitration model To some extent, when Rome took over the role of arbitrator from the Hellenistic sovereigns in disputes between cities in the second century bc, it maintained the same “minimalistic” 124 approach, acting as a supervisor rather than as an active player within the arbitration procedure. Unlike its royal predecessors, however, the Republic was largely indifferent to the fates of the Greeks, given that its sole motivation was to legitimise itself as a hegemonic power. While the Hellenistic sovereigns shared cultural and social ties with the cities appointing them that were partially responsible for them being chosen to act as arbitrators in the first place, Rome exercised the role of third party merely by virtue of its recognition 121 122 123 124 Magnetto 1997, p. X. Cozzo 2014, pp. 387-392. Ager 2009, pp. 31-32. Camia 2009, p. 193. 42 GIFBIB_21.indb 42 03/12/19 12.27 THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD as a stable authority that was also superior to the other actors in the field in that corner of the Mediterranean. Moreover, while territorial disputes between poleis – the preferred area of application of this dispute resolution method – occasionally acquired a certain relevance in the context of the local reshuffle that took place in the wake of Cynoscephalae and the Peace of Apamea, with only a few rare exceptions, they never acquired any strategic importance for Rome at ‘international’ level. 125 Following the reorganisation of Asia Minor – according to the right of the victor – and a phase of rejection of all forms of arbitrational intermediation in favour of the role of the Senate and of the decem legati (resulting from the affirmation of Roman authority), once peace had been re-established and the area definitively subjugated, Rome began to systematically delegate all requests for arbitration, entrusting them – according to the Greek custom – to third parties acceptable to the disputing parties. The cases recently studied by Camia reveal a number of tendencies that leave little room for doubt with regard to the approach adopted in intervention (or rather in non-intervention) by the Senate in this context: – in most cases 126 and generally whenever it could not refer to a prior judgement, Rome delegated the task of pronouncing a verdict to a third party that was often identified with a city in western Asia Minor. In such cases the arbitrator assumed this task (ex senatus consulto) while the Senate (again through 125 The “minimalist” approach maintained by Rome in these phases would evolve during the Mithridatic Wars, when the decisions made by the Republic with regard to the contested territories assumed the value of “recompense” for the Greek cities that enjoyed a privileged relationship with Rome (Camia 2009, p. 214). 126 Sparta against Messene (around 140 bc; Camia 2009, pp. 32-43); Ambracia against the koinon of the Athamanians (around 140 bc; Camia 2009, pp. 44-50); Delphi against Phlygonion-Ambryssos (around 140 bc; Camia 2009, pp. 65-70); Magnesia on the Meander against Priene (around 140 bc; Camia 2009, pp. 71-85); Itanos against Hierapytna (two sentences issued in 140 bc and 112 bc, respectively; Camia 2009, pp. 106-132); Miletus against Priene (in this case the dispute concluded around 90 bc with a definitive deliberation made by the Senate; Camia 2009, pp. 138-147). Other cases attributable to this category but rather more complicated to interpret include: Priene against Miletus and Ephesus against Sardis (Camia 2009, pp. 148-149 and pp. 158-160). 43 GIFBIB_21.indb 43 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC the emanation of a senatus consultum) established the general terms within which the sentence was to be pronounced; – when it intervened directly, 127 the Senate tended to uphold previously issued verdicts, basically limiting itself to confirming them; – only on a handful of occasions 128 was judgement – initially at least – entrusted to the Roman legates already in the field or who had been sent there for this purpose. Each of the four cases generally linked to this eventuality falls within the scope of wider-reaching missions linked to motives of political expediency … 129 and, regardless, in two or three of these four episodes, the judgement was ultimately expressed by other subjects. Moreover, we should not forget that Rome only intervened in such disputes in response to a formal request made by the poleis involved. While such petitions would be submitted to the Republic in its capacity as “natural arbiter” 130 in Greek disputes in the 127 Melitaea against Narthacium (around 140 bc; Camia 2009, pp. 51-64); Priene against Samos (in 135 bc; Camia 2009, pp. 86-96); Colophon against the bordering poleis (in the 120s bc; Camia 2009, pp. 97-105). Other cases attributable to this category but rather more complicated to interpret might include: Mylasa against Stratonikeia (probably after 188 bc; Camia 2009, pp. 19-21); Pteleion against Larisa Kremaste (Camia 2009, p. 150); Priene against an unidentified polis (Camia 2009, pp. 156-158); the Thracian sovereign Kotys and the polis of Abdera (Camia 2009, pp. 160-163). 128 Latos against Olous (in 113 bc; the arbitration of the dispute was effectively carried out by five Roman legates led by Q uintus Fabius Maximus Eburnus who merely upheld the previous Knossian decision; Camia 2009, pp. 133137); Sparta against Megalopolis (in 163 bc; Callicrates, former strategos of the Achaean League was the arbitrator; Camia 2009, pp. 22-31); Itanos against Hierapytna (in 140 bc and 112 bc; Magnesia on the Meander was called upon to deliver the verdict; Camia 2009, pp. 106-132). Another case attributable to this category although rather more complicated to interpret concerns a dispute between Argos and an unidentified polis (Camia 2009, pp. 153-156). Although not strictly linked to inter-poleis conflicts, another interesting case regards the Delphic priests who were authorised to fix the boundaries of their sacred land by Manius Acilius Glabrio between 191 and 190 bc (Gruen 1984, p. 104 n. 38). However, in this case too, Rome’s direct intervention appears to be justified by motives of wider-reaching foreign policy and specifically by the fact that this reorganisation took place immediately after Antiochus’ withdrawal from Greece (SIG3 826E, ll. 37-38; 827C, ll. 5-6; 827D, ll. 6-7). 129 Like the general re-organisation of eastern Crete (113-112 bc). 130 See Veyne 1975; Clemente 1976. 44 GIFBIB_21.indb 44 03/12/19 12.27 THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD second century bc for all the aforementioned reasons, as Gruen points out, this capacity was not so much a result of Roman selfrepresentation as a prerogative attributed to Rome and conferred upon it by these self-same Greek communities. 131 This is confirmed by the fact that the Greek communities, still in this fateful second century bc, continued to turn to other intermediaries in order to settle their disputes. We might mention the celebrated case of the Aetolians who, around 173 bc, chose to submit their conciliation requests to Perseus – causing considerable alarm in the Republic 132 – or the less well-known case of Phalanna, in Perrhaebia, where a situation of stasis was to be resolved by an arbitrator from Gytron. 133 The most significant case, however, concerns a border dispute between Rhodes and Stratonikeia 134 that can be dated to soon after 135 bc. On this occasion, the Rhodians initially submitted the dispute to Rome only to change their minds, turning for help to Bargylia, which had spontaneously offered to intervene and was apparently considered a more reliable arbitrator. In the event of an unsatisfactory final judgement or matter of some strategic interest to the Republic, Rome would not have hesitated to exercise her ‘right’ to act as ‘natural’ arbitrator – according to its own times and procedures. Rome’s ‘indifference’ or rather reluctance to act as arbitrator in disputes between poleis or in general to be directly involved in disputes for which it was hard to envisage a peaceful solution and that would, therefore, have placed the Senate in the unpleasant position of having to side with one of the disputing parties 135 clearly emerges from a fragment by Polybius. The passage in question concerns the real issues of ‘international’ interest to the Romans (that is, the objectives of Eumenes and 131 With regard to the delicate process of submission (more or less internalised by those directly concerned) of the Greek world within the Roman imperialist dynamics, see Champion 2007; Desideri 2007. 132 Liv. 42.12.7; App. Mac. 11.1; 11.7. 133 IG IX 2, 1230. See Gray 2017, p. 68. 134 Foucart 1904, pp. 326-335. See Ager 1996, pp. 457-459. 135 On this type of behaviour by Rome when acting as “super-arbitral” guarantor (Camia 2009, pp. 198-199) in pacification processes during far less marginal occasions than territorial disputes in which its mediation was requested by the dispatch of legations, see Gruen 1984, pp. 111 ff. 45 GIFBIB_21.indb 45 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Antiochus), leading to the dispatch of two legates in response to the worsening territorial crisis between Sparta and Megalopolis in 163 bc: 136 Οὐ μὴν τῆς γε κατὰ τὸν Εὐμένη καὶ κατὰ τὸν Ἀντίοχον ὑποψίας ἔληγεν ἡ σύγκλητος, ἀλλὰ Γάιον Σολπίκιον καὶ Μάνιον Σέργιον καταστήσασα πρεσβευτὰς ἐξαπέστελλεν, ἅμα μὲν ἐποπτεύσοντας τὰ κατὰ τοὺς Ἕλληνας, ἅμα δὲ τοῖς Μεγαλοπολίταις καὶ τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις διευκρινήσοντας περὶ τῆς ἀντιλεγομένης χώρας, μάλιστα δὲ πολυπραγμονήσοντας τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἀντίοχον καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὸν Εὐμένη, μή τις ἐξ αὐτῶν παρασκευὴ γίνεται καὶ κοινοπραγία κατὰ Ῥωμαίων. Rome, therefore, did not renounce its role as arbitrator but – finding itself in a unique position of political superiority without parallel in Mediterranean history until that point in time – adopted an innovative approach intended to respect the traditional nature of Greek arbitration and to use arbitration to maintain its power rather than to increase it. Several studies have interpreted the Roman approach to the poleis in a negative manner, criticising Rome for debasing the very principle of arbitrational authority. 137 Leaving aside the various possible interpretations, it is undeniable that in most cases involving this kind of territorial dispute Rome tended to limit itself to setting a temporal terminus; any events taking place after this time limit would not be taken into account when establishing the final outcome. 138 This technical constraint – established by the Senate and inspired by the interdictum uti possidetis in Roman civil law regarding private disputes on matters related to possession 139 – and the principle guaranteeing territo136 Polyb. 31.1.6-8: “The Senate, however, did not cease to entertain suspicions of Eumenes and Antiochus, but appointed and dispatched Gaius Sulpicius and Manius Sergius as legates to observe the state of affaris in Greece, to decide the question of the territory in dispute between Megalopolis and Laecedaemon, but chiefly to inquire diligently into the proceedings of Antiochus and Eumenes in case they were making any preparations to attack Rome and acting in concert against her”. On the case of the controversy between the two cities, see Camia 2004. 137 Among others Matthaei 1908; Badian 1958, p. 90. Contra De Ruggiero 1893, p. 112 n. 1; Rostovzeff 1941 (I), p. 56. Cf., for the function of the arbitral institution in the Greek world, Marshall 1980, pp. 628-632. 138 Camia 2009, p. 83. 139 Camia 2009, p. 128. Cf. Partsch 1905; Kallet-Marx 1996, p. 172. 46 GIFBIB_21.indb 46 03/12/19 12.27 THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD rial integrity to friends and allies of Rome are the cornerstones of Roman actions in Greek contexts. As explained by Gruen, this was not so much the result of a form of altruism or philhellenism than of the pragmatic disinclination of the Roman Senate to take responsibility – in the capacity of arbirtrator, mediator, or judge – for internal Greek affairs whenever the diplomatic commitments involved outweighed the desired political advantage. 140 The role played by the Roman assembly in this context, which is inevitably emphasised by the very nature of the available documentation on this type of intervention (that is, the senatus consulta which, especially in controversial circumstances, could contain an extensive dossier of documentation compiled by magistrates 141) falls completely within the remit of the acts of international diplomacy that were the specific responsibility of the Senate. Moreover, the decision of the poleis to publish such official pronouncements reveals the great symbolic value attributed to these documents compared, for example, to the missives sent by proconsuls 142 whose excessive protagonism in such forms of intermediation could easily be seen as a form of abuse with regard to cities that were friends and allies of Rome as well as of interference in “the powers of the Senate regarding international relations”. 143 It is clear therefore that, within the Greek arbitration practice, the success of the intermediation process required two conditions to be met: – the more or less explicit recognition of the existence of a ‘superior’ authority capable of guaranteeing the enforceability of the verdict; – the equal treatment accorded to the disputing parties even in the case of a major power imbalance between them. Obviously, under such conditions, Rome might well agree to act as arbitrator – albeit in a position of guarantor rather than as a Gruen 1984, pp. 110 and 131. Buongiorno 2016, pp. 47-48. 142 Their main role involved carrying out administrative duties and acting as intermediaries between the poleis and Rome. See Camia 2009, p. 193. 143 Camia 2009, pp. 194. Cf. Kallet-Marx 1996, p. 165. 140 141 47 GIFBIB_21.indb 47 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC protagonist – but it would be rather reluctant to become involved in such a process as one of the litigants. 144 From an ideological and religious point of view, the wars embarked upon by the Republic were guaranteed by the practice of ius fetiale and by the principle of bellum iustum. They neither required nor provided for recourse to diplomatic compromise, at least in its more formalised configuration embodied by arbitration in the ancient world. By placing itself above all other political entities 145 – morally speaking – and submitting exclusively to the judgement of the divine ‘court’, Rome was able to deploy an acceptable form of intermediation that would involve it with litigants without prejudicing its maiestas. As mentioned above, this intermediation process is identified with a kind of “(apologetic) deprecation” that guaranteed a series of considerable advantages for the Q uirites in a wholly informal manner: 146 it does not acknowledge the equality of the parties or their claims; it frequently and explicitly assumes the guilt of the non-Roman parties or their claims; it requires no compromise from Rome; and it easily allows Rome to retain her stance of having fought a just war. Rome’s inability to fully assimilate – and partly embody – the ideal of public neutrality as a political value 147 and its insistence upon explicitly placing itself in the position of a power that defended peoples and that was therefore to some extent ‘partisan’ 148 should 144 For the nine cases between 212 bc and 188 bc in which Rome agreed to accept the diplomatic resolution of a conflict through the involvement of a third party, see Gruen 1984, pp. 117-119; Eckstein 1988, pp. 417-423. However, as pointed out by Ager, not all the examples cited by these authors can be included in the formal category of mediation nor do they all have the same degree of credibility; moreover, they do not all involve mediations leading to successful outcomes (Ager 2009, pp. 28-30; cf. Eckstein 2002; Eckstein 2008, pp. 91-116). With regard to at least seven episodes where Rome categorically refused to accept any suggestion or proposal of mediation or arbitration, see Ager 1996, no. 8; no. 27; no. 35; no. 57; no. 84; no. 93; no. 121. 145 On the problems linked to this type of practice, where there is a clear power imbalance between the litigants involved, see Kleiboer 1996. 146 Ager 2009, p. 33. 147 Matthaei 1908, pp. 262-263. 148 Cic. Off. 2.8.26. 48 GIFBIB_21.indb 48 03/12/19 12.27 THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD not lead us to believe either that the concepts of diplomacy and justice were alien to the Republic or that relations between the poleis were always driven by sincerity and never by a cynical realism. As we have sought to bring out, the pragmatic attitude adopted by Rome with regard to the application of Greek arbitral practice (and to diplomatic conciliation in general) can certainly be traced back to the following: – the ‘militant’ inclination of a power better applied in a “peace of domination” than in maintaining arbitration courts in the canonical sense; 149 – the general lack of success in developing an arbitration system on Italic soil even distantly comparable to the Greek system. De Ruggiero and Fraser blame this fact on the greater ethnological differences between Italic populations, on the topography of the peninsula, which hindered trade relations, and on the substantial absence in Italy of any unifying tendency like that enjoyed by the Greek amphictyonies. 150 If we exclude the extreme ethnographic positions typical of early twentieth-century historiography, the initial premise remains unassailable and while a number of substantial differences with respect to the Greek model can be traced back to the anthropological context in which Roman power was formed, they are more likely to be rooted in a sacred context. The religious drive of its military initiatives and its unprecedented political position as undisputed authority in the Mediterranean basin meant that Rome felt less pressure to engage in this type of conciliation … even though they were not unknown to the Republic. 1.5. Private arbitration and archaic civil justice in Rome Dispute resolution through different forms of intermediation mainly concerned the private sphere where it was one of the most archaic forms of civil justice in the so-called elementary societies. The latter were the preferred field of application 149 Fraser 1926, p. 189. On the rejection of a compromise in favour of pacification imposed by force, see Rosenstein 2007; Barton 2007. 150 De Ruggiero 1893, pp. 55-58; Fraser 1926, p. 189. 49 GIFBIB_21.indb 49 03/12/19 12.27 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC of these mediation and conciliation ‘actions’ given that they were based on an “ethnological model” of society characterised by “shared objectives” and few internal divisions. 151 While we can certainly agree with this affirmation – and with the suggestion attributing the prevalence of the ‘imposed’ order over the ‘negotiated’ order to the greater complexity of the modern social and demographic reality – we should also recall, along with Rouland, that modern societies are far from monolithic and that they comprise “une multitude de groupes secondaires, qui forment un tissu sociologique très serré, même si le dessin de ses coutures se modifie”. 152 The aforementioned “ethnological model” is therefore also expressed within these latter groups where we can find the same “community style” and the same “face-to-face” mechanisms considered exclusive to traditional elementary societies. 153 At a distance of many centuries and latitudes, the key elements in all of these practices, and in arbitration in particular, have remained basically the same as those implemented in the Roman context: 154 – the freedom of the judged party to submit to arbitration and the associated guarantee of a specific “space of self-determination” for the civis; 155 – the idea that such alternative resolutions were less “costly” both in material terms 156 (the expenses involved in the procedure in addition to the possible losses following its conclusion) and in terms of time; Rouland 1991, p. 111. Rouland 1991, p. 112. 153 Arbitration was already recognised as a rather ‘sophisticated’ form of dispute settlement by authors like Noailles 1948, pp. 164 ff. 154 These intrinsic peculiarities subsequently evolved into “case law” (Juristenrecht). See Marrone 1996. 155 Piergiovanni 1999, p. 9. 156 This type of consideration must have been influenced by the fact that even in Byzantine times arbitral decisions tended not to be binding. Despite the two Justinian edicts of ad 529-530 and ad 539, there was still a tendency to consider arbitral rulings as non-binding (C.J. 2.55(56).4 and 5; Nov. 82.11). See Marrone 1996 and, more recently, Sitzia 2014. Cf. Frediani 2014, pp. 21-24. 151 152 50 GIFBIB_21.indb 50 03/12/19 12.27 THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD – their supranational vocation based on a certain rejection – both practical and psychological – of the iurisdictio 157 considered as a “forma di esercizio della giustizia che si svolge sotto il diretto controllo del magistrato”. 158 These characteristics, all considered advantageous 159 with regard both to recourse to legis actiones, cognitiones extra ordinem and the formulary system, 160 clearly explain why the ADR methods were applied both in the private and public/international sphere of Roman law. Let us now look specifically at the arbitration method: given that it was never considered a true alternative to the ordinary trial, 161 this form of private dispute resolution always played a marginal role within the Republican legal system. 162 It is undeni157 This is generally considered to be the reason for the huge success of modern international commercial arbitration: in fact, it gives the parties involved the opportunity to meet each other in a truly neutral setting where national judges and legal systems cannot prevail. 158 Dalla Massara 2012a, p. 117. For the associated distinction between iudex and arbiter, see Baty 1917; Gutiérrez García 1991. On the undeniable attribution of a decision-making function to the arbiter, see Broggini 2002; Dalla Massara 2012b. Cases in which arbitrators were called upon to determine/amend contractual elements rather than making decisions (for example, in Dig. 15.2.76) are described as cases of “arbitraggio” (Dalla Massara 2012a, p. 116 n. 4) or ‘(private) extra-judicial arbitration’ (according to the definition of Buigues Oliver in Buigues Oliver 1990, p. 32). 159 With some exceptions and in principle, arbitration proceedings were irrevocable, free, and not enforceable. They involved a simple debate and granted considerable freedom to the litigants (both with regard to the choice of arbitrator and as far as the terms of reference or thema decidendum was concerned). 160 These advantages became apparent in the post-classical and Justinian periods when, with the abandonment of formulary proceedings, ordinary trials became far more rigid and expensive (Kaser 1966, pp. 410 ff.). 161 The most recent studies have now abandoned the idea that the Roman per legis actiones trial was a linear, continuative transposition of voluntary arbitration. The two systems should be considered as developing in a “parallel and independent” manner (see Pelloso 2012, p. 88 nn. 52-53). 162 As Marrone points out, “la giurisprudenza pur avendo […] edificato l’istituto dell’arbitrato privato, mai si adoperò per il diretto riconoscimento, neppure in via di exceptio, della mera convenzione arbitrale” (Marrone 1996). The classical regime of arbitration-compromissum in a privatistic sense would undergo a gradual transformation from the fourth century ad onwards as the institution was slowly absorbed within the various levels and criteria of the ordinary courts (C.Th. 2.8.18; 11.7.13; 15.14.9; C.J. 2.55(56).4). See Talamanca 1958, p. 143 n. 229. 51 GIFBIB_21.indb 51 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC able, however, that for a long time it was the only feasible alternative for a series of disputes. 163 As long as the legis actiones system was in use and there was no legal protection for a series of relations not contemplated by the ius civile vetus or concerning disputes between foreigners or between foreigners and Romans, 164 arbitration became important enough for the praetor to include it in an edict (probably in the early first century bc). 165 It is also possible, moreover, that the initial diffusion of the compromissum was connected to the granting of citizenship to the socii italici, who – unrelated to the Roman legal tradition – would have been able to obtain a judgement based on a principle of general fairness rather than on a specific legal system. 166 Arbitration is an ADR method distinguished by its voluntary, consensual, and private nature, and is an expression of groups linked by “friendly” or “social” relations primarily based on fides. 167 This has induced various scholars to believe that the relative diffusion of arbitration in Roman society was linked to the existence of “social formations” within which mutually supportive individuals could identify themselves with greater conviction than with the state system, which they perceived as alien. Such ‘groups’ were bound by different forms of relationship ranging from the domestic sphere to friendship or ‘ethnicity’ or supranational and ‘international’ ties. These categories concern a whole series of social connections based on concepts of amicitia 168 and societas that can obviously assume an inter-class, inter-national value, 169 touching upon a complex fabric of relations ranging from those based on blood ties to those involving aggregation on the basis of productive affinities (collegia and sodalitates), from those based on commonalities linked to ethnic origin or legal status (like 163 Ziegler 1971, pp. 5 ff. Recourse to this practice in the context of boundary disputes is still documented, for example, in Suet. Otho 4.2 (cf. Tac. Hist. 1.24). 164 Izzo 2013, pp. 24-29. 165 Dig. 4.8.3.1. Although there is no direct evidence, it is not unlikely that the formulary trial was in fact based on the model of private arbitration. 166 Ziegler 1971, p. 25; Marrone 1996. 167 Charpentier 1996. 168 On the legal value of this term in the Roman context, see Albanese 1963; Brutti 2011, pp. 509-512. 169 Cursi 2013. 52 GIFBIB_21.indb 52 03/12/19 12.28 THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD the aforementioned socii) to those organised on the basis of shared political interests (the so-called clans) and those with a spiritual commonality. In fact, it is no coincidence that in the post-classical period, the diffusion of ‘lay’ arbitration was accompanied by the spreading practice of the episcopalis audientia, which authorised Christian members of society to call upon the spiritual leader of their community to act as their arbitrator. 170 The fact that this system was intended to promote relations capable of cutting across the usual limits established by iurisdictio emphasises the importance acquired by the political and cultural element in this type of practice, 171 a true variable underpinning all mediation procedures. This becomes even more evident in the Roman context where arbitration was no longer limited – as it was in Greece – to ensuring the observance of given rights contested by one of the disputing parties but, while continuing to give due consideration to the principles (justice and fairness) guiding this type of settlement process, focused on the political aspect … resulting in a complete metamorphosis of this legal practice. 172 1.6. Public arbitration and its ‘international’ vocation If we think about the relations that underpinned the arbitration practice (and its consequent advantages) we can easily imagine why this procedure was also applied at public level. Although the form of arbitration establishing itself in this particular sector of Roman law is generally believed to have been inspired by a Greek model, establishing just how dependent the Roman practice was upon the Greek system of arbitration between poleis is no simple matter. This is for a series of reasons, first and foremost the lack of information available to us with regard to the fortunes of public arbi170 For a comparison with the case of the Jews, cf. C.Th. 2.1.10 an edict of Arcadius and Honorius allowing Jews to submit their disputes to their patriarch while respecting Roman arbitration practice. In general, see Rinolfi 2010. 171 Kidane 2017; Paulsson 2010. 172 See Lemosse 1966, p. 348. 53 GIFBIB_21.indb 53 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC tration in the Roman West throughout the Republican period 173 as well as the virtual absence of evidence with regard to the Italic peninsula before the third-second century bc (and therefore the period of the first intense contacts with the Greek diplomatic system) and, from the imperial age at least, the strong influence that the private process had upon the management of territorial conflicts in the context of the extra ordinem procedure. 174 Given the substantial analogies between the legal practice diffused in the eastern context and the practice present in the western territory of the empire, we might consider this dialectical relationship in the light of a “reciprocal adaptation”. 175 While recognising the existence of this type of dynamic, probably confirmed by the emergence – also in documents regarding the Roman West – of salient aspects from Stoic ethics like the aforementioned principle of aequitas, 176 we must bear in mind that the Roman world would have been familiar with international mediation practices, which were already known before Rome came into contact with the practice consolidated in the Hellenistic world. Although the first known cases – attributed to the actions of Numa Pompilius, Lars Porsenna as well as Servius Tullius – may be enveloped in a mythical aura and conditioned by the cultural background of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (the source of all the cited episodes connected to the origins of Rome), 177 the existence of the recuperatores cannot be disregarded. Appeals made to these judges, probably dating to a very early stage of development of Roman legal practice, 178 were foreseen by a treaty (lex) between Rome and external communities for the purpose of the pronouncement of an arbitral decision concerning compensation and claims, whether private or not. 179 Although the compe- 173 On the existence of a diplomatic ‘system’ attributable to the Roman West, see García Riaza 2015, p. 24. 174 Burton 2000. 175 Compatangelo-Soussignan 2011, p. 62. 176 Sacchi 2005, pp. 351 ff. 177 Gruen 1984, pp. 99-101. 178 Matthaei 1908, p. 242. 179 Fest. p. 342 L. Gagliardi 2012, p. 373. In general, see Gagliardi 2007. 54 GIFBIB_21.indb 54 03/12/19 12.28 THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD tence of this judging body 180 passed to the sector of domestic law in the classical age, given that it only concerned disputes between cives, 181 there is no doubt that its origins lie in the context of ‘international’ relations between Rome and other civitates and/ or nationes involved in some form of diplomatic dialogue with Rome. Apart from this attestation and an anachronistic episode linked to a territorial dispute between Aricia and Ardea 182 in 446 bc testifying to the strong influence of the Greek experience 183 rather than to Rome’s precocious adoption of the arbitration procedure, the first true Roman contact with the concept of mediation between disputing parties on an ‘international’ level is generally dated to 320 bc and the Tarentine offer to broker a treaty between Rome and the Samnites: 184 Samnites ex parte altera, cum omnem curam belli remisissent, quia aut pacem vere cupiebant aut expediebat simulare ut Tarentinos sibi conciliarent, cum instructos repente ad pugnam Romanos conspexissent, vociferari se in auctoritate Tarentinorum manere nec descendere in aciem nec extra vallum arma ferre; deceptos potius quodcumque casus ferat passuros quam ut sprevisse pacis auctores Tarentinos videantur. Accipere se omen 180 sided. Also because of the greater brevity of the procedures over which they pre- Gagliardi 2012, p. 349 e pp. 374-379. Gabba 1966, pp. 138-139; Noè 1979. 183 Liv. 3.71-72; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 11.52. See Compatangelo-Soussignan 2011, pp. 49-51 (p. 50 n. 22): with particular reference to the attention paid by authors to the ethics of the judges (turpe iudicium) and to recourse to the concilium populi of Rome whose competences did not include cases of international arbitration but whose presence recalled the crowded Greek arbitration courts. 184 Liv. 9.14.6-8: “The Samnites, on their side, having dismissed from their minds every anxiety regarding the war, either because they sincerely wished for peace, or because it was expedient for them to pretend that they wished it, in order to gain the support of the Tarentines, when they beheld the Romans suddenly arrayed for battle, cried out that they would abide by the will of the Tarentines and would neither take the field nor advance beyond the rampart; they had been deceived, but they chose rather to endure whatever Fortune might have in store for them than be thought to have spurned the peaceful advice of the Tarentines. The consuls declared that they embraced the omen, praying that the enemy might be so minded as not even to defend his rampart”. For other cases of similar proposals made to Rome: Plut. Pyrrh. 16.3-4; App. Sic. 1 (during the First Punic War). See Ager 1996, pp. 52-54. 181 182 55 GIFBIB_21.indb 55 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC consules aiunt et eam precari mentem hostibus ut ne vallum quidem defendant. The failure of this first attempt, which would not have a followup either in the context of the Illyrian wars or in the First Macedonian War, 185 anticipated a long series of misunderstandings regarding the arbitration procedure reported in the context of the second stage of the war with Philip V. 186 While the arbitration cases present in the literary sources before the second century bc reveal a marked Roman preference for a ‘muscular’ resolution of international disputes, 187 as mentioned, the Roman Senate’s attitude to the arbitration procedure would undergo a major change from this period onwards 188 and, in particular, after the treaty drawn up in Apamea where – following the conclusion of the conflict and subjection stages that allowed no form of intermediation to be envisaged as far as the Romans were concerned – the Republic admitted a clause typical of treaties in the Greek tradition that allowed for recourse to this type of solution in the event of new disputes between Antiochus III and rival cities: 189 Si qui sociorum populi Romani ultro bellum inferent Antiocho, vim vi arcendi ius esto, dum ne quam urbem aut belli iure teneat aut in amicitiam accipiat. Controversias inter se iure ac iudicio disceptanto, aut, si utrisque place bit, bello. This case once again reveals the ambivalent behaviour of Rome, which, on the one hand, seems open to the possibility of using a diplomatic instrument to settle an ‘international’ dispute, and, on the other, continues to attribute to war the role of “coercitive Gruen 1984, pp. 102-103. Liv. 32.10.3-6. The Romans behaved in a similar way to Antiochus III in 196 bc (Polyb. 18.52.3-5; Liv. 33.39-40) and to the Aetolian League in 192 bc (Liv. 35.33.5; 35.33.8). 187 Matthaei 1908. 188 Deutschmann 2012. 189 Liv. 38.38.16-17: “If any of the allies of the Roman people shall without provocation make war upon Antiochus, he shall have the right to oppose force with force, provided that he shall neither hold any city under the law of war nor receive any into friendship. They shall settle disputes between them by law and legal formula, or, if both states shall desire, by war”. Cf. Polyb. 21.42-43. 185 186 56 GIFBIB_21.indb 56 03/12/19 12.28 THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD legal instrument” – at least as a last resort – in resolving this type of conflict. 190 It seems that the type of dispute where Rome advocated the use of a peaceful mediated solution mainly regarded property although the Republic continued to avoid direct involvement in such procedures: 191 Ὅτι κατὰ τὴν Ἀπάμειαν οἵ τε δέκα καὶ Γνάιος ὁ στρατηγὸς τῶν Ῥωμαίων, διακούσαντες πάντων τῶν ἀπηντηκότων, τοῖς μὲν περὶ χώρας ἢ χρημάτων ἤ τινος ἑτέρου διαφερομένοις πόλεις ἀπέδωκαν ὁμολογουμένας ἀμφοτέροις, ἐν αἷς διακριθήσονται περὶ τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων. After the Roman rise to power, the Greek poleis began to turn increasingly to Rome to resolve such disputes. It does not seem coincidental, therefore, that the first appeal for arbitration to be submitted to the Roman Senate by Greek cities (probably made by Mylasa and Stratonikeia immediately after 188 bc) probably dates to the same period as the earliest dispatch of an arbitrator from Rome to settle a boundary dispute that had flared up between two cities in the Greek Campania: Nola and Neapolis. As in the case of Aricia and Ardea, scholars have often described this as a case of “false arbitration”. 192 Leaving aside the doubts about the veracity of this episode expressed by Cicero, 193 the recurrence of various ethical issues closely resembling the themes emerging from the sources with regard to the case in 446 bc suggests that this was an anecdotal occurrence. 194 Whether or not we accept that an arbitration was entrusted to Q uintus Fabius Labeo, 195 it is worth underlining that, within the Domingo Oslé 2010, p. 110. Polyb. 21.45.1: “In Apamea the ten legates and Manlius the proconsul, after listening to all the applicants, assigned, in cases where the dispute was about land, money, or other property, cities agreed upon by both parties in which to settle their differences”. The reference is omitted by Livy (Liv. 38.39.5-17). 192 Compatangelo-Soussignan 2011, p. 49. 193 Cic. Off. 1.10.33. Cf. Val. Max. 7.3.4. 194 Matthaei 1908, pp. 247-248. 195 Labeo’s role as arbitrator in the Campanian dispute may have been justified by his biography. According to Livy, infact, Labeo was involved in establishing Macedonian boundaries at the time of the Roman-Syrian War. Liv. 39.27.10: “And as to the boundary rights, they had little new to say: only that Q uintus Fabius 190 191 57 GIFBIB_21.indb 57 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Roman philosophical and historiographic discourse, the concept of arbitration clearly acquired a higher moral value linked to the difficult coexistence of public utilitas 196 and philosophical aequitas. This debate influenced by Stoicism became particularly lively towards the end of the second century bc and was in part resolved by Cicero drawing inspiration from Panaetius: 197 Haec ad iudicandum sunt facillima. Nam si quid ab homine ad nullam partem utili utilitatis tuae causa detraxeris, inhumane feceris contraque naturae legem, sin autem is tu sis, qui multam utilitatem rei publicae atque hominum societati, si in vita remaneas, adferre possis si quid ob eam causam alteri detraxeris, non sit reprehendendum. Sin autem id non sit eiusmodi, suum cuique incommodum ferendum est potius quam de alterius commodis detrahendum. Non igitur magis est contra naturam morbus aut egestas aut quid eiusmodi quam detractio atque appetitio alieni, sed communis utilitatis derelictio contra naturam est; est enim iniusta. Cicero’s interpretation is particularly suited to explaining the evolution of Roman thought from the Greek ideal on which it depended with regard to the question of arbitration and its essential neutrality. Cicero’s writing clearly outlines the pragmatic concept of utilitas – which is never separated from that of aequitas 198 – whose application to the field of iustitia confers upon law Labeo, when he had been in that region, had fixed as the boundary for Philip the ancient royal road which leads to Paroreia in Thrace, nowhere approaching the sea: Philip had later laid out a new road which encompassed the cities and lands of the Maroneans”. 196 János 2014. 197 Cic. Off. 3.30: “These cases are very easy to decide. For if merely for one’s own benefit one were to take something away from a man, though he were a perfectly worthless fellow, it would be an act of meanness and contrary to nature’s law. But suppose one would be able, by remaining alive, to render signal service to the state and to human society – if from that motive one should take something from another, it would not be a matter for censure. But if such is not the case, each one must bear his own burden of distress rather than rob a neighbour of his rights. We are not to say, therefore, that sickness or want or any evil of that sort is more repugnant to nature than to covet and to appropriate what is one’s neighbour’s; but we do maintain that disregard of the common interests is repugnant to nature; for it is unjust”. See Gabba 1979. 198 Cic. Fin. 3.71; Off. 3.119. 58 GIFBIB_21.indb 58 03/12/19 12.28 THE CONCEPT OF ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ARBITRATION IN THE ROMAN WORLD “quella funzione pratica che ne giustifica l’essenza”. 199 The above passage significantly refers to a case in which removing a good from an individual might damage to another, underlining how such an action can only be considered contrary to nature’s law if it merely benefits a single person whereas no blame would be attributed if this action was carried out for the utilitas rei publicae. The inevitable consequence of this can only be the recognition of ius civile as the result of a balance between aequitas and utilitas. 200 In fact, resolutions like those applied by Rome to the boundary dispute between Carthage and Massinissa can be explained precisely by the role attributed to communis utilitas 201 in the Roman conception of iustitia. This episode – believed to be the oldest case of Roman arbitration in the West (193-151 bc) 202 – is a perfect example of the arbitral instrument being used for primarily political rather than legal purposes with the aim of safeguarding the decisions imposed by the hegemonic power that risked being compromised. 203 As Lemosse has pointed out, the systematic partiality apparently characterising Rome’s actions in this context is legitimised – although not necessarily excused – precisely by the highly charged idea of the constant search for utilitas: 204 Ἀμφοτέρων δὲ ποιουμένων τὴν ἀναφορὰν ἐπὶ τὴν σύγκλητον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων, καὶ πρεσβευτῶν πολλάκις ἐληλυθότων διὰ ταῦτα παρ᾽ ἑκατέρων, αἰεὶ συνέβαινε τοὺς Καρχηδονίους ἐλαττοῦσθαι παρὰ τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις, οὐ τοῖς δικαίοις, ἀλλὰ τῷ πεπεῖσθαι τοὺς κρίνοντας συμφέρειν σφίσι τὴν τοιαύτην γνώμην […] Mastino 2013, p. 5. Cic. Top. 9. 201 On the value to be assigned to this syntagm, see Scevola 2012, pp. 350-362. 202 Liv. 34.62.1-17; 40.17.1-6; 42.23-24; Per. 48; App. Lyb. 10.67-69. 203 Lemosse 1966. Cf. Scuderi 1991a, pp. 409-414. 204 Polyb. 31.21.5-6: “Both parties appealed to the Senate about their differences, and numerous embassies had come from both on the subject, but the Carthaginians always came off second best at Rome, not because they had not right on their side, but because the judges were convinced that it was in their own interest to decide against them”. For other similar judgements concerning Roman actions reported by Polybius: Polyb. 31.10.6-7; 31.11.11. On the terminology used by the historian, see Compatangelo-Soussignan 2011, pp. 54-55. 199 200 59 GIFBIB_21.indb 59 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC From the Roman perspective, this type of behaviour, which was condemned by the Greek historian Polybius, was merely the political application of a legal instrument whose impartiality was generally respected without hindering actions that considered the opportunity linked to every single case. This peculiar aspect of the Roman practice also seems to emerge from the tripartite division of Rome’s ‘international’ relationships proposed by De Ruggiero in the late nineteenth century. He perceptively suggested distinguishing the arbitral function exercised by Rome according to the legal status of the disputing parties with respect to the Republic, 205 pointing out that it exercised different forms of auctoritas with regard to different litigants: – the auctoritas connected to its status as a political entity: in the case of populations maintaining their sovereignty de jure but were de facto dependent upon Rome (which established a federal relation with them) and populations whose territory lay within Roman territory, albeit for different reasons, and had an administrative type relationship with Rome; – the auctoritas of hegemonic power with regard to those peoples situated outside the political and territorial boundaries of the Roman state and with whom Rome would establish a fully ‘international’ relationship. v. c. 205 De Ruggiero 1893, p. 36. 60 GIFBIB_21.indb 60 03/12/19 12.28 2. URBAN AREAS AND TERRITORIAL DISPUTES ACROSS THE ITALIC PENINSULA Il paesaggio è nozione spessa che indica un’area riconosciuta come omogenea per l’interazione di fattori naturali e umani, ma non corrisponde necessariamente a uno specifico spazio geografico, amministrativo o d’intervento; piuttosto, un modo di vedere, e di vedersi. (Cremaschi 2015) 2.1. Roman intervention in Italy: similarities and differences with the approach used in the Greek world As mentioned, the dossier on second-century bc territorial disputes in the Italic peninsula involving Rome as arbitrator is rather scanty when compared to evidence for similar controversies in Greece and Asia Minor during the same period. However, we find a similar lack of information in the wider context of diplomatic exchanges between Rome and its Italic allies. According to Bonnefond-Coudry, while an endless stream of embassies reached Rome from the East of the empire, 206 only eight Italic delegations were sent to the Senate to request intervention (from 202 bc to 91 bc). 207 Although the former figure – including only episodes in which the presence of a foreign embassy in Rome is mentioned explicitly – may perhaps need to be increased, 208 it certainly gives an idea of the orders of magnitude of the phenomenon overall. In the specific case of boundary issues involving Rome and civitates and/or peoples in the peninsular area, the scarcity of evidence (a maximum of six episodes even if we include two rather 206 Canali De Rossi 1997 which lists 780 “diplomatic events” concerning embassies sent from the Greek world and received by the Roman Senate throughout the Republican period as well as a further 80 for the period between 200 bc and 167 bc alone; Canali De Rossi 2009 (with updated bibliography). Cf. BuonoCore 2015. 207 Bonnefond-Coudry 1989, pp. 296-303. Cf. Canali De Rossi 2000. 208 Linderski 1995, p. 454 n. 5. 61 GIFBIB_21.indb 61 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC dubious disputes between Aricia and Ardea and between Nola and Neapolis) might be due to material, historiographic, or even political considerations such as: – the epigraphic supports bearing texts describing Rome’s intervention in similar disputes. In the West, unlike in the Greek East, news of the resolution of a dispute was often inscribed on cippi or boundary stones, which were obviously far more subject to wear and tear than other types of support; – the tendency of historians to focus more on episodes with a greater ‘international’ impact during a period involving major conflicts in the eastern part of the empire; – the fact that Rome did not really invest in its diplomatic relations with its Italic allies (compared to the approach attested between the second and first century bc with the Rhodians, Stratonikeia and Aphrodisias, for example 209). On the other hand, Rome’s attitude to the Italic populations, defined by Jehne as an example of “undiplomatic diplomacy”, 210 reveals a similar indifference to that distinguishing its relations with the Hellenistic world in similar cases. Nonetheless, while Italic communities may not have encountered open hostility in Rome – in fact, they enjoyed legal protection from the abuses and excesses of Roman magistrates – they did not seem to make frequent recourse to the instrument of diplomacy (in general) or of arbitration (in particular), preferring to act through a process of “lobbying” that involved exercising ‘informal’ pressure on public decision-makers with the aim of influencing the decision-making process. 211 This preference was probably due to a variety of motives: 209 Ferrary 1988, pp. 139-140. In 100 bc, 81 bc, and 39 bc, respectively, the ambassadors from these communities were granted the right to be received first by the Senate, extra ordinem. For the case of the Rhodians: see Crawford 1996, no. 12 (in part. p. 254), Delphi B ll. 17-19; for Stratonikeia: see RDGE no. 18, ll. 65-66; for Aphrodisias: see Reynolds 1982, doc. 8, ll. 78-82 and doc. 9, ll. 11-15. 210 Jehne 2009, p. 169. 211 This is revealed by the relative absence of embassies even with regard to events whose impact upon the fates of Italic communities was far greater than that of boundary disputes. Examples of these are the enactment of the agrarian law of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus or the proposals for land distribution put forward by Livius Drusus (Jehne 2009, p. 167). 62 GIFBIB_21.indb 62 03/12/19 12.28 URBAN AREAS AND TERRITORIAL DISPUTES ACROSS THE ITALIC PENINSULA – in a general sense, to the difficulties encountered by these communities in bringing matters of Italic interest to the attention of the Roman Senate. This was also due to the scarse personal involvement of Roman senators in such issues to the extent that often the success of such embassies rested on the capacity of a patronus to protect the interests of his clients; 212 – in a more specific sense, to the very nature of the arbitral process, which meant that a defeat was not necessarily a disaster from a legal point of view and would not have caused concern among the patroni, causing them to intervene. However, on the few occasions leading to Roman involvement in boundary disputes in the peninsula, it tended to intervene directly rather than delegating the decision to a community or third party as it tended to do in similar controversies in the Greek sphere. 2.2. The concept of boundary in the Roman world: juridical-religious and fiscal value As Laffi has noted, during this phase, control of Italy could be maintained by a complex series of interventions involving recourse to an extremely variegated arsenal of solutions: from the direct to the indirect approach, from the automatic to the solicited response. 213 In the same period, Polybius clarified the Senate’s responsibilities towards private citizens and cities in Italy, explaining that it would intervene whenever they claimed damages or required succour or protection. 214 This carefully-considered intervention was determined above all by the model of societas defining Rome’s relations with the peoples residing in Italy. In peninsular Italy, unlike in extra-Italic territories, the Roman alliance was rooted primarily in a tendentially perpetual military-based relationship established for defensive and/or offensive reasons. 215 212 213 214 215 Eilers 2002, pp. 90-91. Laffi 2001a, p. 34. Polyb. 6.13.5. Cursi 2013, pp. 197-199. 63 GIFBIB_21.indb 63 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Rome’s main concern, especially in this area of its dominions, was to safeguard “demographic size”, thus not only guaranteeing the stability of allied states but also the continuity of their contribution to the war effort. Although of questionable effectiveness, 216 the measures taken by Rome at the request of the communities concerned in order to reimpatriate Latins and citizens from the allied states who had moved to Rome 217 and to increase the number of colonists in several Latin colonies 218 (two of which situated in the Cisalpine area 219) must be seen in this light. The socii were also well aware of the risks associated with a drastic drop in population, even placing this issue at the heart of the complaints brought to Rome by an embassy in 177 bc: 220 Moverunt senatum et legationes socium nominis Latini, quae et censores et priores consules fatigaverant, tandem in senatum introductae. Summa querellarum erat, cives suos Romae censos plerosque Romam commigrasse; quod si permittatur, perpaucis lustris futurum, ut deserta oppida, deserti agri nullum militem dare possint. Fregellas quoque milia quattuor familiarum transisse ab se Samnites Paelignique querebantur, neque eo minus aut hos aut illos in dilectu militum dare. In view of these initial considerations, we can clearly imagine the significance assumed by the few certain cases of boundary disputes in the Italic territory that saw Rome’s involvement in the capacity of arbiter. Such disputes not only represented an area of wider ‘international’ interest to Rome than might appear at first glance 216 Liv. 42.10.1-5. On the lingering problems associated with the adoptio civitatis mutandae causa, see Longchamps de Bérier 2013, pp. 73-98. With regard to the political implications of the application of the formula togatorum, see Broadhead 2008; Erdkamp 2008. 217 In 187 bc: Liv. 39.3.4-6; in 177 bc: Liv. 41.8.6-12 and 41.9.9-12. 218 In 199 bc: Liv. 32.2.6; in 197 bc: Liv. 33.24.8-9. 219 Piacenza and Cremona in 190 bc (Liv. 37.46.9-11). 220 Liv. 41.8.6-7: “The Senate was also moved by embassies from the allies of the Latin name, who had wearied both the censors and the previous consuls, and had finally been brought in to the Senate. The point of their complaints was that a great number of their citizens had migrated to Rome and had been registered at Rome; and that, if this trend were allowed to continue, within a few lustra, their deserted towns and deserted territories would not be able to produce a single soldier. Samnites and Paelignians were also complaining that 4000 families from their territory had gone over to Fregellae, and that neither of them as a result of this emigration furnished any fewer soldier in the levy”. 64 GIFBIB_21.indb 64 03/12/19 12.28 URBAN AREAS AND TERRITORIAL DISPUTES ACROSS THE ITALIC PENINSULA from the texts but also a resolutive reference within domestic policy given the sensitive nature of the task of maintaining clear property boundaries both in the juridical-religious and fiscal spheres. 221 The political resonance of the issue of boundaries within the Roman sphere emerges clearly from the cultural development of the science of geography, which had its cradle in Greece. Descriptive geography, which was developed for primarily practical ends, was so deeply rooted in the mentality of Rome – which used it both as a tool and theoretical justification of its ‘global’ dominion 222 – as to become proverbial: 223 Maiores itaque orbem in partibus, partes in provinciis, provincias in regionibus, regiones in locis, loca in territoriis, territoria in agris, agros in centuriis, centurias in iugeribus, iugera in climatibus, deinde climata in actus, perticas, passus, gradus, cubitos, pedes, palmos, uncias et digitos dividerunt; tanta enim fuit illorum sollertia. In Roman culture, more than in Greek culture, 224 the concept of the irremovability of a boundary had a strong ritual valence that gave termini and terminatio a fully synchronic and diachronic consistency notably expressed by the restituit-restituerunt formula inscribed on the boundary stones restored after a dispute. 225 The meaning attributed to the physical, fixed terminus that is irremovable from its original position 226 appears like the ideal justification 221 On the complexity of connecting legal concepts, historic data and local metrology – already apparent in the texts on gromatic techniques – see Tarpin 2014. Cf. Capogrossi Colognesi 2002. 222 Kolb 2016a; with particular attention to the Republican processes of limitatio and centuriatio as points of departure for the territorial control developed during the Empire, see Kolb 2016b. 223 Isid. Etym. 15.15.1: “Thus our ancestors divided the earth into parts, parts into provinces, provinces into regions, regions into locales, locales into territories, territories into fields, fields into hundred-measures, hundred-measures into jugers, jugers into lots sixty feet square, and then these lots into furrow-measures, Roman rods, paces, steps, cubits, feet, palms, inches, and fingers. So great was their ingenuity” [English translation: S. A. Barney, W. J. Lewis, J. A. Beach, O. Berghof (eds), The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, Cambridge 2006]. On the ‘geographic precision’ of the Romans (often denied) and its implications for road planning, see Davies 1998. 224 Rousset 1994, pp. 110 ff. Rykwert refers to Rome’s virtual “obsession” with spatial delimitation (Rykwert 1976, pp. 38-67). 225 Scuderi 1991b. 226 Of particular relevance here is the reference to the body of documentation originating from the Italic pensinsula relative to the boundary markers for both 65 GIFBIB_21.indb 65 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC of the greatest innovation introduced to the Greek inter-poleis arbitral model by the Roman practice: the identification of a temporal terminus as a resolutive element identifying the successful petitioner in a boundary dispute which, generally, suggested the confirmation of authoritative demarcations existing prior to the start of the controversy. Evidence from the Hellenistic world suggests that, in the second century bc, whenever Rome pronounced a resolutive formula (gnome), the aim was essentially to establish which of the disputing parties possessed the territory at the time of entering into a relationship of amicitia with Rome, 227 thereby maintaining civic harmony by upholding previously issued judgements. 228 Reference to a specific historic moment imposed by the Senate as “a decisive moment for the establishment of a right” 229 not only allowed Rome to act effectively but also in line with the tradition of the agrimensores by ‘restoring’, also in a symbolical sense, a pre-existing situation with the aim of guaranteeing the stability of the area. Not surprisingly, this type of approach, which was highly pragmatic but possibly not fully understood by the Greek world, was properties that were publicly owned (TLE2 632 = CIE 439, second century bc) or privately owned (TLE2 570 = CIE 4538; TLE2 692 = CII suppl. I 254, both of which attributable to the third-second century bc), collected in Comella 2005. See also Gregori 2019. 227 On the interesting evidence (SIG3 679) transmitted with regard to the dispute between Magnesia on the Meander and Priene (around 140 bc) see Camia 2009, p. 83: “Scegliere come terminus l’ingresso nell’amicitia con Roma significava garantire che la città che possedeva legalmente la terra quando era diventata ‘amica’ di Roma non perdesse questo diritto; si tratta di una manifestazione del principio secondo cui gli ‘amici e alleati’ di Roma godono della sua protezione in fatto di integrità territoriale. Se questa formula venisse impiegata in un caso riguardante uno stato che non era ‘amico e alleato’ di Roma, allora si potrebbe accusare il Senato di ‘partigianeria’ e imparzialità; ma, di regola, coloro che si rivolgevano a Roma erano ‘amici e alleati’ di Roma, e, nella fattispecie, sia Priene che Magnesia lo erano”. 228 A significant reference relative to the clash between Sparta and Megalopolis (163 bc) can be found in IvO 47, ll. 38-41. 229 Magnetto 2015, p. 83. Although it dates to the Imperial period, it may be useful to consider the case brought forward by this author (Magnetto 2015, p. 84) as evidence of the difficulties experienced by the Greeks in applying a similar ‘formula’ to their by now consolidated arbitral system. According to Tacitus, when the Lacedaemonians and Messenians appeared before Tiberius and the Senate to settle a dispute, they traced their claims back to the mythical division of the Peloponnese between the descendents of Hercules. 66 GIFBIB_21.indb 66 03/12/19 12.28 URBAN AREAS AND TERRITORIAL DISPUTES ACROSS THE ITALIC PENINSULA open to misinterpretation, causing Rome to be considered more decisionist and interventionist than it actually was. 2.3. Pisae vs Luna (168 bc) The dispute between civitas foederata (Pisae) and colony (Luna) was for example directly linked to the activities of the triumvirs in charge of the deduction of the latter 230 in order to control the Ligures more effectively. It is likely that at the time of this event (177 bc), Luni was not only the acknowledged owner of lands taken from the Apuani but also of at least part of the ager offered by Pisa three years earlier for the foundation – which never came about – of a Latin colony. 231 Although the outcome of the dispute is not known, thanks to Livy 232 we know that it arose with regard to an area that the federated community held to have been unlawfully taken from it while the colony claimed its possession on the basis of the land allocations made by the triumvirs a decade earlier. As noted by Scuderi, 233 the dispute probably involved overlapping issues, confirmed by the fact that a certain Q uintus Fabius Buteo 234 was both the foremost member of the original commission of triumvirs as well as of the group of five envoys entrusted by the Senate with establishing the boundaries after this case had been brought before it. For Rome, maintaining control of Pisa and the port of Luni – the latter probably already from 195 bc onwards – played a key role in safeguarding its route to Corsica and Sardinia, as part of its anti-Carthaginian strategy, but would also have had a beneficial impact on the ongoing conflict with the warlike populations of Ligures that represented a serious threat to the stability of the area. This is clearly shown by the fact that: – Rome actually lost control of the Via Aurelia Nova 235 in this first years of the second century bc and did not regain it until 185 bc; 230 231 232 233 234 235 Liv. 41.13.4-5. Angeli Bertinelli 2011. Liv. 40.43.1. Liv. 45.13.10-11. Scuderi 1991a, p. 375. Liv. 40.43.1; 45.13.11. Coarelli 1985-1987, pp. 23-26. 67 GIFBIB_21.indb 67 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC – 180 bc saw both the celebrated deportation of the Ligures in Samnium as well as Pisa’s generous offer of a part of its territory – frequently ravaged by incursions made by tribes from northern Italy 236 – for the foundation of a colony; – a number of Roman denarii (and some quinarii) issued prior to the mid-second century bc featured the goddess Luna in a biga, 237 a sign both of the resonance of the clashes with the Ligures as well as of the importance attributed to Luni on the stage of political and military operations undertaken against this population. 2.4. Ateste vs Patavium (141 bc) and Ateste vs Vicetia (135 bc) Roman intervention on behalf of these three communities was remarkable in that it attests Rome’s direct interest – in determined contexts – even in areas lying outside what were considered the political boundaries of Roman Italy at the time of these events. This is almost certainly due to the fact that already by the time of the Second Punic War, the geographic perception of Italy extended as far as the Alps 238 (even though the Cisalpine area had yet to be reduced to provincial status, in the administrative sense of the term 239). However, this does not lessen the significance of Rome’s decision to intervene directly in this type of territory. In fact, Rome’s decision to entrust the mandate to the proconsuls may suggest 240 that, already at this early date, it was treating this area of the peninsula as if it were a provincia coming under the jurisdiction of a promagistrate. 241 Liv. 34.56.2; 41.19.1; Polyb. 2.16.2. Pedroni 2009. 238 Polyb. 2.14.6; 3.39.9-10 and 54.2; Liv. 21.30.5 and 35.8-10; Serv. ad Aen. 10.13; cf. Cato Orig. 4, fr. 10 Chassignet. On the complex role played by the Alps as a geographical and ethnographical boundary, see Migliario 2011-2012, pp. 28-29 (with reference to Strabo), while on the survival of this concept in Late Antique panegyric literature, see Bersani 2003. In relation to the importance of fixing ‘natural’ boundaries in the Roman context, see Scuderi 1991c. 239 Laffi 1992. 240 Migliario 2010, p. 100. 241 Crawford 1990, pp. 103-109. 236 237 68 GIFBIB_21.indb 68 03/12/19 12.28 URBAN AREAS AND TERRITORIAL DISPUTES ACROSS THE ITALIC PENINSULA Four short, very similar texts describing the intervention in the Venetic area by the proconsuls Lucius Caecilius and Sextus Atilius Saranus are inscribed upon four boundary markers: 242 L(ucius) Caicilius Q (uinti) f(ilius), pro co(n)s(ule), terminos / finisque iuset statui ex senati / consolto inter Patavinos Atestinosque; 243 Sex(tus) Atilius M(arci) f(ilius) Saranus, pro co(n)s(ule), / ex senati consulto / inter Atestinos et Veicetinos / finis terminosque statui iusit. 244 The two cases, described in texts clearly referring to the intervention of the Senate but – on closer examination – less direct with regard to recourse to arbitration, which can only be assumed through comparison with coeval evidence, appear to be closely linked to the political dynamics affecting the Venetic area in that period. 245 Without specifically addressing the issue that will be discussed in the next chapter, it is worth emphasising a number of aspects making the Cisalpine case particularly enlightening for our understanding of the reasons that led Rome to intervene as intermediary in an ongoing boundary dispute within the Italic territory. In the first case, for example, if we accept the plausible identification of proconsul Lucius Caecilius (mentioned in the epigraphic texts) with the consul of 142 bc, 246 we will certainly note the close chronological proximity between the emergence of boundary problems between Este and Padua and the development (around 148 bc) of the route that would become the main axis in this region: the Via Postumia which went through Vicetia. Although the territories of the cities involved in these boundary disputes were apparently not affected by the centuriation car242 Ateste vs Patavium: CIL I2 633 = V 2491 = ILS 5944a (found on Monte Venda, it bears two inscriptions of the same text); CIL I2 634 = V 2492 = ILS 5944 (from Teolo, it also has two inscriptions of the same text); CIL I2 2501 = AE 1923, 64 (from Galzignano Terme). Cf. ILLRP 476. Ateste vs Vicetia: CIL I2 636 = V 2490 = ILS 5945 = ILLRP 477 (from Lobia, near Lonigo). For other boundary inscriptions found in northern Italy, see Šašel Kos 2002. For an overview of the studies linked to the four inscriptions considered, see Bandelli 1998a, p. 153. 243 CIL I2 2501 = AE 1923, 64 = ILLRP 476. 244 CIL I2 636 = V 2490 = ILS 5945 = ILLRP 477. 245 Buchi 1993. 246 Forlati Tamaro 1961-1962, p. 115. 69 GIFBIB_21.indb 69 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC ried out in connection with the road network being created in the Venetic area, it is interesting to note that these three cities – reached by the Via Annia-Aemilia 247 (Este and Padua) and by the Via Postumia (Vicenza) – all manifested unmistakeable signs of an internal crisis. This crisis – which may be linked to earlier questions of land ownership that were of particular concern in the Venetic area – may have been heralded by two other events 248 that had already required Roman intervention in the first half of the second century bc, possibly but not necessarily 249 in compliance with the obligations established by a foedus with the Veneti peoples: 250 – the expulsion ordered by Rome in 186 bc of the Celtic groups that had settled in the eastern Venetic area; 251 – the dispatch by the Senate at the request of the local population of the proconsul Marcus Aemilius Lepidus to put down a seditio that took place in Padua between 175 bc and 174 bc. 252 The construction of this route linking Bologna or Adria to Aquileia is usually dated to 153 bc (Wiseman 1989; Bandelli 2007, p. 21) although there are scholars who call upon the evidence in Strab. 5.1.11 to attribute its construction to Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, thus dating the construction of this ‘Venetic’ stretch of the Via Aemilia to 175 bc. (Bosio 1997, pp. 31-41). A final hypothesis suggests an ‘early’ dating of the road to 131 bc (cf. Cresci Marrone 2004). 248 Buchi 1993. 249 Bosio (Bosio 1976, p. 69) does not believe in the existence of a proper foedus between Rome and the Venetian communities, suggesting that there was a tacit acceptance of Roman rule. This is what Laffi (Laffi 2001a, p. 34) defined as a “realistic acceptance of Roman hegemony” based on the exercise of force and the encouragement of consensus through co-existence. Laffi suggests that this type of acceptance was compensated by the extension of a series of political and economic advantages to the peoples involved that might include the possibility of submitting requests not only foreseen ex foedere. On a certain degree of spontaneousness linked to recourse to the power of Rome, see also Sartori 1981, p. 110. 250 On the wording of the foedera stipulated with the Cisalpine peoples between the late third century bc and the early second century bc (Bandelli 2017, pp. 381-382) and on the possible inclusion of a ‘clause’ connected to the recourse to the arbitral practice, see Calderazzo 1996, pp. 37-38. In the specific case of the Veneti, the hypothetical foedus could date to as early as 225 bc, a year in which there is a documented provision of a contingent of 20,000 Veneti and Cenomans to fight with Rome’s allied forces (Polyb. 2.23.2; 2.24.7). On this matter, see Gabba 1990a, pp. 75-76. 251 Liv. 39.22.6-7; 39.45.6-7; 39.54.2-13; 39.55.1-6. 252 Liv. 41.27.3-4. 247 70 GIFBIB_21.indb 70 03/12/19 12.28 URBAN AREAS AND TERRITORIAL DISPUTES ACROSS THE ITALIC PENINSULA Once again Rome’s intervention, requested or not, in an area of the peninsula that had yet to be formally annexed among its possessions, would be characterised by a blend of pragmatism and caution. While, on the one hand, the text on the termini drawn up exclusively in Latin 253 and the use of the (supposedly) authoritarian formula statui iusit reveal the strong influence exercised by the Senate in the Venetic area, it is also true that proconsular intervention would have sought to maintain the socio-economic balances within the local communities 254 – something to which Rome was very committed – by restoring a pre-existing situation of ownership. This was particularly likely in a context like that of Venetia, where the only surviving public inscriptions in Venetic appear on boundary markers. 255 This not only reveals “una precoce attenzione alla fissazione dei confini” also in the legal tradition and customs of pre-Roman Italy – and of the Cisalpine area in particular 256 – but also draws attention to an early ‘civic’ awareness of the Venetic centres that had been thrown into crisis by the new political balances developing in the course of the second century bc. On the other hand, evidence of the Senate’s tendency to always act with forethought in such contexts – especially in those territories with a strong legacy of pre-Roman legal culture – seems to emerge from its virtual absence at the time of the treaty drawn up between Nola and Abella. The treaty involved a terminatio stipulated by communi sententia (in this case, and not by coincidence, written in Oscan) concerning the land belonging to a sanctuary of Hercules, a shared site of worship. 257 The absence of references to measures by the Roman authority in this context is explained by the fact that the terminatio proceedings were successfuly concluded by calling upon magistrates and legates from Nola and Abella 258 and therefore without the need to involve the higher However, the letters reveal a certain ‘Venetic’ influence (Cresci Marrone 2004, p. 31). 254 Cresci Marrone 2013, pp. 24-25. 255 Migliario 2010, pp. 102-105. Cf. Belfiore 2019. 256 Migliario 2010, p. 104; Marinetti, Cresci Marrone 2011, pp. 297-298. See already De Bon 1938. For evidence of this “Venetic tendency” in the Imperial age, see Scuderi 1991a, p. 379 (with previous bibliography). 257 La Regina 2000. 258 Franchi De Bellis 1988. It is possible that the territorial reorganisation resulting from this settlement was actually the result of a local agreement – rather 253 71 GIFBIB_21.indb 71 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC auctoritas of the Senate. Given its ‘minimalist’ approach, Rome must have looked favourably upon the peaceful settlement of a local dispute with a sententia that did not threaten any aspect of its power. 2.5. Genua vs Viturii Langenses (117 bc) The last example (also in the form of an epigraphic text 259) of the Roman Senate’s intervention in the capacity of arbiter in boundary disputes flaring up in the Italic territory concerns the conflict between Genua (civitas foederata, probably already by the third century bc 260) and a group of communities in the heart of Liguria (Viturii Langenses, Odiates, Dectunines, Cavaturines, and Mentovines 261). Again we will not dwell on the details of this controversy (which are still much debated even today 262 and will be tackled in a separate chapter) but will limit ourselves to highlighting a number of essential elements of the Ligurian case so as to understand its perfect inclusion within the dynamics of Roman intervention in similar contexts. As some scholars have pointed out, 263 the events described by this epigraphic document are key not only for our understanding of the local topography and of the relational dynamics between Ligurian populations and the Roman than of Roman intervention. This seems to be supported by the concept of border underpinning this agreement. According to Scuderi, in fact, “il confine appare meno perspicuo rispetto alla linea ideale, indicata nei suoi punti salienti, che si ricostruisce dalle lunghe iscrizioni cretesi o dalla tavola di Polcevera” (Scuderi 1991a, p. 389). 259 CIL I2 584 = V 7749 = ILS 5946 = ILLRP 517. 260 Lamboglia 1939, p. 200; Scuderi 1991a, p. 380; Mennella 2014. 261 In the order in which they are mentioned in CIL V 7749, ll. 38-39. See Arslan 2007. 262 Among the most recent studies devoted to the more significant aspects of the Sententia Minuciorum, it is worth mentioning: Desimoni 1864; Grassi 1864; Poggi 1900; Lamboglia 1939; Lamboglia 1941; Pastorino 1995; Mennella 1998 (for a general historical overview); Castello 1964; Boccaleri 1993; Bianchi 1996; Pasquinucci 2004b; Pasquinucci 2014 (for issues related to the occupation of the territory); Petracco Sicardi 1958-1959; Boccaleri 1989; Boccaleri 1996; Crawford 2003 (for the topographical implications of the Sententia); Sereni 1955, in part. p. 477 (in reference to the exploitation of the territory). 263 Scuderi 1991a; Calderazzo 1996; Compatagnelo-Soussignan 2011; Cairo 2012. 72 GIFBIB_21.indb 72 03/12/19 12.28 URBAN AREAS AND TERRITORIAL DISPUTES ACROSS THE ITALIC PENINSULA authority but also for the definition of political and juridical relations between Rome and the Cisalpine area within the broader dynamic of ‘international’ territorial tensions resolved through Rome’s arbitration. The case of the Polcevera Tablet is extremely interesting in this regard. The text in fact clearly reveals the care taken by the Minucii brothers (and presumably by the agrimensores accompanying them) in defining the layout of the Via Postumia, which not only crossed through the centre of the disputed territories but also cut across through boundaries in several points. 264 These boundaries had to be redefined – as was the case in the Venetic area – in the context of the broader territorial re-arrangement necessary not only for the road to be built but also for the foundation of nearby Dertona datable between 122 bc and 118 bc. 265 Finding a fair resolution to the boundary dispute between the Genuates and Viturii Langenses not only met the ethical demands imposed by the Stoic model but also, and most importantly, it fulfilled the urgent need to ensure the lasting safety of the Roman road network, which as already observed played a vital role not only as the underlying cause of the boundary and land ownership crises but also as a driver in the search for a solution by Roman power. It is in this light that we should once again interpret the use of a specific ‘assertive’ juridical language (statui iusit 266) and the recourse to a series of characteristic procedural details like the dispatch of legates (or proconsuls) to the site of the clash 267 and the reading of the verdict in Rome 268 rather than labelling them as an evil manifestation of Roman imperialism in the West. 269 CIL I2 584 = V 7749, ll. 8; 11-12: ibi termina duo stant circum viam Postumiam […] / ibei terminus stat propter viam Postumiam, inde alter trans viam Postumiam terminus stat; ex eo termino, quei stat / trans viam Postumiam. 265 Vell. Pat. 1.15.5. See Salomone Gaggero 2006, pp. 85-89; Gabba 1983; Fraccaro 1957b. For an overview of the problems linked to the evolution of the legal status of Dertona, see Pettirossi 2012, pp. 67-68. 266 l. 3: Eos fineis facere terminosque statui iuserunt. 267 l. 2: in re praesente cognoverunt. 268 l. 4: ubei ea facta essent, Romam coram venire iouserunt. 269 This is in fact the typical lexicon of private arbitration law (Dig. 50.17.121; 4.8.21; 4.8.23; Tab. Herc. 76.1) and of a procedure in line with the practices of international Greek arbitration (Compatangelo-Soussignan 2011, pp. 58-59). 264 73 GIFBIB_21.indb 73 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC However the political complexity intrinsic to such forms of intervention by Rome, which sought to guarantee the pacification of these areas (also for obvious reasons of self-interest), 270 seems to emerge from a number of facts contained in the Sententia Minuciorum: – the impartiality shown by Rome with regard to both the Genuates and the Viturii. Not only were the latter obliged to pay a vectigal 271 for using the ager publicus to Genua but the Genuates wishing to use it were also required to pay the agreed sum of money and to comply with the decision made by the majority of the Viturii; 272 – the final section of the text allowed for the possibility of appealing against eventual iniquities in the arbitral sentence that had been pronounced; 273 – the co-existence of strong Roman elements 274 (like recourse to payment in victoriati, the use of a specific technical-legal language, and the substantial adaptation of the performance of obligations to the Roman calendar, which clearly means that 270 Williamson 2005, pp. 168-170; 201-202. See Casella, Petraccia [forthcoming]. 271 We are left with the question of whether the vectigal imposed by the Romans, generally considered to be a paltry sum by the standards of the times, could be motivated not only by economic motives (Pedemonte 2018) but also by Rome’s wish to avoid stoking the flames of dissension between the communities. 272 ll. 29-32: Eus (!) quei posidebunt, vectigal Langensibus pro portione dent ita uti ceteri / Langenses, qui eorum in eo agro agrum posidebunt fruenturque. Praeter ea in eo agro ni quis posideto, nisi de maiore parte / Langensium Veituriorum sententia, dum ne alium intro mitat nisi Genuatem aut Veiturium colendi causa. Q uei eorum / de maiore parte Langensium Veiturium sententia ita non parebit, is eum agrum nei habeto nive fruimino. 273 ll. 44-45: Sei quoi de ea re / iniquom videbitur esse, ad nos adeant primo quoque die et ab omnibus controversis et hono(---) publ(---) li(---). Although the debate is still ongoing, the text provides motives in support of the ‘appealability’ of the Sententia only with regard to the decisions taken on the release of prisoners (Fronda 2013; already Castello 1971 and Bianchini 2006). Contra Sereni 1955, pp. 8-9; D’Elia 1973, pp. 34-37; Calderazzo 1996, pp. 36-37, who believe that reference can be made to the complete text of the provision. General considerations on the linguistic specificities of the text can be found in Kraus 1992 and Halla-aho 2018. 274 Bispham 2007, pp. 139-141. 74 GIFBIB_21.indb 74 03/12/19 12.28 URBAN AREAS AND TERRITORIAL DISPUTES ACROSS THE ITALIC PENINSULA the discriminating temporal terminus was set for 117 bc 275) together with equally deeply rooted autochthonous components (revealed by the names of the Ligurian legates, by the emergence of a certain institutional structure for Genua at least and by the absence of punitive sanctions 276) that possibly comes to the fore in the decision to appoint two arbitrators with close ties to the Ligurian territory presumably based on a relationship of “hereditary” patronage. 277 v. c. 275 ll. 35-37: Vectigal anni primi k(alendis) Ianuaris secundis Veturis Langenses in poplicum Genuam dare / debento. Q uod ante k(alendas) Ianuar(ias) primas Langenses fructi sunt eruntque, vectigal invitei dare nei debento. / Prata quae fuerunt proxuma faenisicei L(ucio) Caecilio (et) Q (uinto) Muucio co(n)s(ulibus) in agro poplico, quem Vituries Langenses / posident et quem Odiates et quem Dectunines et quem Cavaturineis et quem Mentovines posident, ea prata, / invitis Langensibus et Odiatibus et Dectuninebus et Cavaturines et Mentovines, quem quisque eorum agrum / posidebit, inviteis eis niquis sicet nive pascat nive fruatur. 276 Foraboschi interprets the absence of sanctions for eventual transgressions of the will of the tribal assembly as a sign of the continuance of sound relationships of solidarity between community members that are typical of clans (Foraboschi 1992, p. 61). 277 Canali De Rossi 2001, p. 47 n. 5. 75 GIFBIB_21.indb 75 03/12/19 12.28 GIFBIB_21.indb 76 03/12/19 12.28 3. THE IMPACT OF THE ROMAN ROAD SYSTEM ON BORDER DISPUTES: CISALPINE GAUL A Roma va naturalmente il merito di aver saputo dar vita ad un completo, efficiente, articolato sistema stradale che, tenendo presenti le indicazioni del passato e le nuove esigenze, l’antico cammino dei popoli e la realtà politica e sociale in atto, seppe armonizzarsi in un grande quadro unitario. (Bosio 1970, p. 21) 3.1. Cisalpine Gaul between geographic imaginary and imperialist policies As we have seen in the previous chapter, Rome’s arbitral intervention in the Italic peninsula – at least those cases known to us – is attested in particular in the northern Italian territories lying between the Aesis and the Arnus to the south and the Alpine arc to the north. 278 Due to its morphological peculiarities, this area – which was ethnically and socially so varied that it was unlikely to have been immediately perceived as a homogeneous territorial unit by the Romans – was certainly recognised as a “defined space” in terms of its main features and as potentially easy to limit (and therefore to control) at local level. Thanks to the “recognisable physiognomy” (as Purcell defined it 279) generated by the renowned fertility of the area, the high mountains surrounding it, and the incredible network of waterways, it is likely that by the first half of the second century bc, this region would have already been included in the Roman geographic imaginary as an integral part of the term Italia. 280 Degrassi 1954. For various problems that have recently emerged with regard to the definition of the eastern border of the area and the extent of the ager of Aquileia, see Šašel Kos 2002. 279 Purcell 1990. 280 Polverini 2010. According to Sisani (Sisani 2016, p. 88), the inclusion of this area within the limits of the terra Italia was not only motivated by geographic and strategic considerations but took place at a legal and sacral level as well as at a political and institutional level. Cf. Harris 2007; Bearzot 2014. 278 77 GIFBIB_21.indb 77 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC The effects of this singularity – which concerned both the region’s morphology and settlement profile – were apparent at both political and cultural level, giving rise, on the one hand, to a rather anomalous administrative entity and, on the other, to the literary creation of a rather diffused common imaginary of the Po Valley. 281 With regard to the political aspect, which is our prime concern here, we should recall, along with Polverini, that the initial phase of Rome’s expansion to the north (at the time of the Battle of Clastidium, 222 bc) and its recognition as a hegemonic power (revealed also by the aforementioned arbitral interventions) by the mid-second century bc were followed by the foundation of the province of Gallia Cisalpina, which probably took place 282 no earlier than the 80s bc. The delay – which is considerable even accepting the earlier dating – between the effective annexation and the redactio in formam provinciae, to which we must add the exceptionally short duration of this administrative situation, which was already dissolved by 42 bc, 283 may be symptomatic of the contingent nature of the choice made by the Roman authority. In fact, it is possible that the logistic and military difficulties involved in governing an area whose extreme social diversification prevented the uniform diffusion of the civic structures necessary for the stable administration of a territory caused Rome to opt for the provincial institution developed for the effective management of extra-Italic territories rather than the tried and tested federal system. During the late Republican period, evidence of the intrinsic dicotomy of this geographical context – fluctuating between a rooted local connotation and the expression of a “flourishing regional Romanity” 284 (to the point that these territories are said Mratschek 1984. Cf. Sisani 2017. The author refers to the use of the term Italia in the clauses with a municipal bearing contained in the Tabula Heracleensis (CIL I2 593 = ILS 6085 = FIRA I2 no. 13; in general see Nicolet 1987) to support the idea that Cisalpine Gaul was already an ordinary province by the last decade of the second century bc. 283 App. Bell. civ. 5.12. Cf. Laffi 2001b. 284 Sena Chiesa 2014, p. 10. 281 282 78 GIFBIB_21.indb 78 03/12/19 12.28 THE IMPACT OF THE ROMAN ROAD SYSTEM ON BORDER DISPUTES: CISALPINE GAUL to have undergone a “Selbstromanisierung” 285) – would emerge again with regard to strong ‘Gallic’ elements held to be typical of the members of the Roman ruling class from this area. This is exemplified by Cicero’s use of the derogatory epithet Placentinus in reference to his enemy Lucius Calpurnius Piso, 286 held to be lacking in urbanitas due to his Gallic origins, or by Gaius Asinius Pollio’s criticism of Livy’s Patavinitas, 287 which extended far beyond the literary sphere. 288 The uniqueness of Rome’s relationship with Cisalpine Gaul, perceived as being geographically univocal but not completely integrated into the reality of peninsular Italy in the strict sense, 289 emerges very clearly and must have been expressed in the search for administrative systems meeting the specific needs as they arose. An initial difference in the forms of subjection adopted by Rome in this area seems to emerge in relation to its most distinctive morphological feature: the Po river. It is generally 285 Fundamental in this regard, Vittinghoff 1970-1971, p. 33. Cf. Le Roux 2004, pp. 287-311 and Cecconi 2006, pp. 81-94. On the impossibility of viewing the process of ‘Romanisation’ as a univocal and monolithic phenomenon, to the point that it would be more appropriate to speak of ‘Romanisations’, see Galsterer 2009. 286 Ascon. Pis. 4.3, fr. 10. On this matter, see Köster 2014, pp. 72-73. 287 Q uint. Inst. 1.5.56; 8.1.3. 288 Latte 1940. 289 The continuing existence of a substantial separation even at the time of the provincialisation of Italy under Diocletian suggests that the annexation of the continental area of Italy was more formal than structural. According to some authors (Polverini 2010), Diocletian’s division of Italy into provinces embodied the polarisation of the dioecesis Italiciana into Italia suburbicaria (roughly corresponding to the peninsular Italy subject to the Roman authority of the vicarius Urbis) and Italia annonaria (the northern part of the peninsula that was under the authority of the vicarius Italiae residing in Milan). This consideration is generally used to support the claim that in Late Antiquity, breaking with a custom existing since the fifth century bc, the name Italia was applied to the northern region of the peninsula only. This area was also beginning to distinguish itself from the south in economic and fiscal terms (Cracco Ruggini 1961). In actual fact, as shown by Giardina (Giardina 1997, pp. 272-274) it is plausible that the identification (which is extremely rare in the official documents) of the name Italia with a restricted area of the peninsula was due to the overlapping of competencies between the vicarius Italiae (theoretically charged with governing the entire diocesis of Italy) and the vicarius resident in Rome who was responsible for a part of the peninsula. According to Giardina, the ambiguity of the title attributed to the vicarius Italiae “finì per provocare l’attribuzione […] del nome Italia, in forma esclusiva, a quella stessa parte”. 79 GIFBIB_21.indb 79 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC thought that this “complex form of domination” resulted in a more direct intervention by the Senate in the area south of the river (exterminations, deportations, and confiscations followed by redistribution of land for colonies or in the form of viritane assignments) and in a less aggressive approach in the north (imposition of foedera on the native populations). Actually, as pointed out by Bandelli, such a systematic approach would require us to accept the idea – which is rather hard to defend – that during this stage of expansion, Rome’s military and diplomatic actions were guided exclusively by the single-minded desire of its ruling classes to pursue a deliberate long-term imperialistic policy 290 rather than by the individual actions of a number of prominent personalities driven by contingent interests in terms of clientship. 291 The decisive role of specific individuals in Roman expansionist politics in the Cisalpine territory emerges all the more forcefully if we consider that those repeatedly involved in the protracted process of administrative organisation of the area (which drew upon various types of intervention ranging from military to diplomatic measures) would frequently have encountered the following in their operations: – on the one hand, resistance from a part of that senatorial nobilitas whose shared politics they were supposed to express. This opposition was rooted both in economic assumptions (regarding the looming threat that viritane land allotments posed for the possessores) as well as in political considerations (linked to fears that the civic body would be dispersed in new pools of voters with strong ties to the promoter of such initiatives); 292 This theory is found in several works, including Luttwak 1976; Peyre 1979 (in part. pp. 43-52); Harris 1979 (in part. pp. 175-200). More recently, see Calderazzo 1996, p. 25 who speaks of Rome’s “planned” intervention in Cispadana. 291 As described by Cassola 1962, pp. 146-171; 209-228. See also Bandelli 1998b. More recently, Bradley (Bradley 2014, pp. 65-66) suggested that the necessary preconditions for the development of a possible long-term strategy enacted by Rome’s highest authoritative body (with particular reference to the vitality of the Senate and the birth in these very decades of a ruling class conceiving itself as such, see Hölkeskamp 1993) ‘only’ came about at the end of the fourth century bc. 292 Bandelli 2005. 290 80 GIFBIB_21.indb 80 03/12/19 12.28 THE IMPACT OF THE ROMAN ROAD SYSTEM ON BORDER DISPUTES: CISALPINE GAUL – on the other hand, the approval of the popular masses who would benefit, among other things, from the huge expenditure of public funds and the increase in employment opportunities resulting from the construction of the great viae publicae. In fact, historiographic rhetoric branded such initiatives as actions with a high demagogic impact. 293 One case involving Gaius Flaminius would prove decisive for the historical and social evolution of the Cisalpine region. Polybius, heaping on the head of this Roman magistrate all the contempt he has amassed with regard to agrarian policies introduced by the revolutionary programmes of the Greek democrats, 294 accuses him not only of promoting a demagogic programme with negative effects on customs, but also of contradicting himself 295 by causing the outbreak of hostilities with the Boii: 296 Μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον τον φόβον ἔτει πέμπτῳ, Μάρκου Λεπέδου στρατηγοῦντος, κατεκληρούχησαν ἐν Γαλατίᾳ ̔Ρωμαῖοι τὴν Πικεντίνην προσαγορευομένην χώραν, ἐξ ἧς νικήσαντες ἐξέβαλον τοὺς Σήνωνας προσαγορευομένους Γαλάτας, Γαΐου Φλαμινίου ταύτην τὴν δημαγωγίαν εἰσηγησαμένου καὶ πολιτείαν, ἣν δὴ καὶ ̔Ρωμαίοις ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν φατέον ἀρχηγὸν μὲν γενέσθαι τῆς ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον τοῦ δήμου διαστροφῆς, αἰτίαν δὲ καὶ τοῦ μετὰ ταῦτα πολέμου συστάντος αὐτοῖς πρὸς τοὺς προειρημένους. Πολλοὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν Γαλατῶν ὑπεδύοντο τὴν πρᾶξιν, μάλιστα δ’ οἱ Βοῖοι, διὰ τὸ συντερμονεῖν τῇ τῶν ̔Ρωμαίων χώρᾳ, νομίσαντες οὐχ 293 As in the case of Gaius Sempronius Gracchus (mentioned by Plutarch and Appian: Plut. C. Gr. 6-7; App. Bell. civ. 1.23), but Appius Claudius was also accused of harbouring similar ambitions (Liv. 9.29.5-9; Diod. Sic. 20.36). 294 For an overview of the motives that may have led Polybius to include such a negative portrayal of Gaius Flaminius in his work, not least, the hostile attitude to this aedilis in the oral tradition of the Scipionic Circle, see Vishnia 2012, pp. 27-32. 295 Polyb. 2.21.3. See also Zon. 8.18. 296 Polyb. 2.21.7-9: “Five years after this alarm, in the consulship of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, the Romans divided among their citizens the territory in Gaul known as Picenum, from which they had ejected the Senones when they conquered them. Gaius Flaminius was the originator of this popular policy, which we must pronounce to have been, one may say, the first step in the demoralization of the populace, as well as the cause of the war with the Gauls which followed. For what prompted many of the Gauls and especially the Boii, whose territory bordered on that of Rome, to take action was the conviction that now the Romans no longer made war on them for the sake of supremacy and sovereignty, but with a view to their total expulsion and extermination”. Cf. Plut. Marc. 4. 81 GIFBIB_21.indb 81 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC ὑπὲρ ἡγεμονίας ἔτι καὶ δυναστείας ̔Ρωμαίους τὸν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ποιήσασθαι πόλεμον, ἀλλ’ ὑπὲρ ὁλοσχεροῦς ἐξαναστάσεως καὶ καταφθορᾶς. While the accusation that Flaminius has changed the way the Boii perceived the Romans – by allocating the ager Gallicus in 232 bc and subsequently constructing the Via Flaminia around 223 bc – appears to be rooted in Polybian “causation-theory”, 297 the allegations of demagogy made against Flaminius probably came directly from a contemporary witness to these events: Fabius Pictor, a member of the most conservative Senatorial class, 298 who had a similar aversion to those seeking to entice the masses. This analysis of the facts by Polybius further confirms the decisive role played by strong competition within the upper echelons of the Roman State both as a ‘driver’ and/or check to the process of expansionism in the Cisalpine region. Yet, as we shall see, it was in northern Italy that the Senate intervened most incisively in magisterial matters. As noted by Eckstein with regard to events that took place in the third century bc, 299 this happened both because the assembly was physically closer to the field of action of those charged with conducting military and/or diplomatic operations (this proximity obviously also facilitated communications) but also because of the concrete threat posed by the consequences of such actions for the centres of interest – still strongly Italocentric – and of power of the Patres. Leaving aside the specific figure of Gaius Flaminius, it cannot be denied that the construction (or restoration) of a road, then as now, 300 was a highly political act, dense with consequences. While it may seem anachronistic 301 to refer to the legendary attention devoted to this activity by Octavian/Augustus, it may be opportune to at least touch upon the episode described by Cicero Eckstein 2012, p. 209. Mineo 2011, pp. 111-112. 299 Cf. Eckstein 1987, pp. 3-72 who believes that only substantial concordia between the disputing parties would have allowed the cumbersome Roman decision-making mechanism to work. 300 See, for example, recent news of China’s ‘infrastructural colonisation’ of the African continent (Broadman 2007). 301 For the road-building policies enacted during the Principate, see Laurence 1999, pp. 40-52. 297 298 82 GIFBIB_21.indb 82 03/12/19 12.28 THE IMPACT OF THE ROMAN ROAD SYSTEM ON BORDER DISPUTES: CISALPINE GAUL in a letter to his friend Atticus in 65 bc regarding the candidacy of a certain Thermus as consul: 302 Nostris rationibus maxime conducere videtur Thermum fieri cum Caesare. Nemo est enim ex iis, qui nune petunt, qui, si in nostrum annum reciderit, firmior eandidatus fore videatur, propterea quod curator est viae Flaminiae, quae tum erit absoluta sane facile. Eum libenter nune Caesari consuli aecuderim. Petitorum haec est adhuc informata cogitatio. Nos in omni munere candidatorio fungendo summam adhibebimus diligentiam, et fortasse, quoniam videtur in suffragiis multum posse Gallia, cum Romae a iudiciis forum refrixerit, excurremus mense Septembri legati ad Pisonem, ut Ianuario revertamur. According to Cicero, who hopes to see this rival elected that same year together with Lucius Julius Caesar rather than seeing him deferred to the following round in which he himself was to participate, the candidate to beat the following year (64 bc) was none other than the person in charge of restoring the Via Flaminia. This initiative, which would have guaranteed a considerable pool of votes, seems to worry Cicero to the point that he decides to travel to Gaul in person to win the votes of a region that is now considered a key constituency in the elections. A brief look at the legal status of the viae publicae will do more to explain their political importance than any number of historical studies into their undeniable role as a means of integration and cohesion 303 (or, in this specific case, as a means to a Romanisation 302 Cic. Att. 1.1.2: “It would probably suit our book best for Thermus to get in with Caesar: for, of the present batch of candidates, he would be the most formidable rival if he were put off to my year, as he is commissioner for the repairing of the Flaminian road. That will easily be finished by then: so I should like to lump him together with Caesar now. Such is the present rough guess of the chances of the candidates. I shall take the greatest care to fulfil all a candidate’s duties: and, as Gaul’s vote counts high, I shall probably get a free pass and take a run up to visit Piso, as soon as things have quieted down in the law courts here, returning in January”. 303 To the extent that communication axes were sometimes built prior to the annexation of the territory concerned (Coarelli 1988). One such example is the Via Valeria datable to 307 bc while the eradication of the Aequi (304 bc) and the foundation of the Latin colonies of Alba Fucens (302 bc) and Carseoli (298 bc) should be placed some years later. Similar examples, at least in part, can be found with regard to the viae Appia, Latina, and Aurelia. It is likely that the construction of the Via Aurelia, which was plausibly built by the censor of 83 GIFBIB_21.indb 83 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC that has more to do with the concept of ‘propagation’ than that of ‘inclusion’ 304) through the creation of what was perceived as a shared commercial and cultural space: 305 Sed inter eas et ceteras vias militares hoc interest, quod viae militares exitum ad mare aut in urbes aut in flumina publica aut ad aliam viam militarem habent, harum autem vicinalium viarum dissimilis condicio est: nam pars earum in militares vias exitum habent, pars sine ullo exitu intermoriuntur. The legal sources defining the use of the viae vicinales and viae militares (intended here as major thoroughfares for public passage 306) clearly indicate that the latter always led to further communication routes and would never terminate in a dead-end. In its ideal form, a road was neither conceived nor constructed to end at a boundary 307 but intended to cross it physically or, at least, to create the conditions necessary for it to be crossed. 3.2. Roman diplomacy in the Cisalpine region So while the colonisation underway during the mid-Republican era 308 and the associated infrastructural system can be considered examples of the “structural pressures” exerted in various directions – due to actions and decisions not necessarily etero-directed – the many instruments adopted by Rome to manifest its increasing 241 bc, Gaius Aurelius Cotta, was more closely linked to the emergent interests of Rome in Liguria (and consequently in Corsica and Sardinia also) than to the provision of support for the definitive control of coastal Etruria linking the existing colonies between Fregenae and Cosa, which were already connected by the Etruscan road network. 304 Cardilli 2015, p. 96. 305 Dig. 43.7.3.1: “A difference exists between roads of this kind and military highways, namely, military highways terminate at the seashore, or in cities, or at public streams, or at some other military highway, but this is not the case with roads through a neighborhood, for some of them terminate at military highways, and others end without any exit” [English translation: S. P. Scott, The Civil Law, IX, Cincinnati 1932]. 306 Palma 1982, p. 857. 307 In fact, Roman jurists did not consider a boundary to be the natural ‘outcome’ of a public thoroughfare. See Wiseman 1987, pp. 124-125. Contra Radke 1964. 308 Bandelli 2007, pp. 18-21. 84 GIFBIB_21.indb 84 03/12/19 12.28 THE IMPACT OF THE ROMAN ROAD SYSTEM ON BORDER DISPUTES: CISALPINE GAUL presence in the Cisalpine region were not just military but also linked to the sphere of intermediation. 309 As we all know, Rome took its first steps in this direction in the third century bc by making certain of the neutrality of the Cenomans (whose territory was north of the Po, between the rivers Oglio and Adige) and of the Veneti (settled in the eastern Po Plain), 310 but it was not until the crucial second century bc that it began to make extensive use of foedera, a phase that only ended in 89 bc when ius Latii was conferred upon the Transpadane peoples. 311 In fact, according to Cicero, 312 one of the conditions of Rome’s alliances with the Cenomans, Insubres, Helvetii, Iapydes, and various barbarian tribes from Gaul was that no member of the aforementioned tribes was to be admitted to the body of Roman citizens. 313 As mentioned before, we can assume that Rome had a similar federative relationship 314 with the Veneti (from at least 225 bc, the year in which the latter fought alongside the Romans against the Boii and Insubres 315) and that such a relationship was plausibly in existence with some of the more economically and socially advanced 316 Ligurian tribes like the Genuates 317 and Ligures Ingauni 318 (possibly already by 236 bc). Häussler 2013, pp. 108-112. Liv. 21.25.14; Polyb. 2.23; Strab. 5.1.9. 311 Häussler 2013, pp. 112-117. 312 Cic. pro Balb. 14.32. 313 While sources do not explain whether this clause intended to keep the Transpadane peoples in a substantially inferior condition (Peyre 1979, p. 64) or to safeguard their autonomy and social cohesion (Luraschi 1979, pp. 23-101), its inclusion certainly reveals the multitude of “soluzioni che Roma era in grado di escogitare per organizzare le comunità e i territori sottoposti alla sua influenza” (Cairo 2012, p. 51). 314 Scholars have often disagreed about the level of aequitas (Tibiletti 1950, p. 212; Arslan 1978, p. 454; Luraschi 1979, pp. 44 ff.) or iniquitas (Horn 1930, p. 55; Chilver 1941, pp. 6-7) to attribute to such pacts. In the mid-1990s, Calderazzo referred to Rome’s generally compromissory stance in this region to support the substantial aequitas of a number of clauses implicit to the foedera (Calderazzo 1996, p. 37). 315 Polyb. 2.23.1-2. 316 Gambaro 1999, p. 41. 317 Liv. 28.46.7; 30.1.10; 32.29.5-8. 318 Liv. 31.2.11. Cf. Harris 1989, p. 114. 309 310 85 GIFBIB_21.indb 85 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC It is against this socio-cultural and settlement background – which was so varied that Rome would make considerable distinctions in the way it defined and governed its relations with the communities settled in the Cisalpine context 319 – that we must view the series of initiatives that saw the Senate (formally) and a number of prominent members of the Roman aristocracy (effectively) acting as mediators – even to the detriment of other equally illustrious members of the ruling class. 320 In 187 bc, 321 for example, the Cenomans requested the necessary intervention of the Roman assembly in order to redress the wrongs committed by the praetor Marcus Furius Crassipes, accused of having illegally disarmed the Transpadane population. 322 The Senate responded by dispatching Marcus Aemilius Lepidus as an envoy. Ten years later (between 175 bc and 174 bc), at the time of his triumph over the Ligurians, Lepidus would be entrusted with quelling the upheavals that had broken out among the Patavini, possibly due to the reorganisation that 319 During the third and second centuries bc, such relations ranged from the stipulation of foedera (with entire nomina and/or civitates) to the establishment and deduction of colonies (with Latin or Roman rights), and including the settlement of groups of Roman citizens in various territories by means of viritane land allotments and the ensuing development of various forms of urban settlements including conciliabula, praefecturae, and fora (for their specific statutes refer to Todisco 2011, pp. 37-54). An overall picture of the situation can be found in Bandelli 2007, pp. 18-21. For the Ligurian case, see Gambaro 1999, pp. 71-73 (for the south-western Piedmont area, see Sapienza 2012, while for northern Piedmont, Mercando 1990, pp. 441-446). For the Transpadane regions in general, see Bandelli 1990 and for the eastern area, Bandelli, Chiabà 2005, pp. 440-443. For the south-eastern area of the Cisalpine region, see Bandelli 2005, coll. 14-20. For the evolution of forms of intervention by Rome in this context during the first century bc, and for the phenomenon of the socalled ‘fictional’ colonisation, see Maganzani 2017; Maganzani 2016; Piegdoń 2013; Barbati 2012; Lamberti 2010. 320 Individual interests were not always in alignment with those of the Assembly as shown by an episode in 236 bc that saw the Senate forced to reject a treaty established with the Corsicans by the non-authorised legate Marcus Claudius Clineas (Zon. 8.18; Val. Max. 6.3.3). 321 The year is the same year of the offensive launched by the two consuls (Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and Gaius Flaminius) against the Friniates based in the Emilian-Pistoian Apennines and against the Apuani to ensure the safety of the section of the Via Aemilia running through the Apennines (Liv. 38.42.8; 39.2.1-11). 322 Liv. 39.3.1-3; Diod. Sic. 29.14. 86 GIFBIB_21.indb 86 03/12/19 12.28 THE IMPACT OF THE ROMAN ROAD SYSTEM ON BORDER DISPUTES: CISALPINE GAUL followed in the wake of the construction of the second stretch of the Via Aemilia going from Bononia to Aquileia. 323 Lepidus, who had also overseen the construction of the first stretch of the road (from Ariminum to Placentia), held various offices in that period: – member of the triumvirate that founded the colonies of Mutina and Parma (183 bc); 324 – member of the committee in charge of the affairs of Luna (177 bc); 325 – member of the decemvirate agris adsignandis set up to carry out the viritane assignment of Gallic and Ligurian land (173 bc). 326 Such offices and initiatives would have won him the approval of a large group of new clients in the area, 327 to the extent of justifying his dispatch to Padua at the time of his second consulship. 328 In 170 bc, Lepidus was even sent trans Alpis, to the court of King Cincibilus, to clarify the Senate’s position with regard to the consul Gaius Cassius, who had been charged with abuse of power by a deputation of Carni, Histri and Iapydes. 329 A few years before, in 173 bc, consul Marcus Popilius Laenas was also responsible for an act of unacceptable repression, this time against the Statellates, a Ligurian tribe based in what is now south-eastern Piedmont. 330 According to Livy’s account, the 323 Strab. 5.1.11 dates the construction of this stretch (minor) of the Via Aemilia to 187 bc but is clearly mistaken. For the problems related to the dating of this stretch, see Matteazzi 2017, pp. 92-93. 324 Liv. 39.55.6-8. 325 Liv. 41.13.4. See Angeli Bertinelli 2011. 326 Liv. 42.4.3-4. 327 On the key role played by the Aemilii Lepidi on the Roman political scene between the second and the first century bc, especially their contribution to provisioning the city, see Allély 2000. 328 Liv. 39.55.6-8. 329 Liv. 43.5.1-10. According to the linguistic analysis carried out by Calderazzo (Calderazzo 1996, p. 31, n. 26), not only were the Alpine populations mentioned by Livy in a position of non-belligerence with Rome (as revealed by the fact that they spontaneously decided to send an embassy to the Senate) but they might even have entered an alliance with the Republic. 330 Plin. NH 3.5.47. 87 GIFBIB_21.indb 87 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC enslavement of a great number of members of the tribe, which had already made an act of submission to the Republic, was seen in a poor light back in Rome. 331 Although many authors believe that the Senate’s opposition to Popilius’ actions 332 was more formal than substantial, the clash of interests 333 concluded with the liberation of the Statellates who were resettled in Transpadana. 334 Although it is not easy to establish whether the Senate’s suppressive action against the Roman consul stemmed from its particular concern for the interests of the Cisalpine populations, it cannot be excluded that it would have had worries about the consul’s rise in popularity following assignments of lands that were advantageous in terms of clientship. 335 This is illustrated by a similar case reported by Strabo that took place in 143 bc 336 and concerned a dispute between two groups of Salassi (or between the Salassi and a neighbouring people called the Libui 337) regarding the exploitation of natural resources in the western Cisalpine region. Hostilities broke out as a result of the struggle to exploit the water resources, required both for complex gold-mining operations in the mountains and for the irrigation of the fields in the valley below that supplied food for most of the peoples in this region. The frequent clashes caused by the channeling-off of the disputed Liv. 42.1.1; 42.7.3-10; 42.8.1-8; 42.9.1-6; 42.10.9-11; 42.21.2-8; 42.22.1-8. In fact, Popilius became censor in 159 bc while his brother was elected as consul in 172 bc (see Harris 1979, pp. 270-271; Dyson 1985, p. 112). 333 There is no scholarly consensus about the possibility of a clash of interests involving Marcus Popilius Laenas and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. Some authors believe that the latter had interests in southern Piedmont at the time of land distribution schemes linked to the organisation of the ager Ligustinus et Gallicus. This hypothesis seems to be supported by traces of centuriation identified in the area around Dertona (Torelli 1998, pp. 30-31; Zanda 1998, p. 63; Gambaro 1999, pp. 44-45; Zanda 2011, pp. 44-46) but is strongly opposed by those who rightly refer to the important adsignatio viritana that was underway in 173 bc in the area to the south of Modena and Parma (Bandelli 2009, pp. 197-201; Migliario 2014, p. 347). 334 Baldacci 1986, p. 98. In general, see Luraschi 1980. 335 Dyson 1985, p. 110. 336 Strab. 4.6.7. Cf. Liv. Per. 53; Cass. Dio 22, fr. 74; Iul. Obs. 21; Oros. 5.4.7. 337 The doubt arises from Strabo’s problematic location of the mines in the north-western Cisalpine region. Some authors place the mines near the Evançon river (Perelli 1981; Bessone 1985), others in the area south of the Elvo (Fraccaro 1957a; Cresci Marrone 1987). 331 332 88 GIFBIB_21.indb 88 03/12/19 12.28 THE IMPACT OF THE ROMAN ROAD SYSTEM ON BORDER DISPUTES: CISALPINE GAUL watercourse – mistakenly identified by Strabo as the river Dora Baltea – led to Roman intervention in this area. Rome, possibly justifying its actions on the basis of a treaty with the population living near Vercellae, dispatched consul Appius Claudius Pulcher to deal with the matter. However, instead of seeking to promote the reconciliation sought by the Senate, Appius, a rival of Scipio Aemilianus 338 and future member of the agrarian commission set up under the lex Sempronia for the assignment of the ager publicus, according to the sources reporting the event took advantage of the crisis to declare war against the Salassi for his own personal glorification: 339 ὅτι ὁ Κλαύδιος ὁ συνάρχων Μετέλλου, πρός τε τὸ γένος ὠγκωμένος καὶ τῷ Μετέλλῳ φθονῶν, ἔτυχεν ἐν τῇ Ἰταλίᾳ λαχὼν ἄρχειν, καὶ πολέμιον οὐδὲν ἀποδεδειγμένον εἶχε, καὶ ἐπεθύμησε πάντως τινὰ ἐπινικίων πρόφασιν λαβεῖν, καὶ Σαλάσσους Γαλάτας μὴ ἐγκαλουμένους τι ἐξεπολέμωσε τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις. Ἐπέμφθη γὰρ ὡς συμβιβάσων αὐτοὺς τοῖς ὁμοχώροις περὶ τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ἐς τὰ χρυσεῖα ἀναγκαίου διαφερομένοις αὐτοῖς, καὶ τήν τε χώραν αὐτῶν πᾶσαν κατέδραμεν … ἔπεμψαν δὲ αὐτῷ οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι ἐκ τῶν δέκα ἱερέων δύο. Yet again the Senate took steps to repress the unauthorised actions of one of its magistrates. On this occasion, however, although it denied Appius permission to celebrate a triumph, 340 it did not return the mining site to the Celto-Ligurian people 341 but granted the concession to the publicani. 342 Plut. Aem. 38.2-5. Cass. Dio 22, fr. 74.1: “Claudius, the colleague of Metellus, impelled by pride of birth and jealousy of Metellus, since he had chanced to draw Italy as his province, where no enemy was assigned to him, was eager to secure by any means some pretext for a triumph; hence he set the Salassi, a Gallic tribe, at war with the Romans, although no complaints were being made against them. For he had been sent to reconcile them with their neighbours who were quarrelling with them about the water necessary for the gold mines, and he overran their entire country … the Romans sent him two of the ten priests”. For an analysis of this passage, see Urso 2013, pp. 53-58. 340 In fact, the consul celebrated the triumph at his own expense (privatis sumptibus). On the controversial matter of the triumph of Appius Claudius Pulcher, see Balbo 2017, pp. 504-505. 341 Zecchini 2009, p. 49. 342 Plin. NH 33.78. The Salassi kept their control of the local riverbeds needed to carry out the extraction process. The sale of this key resource to the contractors 338 339 89 GIFBIB_21.indb 89 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC The matter of Appius Claudius Pulcher is interesting from several points of view. The dynamics of Roman intervention in the western Cisalpine region reveal a number of apparent contradictions in the actions of the Senate both with regard to the auctoritas attributed to its magistrates and the aequitas shown towards the allied populations. Three points in particular are worth mentioning: – contrary to what might be expected, the consultation of the Sibylline Books after the failure of Pulcher’s first campaign seems to reveal that there was considerable support for the consul’s actions against the Salassi; 343 – although his appointment as censor in 136 bc can be partially interpreted as a sign that his career was slowing down, 344 it also shows that he continued to play a prominent role in Roman politics even after the serious allegations made against him; – the Senate’s final decision to claim ownership of the gold mines is a clear sign of the opportunism underpinning its condemnation of the actions of Appius Claudius; – the substantial negativity surrounding the figure of the consul in the later historiography (similar to that associated with other prominent contemporaries 345). This hostility reflects not only the anti-Gracchan and anti-demagogic climate against which the actions of magistrates – in the Cisalpine and their avidity caused clashes to continue breaking out for many years after the consul’s defeat of the Salassi in 143 bc (see Migliario 2012, pp. 111-113). 343 Cass. Dio 22, fr. 74, 1; Iul. Obs. 21; Frontin. Aq. 7. The consultation of these texts would not only have required the prior authorisation of the Senate but would also have led to an extended debate concerning the steps to be taken in order to comply with the oracle. In general, see Santangelo 2013, pp. 128134. On this specific case, see McDougall 1992, p. 454; Balbo 2017, pp. 501503. Cf. Astin 1967, p. 106 who believes that the sending out of the decemviri was engineered by friends of A. Claudius Pulcher to prevent his recall following his initial defeat and Rosenstein 1986, p. 240 who believes that this was the direct wish of the consul with the aim of justifying his failed attempt by means of juridical-sacral motives. 344 For the repercussions that the case of the Salassi had upon the career of Appius Claudius Pulcher (and, above all, on the poor turnout for the dilectus linked to his censorship), see Balbo 2017. 345 Cass. Dio 22, fr. 74.1-2; 23, fr. 81. Cf. Plut. Aem. 38.2-5. 90 GIFBIB_21.indb 90 03/12/19 12.28 THE IMPACT OF THE ROMAN ROAD SYSTEM ON BORDER DISPUTES: CISALPINE GAUL area in particular – would be analysed a posteriori but also the generalised – albeit not univocal 346 – opposition expressed by these same sources with regard to certain gentes 347 considered to be an expression of the subversive movements that led to the crisis of the nobilitas of the optimates. The intervention of the Senate therefore, whether in boundary disputes or in more belligerent contexts, seems to be the result of a series of “contrasti armonici, di contraddizioni composte in equilibrio”. 348 The aim was to reconcile the rigidity underlying the concept of imperium with the restrained elasticity that would flow into the rich and varied system of approaches intended to diffuse its rule. Examples of this “fluid hegemony” can be found in the decision of the Roman authorities to avoid being involved in the peaceful debate between Nola and Abella as well as their decision to somehow step back with regard to the authority of Genua, acknowledging its position of supremacy over the surrounding tribes; it is precisely this recognition that would allow Rome to express a more subtle strategy leading to the indirect affirmation of its influence. 349 Although, as Faoro pointed out most recently, 350 the differences between Rome’s interlocutors go a long way towards explaining her differing policies, we cannot avoid noticing that most of the cases leading to Rome’s intermediation in the Cisalpine region were situated in the proximity of a road axis of primary importance. This emerges quite clearly in the episode linked to Cf. Plut. Tib. Gr. 4.2; 9.1; Aem. 38. The arrogance of the Claudii, for example, was proverbial and held by many authors to be a distinguishing trait of this gens (Liv. 2.56.7; Tac. Ann. 1.4.3; Cass. Dio 23, fr. 81). On this matter, see Wiseman 1979, pp. 77-103. See also the celebrated passage by Syme on the gens of the victor over the Salassi (who would not be definitively defeated until 25 bc): “There was no epoch of Rome’s history but could show a Claudius intolerably arrogant towards the nobiles his rivals, or grasping personal power under cover of liberal politics” (Syme 1939, p. 19). 348 Giardina 1997, p. 76. 349 As shown by Gagliardi (Gagliardi 2006, pp. 275-277), in this phase, it would be more accurate to describe this as the establishment of an ‘informal’ tie of subjugation rather than as an adtributio from the Viturii Langenses to the community of Genuates. 350 Faoro 2015, p. 177. 346 347 91 GIFBIB_21.indb 91 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC the Sententia Minuciorum, which contains a territorial definition revealing the key importance of the Via Postumia. As a res publica in usu publico, this road was inalienable and imprescriptible. It was in fact marked by cippi indicating its exclusion and extraneousness to any claim and/or confrontation that might have prejudiced the inviolable interests of the populus Romanus. 351 Although the interdictal protection of viae as public places did not receive legal ratification until much later, 352 this very notion of utilitas publica 353 linked to the safeguarding of road routes may have been responsible for directing Rome’s attention to these specific Cisalpine areas. As noted by Calderazzo, 354 although the upheavals taking place within the community of the Cenomans based in the area southeast of Brixia in 187 bc may have threatened the area to the north of the key hub of Placentia (which was reached by the Via Aemilia in that same period), it has also been pointed out that the crises in the Venetic area may have affected centres along the routes of the Via Postumia and Via Annia-Aemilia. If we identify the people that clashed with the Salassi (in 143 bc) to gain control of the watercourses in north-eastern Piedmont as the Libui, then it is possible that Roman involvement in this corner of the Cisalpine territory was the result of an attempt to maintain a stable peace in the sector to the north-west of the centres (Placentia and possibly also Dertona) lying on the route of the newly constructed Via Postumia (148 bc). 355 Lastly, it may be worth reflecting again on the more obscure case linked to the tribe of the Statellates. Although the events described by Livy took place in 173 bc and could not therefore have had any impact on the Roman road network, which was constructed over half a century later in this area, we should remember that both the Via Aemilia-Scauri 356 and the later Via Iulia Augusta, which 351 352 353 354 355 356 Ponte 2007, pp. 55-64. Ponte 2007, pp. 69-72. See also Di Lella 2004. Scevola 2012. Calderazzo 1996, pp. 45-46. Cf. Balbo 2016. Ciampi Polledri 1967. 92 GIFBIB_21.indb 92 03/12/19 12.28 THE IMPACT OF THE ROMAN ROAD SYSTEM ON BORDER DISPUTES: CISALPINE GAUL followed its route 357 crossed the area of Aquae Statiellae, 358 which was probably a hub of pre-Roman routes. 359 3.3. Utilitas and libertas: a universal empire founded upon the city and upon mobility As mentioned, therefore, Roman intermediation in boundary matters took place in the chronological period immediately after the above events in the context of ongoing situations where the Senate had been called upon to settle disputes that involved its own members. The magistrates in question had been accused of various wrongdoings: – in the case of Marcus Furius Crassipes and Marcus Popillius Laenas, of having wrongfully oppressed populations that were supposedly allies of Rome or certainly undeserving of such treatment given their peaceful behaviour in more or less recent times; – in the case of Appius Claudius Pulcher, of having exploited his position as mediator for his own personal glory. Although Rome was called upon to intermediate in differing contexts, its response was undeniably very diligent in all cases: – in the first example mentioned (it is likely, although not certain, that a similar procedure was adopted for the episode involving the Ligurian Statellates 360), the Senate dispatched Marcus Aemilius Lepidus to the Cenomans, who had requested Rome’s intervention to resolve the clashes between the tribe and the magistrate responsible; – in the third example, the Senate called upon Appius Claudius Pulcher, although he had failed to fulfil his role, to travel to the region and act as arbiter between the disputing factions. Gambaro 1999, pp. 78-80. In the area formerly occupied by the Statellates until their transfer following the intervention of Marcus Popilius Laenas. See Zanda 1999; Bacchetta, Crosetto, Venturino Gambari 2011. 359 Dyson 1985, p. 121. 360 Calderazzo 1996, pp. 31-32. 357 358 93 GIFBIB_21.indb 93 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC All these cases of Roman intermediation in the sphere of diplomacy could be defined as ‘military’. In fact, they all took place immediately prior to the period that saw Rome intervene with a very similar approach, but this time in boundary contexts. The episodes involving the Cenomans (187 bc), (probably) the Ligures (173 bc), the Gallic populations led by King Cincibilus (170 bc), and the Salassi (143 bc) were all linked to requests for mediation in response to blatantly warlike actions. These actions arose in social and geographic contexts that had not been fully subjected to Roman dominion but that nevertheless recognised Rome’s role as hegemonic power (at least in the juridical sphere) and capacity to exercise a power super partes. 361 However, the boundary disputes in which the Senate is known to have acted as arbiter all took place after Rome’s affirmation in the Cisalpine region. These disputes came about during a phase of reorganisation, which took place during two distinct periods in the Venetic (141 bc and 135 bc) and Ligurian (117 bc) regions, and which took the shape of an administrative restructuring of the region. As revealed by evidence linked to the different levels of urban development attained by the two areas in the second century bc, it is clear that in the Venetic area, which had achieved a certain degree of administrative organisation by a fairly early date, 362 the need to (re)establish precise territorial boundaries must have emerged some years earlier, possibly even at the time of the 175-174 bc seditio. In fact, these boundaries, which defined the areas under the administrative control of the various communities, 363 were thrown into crisis by Roman intervention. The dispatch of embassies to Rome by the northern populations must be seen within the context of a wider process of recognition of Roman auctoritas given the general reluctance of these Italic populations to advocate such diplomatic actions. Despite the inferences made by Calderazzo (Calderazzo 1996, p. 37) who believes that Roman arbitral intervention may even have been provided for by a specific clause of the foedera drawn up with the communities concerned, based on the information currently available it is hard to go much further than supposing that Roman intervention in the field of arbitration was somehow regulated by the single alliance pacts. 362 Boaro 2001; Cresci Marrone 2009. For the key role of Patavium in this pre-Roman context, see Matteazzi 2017. 363 According to Bandelli, a “ridefinizione dei territori di loro competenza” reflected the growth of the cities expressing the “più accentuata proiezione amministrativa delle une sugli altri” (Bandelli 2007, p. 21). 361 94 GIFBIB_21.indb 94 03/12/19 12.28 THE IMPACT OF THE ROMAN ROAD SYSTEM ON BORDER DISPUTES: CISALPINE GAUL In Liguria, on the other hand – where the period of Romanisation saw the majority of local populations becoming socially organised through forms of intertribal aggregation – similar needs must have emerged later in response to the progressive affirmation of hegemonic poles like Genua that were able to develop (although only towards the end of the second century bc) a certain division of labour, a sound monetary-based economy, and inchoate forms of public magistracies. 364 The facts documented by the Sententia Minuciorum suggest that this was a fateful moment for all the Ligurian communities (like the Viturii Langenses) still defining themselves according to tribal ties and basing their political forms on a structure that was fundamentally “inarticolata in aspetti di primitiva democrazia comunitaria”. 365 As Foraboschi has so clearly explained, 366 Roman intervention in the Ligurian territorial dispute reveals the inevitable consequences unleashed by contact with the Roman urban civilisation, contextualising them in a crucial moment of transition: – the transition from a tribal organisation to an organisation based on territorial-gentilitial ties; – the affirmation of a form of agrarian production that was not completely self-sufficient and that was intended for a market economy; – the diffusion of a monetary economy with clear implications in the social sphere. 367 The fact that such actions of intermediation in an area of conflict in the first half of the second century bc all concerned the western Cisalpine area clearly reveals the differentiated approach adopted by Rome with regard to communities that had yet to be fully absorbed within the Roman administrative system. This may have been due to the greater difficulties experienced in identifying civic Gambaro 1999, p. 47. Foraboschi 1992, p. 61. 366 Foraboschi 1992, pp. 59-62. 367 As shown by the celebrated account by Poseidonious (Strab. 3.4.17 = Posidon. fr. 25 Theiler; Diod. Sic. 4.20.2-3 = Posidon. fr. 163a Theiler) datable to the years immediately after the arbitral sentence was drawn up, describing how a Ligurian woman gave birth to her child while working in the fields. 364 365 95 GIFBIB_21.indb 95 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC structures capable of providing a stable base on which to build its control of the surrounding territories. On the other hand, the great attraction exerted upon autochthonous populations 368 by the Roman ‘model’ must have been rooted in this very process of “humanisation” of the environment. 369 This system was inevitably based on the creation (or optimisation) of a functional and systematic cooperation between city and territory 370 that met both technical and political needs. In the first case, this involved creating the infrastructural instruments necessary for the community to survive, in the latter, it meant constructing a civic (self)awareness that would allow its inhabitants to perceive themselves as members of a societas organised according to a gentilitial structure. Roman expansion, both within and outside the Italic peninsula, was inevitably based on the concept of ‘city’ intended as a “nucleo organizzativo e di adeguata razionalizzazione della vita degli uomini”. 371 However, the urban fabric underlying the imperium populi romani that led Capogrossi Colognesi to refer to a “municipal empire” 372 resulted in a legal vision of the relationship with civic centres that cannot be interpreted by applying modern concepts of ‘local autonomy’ with regard to ‘centrally-exercised’ state sovereignty. According to the Roman mindset the concept of imperium 373 was a concrete unicum that was unified and had a “universal (spatial and temporal) vocation” that could only be achieved through the application of legal instruments that “tendono a non imporre una omologazione giuridica, culturale e religiosa dall’alto, ma ad una condivisione” within a Roman project. 374 This key element of Roman legal culture not only does away with the need to postulate the presence of a specific clause linked to recourse to arbitration within the single foedera drawn up with Gabba 1972, pp. 88-93. Foraboschi 1992, p. 125. 370 According to Gabba, this is the principal function of centuriation. See Gabba 1985. 371 Cardilli 2015, p. 102. 372 Capogrossi Colognesi 2004. 373 Catalano 2000. 374 Cardilli 2015, p. 90 and p. 102. 368 369 96 GIFBIB_21.indb 96 03/12/19 12.28 THE IMPACT OF THE ROMAN ROAD SYSTEM ON BORDER DISPUTES: CISALPINE GAUL civitates and nomina but also helps to explain why relationships between Rome and the Italic and Cisalpine communities should be considered in the sphere of Rome’s ‘international’ relations. As clarified by Lobrano, the Roman Republic is a form of government that is capable of going beyond the dimension of civitas – unlike in Greece – and, as an expression of concilia hominum, doing so without renouncing it: 375 nihil est enim illi principi deo, qui omnem mundum regit, quod quidem in terris fiat acceptius, quam concilia coetusque hominum iure sociati, quae civitates appellantur; harum rectores et conservatores hinc profecti huc revertuntur. In fact: 376 ‘Est igitur’, inquit AFRICANUS, ‘res publica|res populi, populus autem non omnis hominum coetus quoquo modo congregatus, sed coetus multitudinis iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus. eius autem prima causa coëundi est non tam inbecillitas quam naturalis quaedam hominum quasi congregatio; non est enim singulare nec solivagum genus hoc […]’ Leaving aside whether we accept the Aristotelian interpretation – among all men there is a natural impulse towards association, and every association is formed with a view to some good purpose 377 – or whether we prefer the Epicurean view of human society as the result of a social pact drawn up between humans to compensate for their natural weakness, 378 the founding idea of the 375 Cic. Rep. 6.13.13: “To that supreme god who rules the universe nothing (or at least nothing that happens on earth) is more welcome than those companies and communities of people linked together by justice that are called states. Their rulers and saviours set out from this place, and to this they return”. 376 Cic. Rep. 1.25.39: “Scipio: Well then, a republic is the property of the public but a public is not every kind of human gathering, congregating in any manner, but a numerous gathering brought together by legal consent and community of interest. The primary reason for its coming together is not so much weakness as a sort of innate desire on the part of human beings to form communities. For our species is not made up of solitary individuals or lonely wanderers. From birth it is of such a kind that, even when it possesses abundant amounts of every commodity […]”. 377 Ar. Pol. 1.1252a1-7e; 1.1253a7-8; 3.1280a31-34; 7.1328a35-1328a2. 378 Lucr. 5.1019 ff. Cf. anche Plat. Prot. 322a-b; Rep. 369b; Leg. 678e; Polyb. 4.5.7. 97 GIFBIB_21.indb 97 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Roman Republic is that of a political body involving the populus by virtue of its collective rather than its political nature, organised on the basis of consensus iuris and communio utilitatis. In Cicero’s vision of Roman thought, 379 both populus and civitas are essentially societates. In other words, they are legal entities that can be defined as such because they stem from a consensual relationship involving both the attainment of the common interest and an agreement to submit to the law. Despite its marked idealism, this late Republican concept represents an attempt by the Roman authority – ongoing for some centuries – to view the sum of human relations from the angle of the idea of societas with the aim of promoting the “complesso percorso volitivo di ciascuno e di tutti i cittadini verso la singulorum utilitas attraverso la communio utilitatis”. 380 Underpinning the evolution of the Republican world towards a societas-oriented reality was the foedus, which was the founding principle of the societas formed by the populus, 381 between patricians and plebeians, 382 and between Rome and other entities. 383 The meta-historical concept – regarding both the spatial and institutional context – expressed by the syntagma civitas augescens 384 already existed in the regal period and was mainly realised by promoting a marked “horizontal and vertical territorial mobility” that was not always a painless process. 385 The main instrument used to legally achieve this mobility was the foedus, which was capable of elevating the relationship between societates within a single city to the dimension of relations between societates operating in different cities. On a practical and logistical level (the management of power and creation of the necessary infrastructures, respectively), it is clear that such a concept could only be fully achieved through the recognition of two elements: 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 For the evolution of Cicero’s vision, see Grilli 2005. Lobrano 2004, p. 5. Cic. pro Balb. 13.3. Liv. 2.33.1; 4.6.7. Cic. pro Balb. 13.31. Dig. 1.2.2.8. Vd. Baccari 1995. Calore 2018, p. 39. 98 GIFBIB_21.indb 98 03/12/19 12.28 THE IMPACT OF THE ROMAN ROAD SYSTEM ON BORDER DISPUTES: CISALPINE GAUL – the necessary ‘concerted action’ of the ordines: in the same way that a “concordance of different sounds” must be maintained in a concert of harps and flutes in order to obtain a “proportional unison” translating into harmony, so a balanced relationship must be maintained between the different social classes to obtain concordia, artissimum atque optimum omni in re publica vinculum incolumitatis. 386 As a pactum, the latter can only come into being through iustitia, explaining why the interventions of the Roman Senate in the field of intermediation might appear ambiguous. It seems that, in order to maintain a balance between the very different interests involved (those of the allied/peaceful communities, those of the competition between magistrates, and, last but not least, those of the assembly itself as an expression of a part of the civitas), Rome’s actions tended to be governed by the principle of moderation, as suggested by Cicero’s musical metaphor: leniter atque placide fides, non vi et impetu, concuti debere; – the urgent need to guarantee the safety of the communication routes initially developed as means of military penetration but soon transformed into instruments ‘propagating’ the imperium populi romani. By virtue of their intrinsic dual functionality, they could combine the role of vehicle of Roman hegemony with that of stimulus revitalising local realities. The dichotomy between municipium and foedus expressing internal or ‘international’ dynamics perceived as oppositive did not arise in this context because both cases involve a dynamic of symmetrical or asymmetrical reciprocity basically based on fides, the instrument of iustitia defending every societas hominum. 387 v. c. 386 387 Cic. Rep. 2.42.69. Cic. Off. 1.15. See Scolari 2016, p. 112; Falcone 2013, p. 272. 99 GIFBIB_21.indb 99 03/12/19 12.28 GIFBIB_21.indb 100 03/12/19 12.28 4. THE ROLE OF THE ROMAN SENATE AND ITS FUNCTION AS ARBITER WITHIN BORDER DISPUTES IN THE ITALIC TERRITORY Q uid est arbiter? Medius ad componendam causam. Nonne inimici eramus Dei, et malam causam habebamus adversus Deum? Q uis finiret causam istam malam, nisi ille medius arbiter, qui nisi veniret, misericordiae perierat iter? De quo Apostolus dicit, Unus enim Deus et mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Jesus. (Aug. Exp. in Psalmos 103.4.8) Over a century would pass between the first documented cases of centuriation and the decemviral legislation. The long gap suggests that this huge advance in the tangible administration of the territory, along with the limitatio and the complex gromatic procedures accompanying it, was the result of a lengthy process. Many years earlier, legislation was introduced to regulate a body of private juridical relations, guiding the intertwining of the various rights of the individual on the basis of the construction of an orderly agrarian landscape. The gradual transformation of these juridical rules into a material reality was the first expression of a form of unitary organisation that gradually spread until it gave rise to a collective project going beyond the regulation of mere individual conflicts of interest. As time passed, the expansion of Roman territorial supremacy was accompanied by amendments that not only impacted juridical and institutional systems but also affected the material image of the conquered territory, which was subjected, at least in part, to that singular ‘reduction to geometrical forms’ known as limitatio. 388 During this process, most of the lands ‘of Rome’ were 388 Frontin. Lim. p. 27, 13-14 L. = p. 10, 20-21 Th.: Limitum prima origo, sicut Varro descripsit, a disciplina etrusca. The corpus of Gromatici Veteres contains evidence that the theory and practice of the Roman limitatio – in other words, the science of the division of agricultural land also known as centuriation – was determined by a fixed series of ritual operations carried out by augurs (posita auspicaliter groma) and agrimensores, following a tradition rooted in the ‘Etrusca Disciplina’ (Gabba 1984, p. 21; Gabba 1985, pp. 267-268). The passages by Frontinus (Fron- 101 GIFBIB_21.indb 101 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC reorganised on a rational basis according to the regular numbers and uniform measurements typical of centuriation. The resulting landscape would become consolidated in time, leaving traces, at legal level, in the foundation charters of colonies reiterating the inviolability and unlimited, uninterrupted duration of the road systems, above all. 389 The two domains of the road system – the local dimension that was the responsibility of private individuals and of minor structures and the public dimension so meticulously managed and controlled by the Roman authorities, by the Senate, above all – express the close relationship between the rural environment and urban centres whose layout was in turn regulated by the same geometric rules imposed upon the centuriated territory surrounding them, with a road network based on the regular grid of limites. As Capogrossi Colognesi has so rightly pointed out, “trovava in ciò il suo punto di massima evidenza – anche a livello simbolico – il dominio sulla natura e la sua ‘romanizzazione’, parallela a quella dei popoli e degli abitanti della penisola”. 390 ‘Unity in diversity’, the official motto of the European Union, is an equally apt maxim for Rome, which would, however, adopted it to very different ends. Diversity means wealth and there is safety in unity. 391 A constant, pressing issue in our contemporary world – for which a plethora of sometimes contradictory solutions has been proposed – regards the problem of identity and integration of people from a different ethnicity or religion to that of the group which they are joining for various reasons (political, economic, social, among others). The Roman world’s attitude to foreigners – and vice-versa – was diametrically opposed to that of the Greek world whose self-perception as a unity of language, customs, and ‘blood’ pre- tin. de agr. qual. p. 1, 3-5 L. = p. 1, 3-5 Th.) and Hyginus Gromaticus (Hyg. Grom. de limit. const. p. 170, 12-16 L. = p. 135, 10-14 Th.) contained in the collection refer explicitly to these origins, also mentioning that the procedures for the definition of cardus and decumanus carried out by the Etruscan haruspices and Roman landsurveyors were identical. Cf. Castagnoli 1968, pp. 119-121. 389 Cf. Corsi 2000; Basso 2007; Basso, Zanini 2016; Faoro 2018, pp. 118-123. See more recently Coarelli 2019, pp. 415-432. 390 Capogrossi Colognesi 2016, p. 89. 391 Rosina 2007, p. 79. 102 GIFBIB_21.indb 102 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROLE OF THE ROMAN SENATE AND ITS FUNCTION AS ARBITER vented the integration of ‘the other, the diverse’. Rome did not hinder but rather facilitated the influx and integration of people from multiple ethnicities, adopting different approaches over time and adapting to their places of origin, revealing a unique capacity to absorb different populations into its civitas. This gave rise to that marvellous process of ‘Romanisation’ made possible not only by Rome’s sagacity and administrative capacity but also by the generous autonomy that it conceded to urban centres with a consolidated ‘civic’ tradition. Rather than upsetting existing social equilibria, Rome sought instead to involve prominent local figures and promote their careers, the amenities and fascination of the Latin culture, the possibility of accessing Mediterranean trade routes and of benefitting from the greater economic opportunities granted to those admitted to the Roman territory. We can argue without fear of contradiction that the Romans offered those foreign communities the opportunity to ascend to a higher culture, convincing them that the benefits of accepting outweighed the disadvantages, sacrifices, and losses involved in this process. Così, nella progressiva espansione politico istituzionale dell’Urbe in tutto il territorio della Penisola e nelle forme organizzative adottate per le popolazioni sottoposte, costante fu il riferimento a questo modello. La fondazione di colonie, la promozione di municipi ne sono la principale, ma non l’unica manifestazione. L’attenzione romana per la figura della città si coglie molto bene proprio nel caso in cui particolari motivi ispirarono una opposta politica, dove la massima sanzione irrogata a una comunità appare appunto la sua cancellazione come città, quasi la soppressione di un organismo vivente. Così nel caso di Capua, punita in modo esemplare dopo la sua defezione ad Annibale; il senato romano, avendola privata del suo territorio, le tolse ‘le magistrature, il senato, l’assemblea pubblica’, oltre a ogni altra imaginem rei publicae: l’idea e i simboli cioé della comunità politica cittadina. Anche dove, come nel mondo sannita, le forme di insediamento prevalenti si collegavano più a strutture sparse o a villaggi, i Romani cercarono, in linea di massima, di identificare un elemento, magari il villaggio potenzialmente più ‘promettente’, da trasformare in una piccola città e quindi in 103 GIFBIB_21.indb 103 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC centro municipale a cui agganciare in forma subalterna le altre strutture territoriali (villaggi, mercati rurali, piccoli santuari circondati da abitati ecc.). 392 However, this approach represents only one facet of the complex impact that Rome had upon the Italic peninsula, from the final decades of the fourth century bc onwards. We should remember that the vast extension of the fully Romanised territory underpinned by the colonial and municipal systems also comprised centres qualifying as minor in terms of their territorial profile and organisational set-up. This was especially true in areas with slower or less substantial urbanisation processes characterised by forms of minor settlement such as fora, conciliabula, pagi, or vici. 393 Such areas lay within and made reference to the ager Romanus; they had varying degrees of autonomy and were controlled and coordinated by the Roman magistrates, the praefecti iure dicundo who had jurisdiction over their inhabitants, the majority of whom were Roman citizens. As their old allies were gradually absorbed within the Roman political system, Rome forged a multitude of new alliances with various Italic populations and cities during their rapid expansion. It continued to contract foedera, or treaties of alliance, with sovereign subjects, some of which sanctioned their formal political subordination to Rome (foedus iniquum), others maintaining a merely formal appearance of an alliance between equals (foedus aequum). Il fatto che tra gli impegni reciproci assunti tra le parti vi fosse l’obbligo di aiutare l’alleato in caso di guerra era ed è la vera chiave di lettura di questi trattati, soprattutto di quelli formalmente paritetici. Giacché mai queste piccole città, queste comunità minori, sovente interamente circondate da territori romani, sarebbero state in grado di scatenare in modo autonomo una guerra, mentre, al contrario, le guerre le faceva in continuazione l’altro alleato, Roma. E a Roma gli innumerevoli alleati italici – che dal termine societas, utilizzato a indicare l’alleanza internazionale, prendevano il nome di socii dei Capogrossi Colognesi 2009, pp. 116-117. Cf. Zecchini 2007, pp. 39-54. Capogrossi Colognesi 2012, pp. 193-227; Todisco 2012; cf. also: Brogiolo 2018, pp. 26-30. 392 393 104 GIFBIB_21.indb 104 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROLE OF THE ROMAN SENATE AND ITS FUNCTION AS ARBITER Romani – dovevano quindi fornire supporto in termini di risorse materiali e di uomini, secondo criteri predeterminati e attentamente controllati da Roma. Che così moltiplicava la sua forza militare per nuove conquiste, per nuove vittorie sancite da nuove alleanze subalterne. 394 Let us go back to the meaning of Romanisation, which has been the focus of one of the liveliest debates that the scientific community has witnessed over the recent decades. Every possible point of view, every critical aspect or weakness of this concept has been subjected to close scrutiny. Some historians have gone as far as to abolish the use of the term, which they believe to be inadequate and/or misleading. Given the inadequate, fragmentary nature of the documentation available 395 we can only reconstruct the complex, heterogenous process of Romanisation of the Italic world in broad strokes, with reference to just a few specific episodes. The process was closely linked to the encounter between the expanding Roman culture and the different realities in the Italic peninsula, which inevitably was very different to the encounter between Rome and the cultures north of the Alps, which is so frequently at the heart of the theoretical debate on Romanisation. 396 But it is possible that these two processes are too distant to be compared: not only do they involve very different cultures, but Rome underwent significant changes between the time of its expansion in Italy and the moment when it ‘crossed’ the borders of the peninsula. In fact, Mazzarino’s words are still relevant in reminding us that it is less a matter of Roman or Italic priority than of 397 una comune cultura italica ed un corrispondente comune travaglio costituzionale in cui innovazioni ed esigenze di una città etrusca, latina od osca non restano senza eco negli stati vicini ed anzi spontaneamente si affermano, determinate da analoghi presupposti e condizioni. Capogrossi Colognesi 2009, p. 118. For the Italic inscriptions, see the fundamental works by Vetter 1953; Poccetti 1979; Marinetti 1985; Prosdocimi 1984. 396 Cf. Woolf 1998; Keay, Terrenato 2001; Tarpin 2016, pp. 183-200. 397 Mazzarino 1945, p. 175. Cf. Petraccia 1988, p. 332. 394 395 105 GIFBIB_21.indb 105 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC It is hard to establish the precise beginning because, since ancient times, both Rome and the Italic peoples belonged to a cultural koine extending through most of central and southern Italy in which Rome played a role that was far from hegemonic in the archaic period. The transition from polycentric koine to Roman hegemony should not be seen, therefore, as the sudden transmission of cultural elements from Rome but rather as the gradual intensification of Roman cultural flows towards the Italic world accompanied by a virtual standstill of the old flows in the opposite direction. The groundwork for this change was laid in the fifth century bc when Rome’s military, political, and juridical structures began to reveal their superiority to the equivalent Italic structures. The capacity to develop precise forms of self-representation is one of the most common strategic expedients used by rising powers and appears to have been a constant concern for the Roman State from the very start. Already aware that ‘propaganda’ becomes irreparably damaged whenever something shouted from the rooftops is not borne out by reality, Romans took care to use an image constructed in time that was the result of a precise plan enacted consistently despite the differences between the various political arenas. Rome always sought to represent itself as a power that could be trusted. The meticulous care taken by the Republic to appear generous with its ‘friends’, ruthless with its enemies, faithful to allied powers, moderate in imposing a peace that would not prove humiliating, tough on minor powers that had yet to be subdued – the third face of Roman diplomacy, in other words – reveals its wish to seek this equilibrium at any cost. 398 One particularly effective instrument used by Rome to ‘Romanise’ Italy was the linguistic Latinisation of the peninsula, which was set in motion once this expanding political and economic power became a pole of attraction for local cultures, which entered the Roman orbit, drawing upon its cultural and linguistic models long before becoming absorbed by Rome. 399 Obviously, this was not a straightforward process. As their military and political subjection intensified, the Italic peoples, aware of the illusory nature of their freedom, reacted with the ‘sussultatory’ wish to either 398 399 Vacanti 2008-2009, pp. 212-219. Marinetti 2000, pp. 61-79; Marinetti 2008, p. 147. 106 GIFBIB_21.indb 106 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROLE OF THE ROMAN SENATE AND ITS FUNCTION AS ARBITER preserve or win back their independence – although such opposition was never continuous or coherent – leading the Umbrians to fight beside the Gauls in the Third Samnite War 400 and many Oscan peoples to join Hannibal. 401 As far as the Umbrian area is concerned, it is likely that the process of Romanisation was facilitated, from the third century bc onwards, by the foundation of the colonies of Narni (299 bc) and Spoleto (241 bc) and the presence of the Via Flaminia, which promoted relations with Rome. It was not until the following century, however, that the road network expansion policy was intensified with the construction of the Via Postumia in 148 bc, for example, accompanied by the evident reception of Roman cultural elements. We should underline that even in the final phase there were no interruptions or dramatic breaks in the Romanisation of Umbria, which was a slow and continuous process that only reached completion after the Social War, which did not, in any case, involve the peoples living in this area. 402 The latest Iguvine Tablets (inscribed after 89 bc) reveal the respect, if not the vitality, still enjoyed by traditional cults, ancient forms of association, and, in the religious sphere at least, the native language. 403 This painless transition from one culture to another was also facilitated by the absence of a lively entrepreneurial class (which instead existed in the Oscan world) in Umbria and of the resulting turnover in the administration of power. Campanile has clearly explained the significance, in this respect, of a Latin inscription set up in Assisi by six marones, two of whom were called Nero Babrius and Vibius Voisienus; 404 if we accept the hypothesis that these two magistrates were the same two marones mentioned in a epigraph written in Umbrian with Cf. Poccetti 1979, n. 1; Campanile 1990, pp. 305-312. Cf. Brizzi 2003; Brizzi 2009; Capogrossi Colognesi 2009, pp. 153-155; Capogrossi Colognesi 2014. 402 Sisani 2006; Sisani 2009. 403 Prosdocimi 1978a, pp. 585-639; Borgeaud 1982; Prosdocimi 1984; Prosdocimi 2015. 404 CIL XI 5390 cf. p. 1388 = I2 2112 cf. p. 1080 = ILS 5346 = ILLRP 550 = Vetter 229 = AE 1991, 647 = AE 1997, 489 = ERAssisi 26 = Raccolte Comunali di Assisi 2005, pp. 106-107 ad no. 26 (Asdrubali Pentiti) = EDR 25340 = Suppl. It. XXIII 2006, p. 278 ad no. (Zuddas) = Zuddas 2007, pp. 278-279. Sisani 2006, p. 96, points out that this is the oldest example of the public use of the Latin language in Umbria. See Coarelli 1996. Cf. Bonamente [forthcoming]. 400 401 107 GIFBIB_21.indb 107 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC the Latin alphabet and inscribed on a boundary stone found near Ospedalicchio (Assisi), 405 both epigraphs should be dated to the mid- or even the first half of the second century bc. 406 Given the autonomy of the single Oscan centres and the diversity between the cities oriented towards the Tyrrhenian coast and those from the Apennine area or oriented towards the Adriatic we should point out that any claims about acculturation really only apply to the specific community concerned and that significant documents and processes in this regard affect only a limited number of centres. The Roman cultural model advanced in other spheres. The original native state structure had a single magistracy, the meddicate, flanked by one or two assemblies (popular and/or senatorial 407). From the second century bc onwards, the titles of Roman magistracies began appearing in the Oscan world but unsystematically, involving the reception of a state structure based on a multitude of magistracies and the relative Roman titles: quaestor, aedilis, praetor, and censor. The office of consul was obviously not included given that it would have been derisory and disrespectful to attribute to an ‘Italic’ magistrate the title of an office whose powers comprised the supreme military command. Consequently, in this particular historical period, eponymy varied from place to place: for example, in Abella the eponymous magistrate was the kvaistur, 408 405 CIL XI 5389 = Vetter 236 = ERAssisi 25 = Raccolte Comunali di Assisi 2005, pp. 76-78 ad no. 2 (Asdrubali Pentiti) = EDR 25339 = Suppl.It. XXIII 2006, p. 276 ad no. (Zuddas). Cf. Sisani 2012, p. 445. 406 Petraccia 2019. This hypothesis was first put forward by Bücheler 1883. 407 In Pompeii, where both were present, they were known by the Oscan terms kombennio and komparakion, respectively: Sogliano 1937, p. 156; Mazzarino 1945; Sartori 1953, pp. 69-75; Campanile 1979, p. 24. Contra Salmon 1967, p. 92, who claims that these were two different terms indicating the same structure, given that the language and lexicon of the inscriptions are identical in both cases. Campanile claims that from a methodological point of view, Salmon’s hypothesis is absurd given that “sarebbe come dire che a Roma console e pretore (in avanzata età repubblicana) sono due nomi diversi per la stessa cosa, giacché in una certa iscrizione (CIL I2 736) il console Lutazio Catulo appalta e collauda, per disposizione del senato, una certa opera, così come in un’altra iscrizione (ib. 745) fa il pretore Calpurnio Pisone Frugi: lingua e formulario sono esattamente gli stessi” (Campanile 1979, pp. 24-25 and n. 35). 408 Mazzarino 1945; Devoto 1951; Sartori 1953; Camporeale 1957; Salmon 1967; Sordi 1969; Campanile 1979, pp. 15-28; Petraccia 1988, pp. 77-78; Tagliamonte 1997; Antonini 2017, pp. 99-105. 108 GIFBIB_21.indb 108 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROLE OF THE ROMAN SENATE AND ITS FUNCTION AS ARBITER in Nola he was known as meddix, 409 in Pietrabbondante as kenzstur. 410 The still fundamental studies by Wilamowitz and Gabba on the disappearance of the indigenous culture describes the Italic world being transformed into a kind of suburb of Rome 411 che non aveva nemmeno la tragica grandezza delle estreme periferie di un’odierna metropoli, ma che, con le sue illusioni di autogoverno e di libertà civica, suscitava, piuttosto, l’ironia e il disprezzo di chi sapeva bene che piccola e illusoria cosa fossero questo autogoverno e questa libertà: si pensi al magistrato supremo di Fondi che si presenta con tutte le insegne della sua dignità e viene liquidato da Orazio con due parole: insanus scriba (s. I, 5, 35). 412 With regard to this transformation, we should also point out that né il pensiero greco classico, né quello ellenistico-romano ebbero un’idea di progresso, che non fosse altresì attenuata e come amareggiata dal ricorrere di un’utopistica ricerca della semplicità primordiale, immaginata come età dell’oro o come fiera rusticitas romana. 413 The scientific community has shown a continuing lively interest in the relationship between public law and Romanisation, especially in the Transpadane area. 414 In a recent significant contribution, Malnati claims that Roman influence spread widely at political and constitutional level from the second century bc onwards anche nei territori a nord del Po non controllati direttamente, spezzando unità territoriali troppo estese e imponendo regimi cittadini che si modellavano sulla repubblica romana, proprio 409 Mazzarino 1945; Devoto 1951; Sartori 1953; Camporeale 1957; Salmon 1967; Sordi 1969; Campanile 1979, pp. 15-28; Tagliamonte 1997; Antonini 2017, pp. 99-105. 410 Mazzarino 1945; Camporeale 1956; Salmon 1967; Sordi 1969; La Regina 1976, pp. 283-295; Campanile 1979, pp. 15-28; Tagliamonte 1997. 411 von Wilamowitz-Maellendorf 1926, pp. 1-9; Gabba 1978, pp. 11-24. 412 Campanile 1979, p. 28. 413 Mazzarino 1966, p. 513. 414 Cf. Bederman 2001. 109 GIFBIB_21.indb 109 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC nel momento in cui, dopo la seconda guerra punica, questa mostrava segni di una crisi profonda. 415 The Transpadane region continues to be a key focus of studies into the impact of Romanisation on public law 416 in a territory that had undergone a two-fold conquest. Following in the wake of Luraschi, we may be able to discover the dynamics of this process, to identify the aims – by examining the material evidence – and, finally, to reconstruct the legal and administrative profiles of the communities with which Rome dealt, adapting them to its own institutional customs. When establishing relations with the various local communities encountered, Rome was exclusively guided by political motives, enacted through the legal instrument of the foedus. Until at least the early first century bc, the foedus was the only way in which civitates could be connected to Rome, reinforcing their ties not through imposition but by confiding in their spontaneous desire for imitation both in local government (the magistracy) and town-planning, and leading to a gradual, highly effective integration and to the implementation, according to the apt term coined by Luraschi, of a kind of ‘self-Romanisation’. 417 The federative regime as legal instrument for integration would continue until 89 bc when the granting of the ius Latii would lead to “la caducazione del divieto di attribuzione della cittadinanza, che sarebbe stato incompatibile con il ius civitatis per magistratuum concesso ai Transpadani dalla c.d. lex Pompeia” 418 promulgated by Pompeius Strabo and imposing a uniform constitution based upon the Roman model on the civitates Transpadanae. However, it did not oblige these communities to adopt the duoviral system of government typical of effective colonies but allowed them to maintain their indigenous magistracies on the basis of the institution that modern historians have defined as a colonia latina ficticia. 419 Malnati 2011, p. 253. The term is used very aptly by Lazzarini 2017, p. 9. 417 Luraschi 1986, pp. 493-516. 418 Lazzarini 2017, p. 14. 419 The passage by Asconius in Pis. 3 contains our only evidence about the foundation of Latin colonies in the Transpadane territory (although this should 415 416 110 GIFBIB_21.indb 110 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROLE OF THE ROMAN SENATE AND ITS FUNCTION AS ARBITER πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, εἴ τις ἰδιώτης ἢ πόλις τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν διαλύσεως ἢ καὶ νὴ Δί’ ἐπιτιμήσεως ἢ βοηθείας ἢ φυλακῆς προσδεῖται, τούτων πάντων ἐπιμελές ἐστι τῇ συγκλήτῳ. Καὶ μὴν εἰ τῶν ἐκτὸς Ἰταλίας πρός τινας ἐξαποστέλλειν δέοι πρεσβείαν τιν’ ἢ διαλύσουσάν τινας ἢ παρακαλέσουσαν ἢ καὶ νὴ Δί’ ἐπιτάξουσαν ἢ παραληψομένην ἢ πόλεμον ἐπαγγέλλουσαν. Αὕτη ποιεῖται τὴν πρόνοιαν. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν παραγενομένων εἰς Ῥώμην πρεσβειῶν ὡς δέον ἐστὶν ἑκάστοις χρῆσθαι καὶ ὡς δέον ἀποκριθῆναι, πάντα ταῦτα χειρίζεται διὰ τῆς συγκλήτου. Πρὸς δὲ τὸν δῆμον καθάπαξ οὐδέν ἐστι τῶν προειρημένων. 420 Not only was the federal structure an ancient component of Rome’s political legislation, it was the cornerstone upon which Rome would build the edifice of what Polybius describes as the ‘perfect constitution’. After joining the Latin confederation by means of a federal pact, thanks to the hegemony that it exercised within it, Rome gradually went from being the confederation’s foremost member to becoming the representative of the Latin ‘nation’. In the early fifth century bc, when Rome destroyed the confederation, it began its transformation into Italic state, extending its federal relations to other states in the peninsula and reaching the Arnus and Aesis. While these federal relations did not result in perfect equality between Rome and the other states, instead revealing Roman superiority, they did allow the communities involved to maintain a certain degree of political and administrative autonomy: suis legibus uti. This singular status halfway between independ- be extended to the main urban centres that had yet to be Romanised in Cispadana) in different forms to the previous colonies established and about the granting of ius Latii to the inhabitants of such colonies under the law promulgated by Pompeius Strabo. Cf. Lamberti 2010, pp. 227-235; Barbati 2012, pp. 1-44. 420 Polyb. 6.13.5-7: “Similarly all crimes committed in Italy requiring a public investigation, such as treason, conspiracy, poisoning, or wilful murder, are in the hands of the Senate. Besides, if any individual or state among the Italian allies requires a controversy to be settled, a penalty to be assessed, help or protection to be afforded – all this is the province of the Senate. Or again, outside Italy, if it is necessary to send an embassy to reconcile warring communities, or to remind them of their duty, or sometimes to impose requisitions upon them, or to receive their submission, or finally to proclaim war against them – this too is the business of the Senate. In like manner the reception to be given to foreign ambassadors in Rome, and the answers to be returned to them, are decided by the Senate. With such business the people have nothing to do”. 111 GIFBIB_21.indb 111 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC ence and subjection making Rome the political and military hub of the allied peoples was mirrored by its action undertaken in disputes between these peoples, which law doctrine referred to as arbitration 421 and lay halfway between a straightforward act of governance and a form of conduct belonging to the political and diplomatic sphere. As a result, whenever disputes flared up between cities placed under the ‘protective mantle’ of Rome – especially during the period of the Latin League – Rome would be legally designated to settle them and the aforementioned centres could not call upon any other states to do so without infringing the hegemony of the Romans; in fact, the arbitrating judges in the known disputes are all Roman. We should remember that such actions were no mere acts of mediation but an organic function of hegemonic power that recognised the supreme federal jurisdiction of Rome. The hybridism underpinning the entire institution of arbitratus certainly emerged more strongly here than in any other form of arbitration. A consequence of the ambiguous status of these cities, which were neither wholly independent nor completely dependent, it did not diminish the formal character of arbitratus distinguishing this process. Eventual doubts regard whether it should be considered as an implicit consequence of Roman hegemony or a right sanctioned in the single foedera. Dionysius of Halicarnassus goes into great detail about the treaty between Rome and the cities of the Latin League, which was renewed under Servius Tullius, the penultimate king of Rome, and which he had seen inscribed on bronze tablets contained in the Sanctuary of Diana on the Aventine Hill. 422 He 421 The oldest known federal dispute was between Aricia and Ardea (both allies of Rome as well as socii, as Livy defined them (3.71-72; cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 11.52). This was a period in which cities sought to expand, attacking their neighbours and being attacked by them, documented by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (6.29-33), Strabo (5.3-12), and Livy (3.71). Ardea and Aricia were two such cities and their dispute broke out with regard to the ownership of the territory of Corioli (507-506 bc). After the legates from the two cities had pleaded their cause and brought forward their witnesses before the Roman people, the matter was settled by means of an arbitral judgement issued by Rome, which, without wasting any time and aware of its strength, occupied Corioli (the object of contention), destroying the city in 491 bc, thus gaining access to the Pontine Plain. Cf. Bignardi 1984. 422 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.25-26. 112 GIFBIB_21.indb 112 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROLE OF THE ROMAN SENATE AND ITS FUNCTION AS ARBITER notes in particular the purpose and arbitral character of the pact, intended to promote peace and good relationships between the single states in Latium just as the amphictyonies 423 and similar institutions did in Greece; the king of Rome, in agreement with the representatives of these states, would draw up the conditions of the pact. Without going so far as to say that his mention of Greek institutions and customs was a historical reminiscence by the writer, we might well accept that he read something in that pact that brought those memories to mind. It is not so unlikely that as long as there was a Latin confederation and a federal diet in which Rome would certainly have participated, 424 Rome would have exercised arbitral jurisdiction under a mandate issued by this diet. To sum up, when disputes between the cities of the league threatened the peace and order of the Roman state, Rome’s right to be considered supreme arbitrator to all intents and purposes became as natural as it was indisputable. In the second century bc, in the space of just a few decades, Rome ascended to a position of absolute ‘international’ prestige, acquiring an influence and power transforming it into the hub and focal point of a new ‘international’ equilibrium dominated by the Republic: this process took place both in territories on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean and on Italic soil, which still bore the open wounds of the Second Punic War, triggering a desire and need for political and diplomatic change in Rome despite the inescapable fears of the unknown consequences. Given this scenario it is almost natural to underline the sui generis nature of the arbitral role ‘invented’ by Rome and assumed by the Senate, due to the position of undeniable superiority that Rome had now attained with respect to its interlocutors. The second century bc, which was dramatic in many respects, witnessed the full scope of Roman imperialism or, rather, of the imperialism of the Roman Senate. In fact, this institution was responsible for settling a huge number of disputes dating to this historic phase 425 and which this book undertakes to analyse. From 423 424 425 Cf. Westermann 1907, p. 210. Liv. 1.50-51; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.45-48; 5.50. Astin 1989, pp. 1-16; Gabba 1990b, pp. 189-233. 113 GIFBIB_21.indb 113 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC the early decades of the second century onwards, Rome began to appear in the role of arbiter in a series of territorial disputes (both in the East and on Italic soil) that intensified around mid-century. We should point out however that Rome’s approach was initially rather “minimalist” and it made no attempts to develop a detailed policy for arbitral intervention although it is possible to recognise a number of constants in Rome’s behaviour and situations that would re-occur in later periods and that would soon lead to a precise legal definition of the concept of arbitration. After Pydna (168 bc) especially – but already after Apamea (188 bc) – all of the ‘actors’ on the international political stage were quite aware of who was pulling the strings. In fact, Greek States seeking to pursue an autonomous foreign policy did so at grave risk to themselves (as exemplified by the destruction of Corinth in 146 bc and the dissolution of the Achaean League). 426 Già in precedenza, in realtà, Roma era stata chiamata in causa dagli stati greci per questioni di dissidi locali, per lo più territoriali. Infatti, nei negoziati di pace successivi alla seconda guerra macedonica, le poleis greche, per sostenere le proprie rivendicazioni territoriali, si erano rivolte al Senato, il quale aveva affidato alla commissione dei decem legati il compito di occuparsi delle varie dispute nel contesto degli ‘aggiustamenti’ territoriali successivi alla guerra. Q uindi più che come veri e propri casi di arbitrato interstatale alla maniera greca, le decisioni assunte dai legati romani a Corinto vanno considerate come parte dell’opera di riorganizzazione e sistemazione postbellica della Grecia, e nell’ambito di tale opera vanno inserite. 427 In a different way, in the wake of Apamea and the various peace treaties after the Roman-Syrian War, numerous cities in the Greek world called upon the Roman Senate to handle and settle their disputes. As we have seen, Rome responded in a highly innovative manner with respect to the experience familiar to the poleis, by exploiting its position as a sui generis hegemonic power as well as by drawing upon its juridical experience. 426 427 Camia 2009, p. 213 and n. 570. Camia 2009, p. 171 and nn. 453-455. 114 GIFBIB_21.indb 114 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROLE OF THE ROMAN SENATE AND ITS FUNCTION AS ARBITER Compared to the practices dating to the late Republican period, the early imperial age caused further changes to take place in the arbitral (in the technical sense of the term) role exercised by the Roman Senate in territorial disputes and represented an attempt by Rome to construct a world in which every community could experience the benevolent supervision of the central power, calling upon it for protection in the event that it was a victim of injustice. 428 m. f. p. 428 Cf. Compatangelo-Soussignan 2011, p. 63 and n. 83. 115 GIFBIB_21.indb 115 03/12/19 12.28 GIFBIB_21.indb 116 03/12/19 12.28 5. THE CIPPUS ABELLANUS AND THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CAMPANIAN COMMUNITIES L’eguaglianza venne: ma non strappata dai socii vittoriosi a Roma battuta, bensì concessa da Roma trionfante ai socii sconfitti. Roma nella sconfitta nulla mai concesse, tutto o molto donò nella vittoria: ed anche questa era maiestas, perché rimaneva intatta la superiorità dell’Urbe. (Sartori 1963, p. 162) Fig. 1 The Cippus Abellanus, currently preserved in the Archiepiscopal Seminary of Nola [graphic reproduction by Morandi 1982]. 117 GIFBIB_21.indb 117 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Side A Maio Vestricio Mai. f. Stati n. / stirpe Suerroni, quaesto- / ri Abellano, (§) et Maio / Luceio Mai. f. Puclato, / meddici decemvirali Nola- / no, et legatís Abellanis / et legatís Nolanis / qui senatus sententia / sui utrique legati / erant, ita convenit (§) [de] / Templo Herculis ad / campum quod est, et (de) fundo / qui ad id templum est, / quod intra termina ex[polita] / est, quae termina communi / sententia probata sunt [recturae] / causa, ut id templum / et is fundus res communis / in communi territorio esset, et / eius templi et / fundi fructus / communis utrorumque / esset. (§) At Nolan[orum es-] / [to in] Herculis te[mplo do-] / [norum quid] quid Nolan[i de] / [suo ibi posuerint, item Abel-] / [lanorum esto in Herculis] / [templo donorum quidquid] / [Abellani de suo ibi posuerint.] Italian translation (La Regina 2000, p. 221) Da parte di Maio Vestricio Suerrone figlio di Maio, nipote di Stazio, questore abellano, e da parte di Maio Lucceio Puclato figlio di Maio, decemviro nolano, e da parte dei legati abellani e dei legati nolani, i quali sono stati designati per decisione del proprio senato (1-10), si convenne (10) in merito al santuario di Ercole che è presso il mercato (10-12), e in merito al terreno che è presso quel santuario, il quale è incluso entro i cippi terminali levigati (ossia nell’agro limitato) (12-15), approvati con deliberazione comune per la delimitazione dell’agro (15-17): che quel santuario e che quel terreno fossero cosa comune in territorio comune (1719), e che i profitti derivanti da quel santuario e dal terreno fossero di beneficio comune (19-23); ma sia di proprietà dei Nolani [qualunque dono posto nel] tempio di Ercole dai Nolani [a proprie spese; parimenti sia di proprietà degli Abellani qualunque dono ivi posto dagli Abellani a proprie spese] (23-29); English translation (Crawford II 2011, pp. 887-892) By Maius Vestricius, son of Mai., grandson of Sta., prukupid sverruneí, Abellan quaestor, and Maius Lucceius, son of Mai., pukalatúi, Nolan medís deketatis (meddix of the tithes), and the Abellan ambassadors and the Nolan ambassadors, who by decision of their senate each had become ambassadors, it was agreed as follows; that, as for sanctuary of Hercules which is beside the slaags, and the land which is beside that sanctuary, whatever is between the outer boundary-markers, which boundary-markers were set up by joint decision, [recta] causa, that sanctuary and that land should be jointly-held in jointly-held land, [and] the revenue of that sanctuary [and] land should be joint [revenue] of both. But (for) [who is] of the Nolani, the temple of Hercules [is to be –? – and] anyone from Nola [in that –? –], which building is??? [–? –] 118 GIFBIB_21.indb 118 03/12/19 12.28 THE CIPPUS ABELLANUS AND THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CAMPANIAN COMMUNITIES Side B Item [si quid iìdem ibi] / aedifica[re volent usque ad] / limitu[m] maceriam, [ubi] / Herculis fanum medium / est, extra parietes qui / Herculis fanum circumdant / usque ad viam porticibus, / quae ibi est iuxta campum, / senatus sui senten- / tia aedificare li- / ceto. (§) Et id aedi- / ficium quod Nolani / aedificaverint et / usus Nolanorum esto. / Item si quid Abellani / aedificaverint id aedi- / ficium et usus / Abellanorum esto. (§) At / pone parietes qui aedem circum- / dant in eo spatio nec Abel- / lani nec Nolani quicquam / aedificent. (§) At the- / saurum quod in eo spatio est / quando aperirent communi sen- / tentia aperirent; etenim quod in eo / thesauro quodcumque exstet / portìonum alteram alteri / acciperent. (§) At intra campum / Abellanùm et Nolanum / ubique via circumcurrens est pedum x[II?]. / In ea via media termi- / na stant. Italian translation (La Regina 2000, p. 221) parimenti, se essi vorranno costruire alcunché verso la maceria dei limiti (della divisione agraria), dei quali il tempio di Ercole occupa lo spazio centrale, al di fuori delle pareti che circondano con portici il tempio di Ercole, fino alla strada che in quel punto costeggia il mercato, ciascuno per decisione del proprio senato abbia facoltà di costruire (1-10); l’edificio che i Nolani avranno costruito e il suo uso siano dei Nolani (11-14); parimenti se qualcosa gli Abellani avranno costruito quell’edificio e il relativo uso siano degli Abellani (15-18); ma nello spazio entro il perimetro dei muri che circondano il tempio né gli Abellani né i Nolani costruiscano alcunché (18-22); e quando debbano aprire il tesoro che si trova in quello spazio, lo facciano per decisione comune, e qualunque cosa si trovi in quel tesoro la dividano in parti uguali (22-28); e all’interno del mercato abellano e nolano vi è una strada perimetrale di 10 [+?] piedi (di larghezza): i cippi della limitazione agraria sono posti a metà strada (28-32). English translation (Crawford II 2011, pp. 887-892) Likewise [if the same shall wish] to build [anything up to] the ??? of the boundaries [where] the temple of Hercules is in the middle, outside the walls which surround the temple of Hercules, which lie beyond the road, which is there, within the slaags it is to be lawful by decision of their senate to build. And that building which the Nolani shall have built and its use is to be of the Nolani. Likewise whatever the Abellani shall have built, that building and its use is to be of the Abellani. But within the walls which surround the temple, in that land neither the Abellani nor the Nolani are to build anything. But (it was agreed that) the thesaurus which is in that land, when they open it they are to open it by joint decision, and whatever is ever in that thesaurus they are each to take one of (the two) shares. But between the Abellan and the Nolan slaags, the surrounding road is all around of 10 feet. At the mid-point of that road boundary-markers stand. 119 GIFBIB_21.indb 119 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC As we have seen in the first section of this study, the Roman world was particularly concerned with the definition of boundaries and a considerable glossary of terms attests to the importance of distinguishing between different territorial environments. On occasion, boundary markers would be set up in the wake of a dispute in which the Roman authorities were called upon to intervene as arbitrators; 429 nevertheless, the need to demarcate parcels of territory by means of cippi was an issue that did not concern Rome only – in particular at the time of the Gracchan legislation regulating the delimitation of the Roman territory and the consequent fine-tuning of the cadastral instrument, all of which clearly reveal Rome’s huge capacity to adapt to differing local situations; the first centuriations are attested in the Italic peninsula from the third century bc onwards, both in the north and centre, following the annexation of the ager Gallicus, of Picenum, and the confiscation of the lands belonging to the Senones expelled en masse, as well as in the south following the defeat of the Lucanians in 282 bc followed by the Tarentine treaty, which would mark the definitive annexation to Rome of all of southern Italy. 430 The Cippus Abellanus is a seminal document that can be dated to between the end of the third century bc and the early second century bc, 431 or the so-called Osco-Roman period, when Rome’s influence began to make itself felt more strongly throughout the south of Italy in general, and in the Campanian area in particular, in the prelude to full Romanisation, which would come about at the start of the first century bc, after the Social War. 432 Scuderi 1991a, p. 371. Clavel-Lévêque 1987, pp. 13-16. 431 According to Sartori 1953, p. 152 and n. 9; Pulgram 1960, pp. 16‐29; La Rocca 1971, p. 64; Prosdocimi 1980, pp. 430-436; Morandi 1982, pp. 12-16; Laffi 1983, p. 67; Petraccia 1988, pp. 77-78; Compatangelo-Soussignan 2011, p. 62: Contra Franchi De Bellis 1988, pp. 33-34; Scuderi 1991a, p. 387; Scuderi 1991c, p. 42; La Regina 2000, p. 214; Crawford 2011, pp. 887-892; Antonini 2015, p. 53, who hold it to be post-Gracchan (end of second century bc); Antonini 2017, pp. 99-105. 432 Sartori 1953, p. 152; Petraccia 1988, p. 78. According to tradition there were three federations: the Campanian federation headed by Capua, the Nucerian federation and the Nolan federation comprising Nola and Abella in addition to some minor centres. 429 430 120 GIFBIB_21.indb 120 03/12/19 12.28 THE CIPPUS ABELLANUS AND THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CAMPANIAN COMMUNITIES The Cippus is a boundary stone (whose studies are ‘weighed down’ by countless doubts and few certainties) bearing an inscription of an Oscan text describing an agreement 433 between Abella 434 and Nola, 435 concerning three constituent parts: a sanctuary, the land surrounding the sanctuary (lying within an ager previously limited by communi sententia issued by the respective senates of the cities concerned), and a road 436 lying on the boundary between the two territories and the ager in which the sanctuary was located. 437 The Cippus states that the ligatús (= legates) charged with assisting the magistrates of the respective communities in the definition of the agreement were appointed both in Abella and in Nola by means of senateís tanginúd (= senatus sententia). 438 The re-arrangement of this important sacred area, the site of a shared cult, inevitably extended to the surrounding territory, involving a kind of updated cadastral survey of the area where According to Cinquantaquattro 2013, p. 25, it was a proper treaty stipulated by the quaestor of Abella and the medìs deketasiìs of Nola. 434 Until the Social War, Abella maintained its own system of laws and was federated with Rome, like nearby Nola. After the Social War, it became a municipium optimo iure and was set on fire by the inhabitants of Nola in 87 bc, as reported by Granius Licinianus (Gran. Licin. 35, p. 20, 8 Flemisch); cf. Sartori 1953, pp. 151-154. 435 Nola remained a federated city with its own magistracies until the Social War, a clear sign of autonomy if not of political independence (Liv. 9.28.1-6; Diod. Sic. 19.101.3 in which he mentions that Rome imposed a foedus. Luraschi’s volume of 1979 remains fundamental). After the Social War, Nola, like Abella, became a municipium (Fest. s.v. municipium, p. 155 L.; cf. Sartori 1953, pp. 148-150). 436 A plan of the area can be found in Crawford 2011, p. 892. 437 La Regina 2000, pp. 219-222, believes that it is unlikely that the land on which the sanctuary was built and which is owned by neither Nola nor Abella is “identificabile con una silva o con un ager compascuus, perché l’uso che ne viene fatto nel testo indica qualcosa di ben determinato come riferimento puntuale, e non un ambito territoriale di grande estensione, per il quale sarebbe privo di senso il richiamo alla strada che compare in B 28-30 […] qui indica dunque un’area che doveva avere una destinazione funzionale specifica, forse per un mercato rurale, per una fiera. In relazione agli obblighi daziarii i mercati con le strade che li interessavano erano delimitati da cippi”. Cf. the livestock market at Alba Fucens, a large rectangular space containing the Temple of Hercules and adjoining the Via Valeria. Contra Antonini 2015, p. 113 n. 112. 438 According to Laffi 1983, p. 52, the appointment of legati confirms that control of international relations was among the prerogatives of the senates of allied cities. Cf. Campanile 1979, p. 22. 433 121 GIFBIB_21.indb 121 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC the sanctuary was located and a review of the property acts of the leases of the relative lands, and of the relative rents. These proceedings were to be approved beforehand by the kúmparakion of Nola and Abella (the body with jurisdiction over the Sanctuary of Hercules) 439 triggering the dispute regarding the ownership of the sanctuary (was it jointly held by both cities, solely by Nola or solely by Abella?) and recorded in the text inscribed on the Cippus. 440 Antonini believes that neither Abella nor Nola were interested in defining their respective boundaries; 441 in fact, the Cippus Abellanus contains no trace of this partition, which may have been prohibited by previous international treaties (foedera) tying the two towns to Rome and preventing them from becoming involved in extra-territorial activities without Roman endorsement. 442 Rome seems far from averse to assuming the role of arbitrating judge in boundary disputes (a role usually assumed by the Senate in the Republican era) and in the consequent land ownership claims arising between the communities in its hegemonic orbit. The juridical and institutional framework contained in the Cippus Abellanus provides us with an unambiguous image of the synchronic situation of the relationship between Nola-Abella 439 According to Laffi (Laffi 1983, pp. 59, 67 and n. 51) and Poccetti (Poccetti 1979), epigraphic evidence from the second century bc shows that, unlike Nola and Abella (as well as numerous localities in Samnium and Lucania), Pompeii had two assemblies: the kúmbennio (a term meaning ‘popular assembly’ that does not appear in the Cippus Abellanus) and the kúmparakion which, despite diverging opinions, should be the term by which the senate was designated: cf. also Salmon 1967, pp. 92-93. Contra Antonini 2015, p. 63; Antonini 2017, who sustains that the entire ruling structure of Nola and Abella may have been formed by two supreme magistrates – the Abellan quaestor Maius Vestricius and the Nolan medìs deketasiìs Maius Lucius Puclatus, acting suo iure – and by the legates appointed by their respective senates to observe the ongoing negotiations, report on the same to the institutional organs of the two cities, and eventually sign the charta of the agreement as witnesses. 440 It is possible that the sanctuary’s location on the border is not strictly relevant. Given that this was a shared sacred area, even if it had been entirely situated within the territory of one of the two cities, there would still have been the problem of guaranteeing access to all. 441 This can only be deduced from what has been omitted, because the text of the Cippus only refers to the Temple of Hercules and appurtenances but we cannot exclude that the boundaries had been regulated. However, the fact that it was the Temple of Hercules to have been regulated (regardless of whether there was interest in defining the boundaries more in general) underlines its importance. 442 Laffi 1990, pp. 285-304. 122 GIFBIB_21.indb 122 03/12/19 12.28 THE CIPPUS ABELLANUS AND THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CAMPANIAN COMMUNITIES and Rome. 443 Consequently, the drawing up of the deliberations made by the Nolan and Abellan kúmparakion in written form had to be carried out with the greatest care in order to avoid friction between the two civitates foederatae and Rome, a looming but unavoidable presence (both in a negative and positive sense) in the drafting of ‘Italic’ legislative instruments. The lexicon used in the “monumentalised message on the Cippus” 444 reveals immediate correlations between the Roman magisterial vocabulary and Samnite institutional terminology: the Roman chancery provided a vast reservoir that could be drawn upon by those drafting official native texts in epichoric languages. 445 The text of the Cippus concerns the definition of sacred boundaries. Despite the Oscan religious background, it seems likely that the ideological ‘model’ of the treaty (which commits the parties involved to compliance with the obligations jointly undertaken) is Roman and worthy of further study. It must be assumed that ab antiquo sacred areas, as property of the gods, would have been inalienable, unless steps were taken to avoid sacrilege by adopting surrogate forms such as leasing or emphyteusis, and it is likely that this technicality is exploited by the trebarakaom concession mentioned in this document. Once the land lying around the sanctuary and in the vicinity of the territories of Nola and Abella had been mapped (as emerges from Side A of the Cippus), it is likely that the parcels of land were equally divided and delimited by boundary markers in order to then be ‘leased’ to Abella and Nola, for use as pastureland or for pens to hold their flocks. Another clause in the agreement establishes that the two towns could construct buildings on the jointly owned strip of land outside the sanctuary walls, provided they obtained permis- Antonini 2015, p. 66. Antonini 2015, p. 74. 445 Roman influence and models were certainly strong. The text itself has the structure of a senatus consultum with its typical indirect style. I would possibly be more cautious with regard to the correspondence between the Roman and Samnite magisterial lexicon: as rightly pointed out by Poccetti (Poccetti 1983, pp. 178-198), the meddix degetasis had no equivalent in Rome nor did the OscoSamnite and Roman quaestores have the same competence. 443 444 123 GIFBIB_21.indb 123 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC sion beforehand from the respective senate. 446 It is worth pointing out here that the senate of Nola is also mentioned by Livy at the time of the Hannibalic War. 447 The Cippus Abellanus makes explicit a concept of limes based on the presence of a strip of jointly owned land known as slagi (the Oscan equivalent of the Latin ager extraclusus or subsecivus) crossed by a path with a ‘statutory’ length and width delimited by ‘crossed posts’ marking the boundary between the sacred area of the Sanctuary of Hercules and the territories of Nola and Abella. 448 The object of contention concerned the slagi (ager compascuus? 449), whose boundary markers were to be placed along two lines. If inhabitants of Nola wished to travel to Abella, they would have had to cross two ‘borders’; once when they left the territory of their town to enter the slagi, and again when they left the slagi to enter the territory of Abella. 450 The Cippus is an extraordinarily important epigraphic document, 451 both linguistically speaking (it is one of the longest and most complex texts in the Oscan languages to survive), and in terms of the historical and juridical-administrative references contained, given that it details decisions taken by magistrates and delegates from Nola and Abella who came to an agreement about the competences of their respective communities with regard to the area (slagi) surrounding the Sanctuary of Hercules, the admin446 A Pompeian inscription mentions a [k]vaísstur who implements a locatio, [kú]mparakineís [ta]ngin(ud). Cf. Sartori 1953, p. 70; Poccetti 1983, pp. 179180; Petraccia 1988, p. 70. 447 Liv. 23.14.7; 23.16.7; 23.17.3; 23.39.7; 23.43.8; 24.13.8; see Sartori 1953, pp. 148-150. 448 It is precisely for this reason that it is assumed that it was originally set up in the forum of Abella and in that of Nola as well as in the sanctuary of Hercules. 449 Guida 2016, pp. 233-236. The first notion of ager compascuus dates back to the second century bc; according to Roman public law, it could be assigned to a community (like, for example, the civitates foederatae) or to multiple subjects (often owners of neighbouring plots using the land for pasture, as described by Frontin. de contr. p. 15, 4-6 L. = p. 6, 7-8 Th. est et pascuorum proprietas pertinens ad fundos, sed in commune; propter quod ea conpascua multis locis in Italia communia appellantur), maybe also without the obligation to remit a fee, and used to pasture animals (Dig. 8.5.20.1). After the Social War, Rome would find it necessary to define the precise boundaries of all urban communities, putting an end to Italic realities like the slagi of the Cippus Abellanus. 450 Prosdocimi 1978b, p. 857; Scuderi 1991a, p. 389. 451 Campanile, Letta 1979, p. 22. 124 GIFBIB_21.indb 124 03/12/19 12.28 THE CIPPUS ABELLANUS AND THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CAMPANIAN COMMUNITIES istration of the temple, and the strip of land designated for joint use by the two towns and the sanctuary. 452 As we have already pointed out with regard to the hypothetical (or maybe probable) intervention of Rome in the dispute between Nola and Abella reported in the text inscribed on the Cippus Abellanus – like an éminence grise pulling the strings behind the scenes – in this case the Roman Senate did not act as arbiter in the canonical sense of the term; nor are we in the presence of one of those ‘false’ arbitral decisions (a possibly misleading adjective) made by Rome. 453 Rather, this appears to be one of the forms of arbitration adopted pragmatically – but also habitually – by the Senate when intervening in strategically important areas like the ‘Latin-Campanian’ territory of Nola and Abella. This type of attentive control by Rome always emerged whenever fears arose that the conflicts of its allies might impact Roman interests in the area undergoing territorial rearrangement. 454 In Italy, and in Campania, in particular, Osco-Samnite supremacy prevailed from around 420 bc until the end of the third century bc, and in certain spheres, until the Social War; already from 338 bc onwards, the centres of this region were building relationships with Rome. The ‘political-diplomatic’ organisation of this territory was managed by Rome through the foedera, whose contents were always inspired, as convincingly argued by Luraschi in 1979, 455 by two trump cards: experience and pragmatism. Although Rome’s relationship to the civitates foederatae was not yet one of imperium, it was always based on patrocinium: 456 a formula that was a double-edged sword since it guaranteed protection to Rome’s allies … while also allowing Rome to exercise a kind of covert control over what happened in these settlements. Cinquantaquattro 2013, pp. 20-25. According to Compatangelo-Soussignan 2011, p. 49, a case of false arbitration was the one regarding the boundary dispute between Aricia and Ardea that Rome resolved in 446 bc. 454 Compatangelo-Soussignan 2011, p. 58. 455 Luraschi 1979. Cf. also Tarpin 2016, pp. 183-200. 456 Cic. Off. 2.8.27. 452 453 125 GIFBIB_21.indb 125 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC With regard to Greece, Polybius tells us that in 228 bc, the Corinthians invited Rome to take part in the Isthmian Games. 457 According to Sartori, this highly significant and unprecedented event can only be interpreted in one way: it was clear that the Republic had achieved ascendancy in the Mediterranean world and that from now on, no one could ignore the rising empire of Rome. Less than a century later, in the wake of yet another uprising by the Achaean League, Corinth would witness the victorious army of Lucius Mummius extending this link to the political sphere. In fact, in 146 bc, Greece was incorporated into the Roman province of Macedonia. Only Athens and Sparta would be allowed to maintain a certain degree of autonomy, continuing to govern themselves by means of their own laws. 458 But 228 bc was just another stage in the process bringing Greece and Rome closer: le relazioni avevano radici più antiche, più profonde, più vicine al Lazio. L’incontro era avvenuto in quell’Italia meridionale le cui coste portavano da secoli il nome augurale di Magna Grecia, dove Roma aveva vinto i Sanniti e Pirro, dove qualche anno più tardi logorerà Annibale […]. Lì, in Italia, si conobbero, si fecondarono l’un l’altro e infine si fusero l’elemento ellenico e l’elemento romano, sì che un trinomio inscindibile ne venne, Roma Italia Grecia. 459 Under Roman legislation, cities bound to Rome by a foedus were given a certain amount of leeway – at least formally – in proceedings regarding boundary disputes with the proviso of compliance with the conditions laid down by the treaty concerned. At this point there were two possible scenarios. 1. The claimants failed to reach an agreement without the intervention of an arbiter appointed by the Roman Senate: the arbiter was required to listen to the arguments put forward by the legates representing the cities involved in the dispute and sent to Rome to request its intervention. If the request was Polyb. 2.12.8. “La Grecia aveva trovato alla fine l’unica pace che le si addicesse: quella del cimitero”: Montanelli 2004, p. 323. 459 Sartori 1953, pp. 11-12. Cf. Toynbee 1981, pp. 263 ff. 457 458 126 GIFBIB_21.indb 126 03/12/19 12.28 THE CIPPUS ABELLANUS AND THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CAMPANIAN COMMUNITIES accepted, the task of resolving the dispute would be entrusted to a ‘third’ party appointed by the Senate. This resulted in one clear criterium: the deciding phase required the explicit contribution of a neutral third party with respect to the claimants. a. As far as boundary disputes in the Hellenistic territory were concerned, Rome complied with the customary practices in use prior to its conquest of those regions and frequently entrusted arbitration to another city. 460 Around 140 bc the territorial interests of the polis of Ambracia clashed with those of the koinon of the Athamanians. 461 Delegations of Ambracians and Athamanians, therefore, travelled to Rome to request, through the mediation of praetor Publius Cornelius Blasio, the intervention of the Roman Senate in settling the dispute. After the ambassadors had explained the facts to the senators, the latter decided to appoint a third city (Corcyra) to take responsibility for resolving the matter. The aforementioned praetor entrusted Corcyra with this assignment by sending a missive that also contained a senatus consultum with ‘guidelines’ on how to settle the case. However, the arbitral decision was legitimately issued by the Corcyrian judges who also carried out a survey on the ground. b. As far as boundary disputes between civitates foederatae in Italy were concerned, Rome would entrust the peaceful settlement of a dispute to a Roman arbitrator invested with decision-making powers by the Senate. Moreover, the foedus guaranteed the territory and the boundaries of the cities involved. 462 In 183 bc, a dispute arose between Naples 463 Guarducci 1987, p. 103. SEG 47, 1997, 604; BE 1998, 201. For the question relative to the dispute between Ambracia and the koinon of the Athamanians, see recently Camia 2009, pp. 44-50. 462 Scuderi 1991a, p. 373. 463 Rome and Naples stipulated a foedus that was respected by the Campanian city for almost 250 years, even during the tragic events of the Hannibalic War (Liv. 8.22.5; 8.23.13; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 15.5-10). The treaty was favourable for Naples, which kept its fleet – while undertaking to come to Rome’s aid if needed – and maintained its right to asylum, to mint its own coinage, and, of course, its language and Greek civil and religious institutions. The fact that the foedus was very favourable emerges from the fact that, according to Cicero, when 460 461 127 GIFBIB_21.indb 127 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC and Nola, which had been civitates foederatae for some time. 464 On this occasion the Roman Senate designated one of its own members – consul Q uintus Fabius Labeo 465 – to adjudicate the dispute. The consul urged each side (Nola and Naples separately) to make concessions, convincing them to withdraw, rather than pushing forward their boundaries, then awarded the strip that remained between the two territories to Rome. 466 Cicero, who seemed to challenge the veracity of this account, underlined the deceitfulness of this arbitral approach. Valerius Maximus, while basing his account on the version of the great orator, considered this an example of great astuteness. 467 Here too we are faced with a form of arbitration clearly exemplified by the explicit involvement, in the deciding phase, of a neutral third party (a role perfectly played by Q uintus Fabius Labeo). Although held by many to be a strange and anomalous episode of arbitration, it was certainly not a mere historiographic invention 468 as was very clearly demonstrated by Beloch, whose Campanien. Geschichte und Topographie des antiken Neapel und seiner Umgebung 469 continues to represent an indispensable instrument for scholars studying ancient Campania, over a century after its first publication. As recently claimed by Parisi 470 (recalling some of Beloch’s conclusions), the doubts raised by Cicero, 471 who would certainly have been aware of the juridical concept of arbitration, were less concerned with the historical truth of the dispute arising between Naples and Nola due to boundary issues in the early second century bc than with the homonNaples was offered Roman citizenship after the Social War, it attempted to refuse, as did Heraclea (Cic. pro Balb. 8.21). 464 Naples’ foedus with Rome dated to 326 bc; the foedus between Nola and Naples to 313 bc. 465 Cic. Off. 1.10.23-41; Val. Max. 7.3.4. 466 Scuderi 1991a, pp. 372-373; Compatangelo-Soussignan 2011, pp. 52-53. 467 Cf. Scuderi 1991a, p. 372. 468 Scuderi 1991a, pp. 373-374. 469 Beloch 1879. 470 Parisi 2011, pp. 94-100. 471 Cic. Off. 1.10.33. 128 GIFBIB_21.indb 128 03/12/19 12.28 THE CIPPUS ABELLANUS AND THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CAMPANIAN COMMUNITIES ymy of the magistrate sent by Rome to settle the matter. In fact, the magistrate in question was not the consul Q uintus Fabius Labeo but the peregrine praetor Gaius Atinius Labeo, who was also active in that period and who had been sent to Campania in 195 bc by the Senate in order to act as arbiter and settle the territorial dispute between Nola and Naples. 472 In conclusion, we should remove all doubts regarding the veracity of this episode (wrongly held to be a historiographic invention) and change the name of the magistrate sent to find a peaceful solution to the dispute (not Quintus Fabius Labeo, but Gaius Atinius Labeo), while pre-dating the year in which these events took place (not 183 bc, but 195 bc). 2. The claimants managed to peacefully reach an agreement without the intervention of an arbiter (whether city or magistrate) designated by the Roman Senate. Therefore, when there were no grounds to believe that a territorial dispute between cities could cause any harm to Rome or challenge its authority, Rome did not directly intervene. a. As far as boundary disputes between Greek cities are concerned, it is worth recalling the dispute that flared up between Sparta and Argos in the mid-second century bc or thereabouts. Pausanias, 473 who may be ‘duplicating’ the more well-known dispute between Sparta and Megalopolis, 474 reports that a certain Gallus entrusted the responsibility for resolving the dispute directly to Callicrates, a leading member of the Achaean League. In fact, given that the dispute involved two members of the League (a federal body with a certain degree of autonomy – formally It is rather surprising that Cicero’s doubts – relating not to the veracity of this episode but to the identity of the arbiter sent by Rome – have never been adequately examined and studied other than by a great scholar such as Beloch 1879, p. 494. 473 Paus. 7.11.1-2. 474 Camia 2004, pp. 423-427. For the disputes in which Sparta was involved in the same period (with Megalopolis and probably also with Argos) see Camia 2009, pp. 22-31. 472 129 GIFBIB_21.indb 129 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC at least – authorised to make decisions on internal matters under the treaty stipulated with Rome in 192-191 bc that was renewed on the occasion of the clash between Sparta and the League in 184-183 bc), Rome decided to entrust the responsibility for making a decision to Callicrates in his capacity as (pro-Roman) representative of the koinon. The Romans, therefore, did not deliver a verdict on the dispute between Sparta and Argos (or Sparta and Megalopolis), possibly ‘limiting’ themselves to influencing the decision by communicating a ‘response’ (gnome) at the moment in which they were consulted by the legates (as had been the case with the Megalopolites and the Spartans). This ‘response’ probably involved decreeing the ineluctable authority of the judgements passed by the judges in precedence; 475 Rome, therefore, opted out of judging the dispute in person and even refrained from indicating a third city (as was the usual practice) to settle the dispute – restoring judicial power to the League – in the context of a hundred-year-old territorial conflict similar to the one in which Sparta had been caught up since 338 bc. b. The case described in the Cippus Abellanus seems, therefore, to fall into the latter category, given that it reports a dispute between Nola and Abella, the two cities responsible for the administration of the sacred area of Hercules as well as of the areas pertaining to and/or surrounding the sanctuary. We should remember that Rome tended to consider the sacred sphere as coming under its allies’ ‘internal affairs’, unless of course it spilled over into issues regulated by the foedera; reading the epigraph inscribed on the Cippus “si deduce ex silentio il consenso di Roma agli ‘affari’ d’ambito santuariale tra Nola e Abella, sia pure contenuti ‘in limiti certi’ in questi la profanazione di beni santuariali”. 476 In this case too, Rome may have decided not to intervene directly, given that this was a dispute peacefully resolved by the cities involved by means of a ‘joint sentence’ issued by the collective body responsible for the sacred precinct of Hercules represent475 476 IvO 47, l. 46. Antonini 2017, p. 62 and n. 68. 130 GIFBIB_21.indb 130 03/12/19 12.28 THE CIPPUS ABELLANUS AND THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO CAMPANIAN COMMUNITIES ing the cities of Nola and Abella. 477 This sentence marked the probatio of the defined boundary perimeter, a perimeter partly occupied by the aforementioned sacred area. 478 It is worth remembering that the issues connected to the sanctuary and the surrounding territories would have come under the remit of the sacred, which was usually respected (spared) by Rome … obviously within the limits of autonomy laid down by the foedus. As far as we can deduce from a text as ‘peremptory’ and hard to understand as the epigraph inscribed upon the Cippus (even though this is one of the least obscure antique texts, especially among the Oscan ones, with regard to the general terms), Rome’s only concern was to ensure that the faithful had free access to the sanctuary, along the road built on the slagi. 479 Fu dunque quella di Roma, politica paziente ma risoluta, non aliena dal compromesso temporaneo ma decisa a raggiungere sostanziale e definitiva uniformità, sì che al termine del processo ogni città d’Italia risultasse una copia dell’Urbe e in ciascuna, escluse per un primo tempo le greche, si parlasse latino. […] Sicché, in ultima analisi, l’uniformità si raggiungeva per il simultaneo concorso di due fattori principalissimi, la lungimirante azione del governo romano e la recisa volontà italica che con Roma coincidesse l’Italia e che dire Roma significasse comprendere in un solo sguardo l’intera penisola: fu così che Roma divenne Italia e l’Italia si identificò con Roma, in un perpetuo scambio di alti valori civili, in una meravigliosa unità di intenti, in un inesausto comunicare di popoli. 480 m. f. p. 477 The text does not provide information on the requirements of this sentence nor on the pertinence and institutional nature of the body issuing it: cf. Antonini 2017, p. 84. 478 Antonini 2017, p. 79. 479 Rome safeguarded local sacra and certainly did not hinder them. After all, this was the spirit of the entire operation. However, it should also be considered conversely, broadening the perspective. Poccetti (Poccetti 1979) notes that it was just in the second century bc that the native civilisations felt the need to strengthen their local religious traditions using a variety of mostly ritual documents like the Tabulae Iguvinae with inscriptions in Umbrian and the Tabula Veliterna with an inscription in Volscian. The Cippus Abellanus may also have been inspired by this type of local impulse, which in the case of clashes or disputes, was encouraged or backed by Rome. 480 Sartori 1953, p. 163. 131 GIFBIB_21.indb 131 03/12/19 12.28 GIFBIB_21.indb 132 03/12/19 12.28 6. THE POLCEVERA TABLET De iure territorii controversia est de his quae ad ipsam urbem pertinent, sive quid intra pomerium eius urbis erit quod a privatis operibus optineri non oportebit. Eum dico locum quem ne ordo nullo iure a populo poterit amovere. (Frontin. de contr. p. 17 L. = p. 7, 1-5 Th.) Territorii [aeque] iuris controuersia agitatur, quotiens propter exigenda tributa de possessione litigatur, cum dicat una pars in sui eam fine territorii constituta‹m›, et altera e contrario similiter. Q uae re‹s› [haec autem controuersia] territorialibus est finienda terminibus, nam inuenimus saepe in publicis instrumentis significanter inscripta territoria [...]. (Hyg. Grom. de cond. agr. p. 114, 11-16 L. = p. 74, 4-10 Th.) 133 GIFBIB_21.indb 133 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Fig. 2 The Polcevera Tablet, currently preserved in the Museo Civico di Archeologia Ligure di Genova Pegli [Pasquinucci 2014]. Q (uintus) (et) M(arcus) Minucieis Q (uinti) f(ilii) Rufeis de controvorsieis inter / Genuateis et Veiturios in re praesente cognoverunt, et coram inter eos controvosias composeiverunt, / et qua lege agrum possiderent et qua fineis fierent dixserunt. Eos fineis facere terminosque statui iuserunt; / ubei ea facta essent, Romam coram venire iouserunt. Romae coram sententiam ex senati consulto dixerunt eidib(us) / Decemb(ribus) L(ucio) Caecilio Q (uinti) f(ilio) (et) Q (uinto) Muucio Q (uinti) f(ilio) co(n)s(ulibus). Q ua ager privatus casteli Vituriorum est, quem agrum eos vendere heredemque / sequi licet, is ager vectigal(is) nei siet. Langatium fineis agri privati: ab rivo infimo, qui oritur ab fontei in Mannicelo ad flovium / Edem: ibi terminus stat; inde flovio suso vorsum in flovium Lemurim; inde flovio Lemuri susum usque ad rivom Comberane(am); / inde rivo Comberanea susum usque ad comvalem Caeptiemam: ibi termina duo stant circum viam Postumiam; ex eis terminis recta / regione in rivo Vendupale; ex rivo Vindupale in flovium Neviascam; inde dorsum flovio Neviasca in flovium Procoberam; inde / flovio Procoberam deorsum usque ad rivom Vinelascam infumum: ibei terminus stat; inde sursum rivo recto Vinelesca: / ibei terminus stat propter viam Postumiam, inde alter trans viam Postumiam terminus stat; ex eo termino, quei stat / trans viam Postumiam, recta regione in fontem in Manicelum; inde deorsum rivo, quei oritur ab fonte en Manicelo, / ad terminum, quei stat ad flovium Edem. Agri poplici, quod Langenses posident, hisce finis videntur 134 GIFBIB_21.indb 134 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET esse: ubi comfluont / Edus et Procobera, ibei terminus stat; inde Ede flovio sursuorsum in montem Lemurino infumo: ibei terminus / stat; inde sursumvorsum iugo recto monte Lemurino: ibei terminus stat; inde susum iugo recto Lemurino: ibi terminus / stat in monte pro cavo; inde sursum iugo recto in montem Lemurinum summum: ibei terminus stat; inde sursum iugo / recto in castelum, quei vocitatus est Alianus: ibei terminus stat; inde sursum iugo recto in montem Ioventionem: ibi terminus / stat; inde sursum iugo recto in montem Apeninum, quei vocatur Boplo: ibei terminus stat; inde Apeninum iugo recto / in montem Tuledonem: ibei terminus stat; inde deorsum iugo recto in flovium Veraglascam in montem Berigiemam / infumo: ibi terminus stat; inde sursum iugo recto in montem Prenicum: ibi terminus stat; inde dorsum iugo recto in / flovium Tulelascam: ibi terminus stat; inde sursum iugo recto Blustiemelo in montem Claxelum; ibi terminus stat; inde / deorsum in fontem Lebriemelum: ibi terminus stat; inde recto rivo Eniseca in flovium Procoberam: ibi terminus stat; / inde deorsum in floviom Procoberam, ubei conflovont flovi Edus et Procobera: ibi terminus stat. Q uem agrum poplicum / iudicamus esse, eum agrum castelanos Langenses Veiturios posidere fruique videtur oportere. Pro eo agro vectigal Langenses / Veituris in poplicum Genuam dent in an(n)os singulos vic(toriatos) n(ummos) CCCC. Sei Langenses eam pequniam non dabunt neque satis / facient arbitratuu Genuatium, quod per Genuenses mora non fiat, quo setius eam pequniam acipiant, tum quod in eo agro / natum erit frumenti partem vicensumam, vini partem sextam Langenses in poplicum Genuam dare debento / in annos singolos. Q uei intra eos fineis agrum posedet Genuas aut Viturius, quei eorum posedeit k(alendis) Sextil(ibus) L(ucio) Caicilio / (et) Q (uinto) Muucio co(n)s(ulibus), eos ita posidere colereque liceat. Eus (!) quei posidebunt, vectigal Langensibus pro portione dent ita uti ceteri / Langenses, qui eorum in eo agro agrum posidebunt fruenturque. Praeter ea in eo agro ni quis posideto, nisi de maiore parte / Langensium Veituriorum sententia, dum ne alium intro mitat nisi Genuatem aut Veiturium colendi causa. Q uei eorum / de maiore parte Langensium Veiturium sententia ita non parebit, is eum agrum nei habeto nive fruimino. Q uei / ager compascuos erit, in eo agro quo minus pecus [p]ascere Genuates Veituriosque liceat ita utei in cetero agro / Genuati compascuo, ni quis prohibeto nive quis vim facito, neive prohibeto quo minus ex eo agro ligna materiamque / sumant utanturque. Vectigal anni primi k(alendis) Ianuaris secundis Veturis Langenses in poplicum Genuam dare / debento. Q uod ante k(alendas) Ianuar(ias) primas Langenses fructi sunt eruntque, vectigal invitei dare nei debento. / Prata quae fuerunt proxuma faenisicei L(ucio) Caecilio (et) Q (uinto) Muucio co(n)s(ulibus) in agro poplico, quem Vituries Langenses / posident et quem Odiates et quem Dectunines et quem Cavaturineis et quem Mentovines posident, ea prata, / invitis Langensibus et Odiatibus et Dectuninebus et Cavaturines et Mentovines, quem quisque eorum agrum / posidebit, inviteis eis niquis sicet nive pascat nive fruatur. Sei Langueses (!) aut Odiates aut Dectunines aut Cavaturines / aut Mentovines malent in eo agro alia prata inmittere, defendere, sicare, id uti facere liceat, dum ne ampliorem / modum pratorum habeant quam proxuma aestate habuerunt fructique sunt. Vituries quei controvorsias / Genuensium ob iniourias iudicati aut damnati sunt, sei quis in vinculeis ob eas res est, eos omneis / solvei, mittei leiberique Genuenses videtur oportere ante eidus Sextilis primas. 481 Sei quoi de ea re / iniquom videbitur esse, ad nos adeant primo quoque die et ab omnibus controversis et hono(---) publ(---) li(---). / Leg(ati) Moco Meticanio Meticoni f(ilius); Plaucus Peliani(o) Pelioni f(ilius). 481 In the ancient Roman calendar with the year beginning in March, the month Sextile was the sixth month (see translation by Petracco Sicardi); after the Julian reform in 45 bc, which moved the start of the year to January, Sextile became the eighth month of the new solar year and was later named August in honour of Augustus (see translation by Warmington). 135 GIFBIB_21.indb 135 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Q (uintus) (et) M(arcus) Minucieis Q (uinti) f(ilii) Rufeis de controvorsieis inter / Genuateis et Veiturios in re praesente cognoverunt, et coram inter eos controvosias composeiverunt, / et qua lege agrum possiderent et qua fineis fierent dixserunt. Eos fineis facere terminosque statui iuserunt; / ubei ea facta essent, Romam coram venire iouserunt. Romae coram sententiam ex senati consulto dixerunt eidib(us) / Decemb(ribus) L(ucio) Caecilio Q (uinti) f(ilio) (et) Q (uinto) Muucio Q (uinti) f(ilio) co(n)s(ulibus). Q ua ager privatus casteli Vituriorum est, quem agrum eos vendere heredemque / sequi licet, is ager vectigal(is) nei siet. Italian translation (by Petracco Sicardi in Mennella 2004, pp. 522523): Q uinto e Marco Minucio Rufo, figli di Q uinto, riguardo alle controversie tra Genuati e Viturii, fecero una ricognizione sul terreno e in presenza dei contendenti composero la controversia e stabilirono secondo quali norme dovessero possedere l’agro e dove dovesse passare il confine. Ordinarono loro di segnare il confine e apporre i termini e, fatto ciò, di venire personalmente a Roma. A Roma in loro presenza pronunziarono la sentenza per senatoconsulto il 15 dicembre, sotto il consolato di Lucio Cecilio figlio di Q uinto e Q uinto Mucio figlio di Q uinto. Dov’è agro privato del castello dei Viturii, essi possono venderlo e lasciarlo in eredità. Q uesto agro non sarà sottoposto a tassa. English translation (E. H. Warmington (ed.), Remains of old Latin, Harvard IV 1940, pp. 262-271 – The Loeb Classical Library): Q uintus Minucius Rufus and Marcus Minucius Rufus, sons of Q uintus, inquired on the spot into the quarrels between the Genuans and the Veturians and in their hearing settled the quarrels between them and informed them of the conditions on which they were to hold their land and of the conditions on which boundaries were to be fixed. They ordered them to fix the boundaries and to cause boundary-marks to be set up; they ordered them to come to Rome in person when these commands were carried out. In person at Rome the Minucii made a report by a resolution of the Senate on the thirteenth day of December in the consulship of Lucius Caecilius son of Q uintus, and Q uintus Mucius son of Q uintus. Wherever there is private land belonging to the fortress of the Veturii, land which they may sell and which can pass to an heir, the said land shall not be put under charges. 136 GIFBIB_21.indb 136 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET Langatium fineis agri privati: ab rivo infimo, qui oritur ab fontei in Mannicelo ad flovium / Edem: ibi terminus stat; inde flovio suso vorsum in flovium Lemurim; inde flovio Lemuri susum usque ad rivom Comberane(am); / inde rivo Comberanea susum usque ad comvalem Caeptiemam: ibi termina duo stant circum viam Postumiam; ex eis terminis recta / regione in rivo Vendupale; ex rivo Vindupale in flovium Neviascam; inde dorsum flovio Neviasca in flovium Procoberam; inde / flovio Procoberam deorsum usque ad rivom Vinelascam infumum: ibei terminus stat; inde sursum rivo recto Vinelesca: / ibei terminus stat propter viam Postumiam, inde alter trans viam Postumiam terminus stat; ex eo termino, quei stat / trans viam Postumiam, recta regione in fontem in Manicelum; Confini dell’agro privato dei Langati: dall’estremità inferiore del rio che nasce dalla fonte in Mannicelo al fiume Edo (qui è posto un termine); poi, risalendo il fiume fino al fiume Lemori e per il fiume Lemori in su fino al rio Comberanea, poi per il rio Comberanea in su fino alla convalle Ceptiema (qui sono posti due termini, di qua e di là della via Postumia). Da tali termini in linea retta al rio Vindupale, dal rio Vindupale al fiume Neviasca, dal fiume Neviasca giù fino al fiume Procobera, e di lì in giù fino all’estremità inferiore del rio Vinelasca (qui è posto un termine); risalendo in linea retta il rio Vinelasca, ove è posto un termine al di qua della via Postumia e un altro termine al di là della via, dal termine posto al di là della via Postumia in linea retta fino alla fonte in Mannicelo, The boundaries of the private land of the Langenses are: from the lowest reach of the watercourse which rises from the spring on Manicelum, at the stream Edus; there a boundary-mark stands. Thence along the stream uphill to the stream Lemuris. Thence along the stream Lemuris uphill as far as the watercourse Comberanea. Thence along the watercourse Comberanea uphill as far as the valley Caeptiema; there two boundary-marks stand on either side of the Postumian Way. From these boundary-marks, in a straight line to the watercourse Vendupale. From the watercourse Vendupale to the stream Neviasca. Thence downhill along the stream Neviasca to the stream Procobera. Thence downhill along the stream Procobera as far as the lowest reach of the watercourse Vinelasca. There a boundary-mark stands. Thence straight up the watercourse Vinelasca. Here a boundary-mark stands by the Postumian Way. Thence across the Postumian Way stands a second mark. From that which stands across the Postumian Way in a straight line to the spring at Manicelum. 137 GIFBIB_21.indb 137 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC inde deorsum rivo, quei oritur ab fonte en Manicelo, / ad terminum, quei stat ad flovium Edem. Agri poplici, quod Langenses posident, hisce finis videntur esse: ubi comfluont / Edus et Procobera, ibei terminus stat; inde Ede flovio sursuorsum in montem Lemurino infumo: ibei terminus / stat; inde sursumvorsum iugo recto monte Lemurino: ibei terminus stat; inde susum iugo recto Lemurino: ibi terminus / stat in monte pro cavo; inde sursum iugo recto in montem Lemurinum summum: ibei terminus stat; inde sursum iugo / recto in castelum, quei vocitatus est Alianus: ibei terminus stat; inde sursum iugo recto in montem Ioventionem: ibi terminus / stat; inde sursum iugo recto in montem Apeninum, quei vocatur Boplo: ibei terminus stat; inde Apeninum iugo recto / in montem Tuledonem: ibei terminus stat; poi giù fino al termine posto presso il fiume Edo. I confini dell’agro pubblico che i Langensi possiedono risultano essere questi: il primo termine è posto alla confluenza dell’Edo e del Procobera. Di qui per il fiume Edo in su fino ai piedi del monte Lemurino (termine), in su in linea retta per la costa Lemurina (termine), ancora per la costa Lemurina (qui è posto un termine sul monte che si affaccia sulla cavità), poi su dritto per costa alla sommità del monte Lemurino (termine), poi su dritto per costa al castello che è stato chiamato Aliano (termine), poi su dritto per costa al monte Giovenzione (termine), poi su dritto per costa al monte Appennino che si chiama Boplo (termine); poi per l’Appennino dritto per costa al monte Tuledone (termine); Thence downstream along the watercourse which rises from the spring on Manicelum to the boundary-mark which stands by the stream Edna. The boundaries of such public state-land which is in the possession of the Langenses appear to be these: at the confluence of the Edna and the Procobera, there a boundary-mark stands. Thence along the stream Edna uphill to Mount Lemurinus, at the foot; there a boundary-mark stands. Thence uphill on Mount Lemurinus, straight along up the ridge there a boundary-mark stands. Thence up further straight along up the ridge Lemurinus; there a boundary-mark stands on the mountain in front of a hollow. Thence up straight along up the ridge to the top of Mount Lemurinus; there a boundary-mark stands. Thence up straight along up the ridge to the reservoir often called Alianus; there a boundary-mark stands. Thence up straight along up the ridge to Mount Joventio; there a boundary-mark stands. Thence up straight along up the ridge to that height of the Apennine Mountains which is called Boplo; there a boundary-mark stands. Thence straight along up the ridge to the Apennine mountain Tuledo; there a boundary-mark stands. 138 GIFBIB_21.indb 138 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET inde deorsum iugo recto in flovium Veraglascam in montem Berigiemam / infumo: ibi terminus stat; inde sursum iugo recto in montem Prenicum: ibi terminus stat; inde dorsum iugo recto in / flovium Tulelascam: ibi terminus stat; inde sursum iugo recto Blustiemelo in montem Claxelum; ibi terminus stat; inde / deorsum in fontem Lebriemelum: ibi terminus stat; inde recto rivo Eniseca in flovium Procoberam: ibi terminus stat; / inde deorsum in floviom Procoberam, ubei conflovont flovi Edus et Procobera: ibi terminus stat. Q uem agrum poplicum / iudicamus esse, eum agrum castelanos Langenses Veiturios posidere fruique videtur oportere. Pro eo agro vectigal Langenses / Veituris in poplicum Genuam dent in an(n)os singulos vic(toriatos) n(ummos) CCCC. poi giù dritto per costa al fiume Veraglasca, ai piedi del Monte Berigiema (termine), poi su dritto per costa al monte Prenicco (termine), poi giù dritto al fiume Tulelasca (termine), poi giù dritto per la costa Blustiemela al monte Claxelo (termine), poi in giù alla fonte Lebriemela (termine), poi dritto per il rivo Eniseca al fiume Procobera (termine), poi giù per il fiume Procobera fino alla confluenza Edo-Procobera, dove è posto un termine. L’agro che è dichiarato pubblico, i Langensi Viturii abitanti del castello possono possederlo e goderne. Per tale agro i Langensi Viturii verseranno al Tesoro pubblico, a Genua, 400 nummi vittoriati ogni anno. Thence downhill straight along down the ridge to the stream Veraglasca at the foot of Mount Berigiema; there a boundary-mark stands. Thence uphill straight along up the ridge to Mount Prenicus; there a boundary-mark stands. Thence downhill straight along down the ridge to the stream Tulelasca; there a boundary-mark stands. Thence uphill straight along up the ridge Blustiemelus to Mount Claxelus; there a boundary-mark stands. Thence downhill to the spring Lebriemelus; there a boundary-mark stands. Thence straight along the watercourse Eniseca to the stream Procobera; there a boundary-mark stands. Thence downhill to the stream Procobera at the point of the confluence of the streams Edus and Procobera; there a boundary-mark stands. Whatever land we judge to be public state-land, that land we think the fort-holders, namely the Langensian Veturii, ought to hold and enjoy. For the said land the Langensian Veturii shall pay into the public treasury at Genua every year 400 pieces of the ‘Victory’ stamp. 139 GIFBIB_21.indb 139 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Sei Langenses eam pequniam non dabunt neque satis / facient arbitratuu Genuatium, quod per Genuenses mora non fiat, quo setius eam pequniam acipiant, tum quod in eo agro / natum erit frumenti partem vicensumam, vini partem sextam Langenses in poplicum Genuam dare debento / in annos singolos. Q uei intra eos fineis agrum posedet Genuas aut Viturius, quei eorum posedeit k(alendis) Sextil(ibus) L(ucio) Caicilio / (et) Q (uinto) Muucio co(n)s(ulibus), eos ita posidere colereque liceat. Eus (!) quei posidebunt, vectigal Langensibus pro portione dent ita uti ceteri / Langenses, qui eorum in eo agro agrum posidebunt fruenturque. Se i Langensi non verseranno tale somma e non soddisferanno all’arbitrato dei Genuati, a meno che i Genuensi non tardino a riscuotere la somma, in tal caso i Langensi dovranno versare al Tesoro a Genua, di tutto quanto sarà stato prodotto nell’agro, 1/20 del frumento e 1/6 del vino ogni anno. Chi possederà (un podere) entro tali confini, Genuate o Viturio, alla data del 1° giugno del consolato di Lucio Cecilio e Q uinto Mucio, potrà continuare a possederlo e goderlo. Tali possessori pagheranno la tassa ai Langensi secondo la loro porzione così come gli altri Langensi che possederanno e godranno un podere in tale agro. If the Langenses fail to pay the said money and do not give satisfaction according to the will and pleasure of the Genuans (on such condition that it is not through the fault of the Genuans that any delay hinders them from receiving the money) – in this case the Langenses shall be required to pay into the public treasury at Genua every year one twentieth part of the corn and one sixth part of the wine which shall have been produced on the said land. Any Genuan or Veturian who has come into possession of land within the said boundaries, if he held possession on the first day of August in the consulship of Lucius Caecilius and Q uintus Mucius, may thus remain in possession and till the land. Those who shall possess a holding must pay to the Langenses a charge in the same proportion as the remaining Langenses such of them as shall possess and enjoy any area within the said land. 140 GIFBIB_21.indb 140 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET Praeter ea in eo agro ni quis posideto, nisi de maiore parte / Langensium Veituriorum sententia, dum ne alium intro mitat nisi Genuatem aut Veiturium colendi causa. Quei eorum / de maiore parte Langensium Veiturium sententia ita non parebit, is eum agrum nei habeto nive fruimino. Quei / ager compascuos erit, in eo agro quo minus pecus [p]ascere Genuates Veituriosque liceat ita utei in cetero agro / Genuati compascuo, ni quis prohibeto nive quis vim facito, neive prohibeto quo minus ex eo agro ligna materiamque / sumant utanturque. Vectigal anni primi k(alendis) Ianuaris secundis Veturis Langenses in poplicum Genuam dare / debento. Quod ante k(alendas) Ianuar(ias) primas Langenses fructi sunt eruntque, vectigal invitei dare nei debento. Oltre a questi possessi, nessuno potrà possedere se non con l’approvazione della maggioranza dei Langensi Viturii e condizione che non faccia subentrare un altro, Genuate o Viturio, per coltivare. Chi non obbedirà al parere della maggioranza dei Langensi Viturii non avrà né godrà tale agro. Nell’agro che sarà compascuo, nessuno proibisca né impedisca con la forza ai Genuati e ai Viturii di pascolare il bestiame, così come nel resto dell’agro compascuo genuate; e nessuno proibisca che vi raccolgano legna e legname e ne facciano uso. La tassa del primo anno i Langensi Viturii debbono versarla al Tesoro di Genua il 1° gennaio dell’anno successivo. Per quanto i Langensi hanno goduto prima del 1° gennaio prossimo venturo, non debbono pagare nessuna tassa se non vogliono. Furthermore within the said land no one must possess a holding unless it be by a majority-vote of the Langensian Veturii, and on condition that he admits no other onto his holding for the purpose of tilling unless he be a Genuan or a Veturian. If any of the said persons shall not appear to obey this condition (by a majority-vote of the Langensian Veturii), he shall not keep the land or enjoy it. No man shall hinder the Genuans and the Veturii from pasturing cattle, on such of the said land as is associate pasture-land, in the way in which it is allowed on the remaining associate pasture-land of Genua, and no man shall use force or hinder them from taking from the said land firewood and building-timber and using the same. The Langensian Veturii are required to pay into the public treasury at Genua a first year’s rent on the first day of January next but one. For such land as the Langenses have enjoyed and shall enjoy before and up to the first day of January next they are not required to pay against their will. 141 GIFBIB_21.indb 141 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Prata quae fuerunt proxuma faenisicei L(ucio) Caecilio (et) Q (uinto) Muucio co(n)s(ulibus) in agro poplico, quem Vituries Langenses / posident et quem Odiates et quem Dectunines et quem Cavaturineis et quem Mentovines posident, ea prata, / invitis Langensibus et Odiatibus et Dectuninebus et Cavaturines et Mentovines, quem quisque eorum agrum / posidebit, inviteis eis niquis sicet nive pascat nive fruatur. Sei Langueses (!) aut Odiates aut Dectunines aut Cavaturines / aut Mentovines malent in eo agro alia prata inmittere, defendere, sicare, id uti facere liceat, dum ne ampliorem / modum pratorum habeant quam proxuma aestate habuerunt fructique sunt. Q uando, nell’anno di consolato di Lucio Cecilio e Q uinto Mucio, i prati dell’agro pubblico saranno prossimi al taglio (i prati dell’agro pubblico posseduto dai Langensi Viturii, di quello posseduto dagli Odiati, di quello dei Dectunini, di quello dei Mentovini e di quello dei Cavaturini), nessuno potrà tagliarvi o pascolarvi o goderne senza il consenso dei Langensi, degli Odiati, dei Dectunini, dei Cavaturini e dei Mentovini, ciascuno per il proprio agro. Se i Langati, gli Odiati, i Dectunini, i Cavaturini e i Mentovini preferiscono costituire, cintare, tagliare altri prati in tale agro, potranno farlo, a condizione che la misura totale dei prati non superi quella dell’estate passata. The meadows which, at the last hay-mowing, during the consulship of Lucius Caecilius and Q uintus Mucius, within the limits of the public state-land in the possession of the Langensian Veturii, and the public state-land in the possession of the Odiates and the Dectunines, and the public state-land in the possession of the Cavaturini and the Mentovini – the said meadows no one shall mow or use as pasture or enjoy against the will of the Langenses and the Odiates and the Dectunines and the Cavaturini and the Mentovini, in the case of the land which any of the said peoples shall severally possess. If, on the said land, the Langenses or the Odiates or the Dectunines or the Cavaturini or the Mentovini prefer to let grow, fence off, and mow other meadows, they shall be allowed to do so provided that they hold no larger measure of meadowland than they held and enjoyed last summer. 142 GIFBIB_21.indb 142 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET Vituries quei controvorsias / Genuensium ob iniourias iudicati aut damnati sunt, sei quis in vinculeis ob eas res est, eos omneis / solvei, mittei leiberique Genuenses videtur oportere ante eidus Sextilis primas. 482 Sei quoi de ea re / iniquom videbitur esse, ad nos adeant primo quoque die et ab omnibus controversis et hono(---) publ(---) li(---). / Leg(ati) Moco Meticanio Meticoni f(ilius); Plaucus Peliani(o) Pelioni f(ilius). I Viturii che, in occasione delle controversie con i Genuensi sono stati giudicati o condannati per ingiurie, se qualcuno è in carcere per tali motivi, i Genuensi dovranno liberarli e proscioglierli prima del prossimo 15 giugno. Se a qualcuno sembrerà iniquo qualcosa di quanto è contenuto in questa sentenza, si rivolga a noi, ogni primo giorno del mese, e sia libero da tutte le controversie e oneri pubblici. I legati: Mocone Meticanio(ne?), figlio di Meticone; Plauco Pelianio(ne?), figlio di Pelione. If any shall think that there is unfairness in this matter, they must come to us on the first possible day and be quit of all quarrels… If any one of the Veturii who have been judged or found guilty in respect of quarrels with the Genuans on account of contumelious wrongs is in prison because of such matters, we think that all of them should be released, discharged, and set free before the thirteenth day of August next. Commissioners: Mocus Meticanius son of Meticonus; Plaucus Pelianius son of Pelionus. 482 In the ancient Roman calendar with the year beginning in March, the month Sextile was the sixth month (see translation by Petracco Sicardi); after the Julian reform in 45 bc, which moved the start of the year to January, Sextile became the eighth month of the new solar year and was later named August in honour of Augustus (see translation by Warmington). 143 GIFBIB_21.indb 143 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC In November 2013, the then Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Liguria was informed of the fortuitous discovery at Isola del Cantone (Genoa) of a small nucleus of pottery and metal objects dating to the Second Iron Age that probably belonged to a group of grave goods disturbed by ploughing. 483 According to Traverso, these finds can be considered as ‘index fossils’ for the period of Romanisation of the mountainous region of Liguria and provide important clues regarding the Apenninic route of the Via Postumia, a consular road opened in 148 bc by consul Spurius Postumius Albinus to connect Aquileia with Genoa, which was strategic for links between that important frontier city founded by the Romans in 181 bc, 484 the Po Valley, and the Ligurian stretch of the road. 485 From the nineteenth century to the present day, the route taken by the western stretch of the Via Postumia has been one of the most intensely debated topics in Ligurian archaeology. We have witnessed a proliferation of monographs and contributions from 1994 onwards, the year of the study day (Palazzo Ducale, Genoa) that was dedicated to the Polcevera Tablet prior to its entry to the Museo Civico di Archeologia Ligure. 486 483 This discovery gave rise in 2014 to the ‘Progetto Postumia’ launched by the Soprintendenza Archeologia della Liguria in collaboration with the Comune di Genova, a project that is still ongoing and that is being implemented by a team of professionals who have set themselves the task of organising the new data, the finds that have taken place in the past few decades, the existing historical and archaeological sources, and, most importantly of all, of assessing alternative routes to the traditional route proposed in current studies: Traverso et al. 2014-2015, p. 203. 484 Liv. 40.34.2-3. 485 With regard to the Ligurian ‘stretch’ of the Via Postumia, see most recently Traverso et al. 2014-2015, pp. 203-220; Cf. also Levi 1996, pp. 47-49. 486 This footnote lists the most significant studies, providing a mere historical overview of what has been published so far, rather than a reference bibliography: Giannichedda 1995, pp. 39-49; Mennella 1995, pp. 69-79; Bianchi 1996, pp. 63-80; Torelli 1998, pp. 21-28; De Feo 1998, pp. 59-62; Mennella 1998, pp. 268-270; Pasquinucci 1998, pp. 213-215; Barozzi 2000, pp. 35-43; Cera 2000; Melli 2001, pp. 95-102; Boccaleri 2002a; Boccaleri 2002b; De Vingo, Frondoni 2003, pp. 32-36; Pasquinucci 2004a, p. 447; Mennella 2004, pp. 522-523; Menchelli, Pasquinucci 2004, pp. 185-202; Boccaleri 2006; Launaro 2006-2007, pp. 5-12; Mennella 2014, pp. 99-105; Pasquinucci 2014, pp. 107-112; Canazza, Cirnigliaro, Pedemonte 2015, pp. 58-70; Guida 2016, pp. 241-244. 144 GIFBIB_21.indb 144 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET As we will see in the pages below, the Polcevera Tablet is one of the most antique documents to make explicit reference to the Via Postumia and its route. The inscription contains detailed and topographical indications and offers an almost unique opportunity for comparing the way Ligurians and Romans perceived the countryside with the result of the modern archaeological survey. The text mentions altogether private land, public land (some under grains, some under vines), ager compascuus (supporting flocks and providing in addition wood and materia), finally meadows. […] In the Roman period, where the history of the conquest is well known from the literary sources, while the economic and social history of the area as part of the Roman world is hardly known at all. Similarly, the political history of the region in the Late Empire particularly after the Byzantine conquest in ad 537, and in the Middle Ages shows that it played a major role, but the consequences on the ground are less clear. 487 According to tradition, it was found in 1506 near Pedemonte di Serra Riccò in the locality of Izosecco 488 by Agostino Pedemonte, who took it to Genoa in the hope of receiving a handsome sum of money from a coppersmith. A humanist scholar visiting the workshop recognised its worth and informed the government about the find. The city rulers promptly purchased it and, recognising its historical importance, had it set up in the Duomo. The first Latin edition was published in Paris in 1520 by Agostino Giustiniani who republished it in 1537 in volgare in the Annals of Genoa, 489 which is where we find the first attempt to reconstruct the western section of the Via Postumia: E di là da giogo di Ricò, il quale è discosto dalla Marina quattordici miglia, si offende la villa di Buzalla, ed il Borgo dei Fornari, terre dei nobili Spinoli col fiume Scrivia, e l’antica via Posthumia, oggi nominata via Costuma ossia Costumia, per la quale si va a Ronco, all’Isola, ad Arquata, a Serravalle ed a Nove. 490 Crawford 2003, p. 204. Traverso et al. 2014-2015, p. 208. 489 Spotorno 1854, p. 54. 490 Spotorno 1854, p. 54. Cf. Spotorno 1854, p. 533 (Annotazioni agli Annali di Mons. Giustiniani compilate dal Cav. P. Gio. Battista Spotorno): “Per congiun487 488 145 GIFBIB_21.indb 145 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC According to this hypothesis, the road travelled through the Valle Scrivia and the boundaries of the Polcevera Tablet were extended to the Oltregiogo territories. Giustiniani also cites an inscription, now lost, formerly affixed to an unidentified bridge over the Scrivia torrent, bearing the words Via Costuma Placentiam. 491 This proposed route via the Valle Scrivia was accepted by later studies until the first half of the nineteenth century. 492 In this regard, an examination of manuscript sources revealed the highly interesting testimony of the Dominican Gio Maria Borzino (1619-1696), whose treatise on Ligurian antiquities 493 contains a further reconstruction of the state of the boundaries and territories described in the Polcevera Tablet. On the basis of toponyms that still existed in the second half of the seventeenth century, Borzino conceived a plan that included the territories mentioned in the Tablet and the stretch of the Via Postumia going through the Valle Scrivia. In 1815, Giuseppe Antonio Bottazzi, a canon from Tortona whose research inaugurated a series of studies on the site of Libarna, proposed a route in the Valle Scrivia that crossed the Pass of Nostra Signora della Vittoria before going through the Valle Secca and the Val Polcevera. 494 Celesia also hypothesised a route that went up the Val Polcevera as far as Pontedecimo, through the Vittoria Pass and Valle Scrivia before continuing via the pieve of Borgo Fornari, Isolabuona, Ronco, Isola del Cantone, and Pietrabissara to Libarna. 495 The Via Postumia route recently proposed by the ‘Progetto Postumia’ team coordinated by Antonella Traverso is the more gere Genova alla Via Aurelia, che passava di là da’ gioghi fu aperta la Via Postumia ed è presso a poco la moderna, detta de’ gioghi, che per Pontedecimo, Arquata, Libarna, Serravalle giunge a Novi e a Tortona”. 491 As clearly emerges from another passage by Spotorno 1854, p. 50: “Alla Podestarìa sopranominata di Voltri si continua la nobile valle di Polcevera avuta in pregio non solamente dai moderni; ma dagli antichi Romani, i quali si fecero tanto conto di quella, che tra la prima e la seconda guerra d’Africa, mandarono due Giureconsulti Romani per terminare e decidere alquante differenze che vertevano tra gli uomini di questa valle e certi altri popoli abitanti di là dal giogo, come si vedrà negli Annali diffusamente”. 492 Cera 2000, p. 44; Pavese 2000, p. 49. 493 Borzino sec. XVII; Ms. Beriana n. 299, D, 2,4, 18 a cart. 67. 494 Bottazzi 1815, p. 47. 495 Celesia 1863, p. 43. 146 GIFBIB_21.indb 146 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET accessible of the proposals put forward since the year of the Tablet’s discovery. This route goes via the ‘corridor’ of the Val Polcevera, whose low-lying passes (468 metres above sea level) ensure ease of access to the area of the Po Plain 496 (see infra the Appendix). 496 [Footnote edited by S. Pedemonte] The ‘variation’ providing for the Via Postumia to cross the Bocchetta Pass is still one of the most accredited options today and is based on four rather important considerations: 1. it is the shortest route from Genoa to Libarna. The further east of the Bocchetta Pass, the more kilometers must be covered by the route; 2. the position of Pontedecimo, which is around ten miles from Genoa. The toponym is derived directly from the name of the Roman site known as Pons ad decimum milium, calculating the distance from Genoa, which is the caput viae (the first mention of Pontedecimo dates to 966 bc, Belgrano 1862, pp. 237-238); 3. the delimitation of the private land described in the Polcevera Tablet: “The boundaries of the private land of the Langenses are: from the lowest reach of the watercourse which rises from the spring on Manicelum, at the stream Edus; there a boundary-mark stands. Thence along the stream uphill to the stream Lemuris. Thence along the stream Lemuris uphill as far as the watercourse Comberanea. Thence along the watercourse Comberanea uphill as far as the valley Caeptiema; there two boundary-marks stand on either side of the Postumian Way”. According to the leading studies on the Tablet, the Sententia is guided by a clear principle of continuity, following watercourses or ridges and placing cippi in points that are hard to identify. If we accept this principle – typical of the rational approach of the Roman agrimensores as well as of modern cadastral registers – the route descended from the spring in Manicelo along a stream as far as the Lemuris, location of the first boundary marker, given that this bank could have been mistaken for other banks (in fact, it does not have a name and is indicated only as rivo infimo). From here, the route went upstream along the Lemuris whose name seems to suggest that two torrents with similar names rose from the same ridge, with neighbouring springs, one flowing towards the Adriatic – the modern Lemme – and the other towards the Tyrrhenian coast (similarly to the Migliarese torrent which flows towards Busalla from the Giovi Pass, and the Migliarina, which heads in the opposite direction, or the Borbera and Dorbera, the Gottera and Gotra, the Ofanto and Ufita, the Varo and Verdon, the Dora (Riparia) and Durance, see Desimoni 1864, p. 672). The springs of the aforemention torrent are probably located near the modern Lemme, towards the Tyrrhenian coast, and therefore in proximity of the Bocchetta Pass. Other elements in support of this interpretation are the presence of the so-called Fossato de Ruvinada between Cesino and Pietra Lavezzara, which may correspond to a stretch of the consular road surviving in the Middle Ages; the name of Monte Passeise, which means “passing place” (as in Petracco Sicardi 1958-1959, p. 19); as well as the toponyms Madonna delle Vigne in relation to Rio Vinelasca (as in Petracco Sicardi 1958-1959, p. 36 and Boccaleri 1989, p. 63). The original Via Postumia must therefore have gone from Cesino and Pietralavezzara, possibly with an alternative route from Campomorone and Langasco (the itinerary via the Vittoria or Crocetta d’Orero Pass is suggested, for example, by Desimoni 1864 and Traverso et al. 2014-2015); 4. the use of this same road in the twelfth century by the Genoese in order to conquer the Oltregiogo, revealed by the presence of the Hospitale at Pian di Reste (800 metres above sea level) – a site whose name means ‘resting place’ – San Gregorio de Ceta, 147 GIFBIB_21.indb 147 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Within the Roman world, the public-private opposition was evident in urban as well as rural contexts. For the urban context, we might consider the fora, basilicas, thermal baths, and roads as opposed to the dwellings and plots of private individuals; a similar contrast, in the countryside, involves public roads, aqueducts, and military infrastructures on the one hand, and private land, often occupying very small plots, on the other. This seemingly straightforward contraposition begins to waver and reveal grey areas once we begin to take a closer look at the ager publicus. 497 In fact, these lands “vennero ad essere nel tempo – e la vicenda graccana pesa nel nostro panorama come un macigno – sempre meno pubbliche”. 498 The Gracchi brothers in fact sought to curb a widely diffused phenomenon involving most of the ager publicus being occupied by just a handful of landowners by imposing limits on the maximum amount of land that could be occupied, making the remaining land inalienable and then assigning it to the urban proletariat. Gromatic sources show that in the limitatio of fields, the term finis did not refer to a pure unidimensional linearity but to a fivefoot-wide strip of land between neighbouring plots that was to be left uncultivated to provide access to the fields and to allow farmers to turn their ploughs without trespassing on their neighbour’s land. Linear boundaries were a conventional abstraction because wider boundary zones are found in a wide variety of contexts. The delimitation of boundaries was often more nuanced than literary sources might suggest. In fact, the constraints imposed by physical features often resulted in boundaries that were more or less conventional. Boundary markers were sometimes located along an ideal line and the entire breadth of a mountain chain might represent an incontrovertible border between two regions. For example, the Alps were already considered a geographical limit by Cato and Polybius. 499 the abbey at Porale and Costapelata di Borlasca, all places where pilgrims and merchants could pick up supplies or spend the night. This suggests that this was an important, popular itinerary that was probably never abandoned and that may have acquired renewed strategic significance following the demographic decline in the lowlands in Late Antiquity and in the Early Medieval period (Petracco Sicardi 1958/1959, p. 20; Tacchella 1985, pp. 21, 44 e 51; Poggi 1914, p. 260). In general, see Pedemonte 2018. 497 Cf. Burdese 1952. 498 Capogrossi Colognesi 1999, p. 18. 499 Polyb. 2.31.7-8. 148 GIFBIB_21.indb 148 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET One example of boundary definition per extremitatem is attested in the Sententia 500 Minuciorum, which can be dated to 117 bc on the basis of the names of the consuls mentioned in the introductory lines (the text is inscribed in the so-called Polcevera Tablet, a bronze tablet found in the Polcevera torrent 501) and reports a boundary dispute that arose between the Genuates and the Viturii Langenses. The text is an important document of the transitional phase towards Romanisation in the Cisalpine area, in general, and in Liguria, in particular, during the second century bc, revealing the coexistence of Roman institutions and relicts of juridical and social conditions regarding land use dating back to the archaic period that had yet to be completely obliterated. The Roman arbitrators were fully cognizant of the specific situation of the Ligurian community, which would receive Latin rights and then Roman citizenship in the century after the drafting of the Sententia. 502 The epigraph inscribed on the Polcevera Tablet, also known as Sententia Minuciorum after the name of its two authors, belongs to a particularly delicate phase of the definition of Rome’s management of the agrarian landscape, with special reference to the It would be useful to clarify the exact meaning of the lemma sententia, which seems misleading for several reasons. In fact, it gives the mistaken idea that a ‘trial’ was involved, distorting the profile of jurisdiction, given the frequent use of the expression sententia senatus consulti in reference to ordinary senatorial resolutions, and disregarding the fact that sententia alludes to a case-law response while the appropriate term would be ‘iudicium’ or judgement. 501 The Tablet is in the Villa Durazzo Pallavicini, which houses the Museo Civico di Archeologia Ligure (Pegli, Genoa), where it is the subject of a display taking up an entire room on the second floor that includes a series of finds dating more or less to the same period in which the Sententia was drafted. CIL I2 584 = V 7749 = ILS 5946 = ILLRP 517 = FIRA III2 no. 163 = Suppl.It. III 1987, p. 233 ad no. (Mennella) = Suppl.It. XXII 2004, p. 184 ad no. (Mennella). For the modern bibliography relative to the legal contents of the Tabula, see the fundamental contribution by Scuderi 1991a, pp. 380-387 as well as the essential studies by Lamboglia 1939, pp. 210-224 and Lamboglia 1941, pp. 215-221. A brief mention can be found in Cantarella, Guidorizzi 2010, p. 263. Cf. Cimarosti 2018, pp. 620-622, and figure 1. The Sententia was inscribed on several bronze tablets, only one of which was found. The tablet that survives could be the one given to the Langenses, a hypothesis supported by the site in which it was found. It has been suggested that the tablet, which may have been kept in a sanctuary or common meeting place used by the various local Ligurian tribes and situated on the slopes of Monte Pizzo, could have been washed downhill along the banks of the torrent by a landslide caused by deforestation or heavy rains. 502 Gabba 1990a, pp. 75-76. 500 149 GIFBIB_21.indb 149 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC administration of the ager publicus, which had been the subject of proposals for rearrangements and redistributions, among private individuals or communities, from the time of the Gracchan rogatio onwards. One such example is the lex agraria epigraphica dated to 111 bc, 503 which was intended to transform land ownership also in the provinces. 504 While the dispute between the Genuates and Viturii Langenses is typical of the Republican-era boundary issues in which the Roman authority was called upon to intervene as arbiter 505 and follows a pattern that had emerged repeatedly in the previous fifty years, there are several reasons justifying a new analysis of its legal implications: 506 in fact, the structure, contents, and application of 503 The lex agraria epigraphica is a key document for studies into the forms assumed by the Roman agrarian question in the Gracchan and post-Gracchan age. One of the most complex texts of legal epigraphy in the Latin language, it has given rise to a long tradition of studies including the recent volume by Sisani 2015. 504 Consider northern Africa, for example, where it would have been impossible to introduce a dominium ex iure Q uiritium, recurring instead to a limited form of possessio vel usufructus – although the differences between these were less clear-cut than one might think. 505 Scuderi 1991a, p. 371. 506 We must not forget that in the final decades of the nineteenth century, a number of illustrious scholars studied the Polcevera Tablet, deeming it to be of primary interest for a ‘dynamic’ analysis of the relations between Rome and its subject communities, with a view to promoting broader research into the origins and techniques underpinning modern international arbitration. Think of Mommsen who, in the process of collecting material for his monumental Corpus of Latin inscriptions, prepared a copy of the Tabula in only six hours on 26 November 1844, during a memorable stay in Genoa described by Lanata in possibly the most evocative pages of her Esercizi di memoria (Lanata 1989). The German scholar referred to oral arbitration in the pages on the statutes of communities regulated by the adtributio scheme in the third volume of his Römisches Staatsrecht (Mommsen 1887, pp. 765 ff.), paving the way for modern studies that culminated in recent research by Luraschi (Luraschi 1988, pp. 43-71) and Laffi (Laffi 1966, pp. 55-61); other late-nineteenth-century scholars studying the technical and legal aspects of the Sententia Minuciorum in greater depth include Rudorff (Rudorff 1857-1859) and De Ruggiero (De Ruggiero 1893, pp. 116-127, 317-345). Twentieth-century research was dominated by epigraphic, archaeological, and paleographic investigations, with the exception of the studies by Kaser (Kaser 1942, pp. 1-81) who drew upon the Tabula to illustrate the typology of land rights in the late Republican period. None of the more recent analyses have introduced significant innovations to a legal reconstruction that has progressed little beyond the state of research at the end of the nineteenth century. The contributions of Arnaud (Arnaud 2006, pp. 67-80) and Patterson (Patterson 2006, pp. 139-153) are marginal. Cf. also Carlà-Uhink 2017. 150 GIFBIB_21.indb 150 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET this dispute are all areas deserving of further investigation from a perspective going beyond its mere ‘antiquary’ interest in search of harbingers of modern international arbitration lato sensu. The Tablet reveals Rome’s intent to define the western stretch of the Via Postumia, the important consular road that was a key instrument of Roman penetration providing access to the sea from the Po Plain. 507 The legal consequences inevitably implied by this route put an end to the territorial disputes between the Genuates and the Ligurian tribes in the plains or immediate vicinity, since it marked the perimeter of the ager owned by the latter by means of cippi placed in a number of significant points (springs, confluences of watercourse, crossings of the Via Postumia mentioned repeatedly as a boundary line between properties, a castellum, at the foot, on the ridges, and on the peaks of hills or mountains). 508 Rome was always very aware of the need to establish precise legal relationships between the ager privatus and ager publicus of territories coming under its jurisdiction, and encountered numerous difficulties in identifying the boundaries and sizes of the settlements situated in such territories, giving rise to numerous disputes, especially during the second century bc. The dispute between Neapolis and Nola in 195-183 bc was followed – to mention only the most important episodes – by disputes between Pisae and Luna (168 bc), Ateste and Patavium (141 bc), and between Ateste and Vicetia (135 bc). 509 In all of the circumstances mentioned, clashing communities with various types of link to Rome would request an arbiter to be appointed by the Senate, which would nominate senators (often a commission made up of magistrates currently holding office or former magistrates 510), who would go to the scene and carry out in-depth investigations Basso 2007, p. 20. Unfortunately, we have only a few anepigraphic examples of the boundary markers described so precisely in the Tabula (ibi termisus stat […] ibi termina duo stant […] inde alter trans viam Postumiam terminus stat etc.). 509 In the cases of Ateste and Patavium and Ateste and Vicetia, Roman intervention came about in a context that was already undergoing gradual Romanisation although we must not forget that the Veneti had been a foederate people since at least 225 bc Polyb. 2.23.2; 2.24.7. Cf. Bosio 1976, p. 69 who claims that this was not a foedus in the strict sense; Bandelli 1985, p. 27; Scuderi 1991a, p. 378 n. 44. 510 It is undeniable, however, that the decision to nominate the Minucii brothers was motivated by their strong links to Genua. 507 508 151 GIFBIB_21.indb 151 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC before returning to Rome to find a way to resolve the matter. 511 The disputing communities would be convened and the definitive solution would then be read out to them in the form of a senatus consultum: the members of the commission would remain at the disposal of the communities in the event of further complaints with regard to the implementation of the sententia senatus, in a similar manner to the magistracies dandis adsignandis iudicandis set up in similar contexts. Between 290 bc and 280 bc, when the Romans embarked upon their conquest of territories lying north of the Aesis (near the Adriatic coast) and north of the Arnus (towards the Tyrrhenian coast), they came into contact with very different ethnic realities. In the north-western sector, there was a strong Ligurian element, comprising various tribes, while the eastern Transpadane area was inhabited by Rhaetians and Veneti. 512 Nell’assoggettamento del Nord possiamo distinguere tre periodi: l’uno va dalla guerra gallica del 284-282 a.C. all’arrivo di Annibale in Italia nel 218 a.C., l’altro dal 203 a.C., momento iniziale della riconquista, alla metà del II secolo, periodo conclusivo delle guerre liguri; il terzo è caratterizzato dalle prime, saltuarie campagne militari contro popolazioni delle zone montane della transpadana, come i Salassi (143 a.C.), i Ligures Stoeni (117 a.C.), i Galli Carni (115 a.C.). 513 As far as the Ligurian wars are concerned, some members of the Senate may have considered this territory strategic also with regard to Roman objectives in the Po Plain. After Rome’s victory over Carthage, the reconquest of the Cisalpine area became a priority for Rome that was fundamentally in line with its overall aims. Unlike in the past, these military campaigns were closely linked to the wars 511 More than just a legal institution, arbitration involves a type of relationship that creates a sort of environment of its own: it is a relationship between judge and the judged that is free of that unfathomable yet very real extraneousness between the two categories distinguishing legal proceedings. Arbitration represents an alternative approach to the judicial path for the settlement of civil disputes, an approach typically built upon the following elements: the disputing parties freely choose the arbitrators who will adjudicate the matter; the same parties will confer the power and authority to make a decision upon the arbitrators as well as recompensing them for this activity: La China 2011, pp. 1-2. 512 Bandelli 1998, pp. 147-155; Bandelli 2007, pp. 15-28. 513 Bandelli 1998, p. 147 and nn. 11-12. 152 GIFBIB_21.indb 152 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET against the Ligurian peoples – from Pisa towards the west and from the Ligurian coast to the Po. As a result, from 188 bc onwards, both consuls were frequently engaged in expeditions to northern Italy and, by 150 bc, most of this territory had come under Roman rule – albeit according to different models – and was being subjected to an intense process of Romanisation, emerging most significantly in the construction of new roads, including the aforementioned Via Postumia. Although not mentioned by literary sources documenting the second century bc, this important artery was opened in 148 bc and linked Genoa to Aquileia, as recalled by a milestone found along a straight stretch of the road that can clearly be distinguished today, south-west of Verona and not far from Goito. 514 Built as a military infrastructure, the Via Postumia – defined by Fraccaro as a “defensive military road” given that it ran along an imaginary front facing the subalpine regions that had yet to undergo Romanisation 515 – was a crucial instrument in the conquest and aggregation to the Empire of the territories that it crossed. 516 In a certain sense, it came to stand for the line of Roman penetration and thus for the frontier with the Alpine north. Rome’s intervention left a profound mark on the natural environment, modifying it and adapting it to its new requirements: reclamation, regulation of watercourses, vast and highly complex surveying operations, and urbanised settlements were all part of the transformation of the Cisalpine areas that would last in the future because harmoniously integrated into the natural order. The local economy and agrarian technology, in particular, received an important impetus towards new developments. 517 In the light of this situation, it is easy to understand how so many disputes arose and what may have provoked them. The outcome was inevitably the progressive assimilation of the 514 CIL V 8045. This document, together with the Polcevera Tablet, is incontrovertible evidence of the fact that the road went from Genua – a territory to which several generations of Postumii had links – to Aquileia, a Latin colony founded in 181 bc, which is where the oldest inscription bearing the name of the road was found: CIL V 8313 = ILLRP 487a. Cf. most recently Chiabà 2015, p. 146, with previous bibliography. 515 Fraccaro 1957c, p. 197. 516 Basso 2007, p. 20. 517 Gabba 1990a, pp. 70-74. 153 GIFBIB_21.indb 153 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC conquerors’ model, as confirmed by local anthroponyms and placenames. A recent study on documented second-century-bc Cisalpine treaties has underlined that all such agreements were formulated as foedera. 518 Wherever historiographical accounts of such events exist, they show that one of the contracting parties requested the possibility of arbitration, making it likely that such agreements contained a special clause providing for and regulating recourse to an arbitration award. 519 It is interesting to note that the Ligurians, 518 In order to stabilise institutional arrangements after military successes, the Romans would ratify foedera, treaties by means of which relations between the local populations and Rome were endorsed on a non-conflictual although not necessarily equal footing – given that one side was undeniably far more powerful than the other: on the foedera drawn by Rome with the Cisalpine communities, and especially with the Transpadane communities, see Luraschi 1979, pp. 23-137. The civitates foederatae were mostly Italic centres tied to Rome by a foedus (either a foedus aequum or, more frequently, a foedus iniquum) that established their rights and obligations to Rome but without the benefits enjoyed by the cities holding the Latin right or ius Latii (ius commercii, connubii, migrandi, suffragii). Like Latin-right cities, they were required to provide the Roman State with troops and supplies. In general, this type of treaty tended to perpetuate the pre-existing condition of allied city, guaranteeing the city the highest level of autonomy (but only in administrative matters and not with regard to external relations). As rightly pointed out by Harris (Harris 1972, pp. 639-645), it is important to remember that while the civitates foederatae were not obliged to adapt their legal structures to Roman civil and penal law, in the case of arbitration they would be subjected to Roman jurisdiction, settlement procedures, and methods. Among the civitates foederatae we can find, for example, Neapolis, which became a civitas foederata in 326 bc (see Sartori 1953, p. 20; Scuderi 1991a, p. 373 and n. 12), Nola, which became a civitas foederata nel 313 bc (Q uindici 1984, pp. 31-61; Scuderi 1991a, p. 373), Heraclea, which became a civitas foederata in 272 bc, and Ravenna, which became a civitas foederata at the end of the third century bc. They must have enjoyed such favourable conditions – maintaining their autonomy, their own customs and laws (for Ravenna and Genoa see Cairo 2012, p. 35) – that they were reluctant to accept Roman citizenship, given that Rome always respected the institutional autonomy of the single centres – as long as they observed the political substance of their treaties – and did not demand assimilation from that variegated panorama of local magistracies like the Umbrian Maro (see Bonamente [forthcoming] in which the author mentions a travertine cippus with an inscription in Umbrian using the Latin alphabet referring to a Propertius Maro from Assisi that is datable to the late second - early first century bc (CIL XI 5389 = Forni 1987, p. 32 no. 25 = Bonamente 2019, p. 14 no. 2 = Petraccia 2019, pp. 23-24), the Samnite Meddix, or the Osco-Samnite Kvaistur/Kenstur (Toynbee 1981, pp. 263 ff.; cf. Petraccia 1988). In fact, the cities themselves soon realised that they were in the presence of an advantageous process involving a gradual political and economic permeation by Rome. 519 Cresci Marrone 2004, pp. 29-30. Cf. also Laffi 1990, pp. 285-304. The arbitral award has always been seen as the final act, the conclusive, definitive step 154 GIFBIB_21.indb 154 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET who did not have a ‘language of culture’ like Oscan, soon started using Latin, the language of the Sententia Minuciorum. Among the contributory causes of this boundary dispute we should probably also consider the changes wrought in local balances by Roman intervention for the construction of the Via Postumia. As documented in the Polcevera Tablet, in fact, the Roman Senate undoubtedly had good reason to entrust the task of settling the boundary dispute between the Genuates and Viturii Langenses to Q uintus and Marcus Minucii Rufi, descendents of the same consul Q uintus Minucius Rufus who had advanced from Genua in 197 bc, crossing the Apennines and subjugating the local populations as far as Clastidium. 520 Thanks to Etruscan influence, by 500 bc Genua had already attained a proto-urban dimension, guarding the coastal road from its central position on the eponymous gulf; 521 since at least the time of Hannibal’s invasion of northern Italy – when Genua remained faithful to Rome despite having been destroyed by Mago in 205 bc 522 – it had become civitas foederata of Rome, 523 which had on that occasion used the Ligurian city as its naval base. 524 of the arbitration proceedings, untangling all the knots of the dispute in a single or series of rulings: by delivering the award, the arbiters fulfil their function, comply with the obligations assumed towards the parties, perfecting their duties with regard to the matter that was inaugurated with the stipulation of the arbitral agreement then advanced through their appointment and the institution of proceedings: La China 2011, pp. 209-244. 520 Cic. Brut. 18.73; Liv. 32.27-31; Zon. 9.16. Cf. Bandelli 1998, p. 151 and n. 64. 521 Strab. 4.6.7, C 205-206; Plin. NH 3.123; Cass. Dio 53.25.5. Cf. Keppie 1983, p. 206; Pavese 2000, p. 21 and n. 31. 522 Liv. 21.32.5. 523 The early stipulation of a foedus between the two cities seems to be borne out by the fact that, in 218 bc, Genua was the base where the consul Publius Cornelius Scipio (father of Scipio Africanus) embarked after his hasty return from the Rhône area in a vain attempt to halt Hannibal who would later defeat him at the Battle of Ticinum (218 bc) Diod. Sic. 14.93.3-4; App. Ital. 8. Lamboglia discusses the foedus between the Romans and Genuates at great length: Lamboglia 1939, p. 200; Lamboglia 1941, p. 170. This date will be subjected to a concise, targeted analysis, but for the moment we should point out that there is no consensus among scholars regarding either Genua as civitas foederata, or the period in which this eventually came about. 524 Liv. 21.32.5. 155 GIFBIB_21.indb 155 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Rome immediately took charge of its reconstruction 525 and, as a sign of gratitude, ‘attributed’ 526 a number of inland communities to the city; in addition to the Viturii Langenses, these included the Odiates, Dectunines, Cavaturines, and Mentovines (ll. 37-44): Prata quae fuerunt proxuma faenisicei L(ucio) Caecilio (et) Q (uinto) Muucio co(n)s(ulibus) in agro poplico, quem Vituries Langenses / posident et quem Odiates et quem Dectunines et quem Cavaturineis et quem Mentovines posident, ea prata, / invitis Langensibus et Odiatibus et Dectuninebus et Cavaturines et Mentovines, quem quisque eorum agrum / posidebit, inviteis eis niquis sicet nive pascat nive fruatur. Sei Langueses (!) aut Odiates aut Dectunines aut Cavaturines / aut Mentovines malent in eo agro alia prata inmittere, defendere, sicare, id uti facere liceat, dum ne ampliorem / modum pratorum habeant quam proxuma aestate habuerunt fructique sunt. Vituries quei controvorsias / Genuensium ob iniourias iudicati aut damnati sunt, sei quis in vinculeis ob eas res est, eos omneis / solvei, mittei leiber ‹are› ique Genuenses videtur oportere ante eidus Sextilis primas. Q uando, nell’anno di consolato di Lucio Cecilio e Q uinto Mucio, i prati dell’agro pubblico saranno prossimi al taglio (i prati dell’agro pubblico posseduto dai Langensi Viturii, di quello posseduto dagli Odiati, di quello dei Dectunini, di quello dei Mentovini e di quello dei Cavaturini), nessuno potrà tagliarvi o pascolarvi o goderne senza il consenso dei Langensi, degli Odiati, dei Dectunini, dei Cavaturini e dei Mentovini, ciascuno per il proprio agro. Se i Langensi, gli Odiati, i Dectunini, i Cavaturini e i Mentovini preferiscono costituire, cintare, tagliare altri prati in tale agro, potranno farlo, a condizione che la misura totale dei prati non superi quella dell’estate passata. I Viturii che, in occasione delle controversie con i Genuensi sono stati giudicati o condannati per ingiurie, se qualcuno è in carcere per tali motivi, i Genuensi dovranno liberarli e proscioglierli prima del prossimo 15 giugno. 527 Liv. 30.1.10. Cf. Laffi 1966, pp. 55-61. 527 In the translation by Petracco Sicardi, leaving aside that she is discussing the Ides of June (contra the translation by Warmington for Loeb, in which he speaks of the Ides of August), we should point out that in both months the 525 526 156 GIFBIB_21.indb 156 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET The meadows which, at the last hay-mowing, during the consulship of Lucius Caecilius and Q uintus Mucius, within the limits of the public state-land in the possession of the Langenses Veturii, and the public state-land in the possession of the Odiates and the Dectunines, and the public state-land in the possession of the Cavaturini and the Mentovini – the said meadows no one shall mow or use as pasture or enjoy against the will of the Langenses and the Odiates and the Dectunines and the Cavaturini and the Mentovini, in the case of the land which any of the said peoples shall severally possess. If, on the said land, the Langenses or the Odiates or the Dectunines or the Cavaturini or the Mentovini prefer to let grow, fence off, and mow other meadows, they shall be allowed to do so provided that they hold no larger measure of meadowland than they held and enjoyed last summer. If any one of the Veturii who have been judged or found guilty in respect of quarrels with the Genuans on account of contumelious wrongs is in prison because of such matters, we think that all of them should be released, discharged, and set free before the thirteenth day of August next. Gagliardi agrees with Laffi regarding Genoa’s recourse to adtributio to govern populations like the Viturii Langenses who were not yet organised in civic forms in that historical moment, pointing out that this may not have been adtributio strictu sensu but a form of government resembling it although not yet legally identifiable as the concept of adtributio. 528 It is his belief that recourse to this expedient, considered as a sistema di governo di popolazioni sottomesse e non organizzate in forme cittadine, è attestato per tabulas in relazione a due soli periodi storici: gli anni della lex Pompeia citata da Plinio il Vecchio e l’età augustea. 529 Ides fell on the thirteenth (Warmington) and not on the fifteenth day (Petracco Sicardi). Although this clarification does not in any way change the contents of the Sententia, I believe it should be made: the months in which the Ides fall on the thirteenth day are January, February, April, June, August, September, November, and December; those in which the Ides fall on the fifteenth day are March, May, July, and October. 528 Laffi 1966, pp. 55-61; Luraschi 1979; Luraschi 1988, pp. 43-71; Luraschi 1989, pp. 249-270; Valvo 2017, pp. 25-42; Baroni 2017, pp. 221-233. 529 Gagliardi 2006, p. 279 and nn. 431-432; cf. Scuderi 1991a, p. 381. 157 GIFBIB_21.indb 157 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC It should be pointed out that both the Genuates and Viturii Langenses had an ‘asymmetrical’ political relationship with Rome and that Genua exerted a form of authority over the latter tribe, as revealed by the fact that some of its members had been judged by the Genoese magistrates. 530 In fact, the Genuates were foederati of Rome and by virtue of their good mutual relations, they were effectively the Republic’s longa manus after the conquest of the Ligurian territory in 197 bc (they had also revealed their longstanding loyalty to Rome, since Genua had proved hostile to the Carthaginians during the Hannibalic War); the Viturii Langenses, on the other hand, together with the other groups briefly mentioned in the Tablet, were adtributi, meaning they had their own territory and personal rights but lacked jurisdictional and administrative autonomy, depending upon the Genuates in these spheres. The nature of this trilateral connection – Rome, Genuates, and Viturii Langenses – is in itself deserving of further investigation, especially with regard to the federated community-subordinate local tribes relationship, which echoed, mutatis mutandis, the one between the hegemonic city and the communities with Latin rights. This has also sparked debate on how to classify the case of arbitration described in the Polcevera Tablet: not exactly ‘international’ (considering the unequal positions of the parties involved as well as the delicate diplomatic and political situation) or administrative (given that it cannot be considered as integrating an act of government), it would be more accurate to classify it as federal (in other words, as an expression of that hegemonic power lying halfway between protectorate and domain, especially in Italy, and that would naturally invoke Rome’s arbitral function whenever peace and order were threatened by clashes between satellite communities). 531 Soon after this reorganisation of the Ligurian territory – around 200 bc, to be precise – the Viturii Langenses came into conflict with the Genuates. The reason for the dispute stemmed from the fact that the lands belonging to the former, which had been confiscated by the victors, had been partially reassigned to Scuderi 1991a, p. 381. Cf. Gabba 1987, p. 30. This classification was introduced by De Ruggiero 1893, pp. 116-127, 317-345. 530 531 158 GIFBIB_21.indb 158 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET them by Rome as ager privatus: they had full ownership of these lands and could bequeath them to their heirs; another, larger portion of the ager publicus was partly assigned to the Genuates and partly granted to the Viturii Langenses in exchange for a tribute, or vectigal, to be paid to Rome via the Genuates, given the foedus existing between Rome and Genua. However, due to demographic growth and a consequent need for greater yields (also to pay the tributes due to Rome), the Viturii Langenses had begun to flank their herding activities by planting grain and forage crops, moving down into the valleys in search of more fertile land fit for this purpose. This gave rise to a dispute with the Genuates, who did not wish to lose the economic supremacy over the inland regions granted to them by Rome. Matters flared up to the point that the Genuates had imprisoned ob iniurias a number of Viturii Langenses, guilty of occupying lands that the Genuates held to be rightfully theirs: ultimately, recourse to the Roman Senate – as a kind of appellatio – was triggered by these acts of deprivation of personal liberty against which there could be no other form of appeal. The Sententia Minuciorum is divided into the following sections: an initial section describing the parties, judges, and circumstances in which the decision is being pronounced (at Rome in the presence of the parties), as well as the year in which it was promulgated (ll. 1-5), in a similar manner to the inscriptio in the legislative rogationes or the beginning of the formula in private proceedings – and this aspect requires further investigation also with respect to other arbitrations of the second century bc – and bearing in mind that the yardstick must in any case be that of international treaties drawn up by Rome from the time of the Republican period. 532 A second part contains the text of the sententia proper (ll. 5-45), while the third lists the names of the representatives of the disputing parties (l. 46): the arbitral nature of the document explains the absence of both a sanctio imposing compliance with the contents and of prescriptions relative to the duration of the arrangement of interests ensuing from this decision. 532 See supra pp. 29-60 of the chapter titled The Concept of ‘International’ Arbitration in the Roman World. 159 GIFBIB_21.indb 159 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC A preliminary investigation of the Tablet’s factual content has already revealed a number of unique aspects stemming from the trilateral, asymmetric, and graduated nature of the relationship between the arbitrators and third parties that make this decision a triumph of equilibrium and moderation that aspires, at the same time, to preserving pre-existing rules and practices, insofar as this is possible, making only those amendments deemed strictly necessary. Given that the disputed area was crossed by the Via Postumia, the consuls and Senate decided to intervene directly, sending Q uintus and Marcus Minucii Rufi, the two magistrates whose names are clearly visible at the top of the inscription, to gather intelligence. After completing an in-depth survey and discussions with the disputing parties, the consuls returned to Rome where, in the presence of delegates sent by both parties, they issued a sententia that was made effective by the Senate on 13 December 117 bc (ll. 1-4): Q (uintus) (et) M(arcus) Minucieis Q (uinti) f(ilii) Rufeis de controvorsieis inter / Genuateis et Veiturios in re praesente cognoverunt, et coram inter eos controvosias composeiverunt, / et qua lege agrum possiderent et qua fineis fierent dixserunt. Eos fineis facere terminosque statui iuserunt; / ubei ea facta essent, Romam coram venire iouserunt. Q uinto e Marco Minucii, figli di Q uinto, della famiglia dei Rufi, esaminarono le controversie fra Genuati e Viturii in tale questione e di presenza fra di loro le composero. Stabilirono secondo quale forma dovessero possedere il territorio e secondo quale legge si stabilissero i confini e ordinarono di fissare i confini e che fossero posti i termini. E comandarono che, quando fossero fatte queste cose, venissero di presenza a Roma. Q uintus Minucius Rufus and Marcus Minucius Rufus, sons of Q uintus, inquired on the spot into the quarrels between the Genuans and the Veturians and in their hearing settled the quarrels between them and informed them of the conditions on which they were to hold their land and of the conditions on which boundaries were to be fixed. They ordered them to fix the boundaries and to cause boundary-marks to be set up; they ordered them to come to Rome in person when these commands were carried out. 160 GIFBIB_21.indb 160 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET It is worth mentioning at this point that the deditio of a conquered people usually evolved into clientship with the Roman general who became the patron of the defeated. 533 Clientship offered Rome a non-belligerent instrument for imposing and maintaining supremacy, a means of controlling populations that could be used either ‘after a defeat or pre-emptively’ and that required the vanquished to make an act of submission (deditio) thus becoming a client of the magistrate representing Rome at that particular moment. These ties between the leading families of the Roman aristocracy and the local elites had a positive impact, as confirmed by the importance that the Senate attributed to the Ligurian region in the aftermath of the Hannibalic War, a crucial period for Roman history. 534 From the very beginning, the existence of these forms of clientship meant that the Senate would often assign community disputes to the patrons concerned – in this particular case, the clientship was between Genua and its patronus Q uintus Minucius Rufus, and therefore also with his descendents. 535 Interestingly, the Polcevera Tablet shows that the two patrons adopted the Roman per extremitatem system used to indicate the perimeter of the territory in order to define their boundaries. “The whole text might have been written to esemplify on the ground the instructions issued by Hyginus (pp. 114-115 L. = p. 74 Th.)” 536 who, with regard to boundary disputes needing to be settled terminibus, points out that territories are often clearly defined in this manner in public documents: 537 ita ut ex colluculo qui appellatur ille, ad flumen illud et per flumen illud ad rivum illum aut viam illam et per viam illam ad infima montis illius qui locus appellatur ille et inde per iugum montis illius in summum et per summum montis per divergia aquae ad locum qui appellatur ille, et inde deorsum versus ad locum illum et inde ad compitum illius et inde per monumentum illius ad locum unde primum coepit scriptura esse. Cf. Scuderi 1991a, p. 380 n. 60. Bandelli 1998, p. 148 and n. 24. 535 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.11.1. For the Minucii brothers’ links to Genoa cf. Stahl 1986, pp. 280-307, in part. p. 298. 536 Crawford 2003, p. 207. 537 Hyg. Grom. de cond. agr. pp. 114-115 L. = p. 74 Th. [English translation: B. Campbell, The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors. Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary, London 2000]. 533 534 161 GIFBIB_21.indb 161 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC così ad esempio: da quella piccola collina chiamata così, a quel fiume e lungo quel fiume, a quel ruscello o a quella via, e per quella via fino alle parti più basse di quel monte, il quale luogo è chiamato così, e poi per la cresta di quel monte fino alla sommità, e lungo la sommità e lo spartiacque al luogo detto così, e poi giù verso quel luogo, e poi al bivio di quello e poi per il monumentum di quello al luogo da cui iniziò la descrizione. as follows: From the small hill called such and such, to such and such a river, and along that river to such and such a stream or such and such a road, and along that road to the lower slopes of such and such a mountain, a place which has the name such and such, and from there along the ridge of that mountain to the summit, and along the summit of the mountain along the watersheds to the place called such and such, and from there down to such and such a place, and from there to the cross-roads of such and such a place, and from there past the tomb of such and such to’ the place from which the description began. The Polcevera Tablet refers to this very method, describing the perimeter of the ager privatus followed by that of the ager publicus of the Viturii Langenses before returning to the point of departure. It begins ab rivo infimo, qui oritur ab fontei in Mannicelo. Moving upwards from the valley, it begins at the point where the stream flows into a larger watercourse (ad flovium Edem), where a boundary marker stands (as in other significant locations). 538 The boundary markers are all situated in salient points 539 generally where the boundary changes direction to follow the natural limits formed by rivers, mountain ridges, or watersheds – as pointed out by gromatic sources. 540 Obviously, the markers were not situated at fixed intervals but had to adapt to the territory; given the mountainous nature of the terrain in the Polcevera basin, it was demarcated by short segments requiring further explanations as clearly emerges from the Tablet and from the vast body of rules regulating land use. 538 Petracco Sicardi 1958-1959, p. 13; cf. Pasquinucci 1995, pp. 52-58; Crawford 2003, pp. 204-210; Pasquinucci 2004b, pp. 476-477. 539 For a cartographic reconstruction according to the principles of the gromatici, refer to Petracco Sicardi 1958-1959, p. 8. 540 Sic. Flacc. de cond. agr. p. 163 L. 162 GIFBIB_21.indb 162 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET The sentence issued by the Minucii brothers was impartial and lenient towards the Genuates, confirming their privileges while at the same time not damaging the Viturii Langenses, aiming at an effective reconciliation. This emerges from the fact that the Genuates making use of the ager publicus are also required to pay the vectigal to Genua as well as complying with resolutions passed by the Viturii Langenses (ll. 29-35): Eus quei posidebunt, vectigal Langensibus pro portione dent ita uti ceteri / Langenses, qui eorum in eo agro agrum posidebunt fruenturque. Praeter ea in eo agro ni quis posideto, nisi de maiore parte / Langensium Veituriorum sententia, dum ne alium intro mitat nisi Genuatem aut Veiturium colendi causa. Q uei eorum / de maiore parte Langensium Veiturium sententia ita non parebit, is eum agrum nei habeto nive fruimino. Q uei / ager compascuos erit, in eo agro quo minus pecus [p]ascere Genuates Veituriosque liceat ita utei in cetero agro / Genuati compascuo, ni quis prohibeto nive quis vim facito, neive prohibeto quo minus ex eo agro ligna materiamque / sumant utanturque. Vectigal anni primi k(alendis) Ianuaris secundis Veturis Langenses in poplicum Genuam dare / debento. Tali possessori pagheranno la tassa ai Langensi secondo la loro porzione così come gli altri Langensi che possederanno e godranno un podere in tale agro. Oltre a questi possessi, nessuno potrà possedere se non con l’approvazione della maggioranza dei Langensi Viturii e condizione che non faccia subentrare un altro, Genuate o Viturio, per coltivare. Chi non obbedirà al parere della maggioranza dei Langensi Viturii non avrà né godrà tale agro. Nell’agro che sarà compascuo, nessuno proibisca né impedisca con la forza ai Genuati e ai Viturii di pascolare il bestiame, così come nel resto dell’agro compascuo genuate; e nessuno proibisca che vi raccolgano legna e legname e ne facciano uso. La tassa del primo anno i Langensi Viturii debbono versarla al Tesoro di Genua il 1° gennaio dell’anno successivo. Those who shall possess a holding must pay to the Langenses a charge in the same proportion as the remaining Langenses such of them as shall possess and enjoy any area within the said land. Furthermore within the said land no one must possess a holding unless it be by a majority-vote of the Langensian Veturii, and on condition that he admits no other onto his holding for the purpose of tilling unless he be a Genuan or a 163 GIFBIB_21.indb 163 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Veturian. If any of the said persons shall not appear to obey this condition (by a majority-vote of the Langensian Veturii), he shall not keep the land or enjoy it. No man shall hinder the Genuans and the Veturii from pasturing cattle, on such of the said land as is associate pasture-land, in the way in which it is allowed on the remaining associate pasture-land of Genua, and no man shall use force or hinder them from taking from the said land firewood and building-timber and using the same. The Langensian Veturii are required to pay into the public treasury at Genua a first year’s rent on the first day of January next but one. The text in lines 32-35 dictates the main provisions relative to the ager compascuus. 541 It takes into account both ownership and possession of lands, distinguishing between ager privatus, publicus, and compascuus, which the Roman arbitrators consider to be three different categories of land. The text provides that the ager compascuus was to be open to both communities to pasture their livestock and that no one could hinder them from grazing their flocks freely or collecting firewood. However, it is impossible to establish just to what extent the Roman model of land-use was adopted in Ligurian territories or the Roman terminology could be applied to a situation as different as the one ‘captured’ in the Sententia Minuciorum. Even scholars like Sereni 542 who are inclined to believe that Roman terminology cannot be applied to the Ligurian reality of that period still acknowledge that the Minucii brothers clearly indicated three characteristics of the ager compascuus. First and foremost, unlike the ager privatus and publicus, the compascuus is open for grazing and the collection of firewood although there is no reference to the possibility of using this land to grow crops. Secondly, the use of this category of ager is limited to the two communities expressly mentioned (Viturii Langenses and Genuates). Lastly, unlike the other two categories of ager, there is no description of its boundaries. According to Scuderi, this type of land must have been situated in mountainous areas belonging to Genua, but 541 Recently, Laffi carried out a careful systematisation of the sources on the ager compascuus, putting forward a new construction of its interpretation: Laffi 2001c, pp. 381-398. Cf. the recent development by Merotto 2016. 542 Sereni 1954, pp. 443-445. 164 GIFBIB_21.indb 164 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET left accessible for use by both communities, in accordance with the ancient Ligurian custom of intertribal compascuus. 543 Serrao has written a trenchant synthesis of the scant sources available with regard to the ager compascuus, shrewdly observing that in origine né privato né pubblico né individuale né in comunione (o comune), ma collettivo (fra i proprietari proximi, così come lo era stato fra i componenti di una comunità collettivistica), man mano che la città aumentava di forza e autonomia nei confronti dei gruppi gentilizi e familiari, venne sempre più considerato ager publicus. E l’evoluzione sembra arrivata al suo epilogo, se non prima, almeno con la lex agraria del 111 a.C., dove il compascuo esistente è regolato e limitato e per il futuro è proibita la destinazione a compascuus di altro ager publicus. 544 According to Capogrossi Colognesi, on the basis of the sources available to us, it is possible to deduce both that the ager compascuus came under the jurisdiction of the Res Publica and was intended for the exclusive use of neighbouring landowners and the opposite: that is, that the ager compascuus comprised lands that were “di volta in volta pubbliche o private, o, addirittura, pubbliche e private insieme”. 545 Strictly speaking the ager publicus must be considered as populi Romani, because it resulted from the military conquest of the territories of inland populations even though Rome had ceded the right to use it to Genua, as a further recompense for the city’s loyalty. In fact, the possessores were required to pay a vectigal that the Sententia Minuciorum expresses in the form of money or as part of the crops: 546 Q uem agrum poplicum / iudicamus esse, eum agrum castelanos Langenses Veiturios po[si]dere fruique videtur oportere. Pro eo agro vectigal Langenses / Veituris in poplicum Genuam dent in an(n)os singulos vic(toriatos) n(ummos) CCCC. Sei Langenses 543 Sereni 1954, pp. 13-42; Sereni 1955, pp. 353, 441-562; Boccaleri 1996, pp. 23-42. Cf. most recently Guida 2016, p. 245. 544 Serrao 2006, p. 398. 545 Capogrossi Colognesi 1999, p. 29. Cf. Guida 2016, pp. 233-241. 546 Scuderi 1991a, pp. 381-382. Cf. Gabba 1987, p. 30. 165 GIFBIB_21.indb 165 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC eam pequniam non dabunt neque satis / facient arbitratuu Genuatium, quod per Genuenses mo[r]a non fiat, quo setius eam pequniam acipiant, tum quod in eo agro / natum erit frumenti partem vicensumam, vini partem sextam Langenses in poplicum Genuam dare debento / in annos singolos. Sembra opportuno che i castellani Langenses Viturii debbano avere il possesso e il godimento di questo agro che giudichiamo essere pubblico. Per questo agro i Viturii Langenses diano, quale contributo, all’erario di Genua ogni anno 400 ‘vittoriati’. Se i Langenses non pagheranno questa somma e nemmeno soddisferanno i Genuates in altro modo, beninteso che i Genuates non siano causa del ritardo a riscuotere, i Langenses saranno tenuti a dare ogni anno all’erario di Genua la ventesima parte del frumento prodotto in quell’agro e la sesta parte di vino. For the said land the Langensian Veturii shall pay into the public treasury at Genua every year 400 pieces of the ‘Victory’ stamp. If the Langenses fail to pay the said money and do not give satisfaction according to the will and pleasure of the Genuans (on such condition that it is not through the fault of the Genuans that any delay hinders them from receiving the money) – in this case the Langenses shall be required to pay into the public treasury at Genua every year one twentieth part of the corn and one sixth part of the wine which shall have been produced on the said land. The Viturii Langenses were not required to pay any levy for the use of ager privatus, and were allowed to sell it or bequeath it to their heirs (ll. 5-6): Q ua ager privatus casteli Vituriorum est, quem agrum eos vendere / heredemque sequi licet, is ager vectigal(is) nei siet. In base alla quale sentenza, esiste un agro privato del castello dei Viturii il quale agro possono vendere ed è lecito che sia trasmesso agli eredi. Q uesto agro non sarà sottoposto a tassa. Wherever there is private land belonging to the fortress of the Veturii, land which they may sell and which can pass to an heir, the said land shall not be put under charges. As mentioned, the contents of the Sententia Minuciorum reveal its uniqueness, which results from the trilateral, asymmetric, and 166 GIFBIB_21.indb 166 03/12/19 12.28 THE POLCEVERA TABLET graduated nature of the situation involving arbiters and disputing parties, making it a triumph of equilibrium and moderation that aspires to the preservation of accepted and consolidated ways of life, changing only what is strictly necessary: yet another example of Roman pragmatism. The structure of the Sententia Minuciorum provides all those wishing to study the development of the arbitral technique in later periods and in similar circumstances with an essential reference tool: 1. recognition of the ownership rights of the Viturii Langenses over their ager privatus. This land could be sold and inherited, and was not subject to any form of vectigal (ll. 5-6): it is hard to classify because the land defined as ‘private’ is the land belonging to the community of the Langenses, not the land owned by its individual members, unlike the ager publicus, which has been given to the community by Genua for its use; 2. delimitation of the boundaries of the ager privatus (ll. 6-13) and publicus (ll. 13-23) of the Viturii Langenses; 3. rights and obligations of the single Viturii Langenses and of their entire community in the regards of the Genuates, who had ownership of the ager publicus (ll. 23-42): the sententia distinguishes between the ager publicus used for cultivations, compascua, and prata. With regard to the former, the Viturii Langenses are required to pay a total annual amount to Genua (400 victoriati or, failing that, one twentieth part of the corn and one sixth part of the wine produced): in order to scrape together this amount, the assembly of the Viturii – that is, the majority of its members – could assign the temporary or permanent possession of the single plots to its members or even to the Genuates (but to no one else) in exchange for payment of a vectigal pro portione (but without the right to evict occupants that had settled here for a certain period of time). The compascua of both communities could be freely used by both peoples as pastureland and for the collection of firewood, while the prata were to be managed by the Viturii Langenses who possessed them on the first of September in the year of the verdict, and were to be accessible also to the four smaller communities mentioned in the arbitral proceedings. Although the area occupied by these meadows could not be increased, it was pos167 GIFBIB_21.indb 167 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC sible to change their intended use following prior agreement with the Viturii Langenses; 4. an order to release, within the next six months, any imprisoned Viturii Langenses and invitation to the disputing parties to turn to the arbitrators in the event that there were further reasons for conflict (ll. 42-45). It should be pointed out that Rome had no intention of imposing its laws by means of this arbitral procedure, but merely to enshrine pre-existing legal relations between Genoa, a confederated yet formally autonomous city, and a community subject to it, by means of the precise definition of the boundaries of the contested lands and of the use of this land by the two disputing parties, and to a lesser extent, also by the other Ligurian communities mentioned in the Tablet. The verdict also defined the boundaries of the private land belonging to the Viturii Langenses, for which they were not required to pay any rent. Both the Genuates and Viturii Langenses had the right to use the public land, whose boundaries were also defined in the verdict; however, in this case the Viturii Langenses were required to pay the Genuensis treasury an annual rent of 400 victoriati, eventually payable in kind (corn or wine). The eventual future assignment of plots situated on public land to single Viturii Langenses or Genuates colonists would be established by the community of the Viturii Langenses, in exchange for the payment of a tax by the new colonists. m. f. p. 168 GIFBIB_21.indb 168 03/12/19 12.28 APPENDIX THE LIGURIAN STRETCH OF THE VIA POSTUMIA. REFLECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ARISING FROM THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE by Antonella Traverso 547 Mihi nunc Ligus ora intepet hibernatque meum mare, qua latus ingens dant scopuli et multa litus se valle receptat. (Pers. 6.6-8.) The route of the stretch of the Via Postumia crossing the Ligurian territory has been among the most hotly debated topics in archaeology from the nineteenth century to the present day. In fact, ever since the discovery in 1506 of the bronze tablet of the Val Polcevera, whose text contains three mentions of the consular road, 548 numerous scholars have engaged in discussions about the topographical implications of this legal document. 549 547 Mibact officer and director of the Luni, Balzi Rossi, and Chiavari museums (Liguria). 548 Actually, the Tablet mentions the consular road four times in the description of the ager privatus; however, on two occasions (the second and third), it is clearly referring to the same place meaning that there are a total of three distinct places: […] inde rivo Comberanea susum usque ad comvalem Caeptiemam ibi termina duo stant circum viam Postumiam ex eis terminis … (omissis) inde sursum rivo recto Vinelesca / ibei terminus stat propter viam Postumiam inde alter trans viam Postumiam terminus stat ex eo termino quei stat / trans viam Postumiam recta regione in fontem in Manicelum. 549 There is a vast recent bibliography devoted to studies of the Ligurian stretch of this key route in the Roman road network. For an overview of the most significant contributions on the Postumia route, see n. 486 on p. 144 of the chapter titled The Polcevera Tablet, of which this Appendix is an integral part as well as a useful reference in terms of information and documentation regarding the stretch of this important consular road that continues to be the subject of research and studies today. It is worth recalling at least the contributions published on the occasion of the 1994 Study Day devoted to the Polcevera Tablet and those published in connection with the exhibition on the Tablet held in 1998. Lastly, we should also consider the recent preliminary results that have emerged thanks to the ‘Progetto Postumia’, coordinated by the author. 169 GIFBIB_21.indb 169 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC The Polcevera Tablet, along with a milestone 550 believed by some to come from Redondesco (Mantua) 551 and containing references to the consul Spurius Postumius Albinus and the distances from Genoa and Cremona, is considered to be one of the oldest documents making explicit reference to the Via Postumia and its route. The first historical reference to this tablet was made in 1520 by Giustiniani who followed this mention with an extremely detailed description in 1537. The Ligurian bishop and geographer is the historical source chronologically nearest to the time of the discovery of this exceptional artefact, lending weight to the reliability of the information that he provides. It might be worth quoting the exact words that Giustiniani uses in his Castigatissimi Annali of Genoa describe the lucky discovery: trovolla un paesano Genoate Agostino di Pedemonte l’anno 1506 nella valle di Polcevera nella villa di Izosecco sotto terra, cavando con la zappa in una sua possessione. 552 Giustiniani’s words allow us to identify, with a certain degree of accuracy, the “villa di Izosecco” as the location of this extraordinary find, whose legal value would certainly have justified its erection in the vicinity of the territories listed in its text. But where was the “villa di Izosecco” located at that time? Scholars seeking to resolve this dilemma can refer to a map in the Archivio di Stato di Genova datable to the mid-seventeenth century and delineating the properties owned by Lazzaro Maria Cambiaso that identifies the pleasant hill that is the site of the church of Santa Maria di Pedemonte “ossia Izosecco” 553 (fig. 3a-b). By cross-referencing the information provided by Giustiniani with this important cartographic data, we can identify the site where the Polcevera Tablet was found as being located on the slopes of Santa Maria di Pedemonte – on the banks of the Secca torrent – a left-hand tributary of the Polcevera torrent (fig. 3b). Now in the Museo Maffeiano, Verona (CIL V 8045). Locality situated between Cremona and Mantua. See Cera 2000, pp. 9-10. 552 Spotorno 1854, p. 116. 553 Pianta degli effetti situati sul fiume Secca in Polcevera by S. E. Lazzaro Maria Cambiaso [ASGE 1761]. Archivio di Stato di Genova. 550 551 170 GIFBIB_21.indb 170 03/12/19 12.28 APPENDIX: THE LIGURIAN STRETCH OF THE VIA POSTUMIA Fig. 3a Church of Santa Maria di Pedemonte also known as Izosecco/Isosecco [Pianta degli effetti situati sul fiume Secca in Polcevera by S. E. Lazzaro Maria Cambiaso (ASGE 1761)]. Fig. 3b Precise position of the place named Izosecco/Isosecco. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Giustiniani – benefitting from his familiarity with the site – would refer to the data contained in the Tablet to extract the information necessary to identify the Ligurian stretch of the Via Postumia, which goes from Genoa to Libarna (the first stop). He writes: E di là da giogo di Ricò, il quale è discosto dalla Marina quattordici miglia, si offende la villa di Buzalla, ed il Borgo dei Fornari, 171 GIFBIB_21.indb 171 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC terre dei nobili Spinoli col fiume Scrivia, e l’antica via Posthumia, oggi nominata via Costuma ossia Costumia, per la quale si va a Ronco, all’Isola, ad Arquata, a Serravalle ed a Nove. 554 The hypothesis put forward by the Genoese bishop was that the Via Postumia went through the Giovi Pass to reach the Valle Scrivia. His proposal was widely accepted until the first half of the nineteenth century, 555 and continued to appear in later studies that also identified the Giovi or Crocetta d’Orero passes as likely routes connecting the Val Polcevera to Valle Scrivia before going on to Libarna. 556 A significant new development was introduced by twentiethcentury studies, which saw the diffusion of Monaco’s hypothesis 557 suggesting that the road went through the Bocchetta Pass to reach Gavi and Serravalle, while Lamboglia – who, on the one hand, apparently accepts this hypothesis 558 and identifies the Castellum Alianus mentioned in the Tablet with a post in the territory of Langasco, in the Bocchetta Pass 559 – seems also to propose a route going from Genoa to Pontedecimo, following the modern course of the Polcevera and the axis between the Secca and Sardorella torrents. 560 Today, this route which crosses the Pian di Reste and goes through the Bocchetta Pass 561 is still the hypothesis accepted by 554 Spotorno 1854, p. 54. Cf. Spotorno 1854, p. 533 (Annotazioni agli Annali di Mons. Giustiniani compilate dal Cav. P. Gio. Battista Spotorno): “Per congiungere Genova alla Via Aurelia, che passava di là da’ gioghi fu aperta la Via Postumia ed è presso a poco la moderna, detta de’ gioghi, che per Pontedecimo, Arquata, Libarna, Serravalle giunge a Novi e a Tortona”. 555 Cera 2000, p. 44. 556 Celesia 1863, p. 43. Cf. Bottazzi 1815, pp. 46-47. 557 Monaco 1936, pp. 67-70. 558 Lamboglia 1941, pp. 215-221. 559 Lamboglia 1939, p. 236: here the author identifies the river Ede with the Verde and suggests locating the fons in Manicelo in the proximity of this river, which flows into the Polcevera torrent at Pontedecimo (p. 237). The hypothesis formulated elsewhere (p. 218), which suggests placing the fons in Manicelo “vicino al castello langense” seems to conflict with his previous affirmations. However, the author also suggests identifying the Vinelasca with the Riasso stream (p. 219), a right-hand tributary of the Polcevera, which flows down towards the Salita dei Giovi (p. 223), therefore implicitly substantiating the hypothesis that this was the route of the Via Postumia – although this is hard to verify – following the Giovi line. 560 Lamboglia 1939, pp. 210-224. 561 On the differing hypotheses, cf. Pasquinucci 1998, pp. 213-214. 172 GIFBIB_21.indb 172 03/12/19 12.28 APPENDIX: THE LIGURIAN STRETCH OF THE VIA POSTUMIA the majority of twentieth-century scholars, possibly also thanks to the essential contributions made to the study of Ligurian placenames by Petracco Sicardi 562 (fig. 4). . . . . Route proposed by N. Lamboglia ---- Route proposed by recent studies — Route proposed by this study Fig. 4 Three different proposals for the route taken by the Via Postumia from Genoa to Libarna. 562 Petracco Sicardi 1958-1959; Petracco Sicardi 1985, pp. 87-92 and therefore all of the most recent studies including most notably Pasquinucci 2014; Launaro 2006-2007; Menchelli, Pasquinucci 2004; Boccaleri 2006; Mennella 2004; Boccaleri 2002a; Boccaleri 2002b; Melli 2001; Barozzi 2000; Cera 2000; Mennella 1998. 173 GIFBIB_21.indb 173 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC 1. Archaeological elements Recent archaeological finds made in the northernmost corner of Liguria in various sites scattered along the Valle Scrivia – on the hillsides surrounding Isola del Cantone (Genoa) – have made it necessary to review this most recent hypothesis regarding the route of the Via Postumia and to take a fresh look at some of the suggestions made by Giustiniani and, to some extent, confirmed by Lamboglia. 563 The Isola del Cantone finds included fragments of at least two fibulae belonging to the Maskenfibeln type with a knob terminal, four small shield-shaped brooches, a bronze spiral bearing the marks of an iron pin (possibly a belt buckle), a small bronze laminar disc with a punched radial pattern as well as an amalgamation of at least two further shield-shaped brooches and a catch-plate. 564 These recent finds (2013) acquire even greater relevance when considered in context. Another example of Maskenfibel with an L-shaped pin, 565 almost identical to the one mentioned above, was found a few years ago on the slopes of a hill just a few dozen metres from the most recent finds 566 (fig. 5a-b-c), while the presence of the amalgamation – we can make out a fibula catch-plate and shield-shaped brooch as well as a triangular-section interlocking nail – suggests that the material found near Isola del Cantone originates from a burial site disturbed by modern ploughing. The amalgamation, in particular, could be the result of a partial refusion on the funeral pyre of grave goods from one or more burials in this small pass between Isola del Cantone and the south Piedmontese offshoots of the Apennine range. 567 We believe that all of these artefacts – especially the three Maskenfibeln and four shield brooches – are of great significance for our knowledge of this consular route, precisely because of the 563 With reference, in particular, to the route along the upper Valle Scrivia and identification of the Neviasca with the Scrivia torrent (Lamboglia 1939, pp. 218-219). 564 Traverso et al. 2014-2015, pp. 203-220. 565 Pastorino, Traverso 2015, pp. 101-117. 566 Pastorino, Pedemonte 1999, pp. 115-124. 567 Pavoni, Podestà 2008. 174 GIFBIB_21.indb 174 03/12/19 12.28 APPENDIX: THE LIGURIAN STRETCH OF THE VIA POSTUMIA Fig. 5a Finds from Isola del Cantone (Ge) [Traverso et al. 2018]. Fig. 5b Finds from Libarna - Rio della Pieve (Al) [Pastorino, Venturino Gambari 1991]. Fig. 5c Finds from S. Agata di Pressana (Vr) [Salzani 1996]. 175 GIFBIB_21.indb 175 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC convincing comparisons with the same type of fibula found in the Padana area near the Rio della Pieve by Libarna 568 as well as in the Veronese territory. 569 The fibulae in all of these cases are inspired by the Gallic tradition but interpreted as an element of the Ligurian ethnos suggesting a chronology between the end of the third century bc and the mid-first century bc, in other words, coinciding with the period when the Via Postumia was first opened 570 (fig. 6a-b). The location of similar finds in the furthest offshoots of our region, along the Scrivia torrent channel and the discovery of very similar artefacts near Libarna (AL) and Sant’Agata di Pressana (Verona), along the Postumia route seems to lend weight to a consular route between Isola del Cantone 571 and Genoa; this hypothesis supports the northern Valle Scrivia route put forward in older studies before being replaced in more recent times by the ‘Bocchetta variation’. Accepting the plausibility of this route going from north to south through the Valle Scrivia, we should also point out the existence of two stretches of road still known by the toponym of Postumia – perhaps a linguistic relict from ancient times: one is a street running through the village of Isola del Cantone and the other a road crossing a hamlet in the municipality of Ronco Scrivia whose modern name is Villavecchia (fig. 4 and fig. 6a). In the light of these considerations, another group of finds from the late 1980s acquires greater significance, precisely because of its location beside the Scrivia; one at Castellaro di Isorelle and the other at Cian da Pila, between the Ponte di Savignone hamlet and Casella, where fragments of black glazed wares with many fluitation marks were found. 572 Pastorino, Venturino Gambari 1991. Salzani 1990, pp. 189-195. 570 Close comparisons can be made with the Rocca Grimalda sites, which are also in the Alessandrino area (Venturino Gambari 1983, p. 147) and Casal Cermelli (Lo Porto 1952, pp. 46-66). 571 The discovery of the Maskenfibeln also makes it possible to re-evaluate two sporadic coins found over thirty years ago (also in the municipality of Isola del Cantone): an as of Trajan and a coin minted under Gordian III from the locality of Giretta, on the left bank of the Scrivia (Cornero, Pedemonte 1992). 572 Pastorino 1981, pp. 468-473. 568 569 176 GIFBIB_21.indb 176 03/12/19 12.28 APPENDIX: THE LIGURIAN STRETCH OF THE VIA POSTUMIA Fig. 6a The new stretch of road (north of the Crocetta d’Orero Pass) proposed here. List of finds: 1-2. Maskenfibeln type; 3. Roman coins; 4. Church of Santa Maria de Ceta; 5. Sporadic Roman finds; 6. Second Iron Age fibula; 7. Niusci hoard. Fig. 6b The new stretch of road (south of the Crocetta d’Orero Pass) proposed here. List of finds: 8. Roman finds; 9. Medieval finds; [10. Izosecco/Isosecco]. 177 GIFBIB_21.indb 177 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Re-examining the route from Isola del Cantone to Casella, we note its proximity to the easiest and most direct access point from the Apennines to the sea: the Crocetta d’Orero Pass, which lies at an altitude of 468 metres, making it the lowest Apennine pass in the Genovesato, that is, Genoa and its territories. 573 Most significant therefore is the fact that the nearby hamlet of Niusci was the site of the fortuitous discovery of the so-called ‘tesoretto di Niusci’, 574 a hoard of coins hidden between two huge rocks and discovered during the construction of the GenoaCasella railway line at the beginning of the twentieth century. The hoard, which consisted of drachmas and oboli minted in Massalia or imitated in the area of the Po Plain (possibly by mints in the Apennine area 575), has been interpreted 576 as a votive offering or votive deposit gradually built up during the course of time (third-first century bc 577), presumably in connection to its function as a passage and therefore in payment for the transit of people and goods between the Val Polcevera and the Valle Scrivia. If we accept the Crocetta d’Orero Pass as the point where the Via Postumia may have crossed the Ligurian Apennines, the road may have continued along one of two routes: 1. The first runs along the left ridge through Niusci and the following localities lying in an area of ten square kilometres, all of which have curiously maintained the suffix vico or vigo in their names (Vigo di Casanova, Vicomorasso, Vigo d’Orero, and 573 In this regard, we should point out that the Bocchetta Pass is far higher and is now at 772 metres above sea level but until 1583, the year in which the Republic of Genoa opened the new road, it was even higher (over 800 metres above sea level) and therefore even harder to reach. 574 Torre 2005. 575 This hypothesis is supported by the fact that from the seventeenth century onwards, the presence of “previously exploited” silver mines is documented in the upper Val Polcevera and in the Borzoli area (Pipino 2005, pp. 85 ff.). Moreover, analyses of the silver content reveal the inhomogeneity of a group of coins attributed to the Viturii (Agostino et al. 2012). 576 Piana Agostinetti 1996, pp. 195-218; Barello 2004, pp. 10-21; Arslan 2009, pp. 119-144; Gorini 2011, pp. 281-294. 577 Although there is a lack of consensus among scholars with regard to dating, the tendency today is to opt for a later chronology ranging from the second century bc to the mid-first century bc. 178 GIFBIB_21.indb 178 03/12/19 12.28 APPENDIX: THE LIGURIAN STRETCH OF THE VIA POSTUMIA further down in the valley, near Manesseno, Arvigo 578). Continuing along the hilltop, through Casanova di Sant’Olcese, the road might have reached the Roman period site of Campora di Geminiano where road construction works carried out in the mid-1970s led to the discovery of several fragments of pottery belonging to two separate chronological phases: 579 an earlier phase in the late Republican period and a successive phase, after a rather sharp gap, in the late Imperial era. Dating to the latter period were a series of large tegulae with raised edges and imbrices whose presence, according to Mannoni, can be interpreted as a sign that the rural areas were being repopulated after the productive/demographic crisis. 580 Given these premises and the existence of an ancient, possibly pre-Roman track 581 going at least as far as Campora di Geminiano, it is possible that the route continued along the hillside reaching Genoa via the Granarolo hill; 582 2. The second route heads right after the Crocetta d’Orero Pass, running along the hillside, where the ISCUM research group has discovered sporadic, later tiles near the localities of Serra and Campora. 583 Continuing along the hillside, it may well have gone past the locality of Magnerri (another ‘tile station’ 584) home to a church of ancient origin called San Martino di Magnerri with legendary links to the apostolate of St Clair (seventh century ad) and to the procession of Liutprand bearing the mortal remains of St Augustine to Pavia. We should point out that sporadic fragments of brick and coarse pottery have been found in Vicomorasso and Vigo d’Orero (Garibaldi 1985, p. 23 fig. 3; Bianchi 1996, pp. 63-80). 579 D’Ambrosio 1985b, pp. 70-71. 580 The toponym Campora is attested with reference to two other sites in the Val Polcevera, one of which has produced similar tiles (Mannoni 1983; Garibaldi 1985, p. 24). 581 Garibaldi 1985, p. 24. 582 Mannoni 1983, p. 153. The recent sporadic find of a part of a Maskenfibel Allein fibula (personal opinion expressed by S. Trigona, official of the Soprintendenza MiBACT della Liguria) in the zone between Via Piani di Fregoso and Via al Forte di Begato may confirm the hypothesis already put forward explicitly by D’Ambrosio 1985b. 583 Mannoni 1995, pp. 95-190. 584 Mannoni 1995, p. 190. 578 179 GIFBIB_21.indb 179 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC At this point the road may have followed the Morego ridge separating the Val Polcevera from the Secca valley as far as Favareto, site of the rural chapel of San Michele di Castrofino, whose antiquity is confirmed by an epigraph on a wall inside the building dating to between the sixth and eighth century ad. 585 Continuing southwards, the road would have reached the site of San Cipriano, a settlement on the top of a small hill where excavations carried out in the late 1960s and early 1980s revealed two phases of settlement (interrupted by a long hiatus 586): evidence of the earlier phase took the form of black-glaze pottery that was mainly imitation but with a significant presence of imports from the northern maritime Etrurian coast dating from between the third century bc and the early decades of the second century bc, while the later phase has materials datable to the late Republican period. The ridge behind the hill of Santa Maria di Pedemonte – where the Polcevera Tablet was found – ends at the confluence of the Secca and Polcevera torrents; as pointed out in the context of the Postumia research project, this is an area of gently sloping hills with good exposure, abundant water sources, and no steep gradients (the route goes from 150 metres above sea level at Morego to 450 metres above sea level at Serra Riccò with a slow, gradual change in gradient with no sudden upsand-downs). Also in this case, an Imperial-age coin was found some years ago near the confluence of the two watercourses near the Cremeno locality (Case Santin). 587 Continuing in this direction, the road could have descended to the valley floor, running along the left bank of the Polcevera as far as Genova Bolzaneto (where the main Barchette crossing was still attested in the fifteenth century) 588 and continuing via Rivarolo to the coast. 585 Caprini 1981, pp. 17-32; De Vingo, Frondoni 2003, pp. 32-36 (with previous bibliography). 586 D’Ambrosio 1985a, p. 49. 587 Garibaldi 1985, p. 22. 588 See infra: Cartographic, toponymic, and linguistic data […]. 180 GIFBIB_21.indb 180 03/12/19 12.28 APPENDIX: THE LIGURIAN STRETCH OF THE VIA POSTUMIA 2. Cartographic and toponymic data on the ancient road network of the Val Polcevera What is probably the most significant outcome of the Postumia Project arose from the re-examination of the toponymic data contained in the Polcevera Tablet and a comparative analysis of available archival documentation from the Middle Ages. The two different descriptions contained in the Tablet refer to the ager privatus and ager publicus, respectively, using a recurrent series of geographic definitions: FINEIS AGRI PRIVATI FLOVIA MONTES RIVI 1 Ede/Edem Comberanea 2 Lemuris Vendupalis/ Vindupalis Vinelasca/ Vinelesca 3 Neviasca IUGUM FONTES COMVALIS CASTELLUM in Manicelo/ Caeptiema Manicelus 4 Procobera FINEIS AGRI POPLICI Edus/Porcobera 5 Veraglasca 6 Tulelasca Lemurinus Eniseca Procavus Ioventio Apenninus Boplo Tuledo Berigiema Prenicus Claxelus Blustiemelum Lebriemelus Alianus Assuming that the arbitrators drafting the text were well aware of the terminological difference between flovium and rivum, it can also be assumed that the former definition, used for only six hydronyms, referred to a watercourse with a medium or high flow rate making it an inequivocable distinguishing feature of a valley from various viewpoints within the area. This also applies to the definition convallis, which is attributed to a sole locality (Caeptiema) and suggests the point where at least two valleys meet (an easily identifiable morphological feature that may be situated to the north of the Genovesato. Lastly, the term fontes is used only twice in the Tablet (Manicelus and Lebriemelus) and must have 181 GIFBIB_21.indb 181 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC referred to clearly distinguishable springs with a considerable flow rate serving a vast area of the territory. A cross-analysis with the historical cartographic collection 589 – ranging from 1500 to nineteenth-century Savoy maps – integrated with the examination of medieval documents in search of toponymical traces of these six hydronyms led to several considerations based also on observation of the morphological characteristics, which would have played no small role in the choice of transit routes from the coast to the inland Oltregiogo, making it possible to trace the linguistic evolution of the Polcevera Tablet toponyms that may identify places that we are still capable of locating today. First and foremost among these are fons in Manicelo and flovium Lemuris, two key elements in the territorial description of the boundaries of the two agri that also played a key role in the general reconstruction of the Via Postumia route. The identification of Lemuris = Lemme and fons in Manicelo = Manesseno is critical for the reconstruction of the territories described in the Tablet (ager publicus and ager privatus of the Viturii Langenses) and for the identification of the places mentioned in its text. 590 The Lemor-Lemme identification would seem more convincing especially in view of the linguistic evolution from Lemor to Lemme (Lemor fl., Lenior f. or Lentor, Leino fluvius, Lemo) 591 in the course of the centuries (between 1500 and 1800) as well as the dedication of the pieve of Santa Maria in Lemore, which is situated between the localities of Francavilla Bisio and San Cristoforo di Gavi (Alessandria) and was first documented in the year 1000. 592 589 Archivio Topografico del Comune di Genova, Archivio di Stato, and specific bibliography. 590 Unlike identifications put forward in the past and which consequently outlined completely different territories and routes (from Petracco Sicardi 19581959, pp. 3-48 to Boccaleri 2002b). 591 Archivio Topografico del Comune di Genova, Centro DocSAI, Figure C 10(1) Riviera of Genoa from the west (1613): Lemo; Figure C 109(1) Ducatus mediolanensis etc.: Leino fluvius; Figure C 265(2) Pedemontana regio cum Genuensium territorio et Montisferrati Marchionatu: Lemor flu; Figure C 367(1) Descrittione del Piemonte (1562): Lenior f. or Lentor?; Figure C 8, Descrittione del Piemonte (1583): Lentor f.?; map of Le Montagnes des Alpes, Paris 1692: the Lemme/Lemor is called Lemo. 592 Lamboglia was rather confident in this regard (Lamboglia 1939, pp. 235236). However, more recent authors favouring the hypothesis of a route via the Bocchetta have also accepted this hypothesis (Pavoni 2008, p. 39 and n. 40). 182 GIFBIB_21.indb 182 03/12/19 12.28 APPENDIX: THE LIGURIAN STRETCH OF THE VIA POSTUMIA It is certainly worth pointing out that the identification of Manicelus with Manesseno – already put forward by Lamboglia – was not unanimously accepted by scholars because this locality would be too peripheral for a route going via the high Bocchetta Pass. However, if we accept the hypothesis put forward here of a route running along the Secca valleys as far as Crocetta d’Orero, the reference to a spring near Manesseno would fit perfectly. This possibility is supported by a number of medieval documents. Considering the Val Polcevera parishes, the current site of Manesseno corresponds to Immanicen, which lay in the parish of Sant’Ulcisio (now Sant’Olcese), as mentioned in a deed of conveyance drawn up by the notary Iordanus on 28 October 1171 relative to a piece of land in Sant’Olcese and witnessed by a certain Rubaldus da Manexelo. 593 Both Immanicen and Manexelo, attested in the two documents, seem to be easily referable to the fons in Manicelo mentioned by the Tablet. 594 This is seemingly also borne out by historical documents mentioning the presence of a large spring in Manesseno from 1806 onwards. 595 As far as the route of the Via Postumia is concerned, we should remember that the Tablet mentions the road route four times in reference to three different localities (one is mentioned twice). The first is located near the Vinelasca stream, the second in the Caeptiema valley and the third near the spring in Manicelo. Therefore, if we accept this obvious lectio facilior identifying Manicelus as Manesseno, we would have to locate a transit point of the road near the confluence of the Secca and Sardorella torrents. The hypothesis that this Roman road may have run along the left bank of the Polcevera is certainly worth examining in the light of the data available in the medieval historical documentation and in the maps of various Genoese monasteries in particular Calleri 2009b. Archivio Storico del Comune di Genova: handwritten notes by the founding fathers of the municipality with the commentary of F. Podestà; parchments from the monastery of San Siro (951-1651) Calleri 2006; Calleri 2009a. 595 Actually Lamboglia had already suggested identifying a series of toponyms present in the Tablet in correspondence with a clearly defined portion of territory now lying between the Vittoria Pass, Mount Tullo, and the Secca torrent as far as its confluence with the Sardorella torrent at Manesseno. Lamboglia 1939, pp. 218-235: M. Boplo, fons Lebriemelus, M. Claxelus, M. Prenicus (near modern Pernecco) and many others (iugum Blustiemelum, M. Berigiema etc.). 593 594 183 GIFBIB_21.indb 183 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC (published between 1969 and 2006), which join the information already transcribed by Ferretto 596 and Cipollina 597 regarding the Valle Scrivia and Val Polcevera. Ferretto, in fact, transcribed a deed regarding several properties lying to the north of Rivarolo crossed by a heavily trafficked route generically defined as ‘via’. Of particular interest was a deed of sale dated 26 July 1258 registered by the notaries De Sigestro Angelino and Nepitella Joachino and relative to the transfer of a house with land: in territorio Riparioli propter ecclesiam Sancti Petrae cui terrae et domui coheret superius via inferius glarea de Tanatorbela. 598 This passage from a later deed (1386) drafted by notary Lanfranco da Oneglia suggests that there may have been a public road between Granarolo and the Garbo hill: loca sive pasagia infrascritta … posita in Granarolo prope per viam publicam qua itur sursum ad garbum Lastly, with regard to the hypothetical existence in the twelfth century of a road to Genoa running along the valley bottom in the Ceta area (according to Petracco Sicardi, the area may correspond to the Borgo Fornari parish church 599) we should mention a document in the Liber Iurium I (p. 461 b, Cod. A fol. 188v.) 600 containing a reference to a peace treaty between the inhabitants of Genoa and Tortona who proposed to drive the marquesses of Gavi, no longer ruling, from their territory: et si forte assaltus fieret vel stremitta aut preda a predictis marchionisbus vel ab aliqua persona in stratam vel extra stratam eundo per terram Ianuam. The Libri Iurium are of great help to us in this context because they contain numerous confirmations identifying the mountain Ferretto 1909. Cipollina 1932. 598 Today the locality to the north of Genoa is still known as Rivarolo and its torrent is Torbella. 599 Petracco Sicardi 1989. 600 Cf. Pallavicino 2002. 596 597 184 GIFBIB_21.indb 184 03/12/19 12.28 APPENDIX: THE LIGURIAN STRETCH OF THE VIA POSTUMIA near Ceta, on the boundaries of the Runco estate, with the locality of Borgo Fornari from 1150 onwards (Libri Iurium 340). The oldest of these sources referring to Ceta is a document relative to a dispute between the ruling family of Pobbieto and the consuls of Genoa, which was followed by the notarial deed (registered by notary Salmone on 17 September 1222) in which the Administrator of the Ospedale di Santo Stefano and Ruggerio di Fiacone shared out properties in Fiaccone and Ceta: Altro pervenit pecia una terre qu(a)e est in ceta ubi dicitur bedole cui coheret superius constat montis de ceta inferius strata publica. 601 If we accept that Ceta/Borgo Fornari corresponds to the Caeptiema valley mentioned in the Polcevera Tablet, we must also accept that the Via Postumia travelled through the upper Valle Scrivia given that Borgo Fornari lies on the edge of the wide convallis where the modern centres of Busalla and Borgo are now located. A crucial question with regard to the route of the Via Postumia involves the identification of the territory of the LangatesLangenses mentioned in the Polcevera Tablet. Although the traditional identification is connected to the current location of Langasco (as first proposed by Petracco Sicardi 602), a small centre at the foot of the road leading up to the Bocchetta Pass, we should point out that the place known by the name Langasco around the year 1000 does not coincide with the modern locality known by that name. 603 In two early parchments from the monastery of San Siro, drawn up in 993 and in 1003, respectively, we notice that the author and notary are the same person even though the documents were drawn up in two different places: the former in Villa Langasina and the latter in Montanici. 604 The two documents regard bequests of lands situated in Villa Langasina and in loco et fundo Montanisi, seu in Iuvo atque in Veroni et in Ricau, respectively. The 601 602 603 604 Ferretto 1909. Petracco Sicardi 1958-1959, pp. 3-48. Cf. Sereni 1955, p. 556. Basili, Pozza 1974. 185 GIFBIB_21.indb 185 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC localities mentioned correspond to sites near the Giovi route that are easily identifiable with Montanesi, Giovi, and Riccò, all centres on the right bank of the Riccò. It is clear, therefore, that none of these sites is in the Valle del Verde, which lies beneath the road to Bocchetta. We can therefore probably deduce from these two documents that around the year 1000 these localities all belonged to an area generically defined as villa Langasina, in other words, the locality which is the subject of the deeds. It can therefore be affirmed that in the early Middle Ages, Langasco was a far larger district comprising several localities including Montanesi, Giovi, and Riccò. Identifying the ancient territory of the Langates-Langenses as corresponding to the modern centre of Langasco may not only be reductive but also extended to a period after the mid-twelfth century. 3. Final considerations As mentioned, the Polcevera Tablet describes a specific territory crossed in several places by the Via Postumia. Although the suggestions put forward here with regard to its route have been made on a mainly archaeological basis, they also take into account more practical considerations, which would guide us in the direction of two alternative routes going via the more accessible Crocetta d’Orero/Niusci Pass rather than the steep and often snow-covered Bocchetta Pass (now 770 metres above sea level but even higher prior to 1585) proposed by various authors. The cartographic and historical research carried out for the ‘Progetto Postumia’ has attempted to shed new light on some particularly interesting aspects that emerged from the re-examination of previous studies; these included the possible identification of the river Lemor with the Lemme and the spring in Manicelo with a spring in Manesseno, from which we may deduce that most of the toponyms in the Polcevera Tablet refer to locations on the left bank and middle course of the Polcevera torrent. The proposal to locate the spring at Manesseno would, in fact, allow us to identify the first of the Postumia transit places mentioned in the Tablet while the identification of the Caeptiema valley with a wide convallis lying between Busalla and Ronco, cen186 GIFBIB_21.indb 186 03/12/19 12.28 APPENDIX: THE LIGURIAN STRETCH OF THE VIA POSTUMIA tred on the hub of Borgo Fornari, would justify considering the topography described in the Tablet from a broader perspective, one going beyond the boundaries of the Val Polcevera. Above all, it would allow us to place one of the transit points of the Via Postumia in the centre of the Valle Scrivia. We should also mention the fact that almost all of the archaeological evidence referred to here pertains to an area in the middle of the valley lying on the left bank between the course of the torrent and the Secca and Sardorella tributaries and the hill ridges leading to the Crocetta d’Orero/Niusci Pass to the north. 605 Lastly, it is worth underlining that the third explicit mention of the Via Postumia in the Polcevera Tablet places it in the vicinity of the Vinelasca, a stream that cannot have been far from the fons in Manicelo and from the Apenninic ridge dividing the Val Polcevera from the Valle Scrivia, and may have been situated between the modern centres of Manesseno and Borgo Fornari. The toponym Vinelasca may, in fact, derive from the Indo-European antecedent *Uinelaska “River of the Vineyards” (as hypothesised by Borghi 606 with the Ligurian suffix -asco 607), alluding to the typical landscape on the left bank of the middle course of the Polcevera, absent from the morphology on the other side of the valley, 608 which also has a different geological substratum. 609 For this reason, we could conclude that the Via Postumia ran along the more gentle left bank of the Polcevera rather than along the right bank as would have been the case for a route via the Bocchetta Pass. Based on this interpretation, the construction of this consular road going from the Po Valley to Genoa may also have been motivated by reasons linked to Roman penetration from an inland area towards the coast, following a route based on the various morphological features gradually radiating southwards from the Po Plain – in our case from Libarna onwards – in the direction of the Valle Scrivia and the sea, and not just in the opposite direction. 610 605 606 607 608 609 610 Cf. also Cera 2000, p. 32. Borghi 2006, p. 99. Olivieri 2013, p. 83, who traces it back to an Arian root. Cf. CTR Regionale Carta Geologica di Genova. Capponi et al. 2008. Barozzi 2000. 187 GIFBIB_21.indb 187 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Rather than rising steeply from Libarna, which lies at around 200 metres above sea level, to reach 800 metres above sea level before descending to the sea, it is far more likely that the road travelled along the long narrow north-south corridor of the Valle Scrivia, which gently rises to the Crocetta d’Orero Pass from where several clearly visible routes descend to the Polcevera torrent bed running along the gentle ridges. 188 GIFBIB_21.indb 188 03/12/19 12.28 CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS Ἐκ δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων τεκμηρίων ὅμως τοιαῦτα ἄν τις νομίζων μάλιστα ἃ διῆλθον οὐχ ἁμαρτάνοι, καὶ οὔτε ὡς ποιηταὶ ὑμνήκασι περὶ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον κοσμοῦντες μᾶλλον πιστεύων, οὔτε ὡς λογογράφοι ξυνέθεσαν ἐπὶ τὸ προσαγωγότερον τῇ ἀκροάσει ἢ ἀληθέστερον, ὄντα ἀνεξέλεγκτα καὶ τὰ πολλὰ ὑπὸ χρόνου αὐτῶν ἀπίστως ἐπὶ τὸ μυθῶδες ἐκνενικηκότα, ηὑρῆσθαι δὲ ἡγησάμενος ἐκ τῶν ἐπιφανεστάτων σημείων ὡς παλαιὰ εἶναι ἀποχρώντως. (Thuc. Proem. 1.21) The aim of this study, professed from the very first lines, was to demonstrate that already in the ancient world, intermediation (individuals and entities participating in a relation) was primarily perceived as an ‘environment’ within which human actions took place, and secondarily as a legal institution. 611 In fact, the appeal of the Roman ‘model’ to neighbouring populations lay in this very process of “humanisation” of the environment. 612 This was a system inevitably based on the creation (or optimisation) of a functional and organic cooperation between city and territory that responded equally to technical and political issues. According to the interpretation offered by Cicero, in fact, both populus and civitas are essentially societates, that is, legal entities that may define themselves in this way because they are the outcome of a consensual relationship aimed at achieving the common good as much as legal consensus. Underpinning this societal development of the Republican reality is consequently and necessarily the foedus, which is the founding principle of the societas within the populus as well as of the societas coming into being between discrete civic entities. Although internationalists tend to date “il sistema delle norme che regolano le relazioni tra gli Stati dall’esterno dei rispettivi ordinamenti” 613 to no earlier than the sixteenth or seventeenth 611 612 613 La China 2011, p. 1. Foraboschi 1992, p. 125. Ziccardi 1964, p. 988. 189 GIFBIB_21.indb 189 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC century, which is when the concepts of sovereignty and ‘international community’ both emerged, the impossibility of associating a ‘right of the peoples’ – considered in the modern sense and therefore capable of implying “il volontario riconoscimento del diritto da parte degli Stati organizzati in libera coesistenza eguale ed autonoma” – with ancient populations cannot exclude a priori the existence of ‘vertical’ relations between the communitas orbis and the single political entity, even in historical phases prior to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. The thorny question linked to the development of ‘international’ relationships is less concerned with the legislative aspects than the problem of identity and the perception of what ‘otherness’ and ‘difference’ mean in terms of ethnicity or religious affiliation. This aspect, which is one of the pressing themes of our times, was also very relevant to the Roman world, which did, however, offer targeted, flexible responses to specific questions arising in relation to issues related to the complex system of integration within the Roman State. Unlike Greek society, known for its marked internal divisions as well as for a strong sense of identity with strong linguistic roots, 614 there is a tendency to attribute a marked capacity for integration to the Roman world, although this should certainly not be mistaken for a particular inclination towards humanitarianism. 615 In fact, the complex, heterogeneous processes of Romanisation were based less on ideal concepts of social and/or ethnic egalitarianism than on a marked wish by Rome to maintain a fragile balance based on the founding principle of concordia. As has already been pointed out, Rome was very careful not only to display its magnanimity and loyalty to its amici and socii but also its implacability and harshness towards its enemies and powers that had yet to be subdued. 616 Although Rome never lost sight of the philosophical basis of the universalism of its power, it never failed to show the darker Bearzot 2007. On this matter it may be useful to mention the case of the deportation of the Ligurian Apuani (Thornton 2015). 616 Vacanti 2008-2009, pp. 212-219. 614 615 190 GIFBIB_21.indb 190 03/12/19 12.28 CONCLUSIONS sides of its coercive authority. And while this highly effective political ambivalence (or ambiguity) was probably responsible for the lasting fortunes of the Roman empire, it did arouse some misgivings among commentators. Celebrated among the latter are Tacitus and Appian, both not just keen observers but also honest critics of Roman politics. While the former accused Rome of defining as ‘peace’ something that they had transformed into a desert (ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant 617), the latter offered a far more nuanced reading of the Roman approach to ‘international’ politics: 618 ἐποιοῦντο δ’ οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι ξένους, οἷς ἐδίδοσαν μὲν εἶναι φίλοις, ἀνάγκη δ’ οὐκ ἐπῆν ὡς φίλοις ἐπαμύνειν. Οἱ μὲν δὴ Τεύτονες πλησιάζοντι τῷ Κάρβωνι προσέπεμπον ἀγνοῆσαί τε τὴν ἐς Ῥωμαίους Νωρικῶν ξενίαν, καὶ αὐτῶν ἐς τὸ μέλλον ἀφέξεσθαι. While mocking the Roman custom of considering as allies populations that they actually intended to conquer, this observation successfully evokes the fluid nature of relations between Rome and neighbouring peoples, relations that did not necessarily need to be ratified by strict foedera thanks to the hegemonic role gradually assigned to Rome. As can be seen nothing prevented the Roman Senate from applying a judicious pragmatism in the dangerous arena of ‘international’ relations where Rome became the undisputed protagonist in the Italic context, from at least the fifth century bc onwards, but, above all, also in the wider Mediterranean context, from that fateful second century bc onwards. It is only in a context like this, moreover, that it is possible to conceive the extraordinary innovation introduced by the model of “fluid hegemony” developed by the Romans both with regard to the extra-Italic communities and to the peninsular popula- Tac. Agr. 30.4. App. Gall. 13: “It was the practice of the Romans to make foreign friends of any people for whom they wanted to intervene on the score of friendship, without being obliged to defend them as allies. As Carbo was approaching, the Teutones sent word to him that they had not known anything about this relationship between Rome and Noricum, and that for the future they would abstain from molesting them”. 617 618 191 GIFBIB_21.indb 191 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC tions, towards whom Rome revealed a unique type of ‘geographical sensibility’. While the fundamental lines of the Senate’s approach to intermediation seem to be fairly consistent throughout the empire – involving the dispatch of a delegation on site, recourse to the ratification of a temporal terminus with the aim of somehow re-establishing a status quo, and, from a political perspective, an appeal to the interpenetrating principles of aequitas and utilitas – in the Cisalpine region Rome’s intervention was particular for three reasons. In fact, whenever Rome decided to accept mediation requests from native populations, this took place: – through the direct intervention of the Roman assembly, which did not delegate the matter to third parties, instead dispatching one or more legates; – in areas whose proximity to nodal points in the Roman road system justified Rome’s targeted intervention; – by emphasising a certain protagonism, sanctioned both by contemporary and later historiographers, on the part of various leading figures in the Roman elite. This ‘anomaly’ with regard to the extremely “minimalist” 619 approach of the Senate in the Greek sphere does not seem to contradict Rome’s overall attitude to intermediation processes which, while not refused, were nonetheless not exactly promoted, even among its precious Italic allies. 620 Actually, it is rather easy to imagine that Rome’s tendency to ‘interventionism’ in the Cisalpine region may have resulted from its proximity to the scene of conflict. In fact, there are a number of specific reasons explaining why Rome’s intervention in this area of its domains developed along these lines: the metus Gallicus, 621 the privatistic interests of the Patres, control of roads in the Rhaetian Alps, but also its greater geographical knowledge 622 of a territory Camia 2009, p. 193. Jehne 2009, p. 169. 621 Bellen holds this to be the archetype of the more celebrated metus Punicus (Bellen 1985). 622 Which is probably why many senators in the third and second centuries bc did not have the same depth of knowledge about the nearby Padane lands and 619 620 192 GIFBIB_21.indb 192 03/12/19 12.28 CONCLUSIONS like that of the neighbouring Po Plain, an integral part of the rich terra Italia. The success of Gallic ‘Romanisations’ is usually attributed to the Celts’ scarce sense of identity – which significantly emerges in the precarious nature of inter-Celtic political relations but, above all, in the absence of a concept of ‘boundary’ as conceived by the Etruscan-Roman tradition and in the pronounced linguistic pluralism 623 – but it is likely that a contributory role was also played by Rome’s unique focus on the Cisalpine territory. Most important of all was Rome’s cultural attitude towards the limitatio – something that was totally absent from the main ethnos in the Po Plain. Although crossed on multiple occasions by the time of the Roman interest in the Transpadane tract of that area, the Alps were the perfect embodiment of “the myth of the insuperable barrier” 624 and therefore represented the ideal geomorphological reality to take on the role of the limit of a territory destined to identify an entire domain. 625 Like every boundary worth the name, the Alpine border could only manifest its true nature once the existence of a ‘beyond’ had been acknowledged; 626 in other words, once it had ceased to be a mere self-defining statement with respect to an otherness, beginning to represent a measure of the Roman presence even for those perceived as ‘outsiders’. In any event, one thing is clear: the instruments permitting the Roman rise to leading power, both in the Italic peninsula and in the Mediterranean, did not all come from Rome’s arsenal of war. In fact, Rome’s political ascent is a superb example of a well-balanced combination of brutal strategies – that were never repudiated – and a shrewd, carefully considered use of diplomacy. the distant, impervious Greek territories. See Eckstein 1987, pp. 3-72; Tarpin 2015, p. 807. 623 Zecchini 2007. 624 Tarpin 2015, p. 806. 625 Humm 2010, pp. 54-56. 626 Tarpin sees this as the background of the image of the wild, dangerous Alpine environment and its peoples diffused by literature (Tarpin 2015, pp. 804-805). 193 GIFBIB_21.indb 193 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC While supremacy could only be attained manu militari, it might be maintained or propagated by resorting to a more extensive range of resolutive measures, also by way of precaution. It is in this particular context that the role of the Roman road system as a “device of power” 627 can be understood; in fact, the infrastructural creations of the Republican period enabled the creation of that “imagined community” 628 underpinning the Augustean syntagm tota Italia. 629 This concept overcomes the ethnical and strictly natural aspect typical of the limitatio, to reveal itself as the concrete form of an ideal that is itself the vehicle used for the attainment and political stabilisation of the various categories of local relation. “Unity in diversity” is, in fact, the official motto of the European Union, and is an equally apt maxim for Rome, which would, however, adopt it to very different, undeniably hegemonic ends. If, as has been pointed out, diversity means wealth but unity means safety, the ‘Romanisations’ of the Italic world give an account of a complex, heterogeneous process that saw a key role attributed to the linguistic Latinisation of the peninsula, which was set in motion once this expanding political and economic power became a pole of attraction for local cultures, which entered the Roman orbit, drawing upon its cultural and linguistic models long before being administratively absorbed by Rome. Although the federal structure is not only an extremely ancient component of Rome’s political legislation but also the cornerstone of its ‘perfect constitution’, it was in the fateful second century bc, in particular, that Rome ascended to a position of absolute ‘international’ prestige that allowed it, in practice even more than in theory, to present itself as the hub and focal point of a new Mediterranean equilibrium dominated by the Republic: this process took place both in extra-Italic territories as well as within the peninsula. Laurence 1999, p. 199. Laurence 1999, p. 175. 629 RG 25.2. Bispham 2007, pp. 405-446. It is no mere chance that among the key events in Strabo’s description of the Alpine territory (Strab. 4.6.6) he includes intervention by Augustus, who simultaneously wiped out the brigands and built communication routes. 627 628 194 GIFBIB_21.indb 194 03/12/19 12.28 CONCLUSIONS The two case studies considered in this volume – the Cippus Abellanus and the Polcevera Tablet – offer a clear example of the numerous forms taken by Roman authority with the aim of guaranteeing, according to the single cases involved, a balanced settlement of the “harmonious tensions” 630 that emerged from contacts with the local populations. The Cippus Abellanus is a key document in this context because its origins in the so-called Osco-Roman period give an account of a phase when Rome’s influence was making itself felt more strongly throughout the south of Italy, in general, and in Campania, in particular, in the prelude to full Romanisation, which would only come about in this area too at the start of the first century bc, after the Social War. Contrary to what we might be led to believe, the Cippus contains no mention of a delimitation between the areas linked to the two disputing cities, Nola and Abella, but does reveal immediate correlations between the Roman magisterial vocabulary and Samnite institutional terminology. Although the juridical and institutional framework contained in the Cippus Abellanus does not show the Senate acting as arbiter in the canonical sense of the term, it does provide us with an unambiguous image of the synchronic situation of the relationship between Nola-Abella and Rome. Within this dynamic, the latter may have applied a form of ‘indirect conditioning’ that had become necessary in an area of strategic importance like the ‘Latin-Campanian’ territory, where the disputing cities were situated but where Rome’s direct intervention was not required, given that the dispute was peacefully settled by the entities involved by means of a ‘joint sentence’ issued by the collective body responsible for the sacred area of the Sanctuary of Hercules. A different model of intervention emerges from the analysis of the Polcevera Tablet, one of the oldest documents to make explicit reference to the Via Postumia and its route. Among the contributory causes of this boundary dispute we should probably also consider the changes wrought in local balances by Rome’s construction of this vital road axis, which marked a crucial moment of transition in terms of the propagation of the 630 Giardina 1997, p. 76. 195 GIFBIB_21.indb 195 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC imperium populi romani in the Cisalpine context, in general, and in Liguria, in particular, during the second century bc. In fact, the Sententia Minuciorum clearly illustrates the coexistence of Roman institutions with relicts of legal and social conditions linked to land use in the archaic period, showing that the Roman arbitrators were fully cognizant of the unique reality of the Ligurian community, which would only obtain Latin rights followed by Roman citizenship in the century after the drafting of this text. The aim of Roman intervention was not to impose laws from above without the consent of those concerned, but to endorse pre-existing legal relations between Genoa, a confederate yet formally autonomous city, and a subject community by means of an accurate re-definition of both the boundaries of the disputed territories and of the way in which they were to be used. The two cases analysed are therefore the extraordinarily compelling expression of the Roman authority’s continuous striving to reconcile the rigidity intrinsic to the concept of imperium with a restrained flexibility that is the most obvious demonstration of the typically Roman vision of “hegemonic leadership”. Passing through the perception and creation of a recognisable landscape 631 to become “more than just a question of coercion through active warfare” this concept “is also based on consent not just of those within the hegemonic state, but also those beyond it”. 632 v. c. 631 632 Purcell 1990. Laurence 1999, p. 12. 196 GIFBIB_21.indb 196 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ager 1996 = S. Ager, Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 33790 b.c., Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1996. Ager 2009 = S. Ager, Roman Perspectives on Greek Diplomacy, in C. Eilers (ed.), Diplomats and diplomacy in the Roman world, LeidenBoston 2009, pp. 15-44. Agostino et al. 2012 = G. Agostino et al., Medagliere. Monetazione preromana dell’Italia settentrionale: analisi composizionale e studio della tecnologia produttiva, in “Q uaderni della Soprintendenza Archeologica del Piemonte” 27 (2012), pp. 365-366. Albanese 1963 = B. Albanese, L’amicitia del diritto privato romano, in “Ius” n.s. 14 (1963), pp. 130-147. Albanese 1987 = B. Albanese, Il processo privato romano delle “legis actiones”, Palermo 1987. Allély 2000 = A. Allély, Les Aemilii Lepidi et l’approvisionnement en blé de Rome (IIe-Ie Siècles av. J.-C.), in “Revue des Études Anciennes” 102, 1-2 (2000), pp. 27-52. Angeli Bertinelli 2011 = M. G. Angeli Bertinelli, Luna, città romana, nella tradizione letteraria antica, in M. G. Angeli Bertinelli, Lunensia antiqua, Roma 2011, pp. 496-497. Antonini 2015 = R. Antonini, Abella. I testi monumentali in sannita. I. Spunti e disappunti dal recente incremento della serie, in “Considerazioni di Storia ed Archeologia” 8 (2015), pp. 53-118. Antonini 2017 = R. Antonini, Abella. I testi monumentali in sannita. II. Retrospettive, aggiornamenti e provocazioni, in “Considerazioni di Storia ed Archeologia” 10 (2017), pp. 50-130. Arangio Ruiz 1962 = V. Arangio Ruiz, s.v. Controversie internazionali, in Enciclopedia del diritto, X, 1962, p. 384. 197 GIFBIB_21.indb 197 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Arnaud 2006 = P. Arnaud, Des documents méconnus du bornage: determinatio, depalatio, definitio, in A. Gonzales, J. Y. Guillaumin (eds), Autour des ‘libri coloniarum’: colonisation et colonies dans le monde romain. Actes du Colloque International (Besançon, 16-18 octobre 2003), Besançon 2006, pp. 67-80. Arslan 1978 = E. A. Arslan, Celti e romani in Transpadana, in “Études Celtiques” 15 (1978), pp. 441-481. Arslan 2007 = E. A. Arslan, Dimenticati dalla storia: i gruppi celtici minori della Cisalpina. Una rilettura di Plinio, Naturalis Historia, e di Livio, Ab urbe condita, in “Annali Benacensi” 13-14 (2007), pp. 121-134. Arslan 2009 = E. A. Arslan, L’oro rifiutato: confini e dogane nell’altomedioevo, in L. Travaini (ed.), Valori e disvalori simbolici delle monete. I trenta denari di Giuda, Roma 2009, pp. 119-144. Astin 1967 = A. E. Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford 1967. Astin 1989 = A. E. Astin, ‘Sources’, in F. W. Walbank, A. E. Astin, M. W. Frederiksen, R. M. Ogilvie (eds), in Cambridge Ancient History, VIII, 1989, pp. 1-16. Baccari 1995 = M. P. Baccari, Il concetto giuridico di civitas augescens: origine e continuità, in “Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris” 61 (1995), pp. 759-765. Bacchetta, Crosetto, Venturino Gambari 2011 = A. Bacchetta, A. Crosetto, M. Venturino Gambari, Il foro di Aquae Statiellae (Aqui Terme). Nuovi dati sulla piazza e il capitolium, in S. Maggi (ed.), I complessi forensi della Cisalpina romana: nuovi dati. Atti del Convegno di Studi, Firenze 2011, pp. 71-86. Badian 1958 = E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, Oxford 1958. Balbo 2016 = M. P. Balbo, Tra Galli e Romani: l’etnogenesi dei Libui di Vercellae, in S. Solano (ed.), Da Camunni a Romani. Archeologia e storia della romanizzazione alpina. Atti del Convegno (Breno-Cividate Camuno (BS), 10-11 ottobre 2013), Roma 2016, pp. 247-255. Balbo 2017 = M. P. Balbo, Alcune osservazioni sul trionfo e sulla censura di Appio Claudio Pulcro (cos. 143 a.C.), in “Athenaeum” 105, 2 (2017), pp. 499-519. Baldacci 1986 = P. Baldacci, Indigeni in Cisalpina, in AA.VV., Scritti in ricordo di G. Massari Gaballo e di U. Tocchetti Pollini, Milano 1986, pp. 93-98. Balibar 2005 = É. Balibar, Violenza: identità e crudeltà, in F. Héritier (ed.), Sulla violenza, Roma 2005, pp. 47-71 [trad. it.]. Bandelli 1985 = G. Bandelli, Momenti e forme della politica romana nella Transpadana orientale (III-II secolo a.C.), in “Atti e Memorie 198 GIFBIB_21.indb 198 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY della Società Istriana di Archeologia e Storia Patria” n.s. 33 (1985), pp. 5-29. Bandelli 1990 = G. Bandelli, Colonie e municipi delle regioni transpadane in età repubblicana, in AA.VV., La Città nell’Italia settentrionale in étà romana. Morfologia, strutture e funzionamento dei centri urbani delle Regiones X e XI. Atti del Convegno di Trieste (13-15 marzo 1987), Rome 1990, pp. 251-277. Bandelli 1998a = G. Bandelli, La penetrazione romana e il controllo del territorio, in G. Sena Chiesa, M. P. Lavizzari (eds), Tesori della Postumia. Archeologia e storia intorno a una grande strada romana alle radici dell’Europa. Catalogo della Mostra (Cremona, 4 aprile 26 luglio 1998), Milano 1998, pp. 147-155. Bandelli 1998b = G. Bandelli, Le clientele della Cisalpina fra il III e il II secolo a.C., in G. Sena Chiesa, E. A. Arslan (eds), Optima via. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi “Postumia. Storia e Archeologia di una grande strada romana alle radici dell’Europa” (Cremona, 13-15 giugno 1996), Cremona 1998, pp. 35-41. Bandelli 2005 = G. Bandelli, La conquista dell’‘ager Gallicus’ e il problema della ‘Colonia Aesis’, in “Aquileia Nostra” 76 (2005), pp. 13-54. Bandelli 2007 = G. Bandelli, Considerazioni storiche sull’urbanizzazione cisalpina di età repubblicana (283-239 a.C.), in L. Brecciaroli Taborelli (ed.), Forme e tempi dell’urbanizzazione nella Cisalpina (II secolo a.C. - I secolo d.C.). Atti delle Giornate di Studio (Torino, 4-6 maggio 2006), Torino 2007, pp. 15-28. Bandelli 2009 = G. Bandelli, Parma durante la repubblica. Dalla fondazione della colonia a Cesare, in D. Vera (ed.), Storia di Parma. II: Parma romana, Parma 2009, pp. 181-217. Bandelli 2017 = G. Bandelli, Le comunità della Transpadana dalla guerra gallica del 225-222 a.C. alla Lex Pompeia dell’89 a.C. Dati recenti e problemi aperti su alcuni aspetti di ordine istituzionale, in “Gerión. Revista de Historia Antigua” 35, 2 (2017), pp. 373-400. Bandelli, Chiabà 2005 = G. Bandelli, M. Chiabà, Le amministrazioni locali nella Transpadana orientale: dalla provincia repubblicana della Gallia Cisalpina alla provincia tardoantica della Venetia et Histria, in “Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome” 117, 2 (2005), pp. 439-463. Barbati 2012 = S. Barbati, Asc., In Pis. III Clark: sulle cosiddette “colonie latine fittizie” transpadane, in “Revista General de Derecho Romano” 18 (2012), pp. 1-44. Barello 2004 = F. Barello, Tra Augusta Taurinorum e Ad Decimum, in AA.VV., Brandizzo. Un insediamento rurale di età romana, Torino 2004, pp. 10-21. 199 GIFBIB_21.indb 199 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Baroni 2017 = A. Baroni, … patrem ne adtributam quidem: sulla cosiddetta adtributio, vet again, in S. Solano (ed.), Da Comunni a Romani. Archeologia e storia della romanizzazione alpina, Roma 2017, pp. 221-233. Barozzi 2000 = P. Barozzi, La via Postumia in Val Polcevera, in P. Barozzi (ed.), Momenti di geografia storica genovese, Genova 2000, pp. 35-43. Barrett, Barrett 2004 = J. T. Barrett, J. P. Barrett, A History of Alternative Dispute Resolution. The Story of a Political, Cultural, and Social Movement, San Francisco 2004. Barton 2007 = C. A. Barton, The Price of Peace in Ancient Rome, in K. A. Raaflaub (ed.), War and Peace in the Ancient World, MaldenOxford-Carlton 2007, pp. 245-255. Basili, Pozza 1974 = A. Basili, L. Pozza, Le carte del Monastero di San Siro di Genova, Genova 1974. Basso 2007 = P. Basso, Strade romane. Storia e archeologia, Roma 2007. Basso, Zanini 2016 = P. Basso, E. Zanini (eds), Statio amoena: Sostare e vivere lungo le strade romane, Oxford 2016. Baty 1917 = T. Baty, The Difference between Arbiter in the Roman Sense and Modern Arbitrators, in “University of Pennsylvania Law Review” 65 (1917), pp. 732-736. Bearzot 2007 = C. Bearzot, Rivendicazione di identità e rifiuto dell’integrazione nella Grecia antica (Ateniesi, Arcadi, Plateesi, Messeni), in G. Amiotti, A. Rosina (eds), Identità e integrazione. Passato e presente delle minoranze dell’Europa mediterranea, Milano 2007, pp. 15-38. Bearzot 2014 = C. Bearzot, Dall’Italía all’Italia, in A. Bianchi (ed.), Storia, civiltà e religione in Italia. Studi in occasione del 150° anniversario dell’unità nazionale, Milano 2014, pp. 31-42. Bederman 2001 = D. J. Bederman, International Law in Antiquity, Cambridge 2001. Belfiore 2019 = V. Belfiore, Aspetti materiali e ideologici delle delimitazioni pubbliche nella cultura etrusca e italico-settentrionale, in R. Dubbini (ed.), I confini di Roma. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Università degli Studi di Ferrara, 31 maggio-2 giugno 2018), Pisa 2019, pp. 47-62. Belgrano 1862 = L. T. Belgrano, Il Registro della Curia Arcivescovile di Genova, in “Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria” 2, 2 (1862), pp. 3-407. Bellen 1985 = H. Bellen, Metus Gallicus – Metus Punicus. Zum Furchtmotiv in der römischen Republik, Weisbaden 1985. 200 GIFBIB_21.indb 200 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY Beloch 1879 = J. Beloch, Campanien. Geschichte und Topographie des antiken Neapel und seiner Umgebung, Berlin 1879. Benveniste 1976 = È. Benveniste, Il vocabolario delle istituzioni indoeuropee, II, Potere, Diritto, Religione, Torino 1976. Bessone 1985 = L. Bessone, Tra Salassi e Romani, Q uart (Aosta) 1985. Bianchi 1996 = E. Bianchi, La Tavola di Polcevera e l’occupazione del Genovesato in epoca tardorepubblicana, in “Archeologia, uomo, territorio” 15 (1996), pp. 63-80. Bianchini 2006 = M. Bianchini, Senato e senati locali per la soluzione di controversie fra comunità, in “Minima Epigraphica et Papyrologica” 9 (2006), pp. 94-100. Bignardi 1984 = A. Bignardi, Controversiae agrorum e arbitrati internazionali. Alle origini dell’interdetto “Uti possidetis”, Milano 1984. Bispham 2007 = E. Bispham, From Asculum to Actium. The Municipalization of Italy from the Social War to Augustus, Oxford-New York 2007. Boaro 2001 = S. Boaro, Dinamiche insediative e confini nel Veneto dell’età del Ferro: Este, Padova e Vicenza, in “Padusa” 37 (2001), pp. 153-198. Boccaleri 1989 = E. Boccaleri, L’agro dei Langensi Viturii secondo la Tavola di Polcevera, in “Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria” n.s. 29, 1 (1989), pp. 27-69. Boccaleri 1993 = E. Boccaleri, La Tavola di Polcevera e la comunità rurale dei Langensi Viturii, in “Studi e ricerche. Cultura del territorio” 9 (1993), pp. 11-27. Boccaleri 1996 = E. Boccaleri, L’ubicazione dell’Agro Compascuo Genuate secondo la Tavola di Polcevera, in “Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria” n.s. 36, 2 (1996), pp. 23-42. Boccaleri 2002a = E. Boccaleri, Guida ai luoghi indicati dalla Tavola di Polcevera, Genova 2002. Boccaleri 2002b = E. Boccaleri, Itinerari nel territorio descritto dalla Tavola di Polcevera, Genova 2002. Boccaleri 2006 = E. Boccaleri, Alla ricerca della Via Postumia, Campomorone (GE) 2006. Bonamente 2019 = G. Bonamente, I Properzi di Assisi, in “Atti dell’Accademia Properziana del Subasio” 1 (2019), pp. 13-22. Bonamente [forthcoming] = G. Bonamente, I Properzi in Assisi e a Roma, in G. Bonamente, R. Cristofoli, C. Santini (eds), I generi letterari in Properzio: modelli e fortuna. Atti del XXII Convegno 201 GIFBIB_21.indb 201 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Internazionale (Assisi – Spello, 24-27 maggio 2018), Turnhout [forthcoming]. Bonifacio 1958 = C. Bonifacio, s.v. Arbitro e arbitratore (Diritto romano), in Novissimo Digesto Italiano, I, Torino 1958, p. 926. Bonnefond-Coudry 1989 = M. Bonnefond-Coudry, Le Sénat de la République romaine de la guerre d’Hannibal à Auguste: pratiques délibeératives et prise de décision, Rome 1989. Borgeaud 1982 = W. A. Borgeaud, Fasti Umbrici. Études sur le vocabulaire et le rituel des Tables eugubines, Ottawa 1982. Borghi 2006 = G. Borghi, Note aggiuntive sulla comparazione di antico indiano bhuka-“buco” e italiano buco “id”, in R. Ronzitti, G. Borghi, L. Busetto (eds), Atti del Terzo, quarto, quinto incontro genovese di Studi Vedici e Paniniani, Milano 2006, pp. 53-116. Borzino sec. XVII = Gio Maria Borzino, Archeologia, hoc est de antiquitatibus liguro-genuensium: libri quattuor ex veterum schaedis historicis compacti, sec. XVII; Ms. Beriana n. 299; D, 2,4, 18 a cart. 67. Bosio 1976 = L. Bosio, Il Veneto preromano e romano, in M. Pastore Stocchi, G. Arnaldi (eds), Storia della cultura veneta. Dalle origini al Trecento, I, Vicenza 1976, pp. 63-81. Bosio 1997 = L. Bosio, Le strade romane della Venetia e dell’Histria, Padova 1997. Bottazzi 1815 = A. Bottazzi, Osservazioni storico-critiche sui ruderi di Libarna ed origine di alcuni castelli del tortonese, Novi Ligure 1815. Bove 2001 = M. Bove, La perizia arbitrale, Torino 2001. Bove 2009 = M. Bove, La giustizia privata, Padova 2009. Bradley 2014 = G. Bradley, The nature of Roman strategy in Mid-Republican colonization and road building, in T. D. Stek, J. Pelgrom (eds), Roman Republican Colonization. New Perspectives from Archaeology and Ancient History, Roma 2014, pp. 61-72. Bretone 1981 = M. Bretone, Il diritto a Roma, in M. Bretone, M. Talamanca (eds), Il diritto in Grecia e a Roma, Roma-Bari 1981, pp. 93-164. Bretone, Talamanca 1981 = M. Bretone, M. Talamanca, Il diritto in Grecia e a Roma, Roma-Bari 1981. Brizzi 2003 = G. Brizzi, Annibale: come un’autobiografia, Bologna 2003. Brizzi 2009 = G. Brizzi, Scipione e Annibale. La guerra per salvare Roma, Roma-Bari 2009. Broadhead 2008 = W. Broadhead, Migration and Hegemony: Fixity and Mobility in Second-Century Italy, in L. De Ligt, S. J. Northwood (eds), People, Land, and Politics. Demographic Developments 202 GIFBIB_21.indb 202 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY and the Transformation of Roman Italy, 300 bc-ad 14, Leiden-Boston 2008, pp. 451-470. Broadman 2007 = H. G. Broadman, Africa’s Silk Road. China and India’s New Economic Frontier, New York-Washington 2007. Broggini 1957 = G. Broggini, Iudex Arbiterve. Prolegomena zum Officium des römischen Privatrichters, Köln-Graz, 1957. Broggini 2002 = G. Broggini, Iudex arbiterve, in “Rivista di Diritto Romano” 2 (2002), pp. 425-430. Brogiolo 2018 = G. P. Brogiolo, Per un’archeologia delle comunità rurali nei tempi lunghi. Pagi e vici tra romanizzazione e alto Medioevo nelle regioni prealpine, in F. Sogliani, B. Gargiulo, E. Annunziata, V. Vitale (eds), VIII Congresso nazionale di archeologia medievale (Matera 12-15 settembre 2018), Sesto Fiorentino (FI) 2018, pp. 26-30. Brutti 2011 = M. Brutti, Il diritto privato nell’antica Roma, Torino 2011. Bücheler 1883 = F. Bücheler, Umbrica, Bonnae 1883. Buchi 1993 = E. Buchi, Venetorum angulus. Este da comunità paleoveneta a colonia romana, Verona 1993. Buigues Oliver 1990 = G. Buigues Oliver, La solución amistosa de los conflictos en derecho romano: el arbiter ex compromisso, Madrid 1990. Buongiorno 2016 = P. Buongiorno, Senatus consulta: struttura, formulazioni linguistiche, tecniche (189 a.C.-138 d.C.), in “Annali del Seminario giuridico dell’Università di Palermo” 59 (2016), pp. 17-60. Buono-Core 2015 = R. Buono-Core, Guerra y diplomacia en la Roma republicana, in “Revista de Estudios Histórico-Jurídicos – Sección historia del derecho romano” 37 (2015), pp. 93-107. Burdese 1952 = A. Burdese, Studi sull’ager publicus, Torino 1952. Burton 2000 = G. P. Burton, The Resolution of Territorial Disputes in the Provinces of the Roman Empire, in “Chiron” 30 (2000), pp. 195215. Busanel 2011 = L. Busanel, L’arte del sensale. Dall’antica Roma all’unità d’Italia, Bologna 2011. Bussi 2005 = L. Bussi, Mediazioni e arbitrati tra Medioevo ed Età moderna, in “Diritto @ Storia. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Giuridiche e Tradizione romana” 4 (2005) [online]. Cairo 2012 = G. Cairo, Gli strumenti giuridici della presenza romana in Cisalpina tra il I secolo a.C. e l’inizio del principato, in “Historika. Studi di storia greca e romana” 2 (2012), pp. 33-54. 203 GIFBIB_21.indb 203 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Calderazzo 1996 = L. Calderazzo, Arbitrati romani in Cisalpina (197189 a.C.): problemi e status quaestionis, in “Rivista di Studi Liguri” 62 (1996), pp. 25-46. Calleri 2006 = M. Calleri (ed.), Pergamene del monastero di San Siro (951-1651), Genova 2006. Calleri 2009a = M. Calleri (ed.), Codex Sancti Stefani, Genova 2009. Calleri 2009b = M. Calleri (ed.), Codice diplomatico del monastero di Santo Stefano di Genova (965-1200), I, Genova 2009. Calore 2018 = A. Calore, ‘Cittadinanze’ nell’antica Roma. Volume I: L’età regia, Torino 2018. Camia 2004 = F. Camia, L’intervento di Roma nella controversia territoriale tra Sparta e Megalopoli (163 a.C.), in “Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente” 82, 2 (2004), pp. 477-483. Camia 2009 = F. Camia, Roma e le poleis. L’intervento di Roma nelle controversie territoriali tra le comunità greche di Grecia e d’Asia Minore nel secondo secolo a.C.: le testimonianze epigrafiche, Athens 2009. Campanile 1979 = E. Campanile, Le strutture magistratuali degli stati osci, in E. Campanile, C. Letta (eds), Studi sulle magistrature indigene e municipali in area italica, Pisa 1979, pp. 15-28. Campanile 1990 = E. Campanile, L’assimilazione culturale del mondo italico, in G. Clemente, F. Coarelli, E. Gabba (eds), Storia di Roma, I, 2, Torino 1990, pp. 305-312. Camporeale 1956 = G. Camporeale, La terminologia magistratuale nelle lingue osco-umbre, in “Atti e memorie dell’Accademia toscana di scienze e lettere la Colombaria” 21, 7 (1956), pp. 33-108. Canali De Rossi 1997 = F. Canali De Rossi, Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in età repubblicana, Roma 1997. Canali De Rossi 2000 = F. Canali De Rossi, Le ambascerie straniere a Roma dall’Italia e dall’Occidente, Roma 2000. Canali De Rossi 2001 = F. Canali De Rossi, Il ruolo dei patroni nelle relazioni politiche fra il mondo greco e Roma in età repubblicana ed augustea, München-Leipzig 2001. Canali De Rossi 2009 = F. Canali De Rossi, Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma: omissioni, errori e studi recenti, in “Veleia” 26 (2009), pp. 13-46. Canazza, Cirnigliaro, Pedemonte 2015 = D. Canazza, E. Cirnigliaro, S. Pedemonte, Ancora sulla via Postumia, in “In Novitate” 60 (2015), pp. 58-70. 204 GIFBIB_21.indb 204 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY Cantarella, Guidorizzi 2010 = E. Cantarella, G. Guidorizzi, Polis, società e storia I, Torino 2010. Capogrossi Colognesi 1999 = L. Capogrossi Colognesi, Spazio privato e spazio pubblico, in L. Q uilici, S. Q uilici Gigli (eds), La forma della città e del territorio. Esperienze metodologiche e risultati a confronto. Atti dell’Incontro di Studio (S. Maria Capua Vetere, 27-28 novembre 1998), Roma 1999, pp. 17-41. Capogrossi Colognesi 2002 = L. Capogrossi Colognesi, Pagi sanniti e centuriatio romana, in G. Franciosi (ed.), Ager Campanus. La storia dell’ager Campanus, i problemi della limitatio e sua lettura attuale. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (S. Leucio-Caserta 2001), Napoli 2002, pp. 77-93. Capogrossi Colognesi 2004 = L. Capogrossi Colognesi, La genesi dell’Impero municipale, in “Roma e America. Diritto Romano Comune” 18 (2004), pp. 243-263. Capogrossi Colognesi 2009 = L. Capogrossi Colognesi, Storia di Roma tra diritto e potere, Bologna 2009. Capogrossi Colognesi 2012 = L. Capogrossi Colognesi, Forme del diritto e insediamenti territoriali nell’Italia romana, in “Rivista Storica Italiana” 124, 1 (2012), pp. 193-227. Capogrossi Colognesi 2014 = L. Capogrossi Colognesi, Storia di Roma tra diritto e potere2, Bologna 2014. Capogrossi Colognesi 2016 = L. Capogrossi Colognesi, La costruzione del diritto privato romano, Bologna 2016. Capponi et al. 2008 = G. Capponi et al., Note illustrative della carta geologica d’Italia alla scala 1:50.000, foglio 213-230 – Genova, Firenze 2008. Caprini 1981 = R. Caprini, Toponimi liguri di origine germanica, in G. Petracco Sicardi, R. Caprini (eds), Toponomastica storica della Liguria, Genova 1981, pp. 17-32. Cardilli 2015 = R. Cardilli, ‘Autonomia’ e ‘libertas’ delle civitates peregrinae e dei municipia nell’Imperium populi Romani, in G. L. Domenico D’Orsogna (ed.), Città e diritto: studi per la partecipazione civica. Un “codice” per Curitiba, Napoli 2015, pp. 87-104. Cardinali 2015 = L. Cardinali, Una nuova proposta etimologica per il sostantivo arbiter ed una puntualizzazione sull’etimologia del termine custos, in “Giornale Italiano di Filologia” 67 (2015), pp. 69-84. Carlà-Uhink 2017 = F. Carlà-Uhink, The “Birth” of Italy. The Institutionalization of Italy as a Region, 3rd-1st Century bce, Berlin-Boston 2017. 205 GIFBIB_21.indb 205 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Casella, Petraccia [forthcoming] = V. Casella, M. F. Petraccia, Genua ‘caput viae’. Il conflitto tra Genuates e Viturii Langenses nel contesto delle dispute di confine di II secolo a.C., in P. Garibaldi, A. Traverso (eds), Ripensando Postumia. Atti della Giornata di Studio (Genova, 1 giugno 2018), Genova [forthcoming]. Cassano, Capo, Freni 2018 = G. Cassano, G. Capo, F. Freni, L’arbitrato, Napoli 2018. Cassola 1962 = F. Cassola, I gruppi politici Romani nel III secolo a.C., Trieste 1962. Castagnoli 1958 = F. Castagnoli, Le ricerche sui resti della centuriazione, Roma 1958. Castagnoli 1968 = F. Castagnoli, Note di architettura ed urbanistica, in “Archeologia Classica” 20 (1968), pp. 119-121. Castello 1964 = C. Castello, “Genuates” e “Viturii Langenses” nella “Sententia Minuciorum”, in AA.VV., Synteleia Arangio-Ruiz, II, Napoli 1964, pp. 1124-1135. Castello 1971 = C. Castello, Sulla clausola finale della Sententia Minuciorum del 117 a.C., in AA.VV., Scritti in onore di M. Casanova, Milano 1971, pp. 131-147. Catalano 1965 = P. Catalano, Linee del sistema sovrannazionale romano, Torino 1965. Catalano 2000 = P. Catalano, Impero: un concetto dimenticato del diritto pubblico, in C. Alzati (ed.), Cristianità ed Europa. Miscellanea di studi in onore di Luigi Prosdocimi, II, Roma-Freiburg-Wien 2000, pp. 29-51. Cecconi 2006 = G. A. Cecconi, Romanizzazione, diversità culturale, politicamente corretto, in “Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome” 118, 1 (2006), pp. 81-94. Celesia 1863 = E. Celesia, Porti e vie strate dell’antica Liguria, Genova 1863. Cera 2000 = G. Cera, La via Postumia da Genova a Cremona (= Strade romane 1), Roma 2000. Champion 2007 = C. Champion, Empire by Invitation: Greek Political Strategies and Roman Imperial Interventions in the Second Century b.c.e., in “Transactions of the American Philological Association” 137, 2 (2007), pp. 255-275. Charpentier 1996 = E. M. Charpentier, Le rôle de la bonne foi dans l’élaboration de la théorie du contrat, in “Revue de droit de l’université de Sherbrooke” 26 (1996), pp. 301-318. 206 GIFBIB_21.indb 206 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY Chiabà 2015 = M. Chiabà, La stele della via Postumia da Aquileia, in L. Malnati, V. Manzelli (eds), Brixia. Roma e le genti del Po. III-I secolo a.C. Un incontro di culture III-I secolo a.C., Firenze-Milano 2015, p. 146. Chilver 1941 = G. E. F. Chilver, Cisalpine Gaul, Oxford 1941. Ciampi Polledri 1967 = H. Ciampi Polledri, Via Aemilia Scauri, in “Studi Classici e Orientali” 16 (1967), pp. 256-272. Cimarosti 2018 = E. Cimarosti, Un DVD sulla Tavola di Polcevera, in “Epigraphica” 80, 1-2 (2018), pp. 620-622. Cinquantaquattro 2013 = T. Cinquantaquattro, Ubicazione incerta, Hercules, sakaraklùm, fììsnù, in T. Cinquantaquattro, G. Pescatori (eds), Fana, templa, delubra. Corpus dei luoghi di culto dell’Italia antica, Naples 2013, pp. 20-35. Cipollina 1932 = G. Cipollina, Regesti di Valpolcevera, Genova 1932. Clavel-Lévêque 1987 = M. Clavel-Lévêque, Q uestions de méthode et approches comparatives. Cadastre et histoire, in G. Chouquer, M. Clavel-Lévêque, F. Favory, J. P. Vallat (eds), Structures agraires en Italie centro-méridionale. Cadastres et paysages ruraux, Rome 1987, pp. 13-16. Clemente 1976 = G. Clemente, ‘Esperti’, ambasciatori del Senato e la formazione della politica estera romana tra il III e il II secolo a.C., in “Athenaeum” 54 (1976), pp. 319-352. Coarelli 1985-1987 = F. Coarelli, La fondazione di Luni. Problemi storici ed archeologici, in Studi lunensi e prospettive sull’Occidente romano. Atti del Convegno (Lerici 1985), [in “Centro di Studi Lunensi – Q uaderni” 10-12 (1985-1987)], I, pp. 17-36. Coarelli 1988 = F. Coarelli, Colonizzazione romana e viabilità, in “Dialoghi di Archeologia” 3, 6 (1988), pp. 35-48. Coarelli 1996 = F. Coarelli, Da Assisi a Roma. Architettura pubblica e promozione sociale in una città dell’Umbria, in G. Bonamente, F. Coarelli (eds), Assisi e gli Umbri nell’antichità. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Assisi, 18-21 dicembre 1991), Assisi 1996, pp. 245-263. Coarelli 2019 = F. Coarelli, Statio. I luoghi dell’amministrazione nell’antica Roma, Roma 2019. Comella 2005 = A. M. Comella, s.v. Terminus, in Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum IV. Cults Places. Representations of Cult Palces, Los Angeles 2005, pp. 347-349. Compatangelo, Galli 2016 = C. Compatangelo, S. Galli, Manuale pratico dell’arbitrato. Come affrontare il procedimento arbitrale. Strategie 207 GIFBIB_21.indb 207 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC operative, formulario, giurisprudenza3, Santarcangelo di Romagna (RN) 2016. Compatangelo-Soussignan 2011 = R. Compatangelo-Soussignan, Conflitti territoriali nel mondo romano a partire dalle testimonianze letterarie e epigrafiche di epoca repubblicana: Occidente e Oriente a confronto, in A. Maffi, L. Gagliardi (eds), I diritti degli altri in Grecia e a Roma, Sankt Augustin 2011, pp. 45-63. Conforti 1987 = B. Conforti, Diritto internazionale, Napoli 1987. Copeland 1999 = C. S. Copeland, The Use of Arbitration to Settle Territorial Disputes, in “Fordham Law Review” 67, 6 (1999), pp. 30733108. Cornero, Pedemonte 1992 = P. Cornero, S. Pedemonte, Strade e ponti a Isola del Cantone, in AA.VV., Miscellanea Storica. Biblioteca dell’Accademia Olubrense, I, Pietrabissara (Isola del Cantone, GE) 1992, pp. 329-339. Corsi 2000 = C. Corsi, Le strutture del Cursus Publicus in Italia: ricerche topografiche ed evidenze archeologiche, Oxford 2000. Cozzo 2014 = A. Cozzo, “Nel mezzo”. Microfisica della mediazione nel mondo greco, Pisa 2014. Cracco Ruggini 1961 = L. Cracco Ruggini, Economia e società nell’“Italia Annonaria”. Rapporti tra agricoltura e commercio dal IV al VI secolo d.C., Milano 1961. Crawford 1990 = M. H. Crawford, Origini e sviluppi del sistema provinciale romano, in G. Clemente, F. Coarelli, E Gabba (eds), Storia di Roma, II 1, Torino 1990, pp. 91-121. Crawford 1996 = M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, I, London 1996. Crawford 2003 = M. H. Crawford, Language and geography in the “Sententia Minuciorum”, in “Athenaeum” 91, 1 (2003), pp. 204207. Crawford 2011 = M. H. Crawford (ed.), Imagines Italicae: a Corpus of italic inscriptions, II, London 2011. Cremaschi 2013 = M. Cremaschi, Caduta libera: costituzione e lo spazio della nazione, in “Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome” 125, 2 (2013) [online ]. Cresci Marrone 1987 = G. Cresci Marrone, Il Piemonte in età romana, in AA.VV., Museo archeologico di Chieri. Contributi alla conoscenza del territorio in età romana. Catalogo della mostra, Torino 1987, pp. 14-19. Cresci Marrone 2004 = G. Cresci Marrone, Storie e storia ai margini della strada, in M. S. Busana, F. Ghedini (eds), La via Annia e le sue 208 GIFBIB_21.indb 208 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY infrastrutture. Atti delle Giornate di Studio Ca’ Tron di Roncade (Treviso, 6-7 novembre 2003), Treviso 2004, pp. 29-39. Cresci Marrone 2009 = G. Cresci Marrone, Insediamenti indigeni della Venetia verso la romanità, in “Antichità Altoadriatiche” 68 (2009), pp. 207-220. Cresci Marrone 2013 = G. Cresci Marrone, Le modifiche del paesaggio nel processo di romanizzazione, in G. Cuscito (ed.), Le modifiche del paesaggio nell’Altoadriatico tra pre-protostoria ed altomedioevo, Trieste 2013, pp. 17-29. Cuniberti 2011 = G. Cuniberti, Procedure giudiziarie e riconciliazione sociale nell’Atene di Solone, in “Dike” 14 (2011), pp. 1-18. Cursi 2013 = M. F. Cursi, Diritto internazionale ed espansionismo romano, in “Index” 41 (2013), pp. 195-227. Cursi 2014 = M. F. Cursi, International Relationships in the Ancient World, in “Fundamina” 20, 1 (2014), pp. 186-195. D’Agostino 1973 = F. D’Agostino, Epieikeia. Il tema dell’equità nell’antichità greca, Milano 1973. Dalla Massara 2012a = T. Dalla Massara, Reciproche relazioni e integrazioni tra arbitrato e ‘iudicium’: un itinerario nella giurisprudenza, in L. Garofalo (ed.), Il giudice privato nel processo civile romano. Omaggio ad Alberto Burdese, Lavis (TN) 2012, pp. 113-173. Dalla Massara 2012b = T. Dalla Massara, Studio sui rapporti tra sententia iudicis e decisione arbitrale, Napoli 2012. D’Ambrosio 1985a = B. D’Ambrosio, L’insediamento di San Cipriano (Genova), in “Studi e Ricerche. Cultura del Territorio” 2 (1985), pp. 49-69. D’Ambrosio 1985b = B. D’Ambrosio, L’insediamento di Campora di Geminiano (Genova), in “Studi e Ricerche. Cultura del Territorio” 2 (1985), pp. 70-72. Daverio Rocchi 1988 = G. Daverio Rocchi, Frontiera e confini nella Grecia antica, Roma 1988. Davies 1998 = H. E. H. Davies, Designing Roman Roads, in “Britannia” 29 (1998), pp. 1-16. De Bon 1938 = A. De Bon, Rilievi di campagna, in La via Claudia Augusta Altinate, Venezia 1938, pp. 15-68. De Feo 1998 = F. De Feo, La dissoluzione dell’unità dell’antico percorso della Via Postumia: il tratto occidentale, in G. Sena Chiesa, E. A. Arslan (eds), Optima via. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi “Postumia. Storia e Archeologia di una grande strada romana alle radici dell’Europa” (Cremona, 13-15 giugno 1996), Cremona 1998, pp. 59-62. 209 GIFBIB_21.indb 209 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC De Francisci 1962 = P. De Francisci, Storia del diritto romano, I, Roma 1926. Degrassi 1954 = A. Degrassi, Il confine nord-orientale dell’Italia romana, Bern 1954. D’Elia 1973 = M. D’Elia, Su un costrutto sintattico della Sententia Minuciorum, Bari 1973. De Martino 1973 [1954] = E. De Martino, Storia della costituzione romana, vol. 2, Napoli 1973 [1954]. De Ruggiero 1893 = E. De Ruggiero, L’arbitrato pubblico in relazione col privato presso i Romani, Roma 1893 [rist. 1971]. De Sanctis 1923 = G. De Sanctis, Storia dei Romani, IV. La fondazione dell’Impero, 1. Dalla battaglia di Naraggara alla battaglia di Pidna, Torino 1923. Desideri 2007 = P. Desideri, “Come prigionieri di guerra” (Pol. 24.13.4). Gli Achei dall’alleanza alla sottomissione a Roma, in “Studia Historica. Historia Antigua” 25 (2007), pp. 171-179. Desimoni 1864 = C. Desimoni, Sulla Tavola di Bronzo della Polcevera, in “Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria” 3 (1864), pp. 529-744. Deutschmann 2012 = E. H. Deutschmann, Roman Policies towards Antiochus III and the Greeks from Winter 197/196 b.c. to Autumn 196 b.c., in “Anuario de la Escuela de Historia Virtual” 3 (2012), pp. 1-20. De Vingo, Frondoni 2003 = P. De Vingo, A. Frondoni, Fonti scritte e cultura materiale del territorio fra tardoantico e altomedioevo in Val Polcevera (Genova): problemi aperti e prospettive di ricerca, in R. Fiorillo, P. Peduto (eds), III Congresso Nazionale di Archeologia Medievale (Salerno, 2-5 ottobre 2003), III 1, Borgo San Lorenzo (FI) 2003, pp. 32-36. Devoto 1951 = G. Devoto, Gli antichi Italici2, Firenze 1951. Devoto 1954 = G. Devoto, Tabulae Iguvinae, Roma 1954. Di Lella 2004 = L. Di Lella, La tutela interdittale dei luoghi pubblici, in AA.VV., Espaces intégrés et ressources naturelles dans l’Empire romain. Actes du colloque de l’Université de Laval-Q uébec (5-8 mars 2003), Besançon 2004, pp. 193-196. Diliberto 2015 = O. Diliberto, Una sconosciuta monografia palermitana sulla palingenesi delle XII Tavole (e un curioso caso di omonimia), in “Annali del Seminario giuridico dell’Università degli Studi di Palermo (AUPA)” 58 (2015), pp. 291-300. 210 GIFBIB_21.indb 210 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY Di Piazza, Piazza 2017 = S. Di Piazza, F. Piazza, Valutare il merito. Pistis ed epieikeia nella Retorica di Aristotele, in “Hormos” 9 (2017), pp. 386-400. Domingo Oslé 2010 = R. Domingo Oslé, The New Global Law, Cambridge-New York 2010. D’Ors 1997 = A. D’Ors, El arbitraje jurídico, in A. D’Ors, Parerga historica, Pamplona 1997, pp. 271-291. Dusi 2019 = M. Dusi, La risoluzione delle controversie tramite organismi e sistemi alternativi (ADR) nell’ambito dell’accordo sul Tribunale Unificato dei Brevetti, in “Il Diritto Industriale” 27 (2019), pp. 88-93. Dyson 1985 = S. L. Dyson, The Creation of the Roman Frontier, Princeton 1985. Eckstein 1987 = A. M. Eckstein, Senate and General. Individual Decision-Making and Roman Foreign Relations, 264-194 a.C., BerkeleyLos Angeles-London 1987. Eckstein 1988 = A. M. Eckstein, Rome, the War with Perseus, and Third Party Mediation, in “Historia” 37, 4 (1988), pp. 414-444. Eckstein 2002 = A. M. Eckstein, Greek Mediation in the First Macedonian War, 209-205 bc, in “Historia” 51 (2002), pp. 268-297. Eckstein 2006 = A. M. Eckstein, Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 2006. Eckstein 2008 = A. M. Eckstein, Rome Enters the Greek East: from Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, 230-170 bc, Malden-Oxford-Carlton 2008. Eckstein 2012 = A. M. Eckstein, Polybius, the Gallic Crisis, and the Ebro Treaty, in “Classical Philology” 107, 3 (2012), pp. 206-229. Eilers 2002 = C. Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities, Oxford 2002. Erdkamp 2008 = P. Erdkamp, Mobility and Migration in Italy in the Second Century bc, in L. De Ligt, S. J. Northwood (eds), People, Land, and Politics. Demographic Developments and the Transformation of Roman Italy, 300 bc-ad 14, Leiden-Boston 2008, pp. 417-450. Ernout, Meillet 1979 = A. Ernout, A. Meillet, s.v. arbiter-trī, in Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots, III, Paris 1979, pp. 42-44. Falcone 2013 = G. Falcone, Il rapporto ius gentium – ius civile e la societas vitae in Cic., off. 3.69-70, in “Annali del Seminario giuridico dell’Università degli Studi di Palermo” 56 (2013), pp. 259-274. 211 GIFBIB_21.indb 211 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Falcón y Tella 2008 = M. J. Falcón y Tella, Equity and Law, LeidenBoston 2008 [trad. en.]. Faoro 2015 = D. Faoro, Gentes e civitates adtributae. Fenomeni contributivi della romanità cisalpina, in L. Criscuolo, G. Geraci, A. Bencivenni (eds), Simbolos. Scritti di Storia antica, Bologna 2015, pp. 155-199. Faoro 2018 = D. Faoro (ed.), L’amministrazione dell’Italia romana. Dal I secolo a.C. al III secolo d.C. Fondamenti, Milano 2018. Fernández de Buján 2014 = A. Fernández de Buján, La deuda histórica del arbitraje moderno, Madrid 2014. Ferone, Pugliese Carratelli 1989 = C. Ferone, F. Pugliese Carratelli (eds), J. Beloch, Campania-Storia e topografia della Napoli antica e dei suoi dintorni, Napoli 1989. Ferrarese 2006 = M. R. Ferrarese, Diritto sconfinato. Inventiva giuridica e spazi del mondo globale, Roma-Bari 2006. Ferrary 1988 = J.-L. Ferrary, Philhellénisme et impérialisme, Paris-Rome 1988. Ferretto 1909 = A. Ferretto, Documenti genovesi di Novi e Valle Scrivia, Pinerolo 1909. Ferri 2012 = G. Ferri, La costruzione teorica dei poteri dell’arbitro nell’età moderna, in “Historia et ius” 2 (2012), pp. 1-35. Fiori 2016 = R. Fiori, La nozione di ius gentium nelle fonti di età repubblicana, in I. Piro (ed.), Scritti per Alessandro Corbino 3, Tricase (LE) 2016, pp. 109-129. Foraboschi 1992 = D. Foraboschi, Lineamenti di storia della Cisalpina romana. Antropologia di una conquista, Roma 1992. Forlati Tamaro 1961-1962 = B. Forlati Tamaro, La romanizzazione dell’Italia settentrionale vista nelle iscrizioni, in “Aquileia Nostra” 32-33 (1961-1962), pp. 110-122. Forni 1987 = G. Forni, Epigrafi lapidarie romane di Assisi, Perugia 1987. Foucart 1904 = P. Foucart, Le culte de Dionysos en Attique, Paris 1904. Fraccaro 1957a = P. Fraccaro, La colonia romana di Eporedia e la sua centuriazione, in “Opuscula” 3 (1957), pp. 93-121. Fraccaro 1957b = P. Fraccaro, La colonia romana di Dertona (Tortona) e la sua centuriazione, in “Opuscula” 3 (1957), pp. 123-147. Fraccaro 1957c = P. Fraccaro, La via Postumia nella Venetia, in “Opuscula” 3 (1957), pp. 195-207. Franchi De Bellis 1988 = A. Franchi De Bellis, Il Cippo Abellano, Urbino 1988. 212 GIFBIB_21.indb 212 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY Frank 1914 = T. Frank, Roman Imperialism, New York 1914. Fraser 1926 = H. S. Fraser, Sketch of the History of International Arbitration, in “Classical Law Review” 11, 2 (1926), pp. 179-208. Frediani 2010 = P. Frediani, Sistema di risoluzione dei conflitti e mediazione, in C. M. Ferri (ed.), Manuale della nuova Mediazione e Conciliazione, Padova 2014, pp. 11-97. Frezza 1938 = P. Frezza, Le forme federative e la struttura dei rapporti internazionali nell’antico diritto romano, in “Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris” 4 (1938), pp. 363-428. Fronda 2013 = M. P. Fronda, Two Notes on the Sententia Minuciorum (CIL I2 584), Lines 44-45, in “Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik” 185 (2013), pp. 262-266. Frosini 1966 = V. Frosini, s.v. Equità (nozione), in Enciclopedia del diritto, XV, Milano 1966, pp. 69-83. Gabba 1955 = E. Gabba, Cassio Dione e la teoria dell’imperialismo difensivo, in “Rivista Storica Italiana” 67 (1955), pp. 301-311. Gabba 1966 = E. Gabba, Considerazioni sulla tradizione letteraria sulle origini della repubblica, in AA.VV., Les Origines de la République Romaine. Entretiens Hardt XIII, Vandoeuvres-Genève 1966, pp. 135-160. Gabba 1972 = E. Gabba, Urbanizzazione e rinnovamenti urbanistici nell’Italia centromeridionale del I secolo a.C., in “Studi Classici e Orientali” 21 (1971), pp. 73-112. Gabba 1978 = E. Gabba, Il problema dell’unità dell’Italia romana, in AA.VV., La cultura italica, Pisa 1978, pp. 11-24. Gabba 1979 = E. Gabba, Per un’interpretazione politica del ‘De officiis’ di Cicerone, in “Rendiconti dell’Accademia dei Lincei” 34 (1979), pp. 117-141. Gabba 1983 = E. Gabba, Territori centuriati in Italia: il caso di Dertona, in AA.VV., Misurare la terra: centuriazione e coloni nel mondo romano, Modena 1983, pp. 210-215. Gabba 1984 = E. Gabba, Per un’interpretazione storica della centuriazione romana, in R. Bussi (ed.), Misurare la terra: centuriazione e coloni nel mondo romano. Catalogo della mostra, Modena 1984, pp. 20-27. Gabba 1985 = E. Gabba, Per un’interpretazione storica della centuriazione romana, in “Athenaeum” 62, 3-4 (1985), pp. 265-284. Gabba 1987 = E. Gabba, Le fonti storiche, la romanizzazione e l’età imperiale, in S. Finocchi (ed.), Libarna, Alessandria 1987, pp. 27-34. 213 GIFBIB_21.indb 213 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Gabba 1990a = E. Gabba, La conquista della Gallia Cisalpina, in G. Clemente, F. Coarelli, E. Gabba (eds), Storia di Roma, II 1, Torino 1990, pp. 70-92. Gabba 1990b = E. Gabba, L’imperialismo romano, in G. Clemente, F. Coarelli, E. Gabba (eds), Storia di Roma, II 1, Torino 1990, pp. 189-233. Gagliardi 2006 = L. Gagliardi, Mobilità e integrazione delle persone nei centri cittadini romani. Aspetti giuridici. Vol. I: La classificazione degli “incolae”, Milano 2006. Gagliardi 2007 = L. Gagliardi, La figura del giudice privato del processo civile romano. Per un’analisi storico-sociologica sulla base delle fonti letterarie (da Plauto a Macrobio), in E. Cantarella, L. Gagliardi (eds), Diritto e teatro in Grecia e a Roma, Milano 2007, pp. 199217. Gagliardi 2012 = L. Gagliardi, I collegi giudicanti: decemviri, centumviri, septemviri, recuperatores. Idee vecchie e nuove su origini, competenze, aspetti procedurali, in L. Garofalo (ed.), Il giudice privato nel processo civile romano. Omaggio ad Alberto Burdese, II, Padova 2012, pp. 339-383. Galsterer 2009 = H. Galsterer, La Romanizzazione – una, molte o nessuna?, in G. Cuscito (ed.), Aspetti e problemi della romanizzazione Venetia, Histria e arco alpino orientale, [in “Antichità Altoadriatiche” 68 (2009)], pp. 17-28. Gambaro 1999 = L. Gambaro, La Liguria costiera tra III e I secolo a.C., Mantova 1999. Gandolfi 1954 = G. Gandolfi, Spunti di diritto internazionale in Tito Livio, Modena 1954. García Riaza 2015 = E. García Riaza, Le protocole diplomatique entre particularisme romain et universalisme: quelques réflexions sur l’Occident républicain, in B. Grass, G. Stouder (eds), La diplomatie romaine sous la République: réflexions sur une pratique, Besançon 2015, pp. 15-41. Garibaldi 1985 = P. Garibaldi, Lineamenti storici ed archeologici dell’Alta Valpolcevera, in “Studi e Ricerche. Cultura del Territorio” 2 (1985), pp. 19-38. Garofalo 2007 = L. Garofalo, Carl Schmitt e la “Wissenschaft des römischen rechts”. Saggi su un cantore della scienza giuridica europea, in “Anuario da Facultade de Dereito da Universidade da Coruña” 11 (2007), pp. 299-323. Gazzano 2002 = F. Gazzano, La diplomazia nelle Storie di Erodoto. Figure, temi, problemi, in L. R. Cresci, F. Gazzano, D. P. Orsi (eds), 214 GIFBIB_21.indb 214 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY La retorica della diplomazia nella Grecia classica e a Bisanzio, Roma 2002, pp. 9-67. Gernet 1939 = L. Gernet, L’institution des arbitres publics à Athènes, in “Revue des Études Grecques” 52 (1939), pp. 389-414. Giannichedda 1995 = E. Giannichedda, Dinamiche insediative e strutture sociali nel genovesato fra protostoria e romanizzazione, in A. M. Pastorino (ed.), La Tavola di Polcevera. Una sentenza incisa nel bronzo 2100 anni fa, Genova 1995, pp. 39-49. Giardina 1997 = A. Giardina, L’Italia romana. Storie di un’identità incompiuta, Roma-Bari 1997. Giliberti 2015 = G. Giliberti, L’ius gentium romano come ordinamento transnazionale, in “Cultura giuridica e diritto vivente” 2 (2015), pp. 1-14. Giomaro, Brancati 2005 = A. M. Giomaro, C. Brancati, Percorsi guidati e metodologia di analisi giuridica, Fano (PU) 2015. Giustiniani 1854 = A. Giustiniani, Annali della Repubblica di Genova, I, Genova 1854. Gorini 2011 = G. Gorini, Il deposito di Serra Riccò e gli altri depositi dell’età del ferro in Italia Settentrionale, in AA.VV., Tra protostoria e storia. Studi in onore di Loredana Capuis, Roma 2011, pp. 281294. Grassi1864 = L. Grassi, Della sentenza inscritta nella Tavola di Polcevera, in “Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria” 3 (1864), pp. 393528. Gray 2017 = B. Gray, Reconciliation in Later Classical and Post-Classical Greek cities: a Q uestion of Peace and Peacefulness?, in E. Moloney, M. S. Williams (eds), Peace and Reconciliation in the Classical World, 5, Routledge 2017, pp. 66-85. Gregori 2019 = G. L. Gregori, Cippus o terminus? Problemi di terminologia epigrafica nella definizione degli spazi pubblici di Roma, in R. Dubbini (ed.), I confini di Roma. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Università degli Studi di Ferrara, 31 maggio-2 giugno 2018), Pisa 2019, pp. 175-180. Grilli 2005 = A. Grilli, Populus in Cicerone, in G. Urso (ed.), Popolo e potere nel mondo antico, Pisa 2005, pp. 123-139. Grimal 1984 = P. Grimal, La clémence et la douceur dans la vie politique romaine, in “Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres” 128, 3 (1984), pp. 466-478. Gruen 1984 = E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley 1984. 215 GIFBIB_21.indb 215 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Guarducci 1987 = M. Guarducci, L’epigrafia greca dalle origini al tardo impero, Roma 1987. Guida 2016 = G. Guida, Il regime dell’’ager compascuus’ tra proprietà collettiva e ‘res communes’, in L. Garofalo (ed.), I beni di interesse pubblico nell’esperienza giuridica romana, I, Napoli 2016, pp. 225248. Gumbiner 2000 = K. Gumbiner, An Overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution, in N. F. Atlas, S. K. Huber, E. W. Trachte-Huber (eds), Alternative Dispute Resolution. The Litigator’s Handbook, Chicago 2000, pp. 1-16. Gutiérrez García 1991 = C. Gutiérrez García, Notas sobre el Arbiter Romano y su posible relación con el iudex, in “Anales de la Universidad de Alicante – Facultad de Derecho” 6 (1991), pp. 139-146. Halla-aho 2018 = H. Halla-aho, Left-Dislocation in Latin. Topix and Syntax in Republican Texts, Leiden-Boston 2018. Harries 2001 = J. Harries, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity, Cambridge 2001. Harris 2018 = E. M. Harris, Trials, Private Arbitration, and Public Arbitration in Classical Athens or the Background to [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 53, 1-7, in C. Bearzot, M. Canevaro, T. Gargiulo, E. Poddighe (eds), Athenaion Politeiai tra storia, politica e sociologia: Aristotele e Pseudo-Senofonte, Milano 2018, pp. 213-230. Harris 1972 = W. V. Harris, Was Roman Law imposed on the Italian Allies?, in “Historia” 21 (1972), pp. 639-645. Harris 1979 = W. V. Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 bc, Oxford 1979. Harris 1989 = W. V. Harris, Roman expansion in the West, in Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 a.C., in A. E. Astin, F. W. Walbank, M. W. Frederiksen, R. M. Ogilvie (eds), Cambridge Ancient History, VIII 2, Cambridge 1989, pp. 107-162. Harris 2007 = W. V. Harris, Q uando e come l’Italia divenne per la prima volta l’Italia? Un saggio sulla politica dell’identità, in “Studi Storici” 48, 2 (2007), pp. 301-322. Häussler 2013 = R. Häussler, Becoming Roman? Diverging identities and experiences in ancient north-west Italy, Walnut Creek (CA) 2013. Heuss 1933 = A. Heuss, Die völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der römischen Aussenpolitik in republikanischer Zeit, Leipzig 1933. Hewitt 2008 = A. Hewitt, Universal Justice and Epieikeia in Aristotle, in “Polis” 25, 1 (2008), pp. 115-130. 216 GIFBIB_21.indb 216 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY Hey 1901 = O. Hey, s.v. arbiter, in Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, II 2, Lipsiae 1901, coll. 404-407. Hölkeskamp 1993 = K. J. Hölkeskamp, Conquest, Competition and Consensus: Roman Expansion in Italy and the Rise of the “Nobilitas”, in “Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte” 42, 1 (1993), pp. 12-39. Holleaux 1921 = M. Holleaux, Rome, la Grèce, et les Monarchies Hellénistiques au IIIe siècle avant J.-C. (273-205), Paris 1921. Horn 1930 = H. Horn, Foederati. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte ihrer Rechtsstellung im Zeitalter der römischen Republik und des frühen Prinzipats, Frankfurt 1930. Humm 2010 = M. Humm, Le concept d’Italie: des premiers colons grecs à la réorganisation augustéenne, in AA.VV., Mémories d’Italie. Identités, repésentations, enjeux (Antiquité et classicisme). À l’occasion du 150ème anniversaire de l’Unité italienne (1861-2001), Como 2010, pp. 36-66. Izzo 2013 = S. Izzo, La convenzione arbitrale nel processo. Studio sui rapporti tra arbitrato e giurisdizioni statuali, Torino 2013. János 2014 = E. János, Utilitas as the Delineation of the Common Good in Roman Law, in “Pázmány Law Working Papers” 18 (2014), pp. 1-6. Jehne 2009 = M. Jehne, Diplomacy in Italy in the Second Century bc, in C. Eilers (ed.), Diplomats and Diplomacy in the Roman World, Leiden-Boston 2009, pp. 143-170. Jia 2002 = W. Jia, Chinese Mediation and its Cultural Foundation, in G. Chen, R. Ma (eds), Chinese Conflict Management and Resolution, Norwood (N.J.) 2002, pp. 289-296. Kallet-Marx 1996 = R. M. Kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire. The Development of the Roman Imperium in the East from 148 to 62 b.c., Berkeley 1996. Karabélias 1996 = E. Karabélias, L’arbitrage privé dans Athènes classique, in G. Thür, J. Velissaropoulos-Karakostas (eds), Symposion 1995. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, Köln-Weimar-Wien 1997, pp. 135-149. Kaščeev 1997 = V. Kaščeev, Schiedsgericht und Vermittlung in den Beziehungen zwischen den hellenistischen Staaten und Rom, in “Historia” 46 (1997), pp. 419-433. Kaser 1942 = M. Kaser, Die Typen der römischen Bodenrechte in der späteren Republik, in “Zeitschrift für Savigny Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte; Romanistische Abteilung” 62 (1942), pp. 1-81. 217 GIFBIB_21.indb 217 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Kaser 1966 = M. Kaser, Das Römische Zivilprozessrecht, München 1966. Keay, Terrenato 2001 = S. Keay, N. Terrenato (eds), Comparative Issues on Romanization, Oxford 2001. Keppie 1983 = L. Keppie, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy 47-14 b.c., London 1983. Kidane 2017 = W. L. Kidane, The Culture of International Arbitration, Oxford-New York 2017. Kleiboer 1996 = M. Kleiboer, Understanding Success and Failure of International Mediation, in “Journal of Conflict Resolution” 40, 2 (1996), pp. 360-389. Kolb 2016a = A. Kolb, The Romans and the World’s Measure, in S. Bianchetti, M. R. Cataudella, H.-J. Gehrke (eds), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Geography. The Inhabited World in Greek and Roman Tradition, Leiden-Boston 2016, pp. 223-238. Kolb 2016b = A. Kolb, The importance of internal borders in the Roman Empire: Written sources and model cases, in P. Della Casa, E. Deschler-Erb (eds), Rome’s Internal Frontiers. Proceedings of the 2016 RAC session in Rome, [in “Zurich Studies in Archaeology” 11 (2016)], pp. 11-16. Köster 2014 = I. K. Köster, Feasting Centaurs and Destructive Consuls in Cicero’s In Pisonem, in “Illinois Classical Studies” 39 (2014), pp. 63-79. Kraus 1992 = C. S. Kraus, How (Not?) to End a Sentence: The Problem of -Q ue, in “Harvard Studies in Classical Philology” 94 (1992), pp. 321-329. La China 2011 = S. La China, L’arbitrato. Il sistema e l’esperienza, Milano 2011. Laffi 1966 = U. Laffi, Adtributio e contributio. Problemi del sistema politico amministrativo dello stato romano, Pisa 1966. Laffi 1983 = U. Laffi, I senati locali nell’Italia repubblicana, in AA.VV., Les “Bourgeoisies” municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier siècles av. J.-C. Actes du Colloque International du CNRS n. 609 (Naples 1981), Naples 1983, pp. 59-74. Laffi 1990 = U. Laffi, Il sistema di alleanze italico, in G. Clemente, F. Coarelli, E. Gabba (eds), Storia di Roma, II 1, Torino 1990, pp. 285-304. Laffi 1992 = U. Laffi, La provincia della Gallia Cisalpina, in “Athenaeum” 80 (1992), pp. 5-23. Laffi 2001a = U. Laffi, Il sistema di alleanze italico, in U. Laffi (ed.), Studi di storia romana e di diritto, Roma 2001, pp. 17-44. 218 GIFBIB_21.indb 218 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY Laffi 2001b = U. Laffi, La provincia della Gallia Cisalpina, in U. Laffi (ed.), Studi di storia romana e di diritto, Roma 2001, pp. 209-235. Laffi 2001c = U. Laffi, L’ager compascuus, in U. Laffi (ed.), Studi di storia romana e di diritto, Roma 2001, pp. 381-412. Lamberti 2010 = F. Lamberti, “Civitas Romana” e diritto latino fra tarda repubblica e primo principato, in “Index” 38 (2010), pp. 227-235. Lamboglia 1939 = N. Lamboglia, Liguria romana, I, Alassio 1939. Lamboglia 1941 = N. Lamboglia, Storia di Genova, I, Milano 1941. Lanata 1989 = G. Lanata, Esercizi di memoria, Bari 1989. La Pira 1936 = G. La Pira, ‘Compromissum’ e ‘litis contestatio’ formulare, in AA.VV., Studi in onore di S. Riccobono nel XL anno del suo insegnamento, II, Palermo 1936, pp. 210-234. La Regina 1976 = A. La Regina, Sannio: Pietrabbondante, in “Studi Etruschi” 44 (1976), pp. 283-295. La Regina 2000 = A. La Regina, Il trattato tra Abella e Nola per l’uso comune del santuario di Ercole e di un fondo adiacente, in AA.VV., Studi sull’Italia dei Sanniti, Roma 2000, pp. 214-222. La Rocca 1971 = E. La Rocca, Introduzione allo studio di Nola antica, Roma 1971. Latte 1940 = K. Latte, Livy’s Patavinitas, in “Classical Philology” 35 (1940), pp. 56-60. Launaro 2006-2007 = A. Launaro, La Val Polcevera dalla seconda Età del Ferro alla fine dell’Evo Antico, in “Rivista di Studi Liguri” 72-73 (2006-2007), pp. 5-12. Laurence 1999 = R. Laurence, The Roads of Roman Italy. Mobility and Cultural Change, London-New York 1999. Lazzarini 2017 = S. Lazzarini, Romanizzazione in Transpadana: evidenze archeologiche e profili giuridici, in S. Lazzarini (ed.), Incorrupta Antiquitas. Studi di Storia, Epigrafia e Diritto in memoria di Giorgio Luraschi. Atti dell’Incontro di Studio di Como (25-26 maggio 2012), Cermenate (CO) 2017, pp. 9-21. Lemosse 1966 = M. Lemosse, Réflexion sur la conception romaine de l’arbitrage international, in AA.VV., Aktuelle Fragen aus modernem Recht und Rechtsgeschichte. Gedächtnisschrift für Rudolf Schmidt, Berlin 1996, pp. 340-348. Lenel 1927 = O. Lenel, Das Edictum perpetuum. Ein Versuch zu seiner Wiederherstellung, Leipzig, 1927. Le Roux 2004 = P. Le Roux, La romanisation en question, in “Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales” 2 (2004), pp. 287-311. 219 GIFBIB_21.indb 219 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Levi 1996 = M. A. Levi, Libarna e la Via Postumia, in S. Finocchi (ed.), Libarna, Castelnuovo Scrivia (AL) 1996, pp. 47-49. Linderski 1995 = J. Linderski, Ambassadors go to Rome, in E. Frézouls, A. Jacquemin (eds), Les Relations Internationales. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg (15-17 juin 1993), Paris 1995, pp. 453-478. Liverani 1998 = M. Liverani (ed.), Le lettere di El-Amarna. Vol. 1: Le lettere dei “Piccoli Re”, Brescia 1998. Liverani 1999 = M. Liverani, Le lettere di El-Amarna. Vol. 2: Le lettere dei “Grandi Re”, Brescia 1999. Lobrano 2004 = G. Lobrano, La respublica romana, municipale-federativa e tribunizia: modello costituzionale attuale, in “Diritto @ Storia” 3 (2004), pp. 1-29. Lombardi 1947 = G. Lombardi, Sul concetto di ius gentium, Roma 1947. Longchamps de Bérier 2013 = F. Longchamps de Bérier, L’abuso del diritto nell’esperienza del diritto privato romano, Torino 2013. Lo Porto 1952 = F. G. Lo Porto, Una necropoli di età repubblicana nell’Alessandrino, in “Rivista di Studi Liguri” 17, 1-2 (1952), pp. 46-66. Lovato, Puliatti, Solidoro Maruotti 2014 = A. Lovato, S. Puliatti, L. Solidoro Maruotti, Diritto privato romano, Torino 2014. Luraschi 1979 = G. Luraschi, Foedus, ius Latii, civitas: aspetti costituzionali della romanizzazione in Transpadana, Padova 1979. Luraschi 1980 = G. Luraschi, A proposito dei Ligures Statiellates transducti trans Padum nel 172 a.C. (Liv. 42.22.5-6), in “Annali Benacensi” 7 (1980), pp. 73-80. Luraschi 1986 = G. Luraschi, Aspetti giuridici della romanizzazione del Bruzio. A proposito del volume Istituzioni e forme costituzionali nelle città del Bruzio in età romana, in “Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris” 52 (1986), pp. 493-516. Luraschi 1988 = G. Luraschi, Sull’origine dell’adtributio, in AA.VV., Diritto e società nel mondo romano. I. Atti di un Incontro di Studio (Pavia, 21 aprile 1988), Como 1988, pp. 43-71. Luraschi 1989 = G. Luraschi, Problemi giuridici della romanizzazione delle Alpi: origine della “adtributio”, in AA.VV., Die Römer in den Alpen. I Romani nelle Alpi. Historikertagung in Salzburg (13-15 XI 1986), Bozen 1989, pp. 249-269. Luttwak 1976 = E. N. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire from the First Century ad to the Third, Baltimore-London 1976. 220 GIFBIB_21.indb 220 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY Maddoli 1982 = G. Maddoli, Contatti antichi del mondo latino col mondo greco, in AA.VV., Alle origini del latino. Atti del Convegno della SIG (Pisa, 7-8 dicembre 1980), Pisa 1982, pp. 43-64. Maganzani 2016 = L. Maganzani, Il nuovo catasto di Verona. Analisi storico-giuridica, in “Iuris Antiqui Historia” 8 (2016), pp. 87-112. Maganzani 2017 = L. Maganzani, Per una revisione del concetto di ‘colonizzazione fittizia’ in Transpadana: nuovi dati da Verona, in P. Ferretti, M. Fiorentini, D. Rossi (eds), Il governo del territorio nell’esperienza storico-giuridica, Trieste 2017, pp. 57-85. Magnetto 1997 = A. Magnetto (ed.), Gli arbitrati interstatali greci. 2: Dal 337 al 196 a.C., Pisa 1997. Magnetto 2015 = A. Magnetto, L’arbitrato dei Romani nel rapporto con la diplomazia dei Greci. Alcuni spunti di riflessione, in B. Grass, G. Stouder (eds), J.-L. Ferrary, S. Pittia, P. Sanchez (coll.), La diplomatie romaine sous la République: réflexions sur une pratique, Besançon 2015, pp. 65-85. Maiuri 2017 = A. Maiuri, Hostis, hospes, extraneus. Divagazioni etimoantropologiche sul senso dell’alterità nella civiltà romana, in S. Botta, M. Ferrara, A. Saggioro (eds), La Storia delle religioni e la sfida dei pluralismi. Atti del Convegno della Società Italiana di Storia delle Religioni (Roma, Sapienza, 8-9 aprile 2016), Brescia 2017, pp. 455466. Malnati 2011 = L. Malnati, L’organizzazione del potere prima del dominio romano: dalle forme di governo tribali alla res publica, in F. Marzatico, R. Gebhard (eds), Le grandi vie della civiltà. Relazioni e scambi fra Mediterraneo e il centro Europa dalla preistoria alla romanità, Trento 2011, pp. 239-253. Mannoni 1983 = T. Mannoni, Usi storico-didattici dell’archeologia globale del territorio. L’esempio della Val Polcevera, in L. Còveri, D. Moreno (eds), Studi di etnografia e dialettologia ligure in memoria di Hugo Plonteux, Genova 1983, pp. 149-159. Mannoni 1995 = T. Mannoni, Venticinque anni di Archeologia Globale. 2: Insediamenti abbandonati, Genova 1995. Marinetti 1985 = A. Marinetti, Le iscrizioni sudpicene. I: Testi, Firenze 1985. Marinetti 2000 = A. Marinetti, La romanizzazione linguistica della Penisola, in J. Hermann, A. Marinetti, L. Mondin (eds), La preistoria dell’italiano. Atti della Tavola rotonda di linguistica storica (Università Ca’ Foscari Di Venezia, 11-13 Giugno 1998), Tübingen 2000, pp. 61-79. Marinetti 2008 = A. Marinetti, Aspetti della romanizzazione linguistica nella Cisalpina orientale, in G. Urso (ed.), Patria diversis gentibus 221 GIFBIB_21.indb 221 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC una? Unità politica e identità etniche nell’Italia antica, Pisa 2008, pp. 147-169. Marinetti, Cresci Marrone 2011 = A. Marinetti, G. Cresci Marrone, Ideologia della delimitazione spaziale in area veneta nei documenti epigrafici, in G. Cantino Wataghin, C. Colombara (eds), Finem dare. Il confine tra sacro, profano e immaginario. A margine della stele bilingue del Museo Leone di Vercelli. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Vercelli, 22-24 maggio 2008), Vercelli 2011, pp. 287-311. Marrone 1996 = M. Marrone, Sull’arbitrato privato nell’esperienza giuridica romana, in “Rivista dell’arbitrato” 6, 1 (1996) [online]. Marrone 2004 = M. Marrone, Manuale di diritto privato romano, Torino 2004. Marshall 1980 = A. J. Marshall, The Survival and Development of International Jurisdiction in the Greek World under Roman Rule, in ANRW II 13, 1980, pp. 626-661. Martino 1986 = P. Martino, Arbiter, Roma 1986. Mastino 2013 = I. Mastino, “Utilitas valuit propter honestatem”: Cicerone e il principio giuridico dell’utilitas, in “Diritto @ Storia” 11 (2013), pp. 5-26 [online]. Matteazzi 2017 = M. Matteazzi, All the Roads to Patavium: Morphology, Genesis and Development of the Roman Road Network Around Padua, in “Open Archaeology” 3 (2017), pp. 83-100. Matthaei 1908 = L. E. Matthaei, The Place of Arbitration and Mediation in Ancient Systems of International Ethics, in “The Classical Q uarterly” 2 (1908), pp. 241-264. Mazzarino 1945 = S. Mazzarino, Dalla monarchia allo stato repubblicano: ricerche di storia romana arcaica, Catania 1945. Mazzarino 1966 = S. Mazzarino, Il pensiero storico classico, I, Bari 1966. McDougal 1992 = I. McDougal, The Reputation of Appius Claudius Pulcher, cos. 143 b.c., in “Hermes” 120, 4 (1992), pp. 452-460. Melli 2001 = P. Melli, La Liguria Centrale. La Via Postumia, in R. Luccardini (ed.), Vie Romane in Liguria, Genova 2001, pp. 95-102. Menchelli, Pasquinucci 2004 = S. Menchelli, M. Pasquinucci, Ibi termina duo stant circum viam Postumiam. La via Postumia tra Genua e Libarna, in AA.VV., Insediamenti e territorio: viabilità in Liguria tra I e VII secolo d.C. Atti del Convegno di Studio (Bordighera, 30 novembre-1 dicembre 2000), Bordighera (IM) 2004, pp. 185-201. Mennella 1995 = G. Mennella, per una riedizione della Tavola di Polcevera, in A. M. Pastorino (ed.), La Tavola di Polcevera. Una sentenza incisa nel bronzo 2100 anni fa, Genova 1995, pp. 69-79. 222 GIFBIB_21.indb 222 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY Mennella 1998 = G. Mennella, Tavola di Polcevera, in G. Sena Chiesa, M. P. Lavizzari (eds), Tesori della Postumia. Archeologia e storia intorno a una grande strada romana alle radici dell’Europa. Catalogo della Mostra (Cremona, 4 aprile - 26 luglio 1998), Milano 1998, pp. 268-270. Mennella 2004 = G. Mennella, La Tavola di Polcevera, in R. C. De Marinis, G. Spadea (eds), I Liguri. Un antico popolo europeo tra Alpi e Mediterraneo, Ginevra-Milano 2004, pp. 522-523 [con traduzione a cura di G. Petracco Sicardi]. Mennella 2014 = G. Mennella, Genova da comunità federata a municipio di Roma, in P. Melli (ed.), Genova dalle origini all’anno Mille. Archeologia e storia, Genova 2014, pp. 99-105. Mercando 1990 = L. Mercando, Note su alcune città del Piemonte settentrionale, in AA.VV., La Città nell’Italia settentrionale in età romana. Morfologia, strutture e funzionamento dei centri urbani delle Regiones X e XI. Atti del Convegno di Trieste (13-15 marzo 1987), Rome 1990, pp. 441-478. Merotto 2016 = M. F. Merotto, ‘Ager compascuus’: un esempio di vincolo di destinazione di interesse pubblico, in L. Garofalo (ed.), I beni di interesse pubblico nell’esperienza giuridica romana, I, Napoli 2016, pp. 193-223. Migliario 2010 = E. Migliario, Anticipi di romanizzazione: pianificare, dividere, delimitare gli spazi nel mondo veneto, in “Geographia Antiqua” 19 (2010), pp. 99-114. Migliario 2011-2012 = E. Migliario, Le Alpi di Strabone, in “Geographia Antiqua” 20-21 (2011-2012), pp. 25-34. Migliario 2012 = E. Migliario, Etnografia e storia delle Alpi nella Geografia di Strabone, in R. Bargnesi, R. Scuderi (eds), Il paesaggio e l’esperienza. Scritti di antichità offerti a Pierluigi Tozzi in occasione del suo 75° compleanno, Pavia 2012, pp. 107-122. Migliario 2014 = E. Migliario, A proposito di penetrazione romana e controllo territoriale nel Piemonte orientale: qualche considerazione, in M. Chiabà (ed.), Hoc quoque laboris praemium. Scritti in onore di Gino Bandelli, Trieste 2014, pp. 343-358. Migne 1849-1855 = J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, Paris 1849-1855, CXLVIII, col. 421. Milotić 2013 = I. Milotić, An outline of the arbitral procedure in roman law, in “Forum Historiae Iuris” (2013), [online ]. Mineo 2011 = B. Mineo, Principal Literary Sources for the Punic Wars (apart from Polybius), in D. Hoyos (ed.), A Companion to the Punic Wars, Malden-Oxford 2011, pp. 111-127. 223 GIFBIB_21.indb 223 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Mommsen 1854 = Th. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, I, Leipzig 1854. Mommsen 1887 = Th. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, III, Berlin 1887. Monaco 1936 = G. Monaco, Libarna, (Forma Italiae, Regio IX, vol. 1), Roma 1936. Montanelli 2004 = I. Montanelli, Storia dei Greci, Milano 2004. Morandi 1982 = A. Morandi, Epigrafia Italica, Roma 1982. Morelli 1967 = G. Morelli, Nozioni di diritto internazionale, Padova 1967. Mratscheck 1984 = S. Mratschek, Est enim ille flos Italiae. Literatur und Gesellschaft in der Transpadana, in “Athenaeum” 62 (1984), pp. 154-180. Musti 1978 = D. Musti, Polibio e l’imperialismo romano, Napoli 1978. Nicolet 1987 = C. Nicolet, La Table d’Heraclée et les origines du cadastre Romain, in AA.VV., L’Urbs. Espace urbain et histoire. Actes du Colloque International (Rome, 8-12 mai 1985), Rome 1987, pp. 1-25. Noailles 1948 = P. Noailles, Fas et jus. Études de droit romain, Paris 1948. Noé 1979 = E. Noè, Ricerche su Dionigi d’Alicarnasso: la prima stasis a Roma e l’episodio di Coriolano, in AA.VV., Ricerche di storiografia greca di età romana, Pisa 1979, pp. 21-116. Olivieri 2013 = R. Olivieri, Relitti lessicali e onomastici liguri negli autori e nei documenti classici, Milano 2013. Pallavicino 2002 = E. Pallavicino (ed.), I Libri Iurium della Repubblica di Genova, I 8, Genova 2002. Palma 1982 = A. Palma, Le strade romane nelle dottrine giuridiche e gromatiche dell’età del principato, in ANRW II 14, 1982, pp. 850-880. Panzarini = G. Panzarini, I profili di modernità degli arbitrati greci e romani nei principi e nelle regole tecniche da essi trapassati, con sorprendenti coincidenze, negli arbitrati odierni, in AA.VV., Governo dell’impresa e mercato delle regole. Scritti giuridici per Guido Rossi, II, Milano 2002, pp. 1203-1256. Paricio 1984 = J. Paricio, Notas sobre la sentencia del ‘arbiter ex compromisso’. Sanción contra el árbitro que nodió sentencia, in “Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquitè” 31 (1984), pp. 297-301. Paricio 1987 = J. Paricio, Sobre la administración de la justicia en Roma. Los juramentos de los jueces privados, Madrid, 1987. Parisi 2011 = D. Parisi, Caio Atinio Labeone: il vero fondatore del territorio Summano, in “Summana” n.s. 71 (2011), pp. 94-100. 224 GIFBIB_21.indb 224 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY Partsch 1905 = J. Partsch, Die Schriftformel im römischen Provinzialprozesse, Breslau 1905. Pasquinucci 1995 = M. Pasquinucci, Ricerche archeologico-topografiche in Val Polcevera, in A. M. Pastorino (ed.), La Tavola di Polcevera. Una sentenza incisa nel bronzo 2100 anni fa, Genova 1995, pp. 52-58. Pasquinucci 1998 = M. Pasquinucci, La via Postumia da Genova a Libarna, in G. Sena Chiesa, M. P. Lavizzari (eds), Tesori della Postumia. Archeologia e storia intorno a una grande strada romana alle radici dell’Europa. Catalogo della Mostra (Cremona, 4 aprile 26 luglio 1998), Milano 1998, pp. 213-215. Pasquinucci 2004a = M. Pasquinucci, Premessa. VII. I nuovi assetti: dalla sconfitta alla prima età imperiale, in R. C. De Marinis, G. Spadea (eds), I Liguri. Un antico popolo europeo fra Alpi e Mediterraneo, Ginevra-Milano 2004, p. 447. Pasquinucci 2004b = M. Pasquinucci, La Sententia Minuciorum e la Val Polcevera: territorio, popolamento, ‘terminatio’, in R. C. De Marinis, G. Spadea (eds), I Liguri. Un antico popolo europeo tra Alpi e Mediterraneo, Ginevra-Milano 2004, pp. 476-477. Pasquinucci 2014 = M. Pasquinucci, La Tavola del Polcevera e le tribù delle valli di Genova, in P. Melli (ed.), Genova dalle origini all’anno mille, Genova 2014, pp. 107-112. Pastorino 1981 = A. M. Pastorino, Recenti acquisizioni archeologiche in Valle Scrivia, in L. Tacchella (ed.), Busalla e la Valle Scrivia nella storia, Verona 1981, pp. 468-473. Pastorino 1995 = A. M. Pastorino (ed.), La Tavola di Polcevera. Una sentenza incisa nel bronzo 2100 anni fa, Genova 1995. Pastorino, Pedemonte 1999 = M. V. Pastorino, S. Pedemonte, Nuove segnalazioni archeologiche di superficie a Isola del Cantone e primi confronti con la toponomastica antica, in “In Novitate” 14, 27 (1999), pp. 115-124. Pastorino, Traverso 2015 = M. V. Pastorino, A. Traverso, Alta Valle Scrivia vent’anni di testimonianze pre e protostoriche, in “I Q uaderni di Ivo” 6 (2015), pp. 101-117. Pastorino, Venturino Gambari 1991 = M. V. Pastorino, M. Venturino Gambari, La tomba preromana di Libarna: archeologia e restauro di un ritrovamento dei primi del 900, Novi Ligure (AL) 1991. Patterson 2006 = J. R. Patterson, The Relationship of the Italian Ruling Classes with Rome: Friendship, Family Relations and their Consequences, in M. Jehne, R. Pfeilschifter (eds), Herrschaft ohne Integration? Rom und Italien in Republikanischer Zeit, Frankfurt am Main 2006, pp. 139-153. 225 GIFBIB_21.indb 225 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Paulsson 2010 = J. Paulsson, Cultural Differences in Advocacy in International Arbitration, in R. D. Bishop, E. G. Kehoe (eds), The Art of Advocacy in International Arbitration, New York 2010, pp. 15-21. Paulsson 2013 = J. Paulsson, The Idea of Arbitration, Oxford-New York 2013. Pavese 2000 = M. Pavese, Territorio, diritto e organizzazione fondiaria nella Valle del Belbo in età romana, Città di Canelli (AT) 2000. Pavoni 2008 = R. Pavoni, La valle dagli antichi liguri alla conquista genovese, in R. Pavoni, E. Podestà (eds), La Valle dell’Orba dalle origini alla nascita degli stati regionali, I, Ovada (AL) 2008, pp. 1-170. Pavoni, Podestà 2008 = R. Pavoni, E. Podestà (eds), La Valle dell’Orba dalle origini alla nascita degli stati regionali, I, Ovada (AL) 2008. Pedemonte 2018 = S. Pedemonte, La tavola di bronzo della Val Polcevera e la Via Postumia, in “Novinostra in Novitate” 6 (2018), pp. 12-36. Pedroni 2009 = L. Pedroni, Roma, Luna e i Liguri, in “Analecta Romana Instituti Danici” 34 (2009), pp. 7-18. Pelloso 2012 = C. Pelloso, ‘Giudicare’ e ‘decidere’ in Roma arcaica. Contributo alla contestualizzazione storico-giuridica di Tab. 1.8, in L. Garofalo (a cura di), Il giudice privato nel processo civile romano. Omaggio ad Alberto Burdese, I, Lavis (TN) 2012, pp. 59-128. Perelli 1981 = L. Perelli, Sulla localizzazione delle miniere d’oro dei Salassi, in “Bollettino Storico-Bibliografico Subalpino” 79 (1981), pp. 341-353. Petraccia 1988 = M. F. Petraccia, I questori municipali dell’Italia antica, Roma 1988. Petraccia 2019 = M. F. Petraccia, Capidas a proposito. Note storicoprosopografiche a margine di CIL XI 5390, in “Atti dell’Accademia Properziana del Subasio” 1 (2019), pp. 23-36. Petracco Sicardi 1958-1959 = G. Petracco Sicardi, Ricerche topografiche e linguistiche sulla tavola di Polcevera, in “Studi Genuensi” 2 (19581959), pp. 3-49. Petracco Sicardi 1985 = G. Petracco Sicardi, Topografia storica, toponomastica, insediamenti e organizzazione del territorio, in “Studi e ricerche. Cultura del territorio” 2 (1985), pp. 87-92. Petracco Sicardi 1989 = G. Petracco Sicardi, Studi linguistici sull’anfizionia Liguria Provenza, Genova 1989. Pettirossi 2012 = V. Pettirossi, Iulia Dertona, in “Supplementa Italica” n.s. 26 (2012), pp. 55-187. 226 GIFBIB_21.indb 226 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY Peyre 1979 = C. Peyre, La Cisalpine gauloise du IIIe au Ier siècle avant J.-C., Paris 1979. Piana Agostinetti 1996 = P. Piana Agostinetti, La monetazione romana dell’Italia nord-occidentale, in AA.VV., La monetazione preromana dell’Italia Settentrionale. Approvvigionamento del metallo, coniazione, circolazione. Atti dell’Incontro di Studio (Bordighera, 16-17 settembre 1994), Bordighera (IM) 1996, pp. 195-218. Piazza 2007 = F. Piazza, Il senso delle circostanze. L’epieikeia in Aristotele, in “Forme di vita” 6 (2007), pp. 68-82. Piazza 2009 = F. Piazza, La virtù di Emone: Riflessioni sull’epieikeia greca, in “Aevum Antiquum” 9 (2009), pp. 3-36. Piccirilli 1973 = L. Piccirilli (ed.), Gli arbitrati interstatali greci, Vol. 1. Dalle origini al 338 a.C., Pisa 1973. Piegdoń 2013 = M. Piegdoń, Coloniam deducere. Colonisation as an Instrument of the Roman Policy of Domination in Italy in the 3rd and 2nd Centuries bc, as illustrated by Settlements in the Ager Gallicus and Picenum, in “Electrum” 20 (2013), pp. 117-141. Piergiovanni 1999 = V. Piergiovanni, L’arbitrato. Profili storici dal diritto romano al diritto medievale e moderno, in G. Alpa, F. Benatti (eds), L’arbitrato. Profili sostanziali e processuali, Torino 1999, pp. 5-15. Pipino 2005 = G. Pipino, Liguria mineraria. Miscellanea di giacimentologia e storia estrattiva, Predosa (AL) 2005. Pisani 1964 = V. Pisani, Le lingue dell’Italia antica oltre il latino, Torino 1964. Pisani 1974 = V. Pisani, Grammatica latina storica e comparativa4, Torino 1974. Poccetti 1979 = P. Poccetti, Nuovi documenti italici a complemento del Manuale di E. Vetter, Pisa 1979. Poccetti 1983 = P. Poccetti, Sul formulario dell’epigrafia ufficiale italica, in “Athenaeum” 51 (1983), pp. 178-198. Poggi 1900 = G. Poggi, Genoati e Viturii, in “Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria” 30 (1900), pp. 1-407. Poggi 1904 = G. Poggi, Genova preromana, romana e medievale, Genova 1904. Polverini 2010 = L. Polverini, L’estensione del nome Italia fino alle Alpi e la provincia Gallia Cisalpina, in “Geographia Antiqua” 19 (2010), pp. 115-121. Ponte 2007 = V. Ponte, Regimen juridico de las vias publicas en derecho romano, Madrid 2007. 227 GIFBIB_21.indb 227 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Prandi 1998 = L. Prandi, Clemenza e impero nell’esperienza ateniese (Thuc. III, 40, 2-3), in M. Sordi (ed.), Responsabilità, perdono e vendetta nel mondo antico, Milano 1998, pp. 97-110. Prosdocimi 1978a = A. L. Prosdocimi, L’Umbro, in A. L. Prosdocimi (ed.), Lingue e dialetti dell’Italia antica (= Popoli e civiltà dell’Italia antica VI), Roma-Padova 1978, pp. 585-787. Prosdocimi 1978b = A. L. Prosdocimi, L’Osco, in A. L. Prosdocimi (ed.), Lingue e dialetti dell’Italia antica (= Popoli e civiltà dell’Italia antica VI), Roma-Padova 1978, pp. 825-912. Prosdocimi 1980 = A. L. Prosdocimi, Studi sull’Italico, in “Studi Etruschi” 48 (1980), pp. 430-436. Prosdocimi 1984 = A. L. Prosdocimi, Le Tavole Iguvine, I, Firenze 1984. Prosdocimi 2015 = A. L. Prosdocimi, Le Tavole Iguvine. Preliminari all’interpretazione. La testualità: fatti e metodi, II, Firenze 2015. Pugliese 1991 = G. Pugliese, Istituzioni di diritto romano, Torino 1991. Pugliese, Vacca, Sitzia 2012 = G. Pugliese, L. Vacca, F. Sitzia, Istituzioni di diritto romano, Torino 2012. Pulgram 1960 = E. Pulgram, The Oscan Cippus Abellanus: a new interpretation, in “The American Journal of Philology” 81 (1960), pp. 16-29. Purcell 1990 = N. Purcell, The Creation of Provincial Landscape: The Roman Impact on Cisalpine Gaul, in T. Blagg, M. Millett (eds), The Early Roman Empire in the West, Oxford 1990, pp. 7-29. Q uadri 1968 = R. Q uadri, Diritto internazionale pubblico, Napoli 1968. Q uindici 1984 = V. Q uindici, Nola antica, Nola 1984. Radke 1964 = G. Radke, Die Erschließung Italiens durch die römischen Straßen, in “Gymnasium” 71 (1964), pp. 204-235. Raeder 1912 = A. Raeder, L’arbitrage international chez les Héllènes, Kristiania 1912. Reynolds 1982 = J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome: Documents from the Excavation of the Theatre at Aphrodisias, London 1982. Richer 2005 = N. Richer, La violence dans les mondes grec et romain. Introduction, in J.-M. Bertrand (ed.), La violence dans les mondes grec et romain. Actes du Colloque International (Paris, 2-4 mai 2002), Paris 2005, pp. 7-35. Rinolfi 2010 = C. M. A. Rinolfi, “Episcopalis audientia” e arbitrato, in S. Puliatti, U. Agnati (eds), Principi generali e tecniche operative 228 GIFBIB_21.indb 228 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY del processo civile romano nei secoli IV-VI d.C. Atti del Convegno (Parma, 18 e 19 giugno 2009), Parma 2010, pp. 191-239. Roberts 1979 = S. Roberts, Order and Dispute. An Introduction to Legal Anthropology, Harmondsworth 1979. Rodríguez Luño 1997 = A. Rodríguez Luño, La virtù dell’epicheia. Teoria, storia e applicazione (I). Dalla Grecia classica fino a F. Suárez, in “Acta Philosophica” 6, 2 (1997), pp. 197-236. Rosenstein 1986 = N. Rosenstein, Imperatores Victi: The Case of C. Hostilius Mancinus, in “Classical Antiquity” 5, 2 (1986), pp. 230-252. Rosenstein 2007 = N. Rosenstein, War and Peace, Fear and Reconciliation at Rome, in K. A. Raaflaub (ed.), War and Peace in the Ancient World, Malden-Oxford-Carlton 2007, pp. 226-244. Rosina 2007 = A. Rosina, Introduzione, in G. Amiotti, A. Rosina (eds), Identità e integrazione. Passato e presente delle minoranze nell’Europa mediterranea, Milano 2007, pp. 79-82. Rostovzeff 1941 = M. Rostovzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I-III, Oxford 1941. Rouland 1991 = N. Rouland, Aus confins du droit. Anthropologie juridique de la modernité, Paris 1991. Rousset 1994 = D. Rousset, Les frontières des cités grecques: premières réflexions à partir du recueil des documents épigraphiques, in “Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz” 5 (1994), pp. 97-126. Rudorff 1857-1859 = A. F. Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, I, Lipsia 1857-1859. Rykwert 1976 = J. Rykwert, The Idea of a Town. The Anthropology of Urban Form in Rome, Italy and the Ancient World, Princeton 1976. Sacchi 2005 = O. Sacchi, Le nozioni di Stato e di proprietà in Panezio e l’influenza della dottrina stoica sulla giurisprudenza romana dell’epoca scipionico-cesariana, in “Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité” 52 (2005), pp. 325-357. Salmon 1967 = E. T. Salmon, Samnium and the Samnites, Cambridge 1967. Salomone Gaggero 2006 = E. Salomone Gaggero, Dertona fra il II e il I secolo a.C., in AA.VV. Dertona Historia Patriae. Storia di Tortona dalla preistoria a oggi, II, Tortona 2006, pp. 71-126. Salvioli 1957 = G. Salvioli, s.v. Controversie internazionali, in Novissimo Digesto italiano, IV, Torino 1957, p. 118. Salzani 1990 = L. Salzani (ed.), Ritrovamenti archeologici nel Veronese, in “Q uaderni di Archeologia del Veneto” 6 (1990), pp. 189-195. 229 GIFBIB_21.indb 229 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Sapienza 2012 = P. Sapienza, La frequentazione romana nella Regio IX. Problematiche insediative e territoriali nel Piemonte sud-occidentale, in “Langhe, Roero, Monferrato, Cultura materiale – società – territorio” 6 (2012), pp. 33-50. Sapienza 2013 = R. Sapienza, Diritto internazionale. Q uattro pezzi facili, Torino 2013. Sartori 1953 = F. Sartori, Problemi di storia costituzionale italiota, Roma 1953. Sartori 1981 = F. Sartori, Padova nello stato romano dal secolo III a.C. all’età dioclezianea, in AA.VV., Padova antica. Da Comunità Paleoveneta a Città Romano-Cristiana, Trieste 1981, pp. 97-189. Šašel Kos 2002 = M. Šašel Kos, Il confine nord-orientale dell’Italia romana. Riesame del problema alla luce di un nuovo documento epigrafico, in “Aquileia Nostra” 73 (2002), pp. 245-260. von Savigny 1814 = F. C. von Savigny, Vom Beruf unserer Zeit für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft, Heidelberg 1814. Scevola 2004 = R. Scevola, La responsabilità del iudex privatus, Milano 2004. Scevola 2012 = R. Scevola, Utilitas publica. Emersione nel pensiero greco e romano, Milano 2012. Schmitt 1972 = C. Schmitt, I tre tipi di pensiero giuridico, in G. Miglio, P. Schiera (eds), Le categorie del ‘politico’, Bologna 1972, pp. 245275. Schmitt 1991 [1950] = C. Schmitt, Il nomos della terra nel diritto internazionale dello “jus publicum europaeum”, Milano 1991 [1950] [trad. it.]. Scolari 2016 = L. Scolari, La fides e la promessa. Forme di reciprocità tra dèi e uomini nella riscrittura di Ovidio, in “I Q uaderni del Ramo d’oro – online” 8 (2016), pp. 112-127. Scuderi 1991a = R. Scuderi, Decreti del Senato per controversie di confine in età repubblicana, in “Athenaeum” 79, 2 (1991), pp. 371415. Scuderi 1991b = R. Scuderi, A proposito dell’inamovibilità e mobilità del confine nell’impero romano, in “Istituto Lombardo di scienze e Lettere” 125, 1 (1991), pp. 3-19. Scuderi 1991c = R. Scuderi, Sul concetto di frontiera nell’impero romano: confini naturali e artificiali, in “Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere” 125, 1 (1991), pp. 41-60. Sena Chiesa 2014 = G. Sena Chiesa, Gli asparagi di Cesare. Studi sulla Cisalpina romana, Firenze 2014. 230 GIFBIB_21.indb 230 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY Sereni 1954 = E. Sereni, La comunità rurale nella Liguria antica e i suoi confini, in “Rivista di Studi Liguri” 20 (1954), pp. 13-42. Sereni 1955 = E. Sereni, Comunità rurali nell’Italia antica, Roma 1955. Serrao 2006 = F. Serrao, Diritto privato, economia e società. I. Dalla società gentilizia alle origini dell’economia schiavistica3, Napoli 2006. Sherman 1918 = G. E. Sherman, Jus Gentium and International Law, in “The American Journal of International Law” 12, 1 (1918), pp. 56-63. Sini 1991 = F. Sini, Bellum Nefandum. Virgilio e il problema del “diritto internazionale antico”, Sassari 1991. Sini 2003 = F. Sini, ‘Guerra giusta’ e sistema giuridico – religioso romano, in A. Calore (ed.), Seminari di storia e di diritto, III. “Guerra giusta”? Le metamorfosi di un concetto antico, Milano 2003, pp. 30-72. Sisani 2006 = S. Sisani, Umbria, Marche, Bari 2006. Sisani 2009 = S. Sisani, Umbrorum gens antiquissima Italiae. Studi sulla società e le istituzioni dell’Umbria preromana, Perugia 2009. Sisani 2012 = S. Sisani, I rapporti tra Mevania e Hispellum, in G. M. Della Fina (ed.), Il Fanum Voltumnae e i santuari comunitari dell’Italia antica. Atti del XIX Convegno Internazionale di Studi sulla Storia e l’Archeologia dell’Etruria, Roma 2012, pp. 409-463. Sisani 2015 = S. Sisani, L’ager publicus in età graccana (133-111 a.C.). Una rilettura testuale, storica e giuridica della lex agraria epigrafica, Roma 2015. Sisani 2016 = S. Sisani, Il significato del termine Italia nella tabula Heracleensis e la data di costituzione a provincia della Gallia Cisalpina, in “Historika” 6 (2016), pp. 83-89. Sitzia 2014 = F. Sitzia, Riflessioni in tema di arbitrato in diritto giustinianeo e bizantino, in “Annali del Seminario giuridico dell’Università degli Studi di Palermo” 57 (2014), pp. 241-264. Sogliano 1937 = A. Sogliano, Pompei nel suo sviluppo storico. Pompei preromana (dalle origini all’a. 80 a.C.), Roma 1937, p. 156. Sotty 1984 = R. Sotty, ‘Condictio incerti’, ‘actio ex stipulatu’ et ‘actio praescriptis verbis’, in V. Giuffrè (ed.), Sodalitas. Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino, V, Napoli 1984, pp. 2478-2501. Spotorno 1854 = G. B. Spotorno (ed.), A. Giustiniani, Annali della Repubblica di Genova, I, Genova 1854. Stahl 1986 = M. Stahl, Herrschaftssicherung und patronale Fürsorge. Zum Schiedsspruch der Minucier für Genua (CIL V,7749) und seiner Rezeption im frühen 16. Jahrhundert, in “Historia” 35 (1986), pp. 280-307. 231 GIFBIB_21.indb 231 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Starace 1988 = V. Starace, s.v. Controversie internazionali, in Enciclopedia Giuridica, IX, Roma 1988, pp. 2-3, 5-7. Suganami 1978 = H. Suganami, A Note on the Origin of the Word ‘International’, in “British Journal of International Studies” 4, 3 (1978), pp. 226-232. Syme 1939 = R. Syme, The Roman Revolution, Oxford 1939. Tacchella 1985 = L. Tacchella, Insediamenti monastici delle Valli Scrivia, Borbera, Lemme, Orba e Stura, Novi Ligure (AL) 1985. Tadmor 1990 = H. Tadmor, Alleanza e dipendenza nell’antica Mesopotamia e in Israele: terminologia e prassi, in L. Canfora, M. Liverani, C. Zaccagni (eds), I trattati nel mondo antico. Forma, ideologia, funzione, Roma 1990, pp. 17-36. Tagliamonte 1997 = G. Tagliamonte, I Sanniti, Caudini, Irpini, Pentri, Carricini, Frentani, Milano 1997. Talamanca 1958 = M. Talamanca, Ricerche in tema di ‘compromissum’, Milano 1958. Talamanca 1998 = M. Talamanca, “Ius gentium” da Adriano ai Severi, in E. Dovere (ed.), La codificazione del diritto dall’antico al moderno, Napoli 1998, pp. 191-227. Talamanca 2015 = M. Talamanca, Istituzioni di diritto romano, Napoli 2015. Tarpin 2014 = M. Tarpin, Strutture territoriali romane: tra complessità ed efficienza, in B. Grassi, M. Pizzo (eds), Gallorum Insubrum fines. Ricerche e progetti archeologici nel territorio di Varese. Atti della Giornata di Studio (Varese-Villa Recalcati, 29 gennaio 2010), Roma 2014, pp. 199-207. Tarpin 2015 = M. Tarpin, I Romani in montagna: tra immaginario e razionalità, in “Il capitale culturale” 12 (2015), pp. 803-822. Tarpin 2016 = M. Tarpin, L’appropriation du territoire par Rome: conquête, deditio, foedus, confiscation, in M. Aberson, M. C. Biella, M. Di Fazio, P. Sànchez, M. Wullschleger (eds), L’Italia centrale e la creazione di una koiné culturale? I percorsi della ‘romanizzazione’. E pluribus unum? L’Italie, de la diversité préromaine à l’unité augustéenne, II, Berne 2016, pp. 183-200. Thornton 2006 = J. Thornton, Terrore, terrorismo e imperialismo. Violenza e intimidazione nell’età della conquista romana, in G. Urso (ed.), Terror et pavor. Violenza, intimidazione, clandestinità nel monto antico. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Cividale del Friuli, 22-24 settembre 2006), Pisa 2006, pp. 157-196. Thornton 2015 = Marginalità e integrazione dei Liguri Apuani: una deportazione umanitaria?, in U. Roberto, P. A. Tuci (eds), Tra mar- 232 GIFBIB_21.indb 232 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY ginalità e integrazione. Aspetti dell’assistenza sociale nel mondo greco e romano, Milano 2015, pp. 89-110. Tibiletti 1950 = G. Tibiletti, Ricerche di storia agraria romana, in “Athenaeum” 28 (1950), pp. 183-266. Tod 1913 = M. N. Tod, International Arbitration amongst the Greeks, Oxford 1913. Todisco 2012 = E. Todisco, I vici rurali nel paesaggio dell’Italia romana, Bari 2012. Torelli 1998 = M. Torelli, Via Postumia: una strada per la romanizzazione, in G. Sena Chiesa, E. A. Arslan (eds), Optima via. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi “Postumia. Storia e Archeologia di una grande strada romana alle radici dell’Europa” (Cremona, 13-15 giugno 1996), Cremona 1998, pp. 21-28. Torre 2005 = M. Torre (ed.), C. Rebora, Orero racconta, Genova 2005. Torrent 1982 = A. Torrent, El arbitraje en el bronce de Contrebia, in AA.VV., Studi in onore di C. Sanfilippo, II, Milano 1982, pp. 637653. Toynbee 1981 = A. J. Toynbee, L’eredità di Annibale. Le conseguenze della guerra annibalica nella vita romana, I, Torino 1981. Traina 2005 = A. Traina, Comoedia. Antologia della palliata, Padova 2005. Traverso et al. 2014-2015 = A. Traverso et al., Progetto Postumia. Per una revisione della documentazione e dei dati materiali relativi a un antico percorso viario, in “Archeologia in Liguria” n.s. 6 (20142015), pp. 203-220. Urso 2013 = G. Urso, Cassio Dione e i sovversivi. La crisi della Repubblica nei frammenti della “Storia romana” (XXI-XXX), Milano 2013. Usteri 1955 = E. Usteri, Westschweiz Schiedsurkunden bis zum Jahre 1300, Zürich 1955. Vacanti 2008-2009 = C. Vacanti, Andare oltre Giano: la terza fronte della diplomazia romana, in “ὅρμος – Ricerche di Storia Antica” n.s. 1 (2008-2009), pp. 212-221. Valvo 2001 = A. Valvo, Formula amicorum, commercium amicitiae, φιλίας κοινωνία, in M. G. Angeli Bertinelli, L. Piccirilli (eds), Serta antiqua et mediaevalia IV. Linguaggio e terminologia diplomatica dall’antico oriente all’impero bizantino. Atti del Convegno Nazionale (Genova, 19 novembre 1998), Roma 2001, pp. 135-145. Valvo 2017 = A. Valvo, Un tema prediletto di Giorgio Luraschi: l’adtributio, in S. Lazzarini (ed.), Incorrupta Antiquitas. Studi di 233 GIFBIB_21.indb 233 03/12/19 12.28 THE ROMAN SENATE AS ARBITER DURING THE SECOND CENTURY BC Storia, Epigrafia e Diritto in memoria di Giorgio Luraschi. Atti dell’Incontro di Studio (Como, 25-26 maggio 2012), Cermenate 2017, pp. 25-42. Vanoni 2012 = S. Vanoni, La convenzione arbitrale e il contratto di arbitrato, in A. Bossi (ed.), La prassi dell’arbitrato rituale, Torino 2012, pp. 79-126. Venturino Gambari 1983 = M. Venturino Gambari, Rocca Grimalda, loc. Fornace. Necropoli ad incinerazione dell’età del Ferro, in “Q uaderni della Soprintendenza Archeologica del Piemonte” 2 (1983), pp. 143-148. Verde 2015 = G. Verde, Lineamenti di diritto dell’arbitrato5, Torino 2015. Vetter 1953 = E. Vetter, Handbuch der italischen Dialekte, I, Heidelberg 1953. Veyne 1975 = P. Veyne, Y a-t-il eu un impérialisme romain?, in “Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome” 87, 2 (1975), pp. 793855. Villani 1981 = U. Villani, s.v. Controversie internazionali, in Novissimo Digesto italiano – Appendice, II, Torino 1981, pp. 711-715. Villani 1989 = U. Villani, s.v. Controversie internazionali, in Digesto delle Discipline pubblicistiche, IV, Torino 1989, pp. 155-156. Vishnia 2012 = R. F. Vishnia, A Case of “Bad Press”? Gaius Flaminius in Ancient Historiography, in “Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik” 181 (2012), pp. 27-45. Vittinghoff 1970-1971 = F. Vittinghoff, Intervento in Mansuelli G. A., La romanizzazione dell’Italia settentrionale, in “Atti del Centro Studi e Documentazione sull’Italia romana” 3 (1970-1971), p. 33. Weinfeld 1973 = M. Weinfeld, Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and its Influence on the West, in “Journal of American Oriental Society” 93, 2 (1973), pp. 190-199. Weinfeld 1990 = M. Weinfeld, The Common Heritage of Covenantal Traditions in the Ancient World, Roma 1990. Westbrook 2000 = R. Westbrook, International Law in the Amarna Age, in R. Cohen, R. Westbrook (eds), Amarna Diplomacy. The Beginnings of International Relations, Baltimore 2000, pp. 28-41. Westermann 1907 = W. L. Westermann, Interstate arbitration in Antiquity, in “The Classical Journal” 2, 5 (1907), pp. 197-211. von Wilamowitz-Maellendorf 1926 = W. von Wilamowitz-Maellendorf, Storia italica, in “Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica” 4 (1926), pp. 1-9. 234 GIFBIB_21.indb 234 03/12/19 12.28 BIBLIOGRAPHY Williamson 2005 = C. Williamson, The Law of the Roman People. Public Law in the Expansion and Decline of the Roman Republic, Ann Arbor 2005. Wiseman 1970 = T. P. Wiseman, Roman republican Road-building, in “Papers of the British School at Rome” 38 (1970), pp. 122-152. Wiseman 1979 = T. P. Wiseman, Clio’s Cosmetics: Three Studies in Greco-Roman Literature, Leicester 1979. Wiseman 1989 = T. P. Wiseman, La via Annia: Dogma ed ipotesi, in “Athenaeum” 67 (1989), pp. 417-425. Woolf 1998 = G. Woolf, Becoming Roman: the Origin of Provincial Civilization in Gaul, Cambridge 1998. Zanda 1998 = E. Zanda, Centuriazione e città, in L. Mercando (ed.), Archeologia in Piemonte, II. L’età romana, Torino 1998, pp. 49-66. Zanda 1999 = E. Zanda, Problemi di urbanistica nella Liguria romana: Dertona ed Hasta, in M. B. Bagnasco, M. C. Conti (eds), Studi di archeologia classica dedicati a Giorgio Gullini per i quarant’anni di insegnamento, Alessandria 1999, pp. 197-210. Zanda 2011 = E. Zanda, Industria città romana sacra a Iside. Scavi e ricerche archeologiche 1981-2003, Torino 2011. Zecchini 2007 = G. Zecchini, L’identità dei Celti tra conservazione e assimilazione, in G. Amiotti, A. Rosina (eds), Identità e integrazione. Passato e presente delle minoranze nell’Europa mediterranea, Milano 2007, pp. 39-54. Zecchini 2009 = G. Zecchini, Le guerre galliche di Roma, Roma 2009. Ziccardi 1964 = P. Ziccardi, s.v. Diritto internazionale in generale, in Enciclopedia del diritto, XII, Milano 1964, pp. 988-1035. Ziegler 1971 = K.-H. Ziegler, Das private Schiedsgericht im antiken römischen Recht, München 1971. 235 GIFBIB_21.indb 235 03/12/19 12.28 GIFBIB_21.indb 236 03/12/19 12.28 INDEX OF CLASSICAL SOURCES INDEX OF CLASSICAL SOURCES Note: Unless otherwise stated, all of the English translations in this volume are from the Loeb Classical Library. 1. Literary Sources Πολιτικά [Pol.] 1.1252a.1-7e 1.1253a.7-8 3.1280a.31-34 7.1328a.35-1328a.2 [Anonymous] Bellum Hispaniense [Bell. Hisp.] 42.4 34 Appianus [App.] Bella civilia [Bell. civ.] 1.23 5.12 81 78 Ἰταλική [Ital.] 8 155 Κελτική [Gall.] 13 191 Asconius [Ascon.] In Pisonem [Pis.] 3 4.3, fr. 10 59 Μακεδονική [Mac.] 11.1 11.7 45 45 Σικελική [Sic.] 1 55 103.4.8 25.2 194 Cassius Dio [Cass. Dio] 22, fr. 74 22, fr. 74.1 22, fr. 74.1-2 23, fr. 81 53.25.5 55.17.1-3 32 Περὶ ῥητορικῆς [Rhet.] 1.13.1374a-b 101 [Augustus] Res Gestae Divi Augusti [RG] Aristoteles [Ar.] Ἠθικὰ Νικομάχεια [Eth. Nic.] 5.1137a 31-1138a 3 110 79 Augustinus [Aug.] Expositiones in Psalmos [exp. in Psalmos] Λιβυκή [Lyb.] 10.67-69 97 97 97 97 33 88 89-90 90 91 155 36 237 GIFBIB_21.indb 237 03/12/19 12.28 INDEX OF CLASSICAL SOURCES De partitione oratoria [part. or.] Cato Origines [Orig.] 4, fr. 10 Chassignet 37.129 8.21 13.3 13.31 14.32 Cicero [Cic.] Brutus [Brut.] 18.73 155 15.42 58 49.143 34 1.2.35 1.10.23-41 1.10.33 1.11 1.14.42 1.15 1.16.50-51 1.17.54 1.23.79-80 1.37.12 2.8.26 2.8.27 2.27 3.6.28 3.12.53 3.17.69 3.30 3.31 3.119 9 36 De officiis [Off.] 36 128 57, 128 37 36 99 31 31 36 30 48 125 37 35 31 31 58 37 58 7.4 4.20.2-3 14.93.3-4 19.101.3 20.36 29.14 32, fr.2 2.11.1 4.25-26 4.45-48 5.50 6.29-33 11.52 15.5-10 161 112 113 113 112 55 127 Festus [Fest.] p. 155 L. p. 342 L. p. 416 L. Epistulae ad Atticum [Att.] 1.1.2 95 155 121 81 86 31 Dionysius Halicarnassensis [Dion. Hal.] Antiquitates Romanae [Ant. Rom.] 34 97 99 36 36 97 34 Diodorus Siculus [Diod. Sic.] De republica [Rep.] 1.25.39 2.42.69 3.8-11 3.13-19 6.13.13 59 Cornelius Nepos [Nep.] Themistocles [Them.] De oratore [de orat.] 1.13.56 34 Topica [Top.] De inventione [De inv.] 2.53.160 34 Pro Roscio Amerino [pro Rosc. Am.] De haruspicum responsis [de har. resp.] 14.32 128 98 98 85 Pro Rabirio Postumo [pro Rab. Post.] De finibus bonorum et malorum [Fin.] 3.71 34 Pro Balbo [pro Balb.] 68 83 121 54 30 238 GIFBIB_21.indb 238 03/12/19 12.28 INDEX OF CLASSICAL SOURCES Frontinus [Frontin.] De agrorum qualitate [de agr. qual.] p. 1, 3-5 L. = p. 1, 3-5 Th. 102 De aquaeductu urbis Romae [Aq.] 7 90 De controversiis agrorum [de contr.] p. 15, 4-6 L. = p. 6, 7-8 Th. p. 17 L. = p. 7, 1-5 Th. 124 133 De limitibus [Lim.] p. 27, 13-14 L. = p. 10, 20-21 Th. 101 Granius Licinianus [Gran. Licin.] 35, p. 20, 8 Flemisch 121 Horace [Hor.] Sermones [S.] 1.5.35 109 Hyginus Gromaticus [Hyg. Grom.] De condicionibus agrorum [de cond. agr.] p. 114, 11-16 L. = p. 74, 4-10 Th. 133 pp. 114-115 L. = p. 74 Th. 161 De limitibus consituendis [de limit. const.] p. 170, 12-16 L. = p. 135, 10-14 Th. 102 Iamblichus [Iambl.] Vita Pythagorae [Vita Pyth.] 126 40 Isidorus Hispalensis [Isid.] Etymologiae [Etym.] 15.15.1 65 Iulius Obsequens [Iul. Obs.] 21 88 Livius [Liv.] 1.50-51 113 2.33.1 2.56.7 3.71-72 4.6.7 4.19.3 5.27 8.22.5 8.23.13 9.14.6-8 9.28.1-6 9.29.5-9 21.25.14 21.30.5 21.32.5 21.35.8-10 23.14.7 23.16.7 23.17.3 23.39.7 23.43.8 24.13.8 28.46.7 30.1.10 31.2.11 32.2.6 32.10.3-6 32.27-31 33.24.8-9 32.29.5-8 33.39-40 34.56.2 34.57.7-9 34.62.1-17 35.8-10 35.33.5 35.33.8 37.46.9-11 38.38.16-17 38.39.5-17 38.42.8 39.2.1-11 39.3.1-3 39.3.4-6 39.22.6-7 39.27.10 39.45.6-7 39.54.2-13 98 91 55 98 37 37 127 127 55 121 81 85 68 155 68 124 124 124 124 124 124 85 85, 156 85 64 56 155 64 85 56 68 38 59 68 56 56 64 56 57 86 86 86 64 70 57 70 70 239 GIFBIB_21.indb 239 03/12/19 12.28 INDEX OF CLASSICAL SOURCES 39.55.1-6 39.55.6-8 40.17.1-6 40.34.2-3 40.43.1 41.8.6-7 41.8.6-12 41.9.9-12 41.13.4 41.13.4-5 41.19.1 41.27.3-4 42.1.1 42.4.3-4 42.7.3-10 42.8.1-8 42.9.1-6 42.10.1-5 42.10.9-11 42.12.7 42.21.2-8 42.22.1-8 42.23-24 42.41.11 43.5.1-10 45.13.10-11 45.13.11 70 87 59 144 67 64 64 64 87 67 68 70 88 87 88 88 88 64 88 45 88 88 59 37 87 67 67 Periochae [Per.] 48 53 Πρωταγόρας [Prot.] 322a-b Plautus [Plaut.] Amphitruo [Amph.] 2.7-8 3.5.47 3.123 33.78 38 38.2-5 6-7 4.2 9.1 4 81 (Pyrrhus) [Pyrrh.] 16.3-4 55 Polybius [Polyb.] 59 88 2.12.8 2.14.6 2.16.2 2.21.3 2.21.7-9 2.23 2.23.2 2.23.1-2 2.24.7 2.31.7-8 3.39.9-10 3.54.2 4.5.7 6.13.5 6.13.5-7 18.52.3-5 21.42-43 21.45.1 31.1.6-8 97 88 129 169 97 Πολιτεία [Rep.] 369b 91 91 (Marcellus) [Marc.] Plato [Plat.] Νόμοι [Leg.] 678e 81 (Tiberius Gracchus) [Tib. Gr.] Persius [Pers.] 6.6-8 91 89-90 (Gaius Gracchus) [C. Gr.] Pausanias [Paus.] 7.11.1-2 87 155 89 Plutarchus [Plut.] Vitae Parallelae (Aemilius Paulus) [Aem.] Orosius [Oros.] 5.4.7 21 Plinius [Plin.] Naturalis Historia [NH] Lucretius [Lucr.] 5.1019 ff. 97 97 126 68 68 81 81 85 70 85, 151 70, 151 148 68 68 97 63 111 56 56 57 46 240 GIFBIB_21.indb 240 03/12/19 12.28 INDEX OF CLASSICAL SOURCES 31.10.6-7 31.11.11 31.21.5-6 Annales [Ann.] 59 59 59 1.4.3 16.18 Historiae [Hist.] Posidonius [Posidon.] fr. 25 Theiler 95 fr. 163a Theiler 95 Q uintilianus [Q uint.] Institutio Oratoria [Inst.] 1.5.56 8.1.3 79 79 Sallustius [Sall.] Bellum Iugurthinum [Bell. Iug.] 22.4 35.7 34 34 Servius [Serv.] Commentarii in Vergilii Aeneidos libros [ad Aen.] 4.424 10.13 30 68 Siculus Flaccus [Sic. Flacc.] De condicionibus agrorum [de cond. agr.] p. 163 L. 162 Stobaeus [Stob.] Ἀνθολόγιον [Anth.] 4.84.23 1.24 1.122.2 3.40 6.3.3 7.3.4 86 57, 128 Varro De Lingua Latina [LL] 5.3 30 Velleius Paterculus [Vell. Pat.] 1.15.5 73 ( Joannes) Zonaras [Zon.] 8.18 9.16 81, 86 155 2. Legal Sources Codex Theodosianus [C.Th.] 2.1.10 2.8.18 11.7.13 15.14.9 30 53 51 51 51 Codex Iustinianus [C.J.] 95 194 88, 155 85 70, 87 112 2.55(56) 2.55(56).4 2.55(56).4-5 23 24, 51 50 Digesta [Dig.] 1.2.2.8 4.8.3.1 4.8.3.1-5 4.8.3.2 4.8.11.2 4.8.15 4.8.21 4.8.23 4.8.27.2 52 Tacitus [Tac.] Agricola [Agr.] 30.4 41 32 Valerius Maximus [Val. Max.] Suetonius [Suet.] Otho 4.2 52 Thucydides [Thuc.] (Proem.) 1.21 189 Strabo [Strab.] 3.4.17 4.6.6 4.6.7 5.1.9 5.1.11 5.3-12 91 27 191 98 21, 52 23 21 22 21 73 73 17 241 GIFBIB_21.indb 241 03/12/19 12.28 INDEX OF CLASSICAL SOURCES 4.8.32.12 8.5.20.1 15.2.76 43.7.3.1 50.17.121 I2 636 = V 2490 = ILS 5945 = ILLRP 477 69 I2 736 108 I2 745 108 I2 2501 = AE 1923, 64 = ILLRP 476 69 V 8045 = ILS 5806 153, 170 V 8313 = ILS 5366 = ILLRP 487a 153 IX 2827 = ILS 5982 26 XI 5389 = Vetter 236 = ERAssisi 25 = Raccolte Comunali di Assisi 2005, pp. 76-78 ad no. 2 (Asdru bali Pentiti) = EDR 25339 = Suppl.It. XXIII 2006, p. 276 ad no. (Zuddas) 108, 154 XI 5390 = I2 2112 = ILS 5346 = ILLRP 550 = Vetter 229 = AE 1991, 647 = AE 1997, 489 = ERAssisi 26 = Raccolte Comunali di Assisi 2005, pp. 106-107 ad no. 26 (Asdrubali Pentiti) = EDR 25340 = Suppl.It. XXIII 2006, p. 278 ad no. (Zuddas) 107 23 124 51 84 73 Fontes Iuris Romani Anteiustiniani [FIRA] I2 no. 13 III2 no. 163 78 149 Gaius [Gai.] 4.17 21 Novellae [Nov.] 82.11 50 (Iulius) Paulus [Paul.] 13 ad ed. 23 Ulpianus [Ulp.] 13 ad ed. 21-23 3. Epigraphic Sources Année Épigraphique [AE] 1923, 64 1991, 647 1997, 489 69 107 107 A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae [ILLRP] Bulletin Épigraphique [BE] 1998, 201 127 476 477 487a 517 550 Corpus Inscriptionum Etruscarum [CIE] 439 66 4538 66 Corpus Inscriptionum Italicarum [CII] suppl. I 254 69 69 153 72, 149 107 H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae [ILS] 66 5346 5944 5944a 5945 5946 6085 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum [CIL] I2 584 = V 7749 = ILS 5946 = ILLRP 517 = Suppl.It. III 1987, p. 233 ad no. (Mennella) = Suppl. It. XXII 2004, p. 184 ad no. (Mennella) 72-73, 149 I2 593 = ILS 6085 = FIRA I2 no. 13 78 I2 633 = V 2491 = ILS 5944a 69 I2 634 = V 2492 = ILS 5944 69 107 69 69 69 72, 149 78 W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum [SIG3] 679 66 826E, ll. 37-38 827C, ll. 5-6 827D, ll. 6-7 44 44 44 242 GIFBIB_21.indb 242 03/12/19 12.28 INDEX OF CLASSICAL SOURCES W. Dittenberger, K. Purgold, Die Inschriften von Olympia [IvO] 47, ll. 38-41; 46 XXIII 2006, p. 276 ad no. (Zuddas) 108 XXIII 2006, p. 278 ad no. (Zuddas) 107 66, 130 Inscriptiones Graecae [IG] IX 2, 1230 Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum [SEG] 45 M. Pallottino, Testimonia Linguae Etruscae [TLE2] 570 = CIE 4538 632 = CIE 439 692 = CII suppl. I 254 47, 1997, 604 66 66 66 XII Tabularum Leges 12.9.3 R. K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East, Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus [RDGE] no. 18, ll. 65-66 62 Supplementa Italica [Suppl.It.] III 1987, p. 233 ad no. (Mennella) 149 XXII 2004, p. 184 ad no. (Mennella) 149 127 18 Tabula Herculanensis [Tab. Herc.] 76.1 73 Tabulae Iguvinae 5a.12 18-19 E. Vetter, Handbuch der italischen Dialekte [Vetter] 229 236 107 108 243 GIFBIB_21.indb 243 03/12/19 12.28 GIFBIB_21.indb 244 03/12/19 12.28 GEOGRAPHICAL AND PROSOPOGRAPHICAL INDEX Note: For the readers’ convenience, Roman names of individuals are listed according to the nomen gentilicium (e.g. Cornelius). By contrast, individuals from more recent times are designated either by their first name followed by their place of origin (e.g. Ildebrando di Soana), or by their surname followed by their first name (e.g. Giustiniani Agostino). Abdera 44 Abella 71, 91, 108, 120-125, 130131, 195 Abellani 118-119 Abellanus (Cippus) 117, 120, 122, 124-125, 130-131, 195 Achaean (league) 44, 114, 126, 129 Manius Acilius Glabrio 44 Adige 85 Adria 70 Adriatic (sea/coast) 108, 147, 152 Aemilia (Via) 70, 86-87, 92 Aemilia Scauri (Via) 92 Aemilii Lepidi 87 Marcus Aemilius Lepidus 70, 81, 86-88, 93 Aequi 83 Aesis (river) 77, 111, 152 Aetolian (league) 56 Aetolians 45 Africa (African continent) 82, 146, 150 Agostino di Pedemonte 145, 170 Akkadian 29 Alba Fucens 83, 121 Alessandria 182 Alessandrino (area) 176 Aliano (castello) 138 Alianus (castellum) 135, 138, 172, 181 Alianus (reservoir) 138 Alpes 182 Alpine (border/territory) 77, 153, 193-194 Alpine (populations) 87 Alps 68, 105, 148, 172, 181, 193 Ambracia 43, 127 Ambracians 127 Annia-Aemilia (Via) 70, 92 Annibale 103, 126, 152 anti-Carthaginian (strategy) 67 anti-Gracchan (climate) 90 Antiochus III 44, 46, 56 Apamea 56-57, 114 Apamea (peace of) 43 Ape(n)ninus (mons) 135, 138, 181 Apennine(s) 86, 108, 138, 155, 174, 178 Apennine (pass) 178 245 GIFBIB_21.indb 245 03/12/19 12.28 GEOGRAPHICAL AND PROSOPOGRAPHICAL INDEX Apenninic (ridge) 187 Apenninic (route) 144 Aphrodisias 62 Appennino 138 Appia (Via) 83 Appian 81, 191 Apuani (Ligurian) 67, 87, 190 Aquae Statiellae 93 Aquileia 70, 77, 87, 144, 153 Arcadius 24, 53 Ardea 55, 57, 62, 112, 125 Argos 44, 129-130 Arian (root) 187 Aricia 55, 57, 62, 112, 125 Ariminum 87 Aristotele 33 Aristotelian (interpretation) 32, 97 Aristotle 32, 36 Arnus (river) 77, 111, 152 Arquata (Scrivia) 145-146, 172 Arvigo 179 Asconius 110 Asia Minor 43, 61 Gaius Asinius Pollio 79 Assisi 107-108, 154 Ateste 68-69, 151 Atestinus/Atestini 69 Athamanians 43, 127 Athenian (case) 40 Athenians 41 Athens 40, 126 Sextus Atilius M(arci) f(ilius) Saranus 69 Sextus Atilius Saranus 69 Gaius Atinius Labeo 129 Attic (law) 40 Atticus 83 Augustean (syntagm) 194 Augustus (Octavian) 82, 135, 143, 194 Aurelia (Via) 83, 146, 172 Aurelia Nova (Via) 67 Gaius Aurelius Cotta 84 Aventine (hill) 112 Balzi Rossi 169 Barchette 180 Bargylia 45 Berigiema (mons) 135, 139, 181, 183 Blustiemela (costa) 139 Blustiemelum (iugum) 135, 139, 181, 183 Blustiemelus (ridge) 139 Bocchetta (pass) 147, 172, 178, 182-183, 185-187 Boii 81-82, 85 Bologna 70 Bolzaneto 180 Bononia 87 Boplo (mons) 135, 138, 181, 183 Boplo (monte) 138 Boplo (ridge) 138 Borbera (torrent) 147 Borgo dei Fornari 145, 171 Borgo Fornari 184-185, 187 Borgo Fornari (pieve) 146 Borzino Gio Maria (dominican) 146 Borzoli 178 Botswana 39 Bottazzi Angelo (canon) 146 Brixia 92 Busalla 147, 185-186 Buzalla 145, 171 Byzantine 50, 145 Lucius Caecilius [Metellus Calvus, cos. 142 bc (?)] 69 Lucius Caecilius [Metellus Diadematus, cos. 117 bc] 136, 140, 142, 157 Q uintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus [cos. 143 bc] 89 Lucius Caecilius Q (uinti) f(ilius) [cos. 117 bc] 134, 136, 140, 142, 156 Lucius Caicilius Q (uinti) f(ilius) [cos. 142 bc (?)] 69 Caeptiema (comvalis) 134, 137, 169, 181 Caeptiema (locality) 181 Caeptiema (valley) 137, 147, 181, 183, 185-186 246 GIFBIB_21.indb 246 03/12/19 12.28 GEOGRAPHICAL AND PROSOPOGRAPHICAL INDEX Callicrates 44, 129, 130 Marco Calpurnio Pisone Frugi 108 Gaius Calpurnius Piso 83 Lucius Calpurnius Piso 79 Cambiaso Lazzaro Maria 170-171 Campania 57, 125, 128-129, 195 Campanian 19, 57, 117, 120, 127 Campomorone 147 Campora (toponym) 179 Campora di Geminiano 179 Capua 103, 120 Carinus 23 Carni 87, 152 Carseoli 83 Carthage 59, 152 Carthaginian 67 Carthaginians 59, 158 Carus 23 Casal Cermelli 176 Casanova di Sant’Olcese 179 Casella 176, 178 Case Santin 180 Gaius Cassius 87 Cassius Dio 36 Castellaro di Isorelle 176 Cavaturines 72, 75, 135, 142, 156 Cavaturini 142, 156-157 Lucio Cecilio [Metello Diademato, cos. 117 bc] 136, 140, 142, 156 Celtic (groups) 70 Celto-Ligurian (people) 89 Celts 193 Cenomans 70, 85-86, 92-94 Ceptiema (convalle) 137 Cesino 147 Ceta 184-185 Chiavari 169 China 39, 82 Christus Jesus 101 Cian da Pila 176 Cicero 36, 57-58, 79, 82-83, 85, 98-99, 127-129, 189 Ciceronian (theory) 30, 34 Cincibilus (king) 87, 94 Cisalpine (peoples) 70, 88, 97, 154 Cisalpine (region) 64, 68-69, 71, 73, 80-82, 84-86, 88, 90-92, 94-95, 149, 152-153, 192-193, 196 Cisalpine (treaties) 154 Cisalpine Gaul 77-79 Cispadana 80, 111 Clastidium 78, 155 Claudia (gens) 18 Claudii 91 Marcus Claudius Clineas 86 Appius Claudius Crassus Regillensis Sabinus 18 Appius Claudius Pulcher [cos. 143 bc] 81, 89-90, 93 Claxelo (monte) 139 Claxelus (mons) 135, 139, 181, 183 Claxelus (mount) 139 Colophon 44 Comberanea (rio) 137 Comberanea (rivus) 134, 137, 147, 169, 181 Comberanea (watercourse) 147 Confucian (ethics) 39 Confucius 39 Corcyra 127 Corcyrian 127 Corinth 114, 126 Corinthians 126 Corinto 114 Corioli 112 Publius Cornelius Blasio 127 Publius Cornelius Scipio [cos. 218 bc] 155 Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus 89 Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus 97, 155 Corsica 67, 84 Corsicans 86 Cosa 84 Costapelata di Borlasca 148 Costuma (Via) 145-146, 172 Costumia (Via) 145, 172 Cremeno 180 Cremona 64, 170 Crete 44 247 GIFBIB_21.indb 247 03/12/19 12.28 GEOGRAPHICAL AND PROSOPOGRAPHICAL INDEX Crocetta d’Orero (pass) 147, 172, 177-179, 183, 186-188 Cynoscephalae 43 Decius 26 Dectunines 72, 75, 135, 142, 156-157 Dectunini 142, 156 Delphi 43 Delphic (priests) 44 Demosthenes (praetorian prefect) 25 Dertona 73, 88, 92 De Sigestro Angelino (notary) 184 Diana (sanctuary) 112 Diocletian 23, 79 Diodorus Siculus 31 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 54, 112 Dora Baltea (river) 89 Dora Riparia (river) 147 Dorbera 147 Draconian (legislation) 33 Durance 147 Durazzo Pallavicini (villa) 149 Ede/Edem (flumen) 134-135, 137138, 162, 181 Ede (river) 172 Edna (stream) 138 Edo (fiume) 137-139 Edus (flumen) 135, 138-139, 181 Edus (stream) 137, 139, 147 Egypt 29 Elvo (river) 88 Emilian-Pistoian (Apennines) 86 Eniseca (fiume) 139 Eniseca (rivus) 135, 139, 181 Eniseca (watercourse) 139 Enrico (nobleman) 17 Ephesus 43 Epicurean (view) 97 Ercole (santuario) 118-119 Este 69-70 Etruria 84 Etrurian 180 etrusca 105 Etrusca (disciplina) 101 Etruscan (influence/road system) 19, 84, 102, 155 Etruscan-Italic 19 Etruscan-Latium 20 Etruscan-Roman 193 Etruscans 19 Eumenes 45-46 European Union 102, 194 Evançon (river) 88 extra-Italic (territories) 63, 78, 91, 194 Q uintus Fabius Buteo 67 Q uintus Fabius Labeo 57-58, 128-129 Q uintus Fabius Maximus Eburnus 44 Q uintus Fabius Pictor 82 Favareto 180 Fiaccone 185 Flaminia (Via) 82-83, 107 Gaius Flaminius 81-82, 86 Fondi 109 al Forte di Begato (Via) 179 Fossato de Ruvinada 147 Francavilla Bisio 182 Fregellae 64 Fregenae 84 Friniates 86 Marcus Furius Crassipes 86, 93 Gallia 83 Gallia Cisalpina 78 Gallic (populations/tradition) 79, 87-89, 94, 176, 193 gallica (guerra) 152 Gallicus (ager) 82, 120 Gallicus (metus) 192 Gallus 129 Galzignano Terme 69 Garbo (hill) 184 Gaul 81, 83, 85 Gauls 81, 107 Gavi 172, 182, 184 Genoa (city) 11, 144-145, 147, 149-150, 153-154, 157, 161, 248 GIFBIB_21.indb 248 03/12/19 12.28 GEOGRAPHICAL AND PROSOPOGRAPHICAL INDEX 168, 170-174, 176, 178-179, 182, 184-185, 187, 196 Genoa-Casella (railway) 178 Genoese 147, 158, 172, 183 Genova (città) 144, 146, 170, 172, 182-183, 187 Genova Bolzaneto 180 Genova Pegli 9, 134, 149 Genovesato (territories) 178, 181 Genua (civitas) 72, 74-75, 91, 95, 139-141, 151, 153, 155, 158-159, 161, 163-167 Genuans 136, 140-141, 143, 157, 160, 164, 166 Genuates 73-74, 85, 91, 134-136, 141, 149-151, 155, 158-160, 163-164, 166-168 Genuati 135, 140-141, 160, 163 Genuenses 135, 140, 143, 156, 166 Genuensi 140, 143, 156 Genuensis 168 Ginevra 17 Giovenzione 138, 172 Giovi (pass) 147, 172 Giovi (route) 172, 186 Giovi (toponym) 186 Giretta (locality) 176 Giustiniani Agostino (bishop) 145-146, 170-172, 174 Goito 153 Gordian III 176 Gotra 147 Gottera 147 Gracchan (legislation/period) 90, 120, 150 Gracchi (brothers) 148 Graeco-Roman 39 Granarolo (hill) 179, 184 Grecia 114, 126 Greece 33, 40, 44, 46, 53, 61, 65, 97, 113, 126 Greek (arbitration/diplomatic system) 42-44, 46-47, 49, 5356, 58, 63, 66, 73 Greek (epieikeia) 32 Greek (language/philosophy) 26, 33, 60 Greek (poleis/communities) 11, 42-43, 45, 57, 129 Greek (world/context) 38-39, 45-47, 49, 61-62, 65-66, 81, 102, 113-114, 127, 190, 192-193 Greek Campania 57 Greek East 62 Greeks 19, 40, 42, 66 Gregory VII (pope) 13 Gytron 45 Hannibal 107, 155 Hannibalic (war) 124, 127, 158, 161 Hellenistic (sovereigns/world) 40, 42, 54, 62, 66, 127 Helvetii 85 Gaius Helvidius Priscus 26 Henry IV (of Germany) 13 Heraclea 128, 154 Heracleensis (tabula) 78 Hercules (god) 66 Hercules (sanctuary) 71, 118-119, 121-122, 124, 130, 195 Hesiod 40 Hierapytna 43-44 Hildebrand of Soana 13 Histonium (municipium) 26 Histri 87 Hobbesian (model) 29 Homer 40 Honorius 24, 53 Hurrian-Hittite (sphere) 38 Ianua 184 Iapydes 85, 87 Iguvinae (tabulae) 18-19, 131 Iguvine (tablets) 107 Illyrian (war) 56 Immanicen (toponym) 183 Indo-European (antecedent) 187 Insubres 85 inter-Celtic (relations) 193 Iordanus (notary) 183 Ioventio (mons) 135, 138, 181 Islamic (law) 35 Isola (del Cantone) 144-146, 172, 174-176, 178 249 GIFBIB_21.indb 249 03/12/19 12.28 GEOGRAPHICAL AND PROSOPOGRAPHICAL INDEX Isolabuona 146 Isorelle 176 Italia 77-79, 124, 126, 131, 152 Italia (annonaria) 79 Italia (suburbicaria) 79 Italiae (vicarius) 79 Italian (territories/allies) 77, 111 Italic (culture/organisation) 18, 105, 108, 123 Italic (peoples/communities) 19, 27, 38, 49, 61-63, 94, 97, 104, 106 Italic (territory/peninsula) 11, 49, 54, 61, 63-65, 69, 72, 77-78, 96, 101, 104-106, 109, 111, 113114, 120, 124, 154, 191-194 italica 105, 131 Italici (socii) 52, 104 Italiciana (dioecesis) 79 Italocentric 82 Italy 12, 49, 61, 63, 68, 71, 79, 82, 89, 105-106, 111, 120, 125, 127, 153, 155, 158, 195 Itanos 43-44 Iudaei 24 Iulia Augusta (Via) 92 Iustinianus 24 Iuvum 185 Izosecco (Isosecco) 145, 170-171, 177 Jews 24, 53 Lucius Julius Caesar [cos. 64 bc] 83 Justinian 23-25 Knossian (decision) 44 Kotys (Thracian sovereign) 44 Lacedaemonians 66 Laecedaemon 46 Lamboglia Nino 172-174, 182-183 Lanfranco da Oneglia (notary) 184 Langasco 147, 172, 185-186 Langates 185-186 Langati 137, 142 Langenses 74-75, 134-135, 137-138, 140-142, 147, 149, 156-157, 163, 165-167, 185-186 Langenses Veiturii 74, 135, 139, 141, 163, 165 Langenses Veituris 135, 139, 165 Langensi 138, 140-142, 156, 163 Langensian Veturii 139, 141-142, 163-164, 166 Langensi Viturii 139, 141-142, 156, 163 Langueses (!) 135, 142, 156 Larisa Kremaste 44 Lars Porsenna 54 Latii (ius) 85, 110-111, 154 Latin (colony/rights) 64, 67, 83, 86, 110, 149, 153-154, 158, 196 Latin (language/culture) 14, 1822, 30, 32, 71, 103, 107-108, 124, 145, 150, 154-155 Latin (league) 111-113 Latin (peoples/territory) 19, 64, 111, 125 latina (lingua) 105, 107-108, 136 Latina (Via) 83 Latin-Campanian (territory) 195 Latini 64 Latinisation 106, 194 Latino 131 Latins 64 Latium 19-20, 113 Latos 44 Lazio 126 Lebriemela (fonte) 139 Lebriemelus (fons) 135, 139, 181, 183 Lebriemelus (spring) 139 Leino (flumen) 182 Lemme (river) 147, 182, 186 Lemo (flumen) 182 Lemor (flumen) 182, 186 Lemori (fiume) 137 Lemurina (costa) 138 Lemurino (monte) 138 Lemurinus (mons) 135, 138, 181 Lemurinus (ridge) 138 250 GIFBIB_21.indb 250 03/12/19 12.28 GEOGRAPHICAL AND PROSOPOGRAPHICAL INDEX Lemuris (flumen) 134, 137, 147, 181-182 Lenior (flumen) 182 Lentor (flumen) 182 Libarna 146-147, 171-173, 175176, 187-188 Libui 88, 92 Ligures 67-68, 94 Ligures Ingauni 85 Ligures Stoeni 152 Liguria 11, 72, 84, 95, 144, 148149, 174, 179, 196 Ligurian (bishop) 170 Ligurian (language) 187 Ligurian (populations/territory) 72, 75, 85-87, 89, 94-95, 144, 146, 149, 151-153, 155, 158, 161, 164-165, 168-169, 171, 173, 176, 196 Ligurian (wars) 152 Ligurian Apennines 178 Ligurians 86, 145, 154 Ligurian Statellates 93 Ligustinus et Gallicus (ager) 88 Liutprand 179 Livia 36 Marcus Livius Drusus 62 Livy 37, 57, 67, 79, 87, 92, 112, 124 Lobia 69 Lonigo 69 Lucania 122 Lucanians 120 Maio Lucceio Puclato figlio di Maio 118 Maius Lucceius, son of Mai. pukalatúi 118 Maius Luceius Mai. f(ilius) Puclatus 118 Lucerna 17 Maius Lucius Puclatus 122 Luna (colony) 67, 87, 151 Luna (goddess) 68 Luni 67-68, 169 Lutazio Catulo 108 Macedonia (province) 126 Macedonian (boundaries) 57 Macedonian (war) 56 Macedonica (guerra) 114 Madonna delle Vigne 147 Magna Grecia 126 Magnerri (locality) 179 Magnesia on the Meander 43-44, 66 Mago 155 Manesseno 179, 182-183, 186-187 Manexelo 183 in Ma(n)nicelo (fons) 134, 137138, 147, 169, 172, 181-182 Manicelum (spring) 137-138, 147 Manicelus 181, 183 Gnaeus Manlius Vulso [cos. 189 bc] 57 Mannicelo (fonte) 137 Mantua 11, 170 Maroneans 58 Massalia 178 Massinissa 59 Maximian 23 Mediterranean (sea/area) 29, 38, 43, 46, 49, 103, 113, 126, 191, 193-194 Mediterráneo (mundo) 34 Megalopolis 44, 46, 66, 129-130 Megalopolites 130 Melitaea 44 Mentovines 72, 75, 135, 142, 156 Mentovini 142, 156-157 Messene 43 Messenians 66 Moco Meticanio 142-143 Mocone Meticanio(ne?), figlio di Meticone 143 Mocus Meticanius Meticoni f(ilius) 135, 143 Mocus Meticanius son of Meticonus 143 Migliarina 147 Milan 79 Miletus 43 Minucii 73, 136, 151, 161, 163164 Marco Minucio Rufo 136, 160 251 GIFBIB_21.indb 251 03/12/19 12.28 GEOGRAPHICAL AND PROSOPOGRAPHICAL INDEX Q uinto Minucio Rufo 136, 160 Minuciorum (sententia) 11, 72, 74, 92, 95, 147, 149, 150-155, 157, 159, 164-167, 196 Marcus Minucius Q (uinti) f(ilius) Rufus 134, 136, 160 Q uintus Minucius Q (uinti) f(ilius) Rufus 134, 136, 160 Marcus Minucius Rufus 136, 155, 160 Q uintus Minucius Rufus 136, 155, 160 Q uintus Minucius Rufus [cos. 197 bc] 155, 161 Mithridatic (war) 43 Modena 88 Montanesi 186 Montanici 185 Montanisi 185 Montisferrati Marchionatu 182 Morego 180 Q uinto Mucio [cos. 117 bc] 136, 140, 142, 156 Q uintus Mucius [Scaevola Augur, cos. 117 bc] 136, 140, 142, 157 Lucius Mummius 126 Mutina 87 Q uintus Muucius Q (uinti) f(ilius) [cos. 117 bc] 75, 134-136, 140, 142, 156 Mylasa 44, 57 Namibia 39 Naples 127-129 Narni 107 Narthacium 44 Neapolis 57, 62, 151, 154 Near East 20, 29, 38 Nepitella Joachino (notary) 184 Nero Babrius 107 Neviasca (fiume) 137 Neviasca (flumen) 134, 137, 181 Neviasca (stream) 137, 174 Niusci 177-178, 186-187 Nola 57, 62, 71, 91, 109, 117118, 120-125, 128-131, 151, 154, 195 Nolan 118-120, 122-123 Nolani 118-119 non-Roman 48 Noricum 191 Nostra Signora della Vittoria (pass) 146 Nove 145, 172 Novi (Ligure) 146, 172 Numa Pompilius 54 Numerianus 23 Odiates 72, 75, 135, 142, 156-157 Odiati 142, 156 Ofanto 147 Oglio 85 Olous 44 Oltregiogo 146-147, 182 osca 105 Oscan 71, 107-108, 121, 123-124, 131, 155 Osco-Roman 120 Ospedalicchio 108 Padana (area) 176 Padane (lands) 192 Padua 12, 69-70, 87 Paelignians 64 Panaetius 58 Gnaeus Papirius Carbo [cos. 113 bc] 191 Marcus Paquius Aulanius 26 Paris (city) 29, 145, 182 Paris (hero) 39 Parma 87-88 Paroreia 58 Passeise (monte) 147 Patavini 86 Patavinitas 79 Patavinus/Patavini 69 Patavium 68-69, 94, 151 Pavia 179 Pedemontana (regio) 182 Pedemonte di Serra Riccò 145 Plauco Pelianio(ne?), figlio di Pelione 143 Plaucus Pelianius Pelioni f(ilius) 135, 143 252 GIFBIB_21.indb 252 03/12/19 12.28 GEOGRAPHICAL AND PROSOPOGRAPHICAL INDEX Plaucus Pelianius son of Pelionus 143 Peloponnese 66 Peloponnesian (war) 41 Pernecco 183 Perrhaebia 45 Perseus (king) 45 Gaius Petronius Arbiter 27 Phalanna 45 Philip V 56-57 Phlygonion-Ambryssos 43 Phoenicians 19 Pian di Reste 147, 172 Piani di Fregoso (Via) 179 Picenum 81, 120 Piedmont 86-88, 92 Piemonte 182 Pietrabbondante 109 Pietrabissara 146 Pietra Lavezzara 147 Pirro 126 Pisa 67-68, 153 Pisae 67, 151 Pizzo (monte) 149 Placentia 87, 92, 146 Placentinus 79 Plutarch 81 Po (river) 79, 85, 109, 144, 153 Po (valley/plain) 11, 78, 85, 144, 147, 151-152, 178, 187, 193 Pobbieto 185 Polcevera (tablet) 11-12, 73, 133134, 144-147, 149-151, 153, 155, 158, 160-162, 168-172, 180-183, 185-187, 195 Polcevera (tavola) 72 Polcevera (torrent/basin) 149, 162, 170, 172, 180, 183, 186-188 Polcevera (val) 146-147, 169-172, 178-181, 183-184, 187 Polybian (theory) 82 Polybius 31, 45, 59-60, 63, 81-82, 111, 126, 148 Pompeia (lex) 110, 157 Pompeian 124 Pompeii 108, 122 Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo 110-111 Pontedecimo 146-147, 172 Ponte di Savignone 176 Pontine (plain) 112 Marcus Popilius Laenas 87-88, 93 Populi Romani (imperium) 96, 99, 196 Porale 148 Porcobera 181 Poseidonious 95 Posthumia (Via) 145, 172 Postumia (project) 11, 144, 147, 169, 180-181, 186 Postumia (toponym) 176 Postumia (Via) 11, 69-70, 73, 92, 107, 134, 137, 144-147, 151, 153, 155, 160, 169, 170-174, 176, 178, 182-183, 185-187, 195 Postumian (Way) 137, 147 Postumii 153 Spurius Postumius Albinus 144, 170 Prenicco (monte) 139 Prenicus (mons) 135, 139, 181, 183 Prenicus (mount) 139 pre-Roman (context) 71, 93-94, 179 Priene 43-44, 66 Procobera (fiume) 137-139 Procobera (flumen) 134-135, 137139, 181 Procobera (stream) 137-139 Propertius 154 Pteleion 44 Punic (navigation) 20 Punic (war) 55, 68, 113 Punica (guerra) 110 Punicus (metus) 192 Pydna 114 Ravenna 154 Redondesco 170 Rhaetian Alps 192 Rhaetians 152 Rhodes 45 Rhodians 45, 62 253 GIFBIB_21.indb 253 03/12/19 12.28 GEOGRAPHICAL AND PROSOPOGRAPHICAL INDEX Rhône 155 Riasso (stream) 172 Ricau 185 (Serra) Riccò 180, 186 Riccò (torrent) 186 Ricò 145, 171 Rio della Pieve 175-176 Ripariolum 184 Rivarolo 180, 184 Rocca Grimalda 176 Rodolfo (count) 17 Roma 15, 64, 66, 73, 77, 85, 104-105, 108, 114, 117, 126, 130-131, 134, 136, 160 Roman (authority/ diplomacy) 11-12, 29-33, 36, 38, 43, 45-47, 54-55, 57, 59-61, 63, 65, 68, 70-73, 77-80, 82, 84, 87, 89-96, 98-99, 101-104, 106, 109-113, 120, 122, 125-126, 128, 145, 147-148, 150-155, 159, 161, 164, 167, 187, 189191, 193-196 Roman (coins) 68, 177 Roman (forum) 19 Roman (Italy) 12, 68 Roman (law/arbitration) 13, 16-20, 22, 24, 27, 29, 34, 37, 46, 49, 51-54, 56, 59, 66, 84, 86, 94, 96, 123-124, 126-127, 149-150, 154, 164, 196 Roman (limitatio) 101-102, 147, 161 Roman (road system) 73, 77, 9293, 169, 183, 192, 194 Roman (ruling class) 44, 62-63, 79, 81, 86, 88, 104, 108, 123, 161, 192 Roman (senate) 11, 27, 47, 56-57, 61, 63, 72, 86, 99, 101, 113-115, 125-129, 155, 159, 191-192 Roman (tradition/context) 31, 33, 35, 50, 52-53, 58-59, 65, 68, 74, 95-96, 98, 105-108, 123, 135, 143, 191, 196 Roman Republic 97-98 Romani 103, 105, 146 Romanisation(s) 79, 83, 95, 102107, 109-111, 120, 144, 149, 151, 153, 190, 193-195 Romans 13, 31, 38, 45, 52, 55-56, 65, 74, 77, 81-82, 85, 89, 103, 106, 112, 130, 144-145, 152, 154-155, 191 Roman-Syrian (war) 57, 114 Romanity 78 Romanus (ager) 104 Romanus (populus) 56, 92, 165 Roman West 54 Rome 13, 15, 18-21, 27, 30, 33, 36, 38, 42-49, 54-57, 59-74, 77-81, 84-89, 91-95, 97-99, 101107, 109-115, 120-131, 136, 149-156, 158-161, 165, 168, 190-195 Ronco (Scrivia) 145-146, 172, 176, 186 Rubaldus da Manexelo 183 Ruggerio di Fiacone 185 Runco 185 Sabine 19 Salassi 88-92, 94, 152 Salerno 13 Salmone (notary) 185 Samnites 55, 64 Samnium 68, 122 Samos 44 San Cipriano 180 San Cristoforo di Gavi 182 San Gregorio de Ceta 147 San Martino di Magnerri 179 San Michele di Castrofino (chapel) 180 Sanniti 126 San Siro (monastery) 183, 185 Sant’Agata di Pressana 175-176 Santa Maria de Ceta (church) 177 Santa Maria di Pedemonte 170, 180 Santa Maria in Lemore 182 Sant’Olcese 183 Santo Stefano (ospedale) 185 Sant’Ulcisio (parish) 183 254 GIFBIB_21.indb 254 03/12/19 12.28 GEOGRAPHICAL AND PROSOPOGRAPHICAL INDEX Sardinia 67, 84 Sardis 43 Sardorella (torrent) 172, 183, 187 Savoy 182 Scipionic (circle) 81 Scrivia (fiume/torrente) 145, 172 Scrivia (torrent) 146, 174, 176 Scrivia (valle) 146, 172, 174, 176, 178, 184-185, 187-188 Secca (fiume/torrente) 170-171 Secca (torrent) 170, 172, 180, 183, 187 Secca (valle) 146 Secca (valley) 180, 183 Selbstromanisierung 79 self-Romanisation 110 Sempronia (lex) 89 Gaius Sempronius Gracchus 81 Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus 62 Senones 81, 120 Manius Sergius 46 Serra (toponym) 179 Serravalle (Scrivia) 145-146, 172 Servius Tullius 54, 112 Sibylline (books) 90 Soana 13 Solon 39 Solonian (legislation) 33 Sovana 13 Sparta 43-44, 46, 66, 126, 129-130 Spartans 130 Spinoli 145, 172 Spoleto 107 Statellates (Ligurian) 87 St Augustin 179 St Clair 179 Strabo 68, 88-89, 110-112, 194 Stratonikeia 44-45, 57, 62 subalpine (regions) 153 Gaius Sulpicius 46 Teolo 69 terra Italia 77, 193 Teutones 191 Thermus 83 Thrace 58 Thucydides 32 Tiber (river) 19 Tiberius (Tiberius Claudius Nero) 66 Ticinum (battle) 155 Q uintus Tillius Eryllus 26 Tillius Sassus 26 Tommaso II di Savoia 17 Torbella (torrent) 184 Tortona 146, 172, 184 tota Italia 194 Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) 176 trans Alpis 87 Transpadana (regio) 88 Transpadana (regione) 152 Transpadanae (civitates) 110 Transpadane (region/peoples) 8586, 109-110, 152, 154, 193 Transpadani 110 Tuledo(ne) (mons) 135, 138, 181 Tuledo (mountain) 138 Tuledone (monte) 138 Tulelasca (fiume) 139 Tulelasca (flumen) 135, 139, 181 Tulelasca (stream) 139 Tullo (mount) 183 Tyrrhenian (coast) 108, 147, 152 Tacitus 66, 191 Tanatorbela 184 Tarentine (offer/treaty) 55, 120 Tarentines 55 Tarentini 55 Tell el-Amarna 29 Valeria (Via) 83, 121 Valerius Maximus 128 Valle del Verde 186 Varo (watercourse) 147 Veiturii 74, 134-136, 140, 160, 163 Ufita 147 *Uinelaska 187 Umbria 107 Umbrian 18, 107, 131, 154 Umbrians 107 United States 39 255 GIFBIB_21.indb 255 03/12/19 12.28 GEOGRAPHICAL AND PROSOPOGRAPHICAL INDEX Veliterna (tabula) 131 Venda (monte) 69 Vendupale (watercourse) 137 Vendupalis/Vindupalis (rivus) 134, 137, 181 Veneti 70, 85, 151-152 Venetia 71 Venetian (communities) 70 Venetic (area) 69-71, 73, 92, 94 Veraglasca (fiume) 139 Veraglasca (flumen) 139, 181 Veraglasca (stream) 139 Vercellae 89 Verde (valle del) 186 Verde (watercourse) 172 Verdon 147 Verona 153, 170, 176 Veronese (territory) 176 Maio Vestricio Suerrone figlio di Maio, nipote di Stazio 118 Maius Vestricius 122 Maius Vestricius Mai. f(ilius) Stati n(epos) stirpe Suerroni 118 Maius Vestricius, son of Mai., grandson of Sta. prukupid sverruneí 118 Veturi(s) Langenses 75, 135, 141, 163 Veturian(s) 136, 140-141, 160, 164 Veturii 136, 141, 143, 157, 164, 166 Vibius Voisienus 107 Vicenza 70 Vicetia 68-69, 151 V(e)icetinus/V(e)icetini 69 Vicomorasso 178-179 Vigo di Casanova 178 Vigo d’Orero 178-179 Villa di Izosecco 170 Villa Langasina 185-186 Villavecchia 176 Vindupale (rio) 137 Vinelasca (rio) 137, 147 Vinelasca (rivus) 134, 137, 169, 181 Vinelasca (toponym) 187 Vinelasca (watercourse) 137, 172, 183, 187 Vittoria (pass) 146-147, 183 Vituries 135, 143 Vituries Langenses 75, 135, 142, 156 Viturii 74, 134, 136, 140-141, 143, 156, 160, 166-167, 178 Viturii Langenses 72-73, 91, 95, 149-150, 155-159, 162-164, 166-168, 182 Viturius 135, 140 Voltri (Genova) 146 Westphalia (peace/treaty) 35, 190 256 GIFBIB_21.indb 256 03/12/19 12.28