DOCSLIB.ORG

Roman Litigation – Reports of Court Proceedings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Roman Litigation – Reports of Court Proceedings Imperium and Officium Working Papers (IOWP) Roman Litigation – Reports of Court Proceedings Version 02 May 2011 Bernhard Palme (University of Vienna, Department of Ancient History, Papyrology and Epigraphy) Abstract: Handbook article on litigation in Roman Egypt: outline of the legal practice, the officials involved, and the types of documents like court proceedings, petitions, regulations. Selection of relevant documents with translation and commentary. © Bernhard Palme 2011 [email protected] NFN Imperium and Officium. Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom 2 Roman Litigation – Reports of Court Proceedings The emperor was the highest judicial authority in Egypt since its incorporation into the Roman Empire. He could be approached in a rescript procedure and he ruled on legal issues, which had been personally brought forth, either with the proviso si preces veritate nituntur, or he delegated trial and ruling to a local governor (Turpin 1991, Honoré 21994, Mourgues 1995). An appeal to the emperor occurred rarely in practice due to the exorbitant cost involved. Things were different, if an emperor visited the province and could be approached by the local population. During the journey of Septimius Severus to Egypt in 200 C.E., for example, various disputes were plead before him and his decisions (rescripta, ἀποκρίµατα) were subsequently published in Alexandria (P.Col. VI 123 = SB VI 9526). Normally, however, the praefectus Aegypti is, as representative of the emperor, the responsible person for the centralized jurisdiction (Wolff - Rupprecht 2002, 104–113). He officiates in plano et pro tribunali in Alexandria and at the annually held conventus (διαλογισµός) in distinguished cities of the Chora, especially Pelusium and Memphis (Foti Talamanca 1979, Haensch 1997). Additionally, the iuridicus Alexandreae (δικαιοδότης), the archidikastes and the idios logos all had, presumably, independent judicial authority. The legal system of Roman Egypt was, of cours, much more elaborated, and it developed during the centuries (Baade 1956, Seidl 1973, Anagnostou-Cañas 1991). Court cases, conducted according to Roman law, had the cognitio extra ordinem form. The practice, which is evident from the papyri, exhibits a wide range in the structure of the proceeding, where the borders between legal procedure and administrative procedure become blurred. The actual spate of law cases to be contended with is shown in P.Yale I 61: during three days of a conventus in year 210 C.E., the prefect had to conduct no less than 1804 law suits. The legal cases, therefore, had to be already well prepared by the local authorities, usually the strategi of the nomes (Witt 1977): an immediate ruling could only be made when the evidence was clear. The prefect referred all other cases back to the local authorities for the further gathering of evidence, in most cases to the strategus. Nevertheless, due to the large number of legal cases, the prefect delegated many suits, either at the very beginning or during the course of the proceedings, to iudices pedanei. These men were usually acting as procuratores (e.g. as epistrategus, archidikastes), military officers of equestrian status (Text 3) or strategi of the nomes (Texte 1 and 2), the latter primarily in cases involving peregrini. There does not seem to have been strict rules for such delegations. Only cases involving a high amount in dispute (as in P.Oxy. IV 706) – barring criminal jurisdiction – or political significance (as in FIRA III 19a) most likely reached a hearing before the prefect. Local courts continued to exist into the second century alongside the courts of the governor (and procuratores) and heard minor cases. The courts of the chrematistai (Jörs 1915 and 1918) were active also after the Ptolemaic period until at least 6/5 B.C.E. (SB III 6663), and Demotic documents indicate trials, until late into the first century C.E.., in which the NFN Imperium and Officium. Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom NFN Imperium and Officium. Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom 3 ruling was made dependent on a temple oath in the Ptolemaic manner (cf. also the sworn declaration in Text 1). In the second century, there still existed in Alexandria the court agency of the chrematistai and other criteria (whose name indicates its Ptolemaic origin), which handled (at least) enforcement and certification issues. The so-called (Egyptian) Law book of Hermoupolis, whose Demotic original was composed in third century B.C.E., was still copied in a Greek translation in the second half of the second century C.E. (P.Oxy. XLVI 3285). It wasn’t until the Constitutio Antoniniana (212 C.E.) that all inhabitants of the empire became Roman citizens and thus were subject to Roman law – theoretically at any rate, for it is not clear how long enchoric law(s), which appear in papyri as οἱ νόµοι τῆς χώρας oder οἱ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων νόµοι, continued to be simultaneously in use (Wolff - Rupprecht 2002, 113–149). Local legal traditions seems at least to have be integrated in „provincial law“. „Provincial law“, which is not identical with „imperial law“, consists on the one hand of legislation enacted by the princeps or the prefect, and the legal practice, of the prefect or the designated procurators, on the other. Not least the Gnomon of the Idios Logos (P.Oxy. XLII 3014, Oxy., 1st cent. C.E. and BGU V 1210, Ars., 149 C.E.) shows, that older, regional procedures were also considered by Roman office bearers. A methodical romanization of private law in the judicature did not take place. There solely existed for the soldiers a separate jurisdiction (Jung 1982, Texte 3 und 5). The people in the Chora willingly approached the officers stationed there with the request for legal aid or the hearing of evidence, although the soldiers possessed no legal competence (Peachin 2007, esp. 82–97, Texte 4). The governor’s dispensation of justice cannot be opposed by either party. The Roman office bearers presumably made judgements based essentially on Roman law, but they were free to take local practice and particularities into consideration (cf. the Gnomon). The proceedings begin with the editio actionis, the disclosure of the matter of dispute with the defendant (Foti Talamanca 1979 and 1984). There existed no strict regulation concerning the form of the editio, but as one had to prove that the editio had happened, one willingly undertook a „dispute announcement“ (litis denuntiatio) through a court official. If proof of summons was presented and the defendant had failed to appear to the appointed court hearings, a ruling by default could be decreed. The verbal trial obviously prevailed, wherein both parties were heard. In larger cases, lawyers (synegoroi, nomikoi, rhetores) almost always acted on behalf of clients and undertook the legal explanation of the circumstances. The parties had to furnish the legal rules in their favour, relevant files or legal documents were read. Witnesses recorded their testimony in written form prior to the trial (e.g. SB V 7523, Ars., 153 C.E.). No documents indicating sworn statements from witnesses in oral form have come to light. The trials were usually in public: they were carefully recorded and the minutes were made accessible to the public before they were stored in archives (see following). It is first with the emergence of the „libellus“ procedure in the fourth century (Text 6) that law suits possibly are decided on the grounds of written documents (the complaint and evidence) only, without a hearing of the parties. The rulings of the judges are recorded most often in NFN Imperium and Officium. Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom NFN Imperium and Officium. Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom 4 only a brief sentence in the transcripts. The judgements (sententiae) were presumably publicized by a notice from the governor (Haensch 1994). The enforcement of a ruling was left to the winner of the trial. That even an imperial judgement was difficult to enforce when faced with local potentates is shown in P.Cair.Masp. I 67032 = Sel.Pap. II 363 (Constantinopel, 551 C.E.), where two high-ranking comites travel, for a fee, from Constantinople to the Thebais in order to compel a judgement as exsecutores. Settlements were regarded by the judges, especially in late antiquity, as a worthwhile goal (P.Münch. I 6; Syene, 583 C. E.). The arbitration agreement (compromissum) and the settlement (dialysis) first appear in larger numbers in the fifth century. Most of the clues we have to case practice and hearing procedure in Roman Egypt come from court proceedings transcripts (Anagnostou-Cañas 2000). Approximately 200 transcripts of this sort have become known up until now from the Principate (Coles 1966) and approximately 55 from the Dominate (Thomas 1998, 132f.), some however very fragmentary, pieces of evidence. The written accounts of the hearings before the courts of the Roman governor (praefectus Aegypti), the procuratores or the delegated judges differ clearly from the forms of legal proceedings which were recorded during the time of the Ptolemaic rulers (Jörs, 1915, 275– 282). The narrative form dominated at that time, in which both the summations of the parties as well as the judgement were held in oratio obliqua. The last examples of this style are: P.Ryl. II 65 (Oxy., 67 B.C.E.) and BGU VIII 1773 (Heracl., 58 B.C.E.). No documents exist from the final phase of the Ptolemaic reign and the first decades of Roman rule which would illuminate the exact point in time and conversion process to the Roman type of protocol. As the Ptolemaic courts of the chrematistai are still active in 6/5 B.C.E. (SB III 6663) and Ptolemaic court proceedings transcripts existed certainly until at least this time as well.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparative Law: Ancient Law Fall 2016 Course
    Lanni, Adrian Comparative Law: Ancient Law Fall 2016 course Comparative Law: Ancient Law Fall 2016 Thurs.-Fri. 10-11:30 Hauser Hall rm. 102 Adriaan Lanni Griswold 500 Assistant: Jennifer Minnich, [email protected]; (617) 384-5428 Email: [email protected] Office hours: Fridays 12-2. There is a link to a sign-up sheet on my HLS website. Sign up for a slot by 5pm on Thursday for the following day’s office hours. General: This course examines topics in ancient law of interest to modern lawyers, including ancient approaches to crime and punishment, the regulation of sexuality (rape, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality), constitutional law, the trial jury, court procedure, international law, and commercial law. The focus will be on the legal systems of classical Athens and Rome. We will also look at other ancient legal systems where relevant to a particular topic. The broader goal will be to explore the role of law in a democratic society. Prior knowledge of ancient history or ancient languages is not required; all readings are in translation and the course is designed to be of interest to those without a background in the ancient world. The focus of the class will be on comparing various ancient and modern approaches to problems faced by all legal systems. Readings and Handouts: The required text is Carey, Trials from Classical Athens (2nd Edition), which should be available at the coop. Two additional required readings-- Aeschylus, Eumenides, and Brickhouse & Smith, The Trial and Execution of Socrates —are on reserve in the library, and can be purchased from amazon or ordered from the COOP if you would like to own them (any translation of Aeschylus will do for our purposes).
    [Show full text]
  • Flavius Athanasius, Dux Et Augustalis Thebaidis – a Case Study on Landholding and Power in Late Antique Egypt
    Imperium and Officium Working Papers (IOWP) Flavius Athanasius, dux et Augustalis Thebaidis – A case study on landholding and power in Late Antique Egypt Version 01 March 2013 Anna Maria Kaiser (University of Vienna, Department of Ancient History, Papyrology and Epigraphy) Abstract: From 565 to 567/568 CE Flavius Triadius Marianus Michaelius Gabrielius Constantinus Theodorus Martyrius Iulianus Athanasius was dux et Augustalis Thebaidis. Papyri mention him explicitly in this function, as the highest civil and military authority in the Thebaid, the southernmost province of the Eastern Roman Empire. Flavius Athanasius might be not the most typical dux et Augustalis Thebaidis concerning his career, but most typical concerning his powerful standing in society. And he has the benefit of being one of the better- known duces et Augustales Thebaidis in the second half of the 6th century. This article will focus first on his official competence as dux et Augustalis: The geographic area(s) of responsibility, the civil and military branches of power will be treated. Second will be his civil branch of power; documents show his own domus gloriosa and prove his involvement with the domus divina, the estates of members of the imperial family itself. We will end with a look at his integration in the network of power – both in the Egyptian provinces and beyond. © Anna Maria Kaiser 2013 [email protected] Anna Kaiser 1 Flavius Athanasius, dux et Augustalis Thebaidis – A case study on landholding and power in Late Antique Egypt* Anna Maria Kaiser From 565 to 567/568 CE Flavius Triadius Marianus Michaelius Gabrielius Constantinus Theodorus Martyrius Iulianus Athanasius was dux et Augustalis Thebaidis.
    [Show full text]
  • The Edictum Theoderici: a Study of a Roman Legal Document from Ostrogothic Italy
    The Edictum Theoderici: A Study of a Roman Legal Document from Ostrogothic Italy By Sean D.W. Lafferty A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Toronto © Copyright by Sean D.W. Lafferty 2010 The Edictum Theoderici: A Study of a Roman Legal Document from Ostrogothic Italy Sean D.W. Lafferty Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Toronto 2010 Abstract This is a study of a Roman legal document of unknown date and debated origin conventionally known as the Edictum Theoderici (ET). Comprised of 154 edicta, or provisions, in addition to a prologue and epilogue, the ET is a significant but largely overlooked document for understanding the institutions of Roman law, legal administration and society in the West from the fourth to early sixth century. The purpose is to situate the text within its proper historical and legal context, to understand better the processes involved in the creation of new law in the post-Roman world, as well as to appreciate how the various social, political and cultural changes associated with the end of the classical world and the beginning of the Middle Ages manifested themselves in the domain of Roman law. It is argued here that the ET was produced by a group of unknown Roman jurisprudents working under the instructions of the Ostrogothic king Theoderic the Great (493-526), and was intended as a guide for settling disputes between the Roman and Ostrogothic inhabitants of Italy. A study of its contents in relation to earlier Roman law and legal custom preserved in imperial decrees and juristic commentaries offers a revealing glimpse into how, and to what extent, Roman law survived and evolved in Italy following the decline and eventual collapse of imperial authority in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • The Praetor As a Promoter of Bonum Commune
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Jagiellonian Univeristy Repository The praetor as a promoter of bonum commune Franciszek Longchamps de Bérier Abstract. – The common good is the reason why political authority exists, the reason why the state exists. This is clearly visible today, and it was also clearly visible to the Romans. The praetor’s work represented par excellance the actualization of the common good under specific conditions and for particular persons. The praetor was endowed with powers which ensured autonomy of action in Rome, limited only by the one-year-long term of office, or an objection by members of the magistracy. He was to act for the benefit of his fellow citizens as a group, and enhance their relationship with the civitas as well as among the citizens themselves. It was only in the latter sphere that he began to play an important role in the protection of private rights. The urban praetor combined all three spheres, which led to the emergence of ways for resolving and settling conflicts, thus improving conditions for the development of individuals within the State, understood as a community of citizens. The claim that the praetor promoted the common good that way – being both predestined and empowered to do so – results from an attempt at identifying the values behind legal solutions. It is not enough to establish what functions were performed by the magistrate and what tools he had at his disposal. It appears 217 that the quintessence of the mission the praetor was entrusted with was promotion of the common good – the way, naturally, it was understood by him and his fellow citizens understood it.
    [Show full text]
  • Expulsion from the Senate of the Roman Republic, C.319–50 BC
    Ex senatu eiecti sunt: Expulsion from the Senate of the Roman Republic, c.319–50 BC Lee Christopher MOORE University College London (UCL) PhD, 2013 1 Declaration I, Lee Christopher MOORE, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 2 Thesis abstract One of the major duties performed by the censors of the Roman Republic was that of the lectio senatus, the enrolment of the Senate. As part of this process they were able to expel from that body anyone whom they deemed unequal to the honour of continued membership. Those expelled were termed ‘praeteriti’. While various aspects of this important and at-times controversial process have attracted scholarly attention, a detailed survey has never been attempted. The work is divided into two major parts. Part I comprises four chapters relating to various aspects of the lectio. Chapter 1 sees a close analysis of the term ‘praeteritus’, shedding fresh light on senatorial demographics and turnover – primarily a demonstration of the correctness of the (minority) view that as early as the third century the quaestorship conveyed automatic membership of the Senate to those who held it. It was not a Sullan innovation. In Ch.2 we calculate that during the period under investigation, c.350 members were expelled. When factoring for life expectancy, this translates to a significant mean lifetime risk of expulsion: c.10%. Also, that mean risk was front-loaded, with praetorians and consulars significantly less likely to be expelled than subpraetorian members.
    [Show full text]
  • Anglo-Saxon Constitutional History
    Outline 9/14/2020 ROMAN LAW PRINCIPATE CONSTITUTIONAL OUTLINE, PROCEDURE OUTLINE I. Chronology: Principate 27 BC – 284 AD; Dominate: 284–476 AD (in the West). There is some controversy as to where to place the beginning of the Dominate. 284 AD, the beginning of the reign of Diocletian, seems best. He seems to have been the first emperor to use the word dominus, from which we get ‘dominate’ as part of his official title. 1. 27 BC – 284 AD: Principate a. 27 BC – 69 AD: Julio-Claudian emperors. Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius (called Caligula), Claudius (made emperor by the praetorian guard), Nero (of burning of Rome fame) b. 68/69 AD, the year of the four emperors: Galba, Otho, Vitellus, Vespasian. The succession problem becomes public c. .69–96 AD: Flavian emperors (soldiers all): Vespasian, Titus (sacks Jerusalem), Domitian (Titus’ brother) d. 96–180 AD: “5 good emperors”: Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius. The first three were unrelated, the last two began a dynasty of Antonines. e. 180–235 AD: The Antonine dynasty merged into the Severan dynasty: Commodus (Marcus Aurelius’ son, a disaster as an emperor), Septimius Severus (a tough soldier and a good administrator), Caracalla (of baths and constitutio Antoniniana fame), Elagabalus (a sun-worshipper from the East), Severus Alexander (the last of the line). The last great classical jurist died shortly after the end of the Severan dynasty. The chronology continues; the following will be considered in class on 9/22/2020: f. 235–284 AD: “30 tyrants” 2. 284–565 AD: Dominate II. The Constitution of the Principate 1.
    [Show full text]
  • (IOWP) the Administration of Egypt in Late Antiquity
    Imperium and Officium Working Papers (IOWP) The Administration of Egypt in Late Antiquity Version 02 May 2011 Bernhard Palme (University of Vienna, Department of Ancient History, Papyrology and Epigraphy) Abstract: Lexicon article on the provincial administration of Egypt 284–641 AD. © Bernhard Palme 2011 [email protected] NFN Imperium and Officium. Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom 2 The Administration of Egypt in Late Antiquity Late antique Egypt exhibits the typical post-Diocletian fragmentation into smaller administrative units and the division between civilian and military authority which had been in effect since approximately 308 throughout the empire. The civil administration was still in the hands of the praefectus Aegypti, residing in Alexandria, but around 298 Upper Egypt (the Thebais) became a separate province under a praeses Thebaidis ranking below the praefectus. In the course of the 4th century the arrangement of the provinces underwent several changes. While the Thebais with Antinoupolis as capital and Philae as southern border remained a single province, Lower Egypt was divided into Aegyptus Iovia (western Delta) and Aegyptus Herculia (eastern Delta) in 314/5. In 322 Aegyptus Mercuriana, resembling the old Heptanomia (Middle Egypt), was split from the Herculia. A praeses headed each of the four provinces. But already in 324 the bipartite model of Thebais and Aegyptus under a praefectus returned. A major change came in 341, when the eastern part of the Delta and the Heptanomia became the province Augustamnica, governed by a praeses in Pelusium, while the western Delta (Aegyptus ipsa) remained under the praefectus and the Thebais under the praeses.
    [Show full text]
  • Officium Majoris Hebdomadae, Et Octavae Paschae, Cum Cantu
    1935 OFFICIÜM MAJORIS HEBDOMADÆ ET OCTAVÆ PASCHÆ CUM CANTU JUXTA ORDINEM BREVIARII, MISSALIS ET PONTIFICALIS ROMANI EDITIO COMPKNDIOSA I JUXTA TYPICAM RATISBONÆ SUMPTIBUS ET TYPIS FRIDERIGI PUSTET S. 8EDIS APOST. ET S. RITÜUM GONGREQATIONIS TYPOGRAPHI 1923 Imprimatur. Ratisbonæ, die 11 Decembris 1922 Dr. Scheglmann Vic. Gen. Printed in Germany Pro Triduo Sacro Ant. Ghristus factus est pro nobis obœdiens usque ad mortem. Secunda node additur: Mortem autem crucis. Tertia node additur: Propter quod et Deus exaltávit ilium, et dedit illi nomen, quod est super omne nomen. Et sic dicitur etiam per omnes Horas diei. Cum incipitur Antiphona Christus factus est, omnes genufledunt: et ea finita, dicitur Pater noster totum sub silentio. Postea aliquantulum altius sequens Psalmus 50 iserere mei, Deus, * secúndum Cor mundum crea in me, Deus: M magnam misericórdiam tuam. * et spíritum rectum úmova in vis- Et secúndum multitúdinem mi- céribus meis. seratiónum tuárum, * dele iniqui· Ne projícias me a facie tua: * tátem meam. et spíritum sanctum tuum ne Amplius lava me ab iniquitáte áuferas a me. mea: • et a peccáto meo munda me. Redde mihi lætítiam salutáris Quóniam iniquitátem meam ego tui: * et spíritu piincipáli con- cognósco: * et peccátum meum fírma me. contra me est semper. Docébo iníquos vias tuas: * et Tibi soli peccávi, et malum co- ímpii ad te converténtur. ram te feci: • ut justificéris in Líbera me de sanguínibus, De- sermónibus tuis, et vincas cum us, Deus salútis meæ: * et exsul- judicáris. tábit lingua mea justítiam tuam. Ecce enim in iniquitátibus con- Dómine, lábia mea aperies: * et céptus sum: * et in peccátis con- os meum annuntiábit laudem tuam.
    [Show full text]
  • A Quest for the Multicultural Origins of the "Western Legal Tradition" P
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 51 | Issue 3 Article 2 1-2000 Black Gaius: A Quest for the Multicultural Origins of the "Western Legal Tradition" P. G. Monateri Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation P. G. Monateri, Black Gaius: A Quest for the Multicultural Origins of the "Western Legal Tradition", 51 Hastings L.J. 479 (2000). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol51/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Articles Black Gaius A Quest for the Multicultural Origins of the 'Western Legal Tradition" by P.G. MONATERI* Table of Contents Introduction: A Reversal of Grounds .................................................481 I. Manufacturing the Western Roots ...................................................484 A. Genealogies and Governance ..............................................484 (1) The "Aryan Model"........................................................ 490 (2) The "African-Semitic Theory"...................................... 496 B. Reaction to Revisionism: The Professional Resistance ..502 C. The "Western Canon": Tradition and Dissemination .....506 II. A Critique of the Western Genius ..................................................514
    [Show full text]
  • Lactantius Notes
    1 Tiberius Caesar: emperor AD 14-37. 2 crucio (1) to torture; eccl crucify. post diem decimum Kalendas Apriles: March 23. 3 duobus Geminis consulibus: L. Rubellius Geminus ad C. Fufius Geminus were consuls in AD 29. Lactantius is following the Latin tradition; the Greek tradition preferred AD 33. 4 congrego (1) to gather together, collect. metus, -us m fear. comprehensio f arrest, aprehension; perception, comprehension. 5 deibus XL: ablative of duration of time. commoror (1) to tarry, linger, abide. cor, cordis n heart. 6 interpretor (1) to explain, expound. 7 involutus, -a, -um, intricate, obscure. ordino (1) to set in order, arrange, adjust. praedicatio f proclamation; eccl preaching. 8 dogama, -atis n doctrine, dogma. dispono, -ere, -posui, -positum, to set in order, arrange; settle, determine. sollemnis, -e, yearly, annual; established, appointed, customary; solemn. 9 officium n duty, task. repleo, -ere, -evi, -etum, to fill up; complete. circumvolo, -ere, -volvi, -volutum, to roll around, intwine. procella f violent wind, storm. 10 subtraho, -ere, -traxi, -tractum, to carry off, withdraw. oculis: ablative of separation. 11 assumo, -ere, -sumpsi, -sumptum, to take up, receive, accept. Ablative absolute with Mathia et Paulo. Iudas, -ae m Judas Iscariot. proditor m betrayer, traitor. Paulo: only Matthias was added to the number of disciples to replace Judas. Some editors emend the text to remove this odd reference to Paul. 12 dispergo, -ere, -spersi, -spersum, to scatter (on all sides), disperse. sicut adv just as. 13 illis: dative with imperaverat. 14 principium n beginning, origin; post-class mastery, dominion, principate. Neroiniani: note the adjective form with imperii.
    [Show full text]
  • Latin Derivatives Dictionary
    Dedication: 3/15/05 I dedicate this collection to my friends Orville and Evelyn Brynelson and my parents George and Marion Greenwald. I especially thank James Steckel, Barbara Zbikowski, Gustavo Betancourt, and Joshua Ellis, colleagues and computer experts extraordinaire, for their invaluable assistance. Kathy Hart, MUHS librarian, was most helpful in suggesting sources. I further thank Gaylan DuBose, Ed Long, Hugh Himwich, Susan Schearer, Gardy Warren, and Kaye Warren for their encouragement and advice. My former students and now Classics professors Daniel Curley and Anthony Hollingsworth also deserve mention for their advice, assistance, and friendship. My student Michael Kocorowski encouraged and provoked me into beginning this dictionary. Certamen players Michael Fleisch, James Ruel, Jeff Tudor, and Ryan Thom were inspirations. Sue Smith provided advice. James Radtke, James Beaudoin, Richard Hallberg, Sylvester Kreilein, and James Wilkinson assisted with words from modern foreign languages. Without the advice of these and many others this dictionary could not have been compiled. Lastly I thank all my colleagues and students at Marquette University High School who have made my teaching career a joy. Basic sources: American College Dictionary (ACD) American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (AHD) Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (ODEE) Oxford English Dictionary (OCD) Webster’s International Dictionary (eds. 2, 3) (W2, W3) Liddell and Scott (LS) Lewis and Short (LS) Oxford Latin Dictionary (OLD) Schaffer: Greek Derivative Dictionary, Latin Derivative Dictionary In addition many other sources were consulted; numerous etymology texts and readers were helpful. Zeno’s Word Frequency guide assisted in determining the relative importance of words. However, all judgments (and errors) are finally mine.
    [Show full text]
  • Actions', in E
    This is an electronic reprint from Roman Law Resources (www.IusCivile.com). Copyright © 1998 by Ernest Metzger. All rights reserved. This piece originally appeared as E. Metzger, 'Actions', in E. Metzger, ed., A Companion to Justinian's Institutes (London: Gerald Duckworth and Co., Ltd, and New York: Cornell University Press, 1997), ISBN 0715628305 (Duckworth Pbk), 071562798 (Duckworth Hbk), 0801485843 (CUP Pbk), 0801436192 (CUP Hbk), pp 208-228. Authors should cite to the original work: the original pagination is noted below by use of angle brackets < >. All enquiries concerning the use or reproduction of this material should be addressed to the author. Actions Ernest Metzger, University of Aberdeen I. 'Action' (J.4.6 pr; 4.15) II. The Formulary Procedure III. The Law of Actions IV. Real and Personal Actions (J.4.6.1 – 15, 20) V. State-Law and Honorary Actions (J.4.6.3 – 13) VI. Restorative, Penal, and Hybrid Actions (J.4.6.16 – 19; 4.12.1) VII. Other Classifications (J.4.6.28 – 30; 4.8) Select Bibliography Notes Errata The law of actions is the last of the three subjects in the institutional scheme, and is quite different from the subjects that precede it. While the earlier subjects are concerned with substantive rules, the law of actions is concerned with redress. It is not quite the same as ‘the law of procedure’, however; it often includes matters that might easily have been treated under the law of persons or of things. This is because actions evolved as a subject over a time when procedure was not distinct from substantive law.
    [Show full text]