Home Aggiornamenti/Update The addressees of the so called Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus
The addressees of the so called Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus Stampa E-mail


The addressees of the so called Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus[1]

(revised and updated: January/2013)




To find out who were the addressees of the edict of the consuls on Bacchanalia (CIL X, 104) is sufficient to read the first three lines of the text and interpret them correctly. The consuls Quintus Marcius and Spurius Postumius (note that their names stand at the beginning of the text), begin the document showing the procedure followed. After doing a violent persecution of the followers of Bacchus, they realized that it was necessary regulate for the future participation of believers to the worship of Bacchus and its hierarchy. They consulted the senate (consoluerunt) for an opinion on October 7 of 186 BC in the temple of Bellona and played as secretaries: Marcus Claudius, Lucius Valerius and Quintus Minucius. Soon after, they testify that the senators advised (censuere) that it was necessary to promulgate an edict (exdeicendum)[1] with these provisions (literally: ita "so") to those who were affiliates (quoi foideratei esent) within the Bacchanalia (de Bacchanalibus).

The adverb ita is clearly keyword. It tells us that the document is the edict of the consuls on the Bacchanalia[2] where they incorporate the standards recommended by the senators and make them executive. According to the Roman constitution, executive power was, in fact, exclusive of magistrates. The senators could only give an opinion which alone had no legal value if the magistrate petitioner did not promulgate it through an edict. In fact, the magistrate had the right not to accept the advice of the Senate or to accept it only in part. The consuls show, with the use of the gerundive, that the senators have urged the edict as something very urgent. Then they point out that the addressees of the rules were those who in the context of Bacchanalia had made agreements with each other that are the followers of the cult of Bacchus.


Most scholars still consider the foideratei the Italic peoples with which Rome had established alliances (foedera), that could be under the same conditions (aequa) or at disadvantage of either (iniqua).

 This is an incorrect interpretation from whatever point of view you look at the issue.

First the documents that you have on this subject clearly show that Teurani could not be Italic allies. In fact, after the battle near Cannae (217 B.C.), almost all the towns of Bruttium had failed the alliance with Rome and had allied themselves with Hannibal. Livy[3], indeed, hands down that, while these events occurred in Rome and in Italy, Mago, son of Hamilcar, came to Carthage, to announce the victory of Cannae. He had not come directly from the battlefield, but had stopped a few days to receive the surrender of the cities of Brutii, as they abandoned the alliance with Rome. After he arrived to Carthage, Mago could announce together with the victory at Cannae also that Brutii, Apulians and a part of Samnites and Lucans had sided with the Carthaginians[4].   Livy sometimes reports various localities of Bruttium which had sided with Hannibal, but the town Tiriolo (Teura?)[5] is not among these, perhaps it is included among those which he calls ignobiles ciuitates or ignobiles populi[6].

However, the lot of Punic coins[7], discovered in Tiriolo territory, bears witness to the close business relations of the local inhabitants with Carthaginians. It proves that the ager Teuranus too was allied with Hannibal. Tiriolo occupied an important strategic position: it was situated in a place dominating the narrower point of road (the saddle of Marcellinara) that connected the Ionic sea with Tyrrhenian. It played a defensive role and controlled the commercial traffic between the two shores of Calabrian.  Probably Hannibal realized this strategic importance and he seems to have put his camp in the isthmus of Catanzaro (in sino squillaceo)[8], that was very few kilometres from Tiriolo. After Hannibal came back to Africa, gradually Rome managed to recapture the Bruttium territory, but many battles were necessary to force to capitulation a population that loved his liberty and was ready to defend it with every possible means. Bruttii did not surrender certainly without fighting: this is testified by fact that, before Scipio brought the war to Africa, their fortresses had become a pile of ruins[9]. We, further, know well that Romans were very harsh towards those people which had revolted against the Roman authority.

We must add that the struggle for the recapture not only had been hard but it was also very precarious. In fact we know that the background in Bruttium was not peaceful. Indeed Rome continued to maintain in this region considerable military strengths and turned this locality into a praetorian province. In 200 BC the praetor Q. Minucius Rufus was sent there with a military contingent formed by five thousand allied of the Latin confederation[10]. The danger was a land of the eastern allied of Hannibal on the Bruttium coast, but not only this.  In fact the mandate was extended to praetor Minucius for following year to conclude the inquiry about conspiracies that he had conducted the previous year with scruple and zeal[11].

The precise reference to coniurationes demonstrates that the territory not only had been recaptured after hard struggles but it had been not quite pacified. All the peoples, that had aligned themselves with Hannibal, were very angry and they constituted a continuous danger for the Roman peace. Therefore the consuls were appointed to recruit two urban legions that they might be sent where the situation requires it, since many people who had sided with the Carthaginians were boiling with rage.[12] The point of view of Roman authorities towards these peoples is synthesized with preciseness by C. Publius Sulpicius consul at 200 BC. During a meeting to persuade the people to fight against Macedonian Philip, he says about Lucans, Brutii and Samnites:they always are ready to defect if have someone with whom to join”[13].

That explains very well the Roman behaviour towards the Brutii after the recapture.

Historian Happianus testifies: after the departure of Hannibal for Africa, while the other peoples, that sided with him, were forgiven and amnestied, Brutii not only were severely punished (They were disarmed and a considerable part of their territory was sequestered; it, of course, became ager publicus) but were humiliated too (as they were not considered free men, were no longer used as soldiers but as oarsmen or servants of the magistrates) [14]. This witness is generally confirmed by Gellius[15]: the Romans did not consider the Brutii allied since they had been the first to side with Hannibal; he also insists on the humiliation inflicted by Romans to Brutii.

Therefore not only an external danger existed in Bruttium but also the danger of an internal defection. You cannot understand the nature of conspiracies or if those were linked to the Bacchic movement. But some accounts make understand that also the religious background was not very peaceful. The charge was prolonged to the praetors of the previous year. ... to Minucius so that he executed those guilty of sacrilege which he had sent to Rome in chains and give back, with sacrifices, what had been stolen from the temple of Proserpina[16].      

The expiatory sacrifices (piacula) demonstrate that the Romans perceived the theft at the temple of Proserpina as a collective insult towards the goddess of Locri and they considered it as prodigium[17]. We must add that the prodigia seemed to multiply. From the Bruttium pro-praetor Minucius reported that a calf was born with five feet and three chicks each with three feet[18]. Such prodigia were taken very seriously by Senate. In fact, the Senate ordered that the consuls sacrificed victims large to the gods; for this miracle were summoned to the Senate Haruspices and according to the their response was ordered to the people a supplication of one day and sacred ceremonies were performed in each pulvinar[19].

So the Romans not only were apprehensive of an external danger (a discharge of Hannibal’s allied) and of an internal danger (a new defection), but also, because of prodigia, they were terrified by the divine will that could be opposed to the roman cause.

Therefore, the vast region of the central Bruttium surrounded by the allied towns (Petelia and Consentia north, Copia-Turi northeast, Croto southeast, Temsa southwest) recaptured by force of the Roman army, is severely punished and it generally became ager publicus “immovable expanses that formed object of a tenure and disposal power for populus romanus perfectly similar to dominium ex iure of the private citizens”[20].  Further Rome had a greatest interest in the direct control of this country, as it included the high and rich forests of Sila that were very important for the shipbuilding[21]. In addiction Romans gained large incomes with the harnessing of resinous substances (pitch)[22].

Therefore, it is quite likely that the town of Tiriolo occupying almost the half of this region was ager publicus too[23], when it received the consular edict about the Bacchanals. All the country moreover was probably within the jurisdiction of a prefect. Prefects were sent from Rom to all the localities where the local magistrates had been abolished, since the population had risen up against the Romans[24]. The Roman prefects had to administer the justice and supervise to markets[25]. Ager Teuranus was in such condition: it had not local magistrates and there was a market[26].

But it is quite likely that Tiriolo was not a main office of prefecture, as Cahrstedt[27] thinks, since the prefectures were administrative districts of larger towns[28]and “Tiriolo was not a polis in the topographic sense of the word but a locality, or, to use the technical word of consuls, an ager[29]. The territory was indeed sparsely urbanized and it was populated by small communities straggled in the country.

His judicial probably needs were met by the prefect, who dwelt in some of the Latin[30] or Roman[31] colonies which in those years were conducted on the coasts of Bruttium mainly for a more accurate control of a population docile little to the power of Rome and because it was feared as likely a return of Hannibal at the head of the Syrian fleet of Antiochus III and his invasion of the peninsula from that side[32], but also for the purpose of providing Roman citizens living in southern Italy where to go for their legal needs[33].

In short we can say that the historical events that we know, show that Teurani were not the allies Italics. Therefore believe that the addressees of the edict were Italic allies is first and foremost a historical mistake.

Some peculiarities of the text also confirm that the ager Teuranus was publicus ager Romanus. It could reasonably be added that just the discovery of the bronze table in this place without a doubt proves that the land was property of the Roman people.

Those who wanted to maintain a Bacchanal or ask any derogation from the rules laid down by the consuls had to go to Rome by the urban praetor, whose specific task was iurisdictio inter ciues[34]: In fact, he had responsibility for internal disputes Roman and not those involving allies [35].

The second prohibition states that Roman citizens, Latins and allies could not attend the meetings of the Bacchae if they had not been authorized[36]. As the socii are mentioned, some scholars have argued that this is a proof that the addressees of the document were the Italian allies[37].

They do not notice or maybe they do not want to consider:

- That would not be very reasonable, if they were in the same inscription also called foederatei, in fact, in a legal text in order to avoid any possible ambiguity are never used two words that mean the same thing, so if the allies are the socii cannot also be the foideratei.

- that socii are mentioned together with the Roman citizens and Latin.

Thus, the catch-all term of foideratei, which indicates at the beginning of the edict all the addressees, refers not only to the allies, but also to Roman citizens and Latins. This term therefore must have had a sense that linked together the three categories of people.

The connection between the Romans, Latin and allies is pretty obvious. The ager Teuranus was naturally inhabited by Roman citizens who had settled there to exploit its economic potential, but also by citizens of Latin law (do not forget that just a few miles from Tiriolo there was the Latin colony of Vibo) and local allies (they may have maintained for some reason their federal status after the annexation), or from allied cities that had remained loyal to Rome. After the Second Punic War, the political map of Italy was changed: there are signs of a substantial emigration from Latin and allied states to Rome and Roman areas[38]. Many Latin and Italians now were living in the Roman territories, as a result of immigration and annexations. The rules of the edict had then as addressees those who had done in the context of Bacchanalia any kind of pact between them; they were Roman citizens, Latin or allies. Therefore allies, of which you speak in the edict, are simply those who had moved into ager Romanus for various reasons and of course they were also obliged to comply with the Roman laws in force in the place[39].


It must also be emphasized that the epigraph of Tiriolo is an edict consular regulatory which provides punishment for offenders. It was then equivalent to a real law[40].  Now it is well known that a legal text has specific rules that must be evaluated carefully if you do not want to misunderstand the meaning of the discourse.

And it is amazing that none of the scholars proponents of the translation of foideratei with the Italic allies (many of them actually simply translate the word with allies, without question) deal with the legal aspect of the text of the epigraph of Tiriolo.

So they commit a fundamental error, do not take into consideration that in the formulation of a criminal statute the addressees of the rules anytime and anywhere are never the community but individuals in the community that must comply[41]. In our case the addressees were those who had to obey the rules about the Bacchanals, that were the followers of Bacchic cult and obliquely those who had intention of adhere to Bacchic worship. The other cives were, for the time being, not addressees of rules.

 As example of this fundamental mistake, it is possible to quote the Gelzer’s view.  He first, rightly, notes that the hypothesis, the foideratei are the Bacchic followers, is sustained by the Livy’s passage (39, 14, 7): ne quis, qui Bacchis initiatus esset, coisse aut convenisse sacrorum causa velit. Indeed, this passage seems to paraphrase the text of the consular edict and to interpret quei foideratei esent with the expression quis Bacchis initiatus esset. Afterward he does not analyse this illuminating passage and rejects this hypothesis claiming that the start of senatorial deliberation in the epigraph, nei quis eorum Bacanal habuise velet, bans generally the Bacchic shrines, address not only Bacchantes and eorum can be referred to all addressees of measures in the edict.

Now I wonder why the preservation of Bacchic shrines had to concern those who are not followers of Bacchus. It is neither reasonable nor credible that peoples who were not affiliated to Bacchic cult had or wanted to have a shrine of the god. It seems to me that Gelzer, as many scholars afterward, in this case splits hairs and sees no further than the end of one’s nose. So there are no grounds for the observation of J. Briscoe that “if foideratei 'means participants in the cult' and we understand eeis, the consequence is that the edict is made only to the participants: if we understand eorum ('concerning the Bacchanalia of participants'), it applies only to participants, when it is clearly of general application”[42]

After Gelzer other scholars have tried to justify the sense of “Italic allied”. Pailler, with a sharp analysis concludes that ager Teuranus was ager publicus, when it received the consular edict, but then he refuses the logic consequence and translates the word with allied too[43]. He refuses the theory that the foideratei are the Bacchic followers only because “tous les emplois des mots foedus, foederatus attestés par le Thesaurus nous ramènent en effet à un traité officiel, bilatéral, conclu entre cités, et spécifiquement entre Rome e d’autres cités”.

But are things really so? Meanwhile, the term foedus indicates both an alliance or treaty between princes and free states and a private agreement, ad aliquid agendum, i.q. societas, coniuratio, consensus, concordia; amicitiae, hospitii, collegii, societatis sim.[44] And, as evidenced by the Thesaurus, it has been repeatedly used in both the public and private sectors[45]. Foederatus for the Thesaurus foedere constrictus, at least in the texts that we have received it is generally used in the relations between the Romans and other peoples, among the soldiers auxiliaries or among other peoples[46]. But in a passage of Livy (XXV, 18, 10) foederatus certainly indicates a person who has made ​​a private agreement and I think it is not necessary to explain why, in literary texts, agreements between individuals are less frequent.

To be more precise about the meaning of the two words, by a punctual and systematic analysis of all the passages of Thesaurus is clear that foedus always indicates a general agreement and foederatus indicates who made a pact without it being specified that this is the covenant. The sense is therefore always the same a person who has made ​​a private agreement both in public and private sectors. In the texts of course the words are used more in the public than private sectors but there is never any difference in meaning. If the meaning is always the same, talk of public and private is a specious subtlety. In our text, then the de bacanalibus foideratei esent are certainly "those who had made ​​a pact with each other within the Bacchanalia."

Basically the all-encompassing term foideratei anticipates absolutely prohibited all agreements between the followers of Bacchus, which are specified in great detail in the third ban: it orders them to "not bind with oaths, not make vows each other, not engage solemnly towards each other, not make mutual promises, not establish relations of mutual trust."[47]

From this it is also evident the absurd observation of some scholars that, in order to exclude the sense of "followers of Bacchus" for foideratei, they pulled out as decisive the fact that the term foedus or better the verb foederare does not appear in the terms conpromittere, coniurare, comvovere and conspondere that appear on lines 13-14 of the edict[48].

The generic terms of foedus or foederare were simply incompatible with verbs much precise and punctual used to point out all kinds of agreement prohibited. To add to that the verbs were also chosen because they all have the prefix con / com (cum). Even this very significant alliteration precluded the use of the verb foederare, that was not only useless but out of place together with the verbs of the ban.

But the absurdity of this observation is demonstrated by the fact that the consuls absolutely could not use a word in their edict that even in the Latin language did not exist. In fact, the verb foedero was created by foederatus long after, only by Minucius Felix.[49] 

Bispham, who seems to have made ​​the defense of this thesis a personal matter, thinks the foideratei are socii, the allies of Rome, because the epigraph of Tiriolo (ll. 6-7) has used the unusual expression senatus noster. In his opinion, in fact, it would be useless if the SC did not address, at least in this section, to a community non-Roman and / or individuals.[50] I cannot understand why Roman consuls who addressed to the people who lived in Roman territory, first to the ciues, should not use this expression. However, he himself responds to this concern when states that the term was justified if the SC was addressing to individuals. The document is in fact an edict of the consuls with the force of law that, as already explained, in its legal formulation is addressed only to individuals of the community that had to abide its measures.

In short it is clear from all points of view that the addressees of the edict of the consuls on the Bacchanalia were just all associated with the cult of Bacchus, among which there were also those who had not committed a crime and they could continue to maintain a place of worship of God, if they comply with the standards approved by the Senate in its meeting of October 9 of 186 BC.

Therefore we must reassess totally the belief of Mommsen who, as excellent  knower of Roman constitution, had understood, more than a century ago, that the addressees of “epistula consulum ad Teuranos” certainly were those who should have observe its rules. In his view the foideratei had not the allied but “the conspirators united by oath” [51]. Now the scholars prefer to talk of Kultgenossen[52] “associates to worship” or affiliés to cult[53].

In my opinion, in the first part of the edict, the consuls communicate to the initiates in Bacchic worship the senatorial measures which they must scrupulously follow: absolute prohibitions and prohibitions with derogations admitted on rigorous conditions.  It is equally clear that, if the direct addressees were the followers of Bacchus, the edict sent a precise message to inhabitants of the whole Italy, certainly not only to the allied: it was better for all keep away from the Bacchic followers.

If we translate the word foideratei with “the followers of Bacchus”, the sense of the consular edict become clearer and all its contradictions at once disappear:

- In the countryside Teurano there could be allies only minimally (only those who by chance you were to live in a Roman territory), since it was largely became ager publicus after the Second Punic War;

- The text of the edict, in the second prohibition, specifies precisely all the men who, without authorization, cannot join the Bacchae: they belong to the allies, but also to the Roman and Latin citizens. The term for the allies is socii, it follows that it is the word chosen to indicate them, and no other can have the same meaning in text. In fact, the legal texts, such as ours, are characterized by the use of words by the meaning precise, almost technical. So misunderstandings are avoided and the message is clear.

- If Teurani were allied, they could address to praetor peregrinus.

- It is not credible that the consular edict addressed only to allied and not to all those who had to respect it per totam Italiam.

With this interpretation, other two problems of edict are eliminated too: the enforcement of death penalty to Teurani without right of appeal to people and the intrusion of Roman consuls in internal questions of a sovereign state, even if allied.

If ager Teuranus was ager publicus the proceedings extra ordinem, advised by senators to consuls, must be considered legitimate at Rome but also in the places out of Rome which were integrating part of Roman territory. Such proceedings was justified and legitimate, since the authorities thought or pretended to think that Roman state was in a particular state of war. The senate took in fact the decision about the Bacchanals in the temple of Bellona out of pomerium.

Degrassi[54] has emphasized another problem, the consuls had applied discreetly and in some sense arbitrarily their imperium to the allied of ager Teuranus. But if this was ager publicus, as many scholars have showed, the problem does not exist.  The consuls do not have commit one arbitrary act and had all the necessary authority, as they did not apply the opinion of patres to peoples allied with Rome, but to a territory which was public Roman property. 


We can conclude saying that the puzzle of addressees of consular edict about the Bacchanals may be reassembled for a significant part. All pieces tidied up (historical conditions, juridical grounds and linguistic considerations) show, without exceptions, that the foideratei were first the associates to Bacchanalian cult and indirectly all the inhabitants of Roman republic (Roman citizens, Latin citizens, allied).


At this point it is natural to wonder why so many scholars have stubbornly ignored the legal status of the document, that it is a Roman law and that the document was found in a Roman territory (ager publicus) and continued to defend the thesis that foideratei are the Italian allies. I have posed this question to me, but so far I could not give an answer because more than defend their thesis, they endeavor to prove with quibbles impractical that of foideratei = followers of Bacchus[55].

I was not surprised that they translated the word with allied; really the adjective foideratei means allied too. I am not satisfied by reference to the Italic allied that at all are not connected with a consular edict. Suddenly and finally I had an illuminating idea. I took into consideration my translation of the expression de Bacanalibus quei foideratei esent ita exdeicendum censuere “(the senators) recommended that it is necessary to issue with an edict to those who did a deal about the Bacchanals these measures (literally so)”. In this translation I replaced those who did a deal with those who ware allied. My translation has turned “(the senators) recommended that it is necessary to issue with an edict to those who ware allied about the Bacchanals these measures). It was very clear that the meaning was the same. It was obvious too that the mistake of those scholars was not lexical (the meaning of foideratei is insignificant) but syntactical (the two expressions de bacanalibus and quei foideratei esent are translated separately; on the contrary they are indissolubly related. The foideratei may be the allied but not the italic allied. They are those who were allied about the Bacchanals that are the followers of Bacchic cult. With the benefit of hindsight, it clearly appears that the phrase must be interpreted in its semantic unity and the two expressions cannot be translated separately, without trying totally the meaning. Considering the obviousness, I wonder why nobody thought about it.

I want to make know the answer of J.M. Pailler, professor of Roman history at the University of Toulouse, when (it was the beginning of the year) I informed him of my little discovery:


«Grazie molte. Ha inaugurato bene l'anno nuovo! Do un'occhiata... magari qualcosa di più! Ma ci vuole un po’ di tempo. Comunque sia, ha ragione Lei: questo problema rimane senz'altro affascinante. Cordialmente. J.M. Pailler.»


[1] Consulo,-is is the technical verb of the magistrates asking an opinion to the Senate (Ernout-Meillet, p. 139).

[2] Livy, XXXIX, 14, 7: Edici praeterea in urbe Roma et per totam Italiam edicta mitti [...]. Haec senatus decreuit. Kupfer concludes her recent paper (Anmerkungen zu Sprache und Textgattung des Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus, in Glotta, LXXX (2004) p. 158-160) with a thorough demonstration that “ CIL I² 581 ist ein Edikt”.


[3] Livy, XXIII, 11, 7: dum haec Romae atque in Italia geruntur, nuntius uictoriae ad Cannas Carthaginem uenerat Mago, Hamilcaris filius, non ex ipsa acie a fratre missus sed retentus aliquot dies in recipiendis ciuitatibus Bruttiorum quae deficiebant.

[4] Livy, XXIII, 11, 11.

[5] This was perhaps the name of Tiriolo (Kirsten, Viaggiatori e vie in epoca greca e romana in Vie di Magna Grecia, Atti Taranto II, 1962, p. 142).

[6] Livy, XXIX, 38, 1; Livy, XXX, 19, 10. Cfr. F. Costabile, Istituzioni e forme costituzionali nelle città del Bruzio in età romana, Napoli, 1984, p. 92.

[7] They are silver coins and by Sicilian Punic mint, with female head surrounded by ears (the goddess Tanit) on obverse and the classic horse on reserve. The animal has a small globe under tummy. This one would show a Punic allied. About a hundred of these are kept in national museum of Reggio Calabria, but many others are in the private collections. Cfr. Manfredi, Monete puniche a Tiriolo (CZ) in RSF 17, 1989, pp. 55-60.

[8] Plinius senior, Naturalis Historia, III, 95.

[9] Livy, XXVIII, 44, 9. Scipio, before leaving to Carthage, speaking about Hannibal, in meeting affirms: in sua terra cogam pugnare eum, et Carthago potius praemium uictoriae erit quam semiruta Bruttiorum castella.

[10] Livy, XXXI, 8, 7: Praetoribus L Furio Purpurioni et Q. Minucio Rufo quina milia socium Latini nominis consules darent, quibus praesidiis alter Galliam, alter Bruttios prouinciam obtineret.

[11] Livy, XXXII, 1, 8: Prorogata imperia praetoribus prioris anni,[...] Q. Minucio ut in Bruttiis idem de coniurationibus quaestiones quas praetor cum fide curaque exercuisset perficeret et eos quos sacrilegii compertos in uinculis Romam misisset Locros mitteret ad supplicium quaeque sublata ex delubro Proserpinae essent reponenda cum piaculis curaret.

[12] Livy, XXXI, 8, 11: et consules duas urbanas legiones scribere iussi, quae si quo res posceret, multis in Italia contactis gentibus Punici belli societate iraque tumentibus, mitterentur

[13] Livy, XXXI, 7, 12.

[14] Appianus, ΄Αννιβαική, VII, 61.

[15] Gellius, Noctes Atticae, X, 3, 19.

[16] Livy, XXXII, 1, 8: Prorogata imperia praetoribus prioris anni,[...] Q. Minucio … eos quos sacrilegii compertos in uinculis Romam misisset Locros mitteret ad supplicium quaeque sublata ex delubro Proserpinae essent reponenda cum piaculis curaret.

[17] Pailler, Bacchanalia [10], pp. 295 – 296.

[18] Livy, XXXII, 1, 11: Et ex Bruttiis ab Q. Minucio propraetore scriptum eculeum cum quinque pedibus, pullos gallinaceos tres cum ternis pedibus natos esse.

[19] Livy,XXXII, 1, 13-14: Priorum prodigiorum causa senatus censuerat ut consules maioribus hostiis quibus diis uideretur sacrificarent; ob hoc unum prodigium haruspices in senatum uocati, atque ex responso eorum supplicatio populo in diem unum edicta et ad omnia puluinaria res diuinae factae.

[20] Guarino, Storia del diritto romano, Milano, 1963, p. 224-225.

[21] Denis by Alicarnasso, XX, 15 (20, 5 e 6). 

[22] Cicero, Brutus, XXII, 85-88; Cf. Pailler, Bacchanalia [10], p. 28.

[23] Rudolph, Stadt und Staat im römischen Italien, Leipzig, 1935, p. 165: “ager Teuranus (sicher einem Bürgergebiet)”.

[24] Sartori, Problemi di storia costituzionale italiota, Roma, 1953, p. 168.

[25] Festus, De uerborum significatu, s.u. praefecturae, (p. 262 Lindsay): Praefecturae eae appellantur in Italia, in quibus et ius dicebatur et nundinae agebantur; et erat quaedam earum r(es) p(ublica), neque tamen magistratus suos habebat. In + qua his + (quas ?) legibus praefecti mittebantur quotannis qui ius dicerent.

[26] CIL, X, 104, r. 22-23, utei in conuentionid exdeicatis ne minus trinum noundinum.

[27] Kahrstedt, Ager publicus [13], p. 191: “Tiriolo gibt uns einen Begriff, wie solcher Sitz einer Präfektur aussah”.

[28] Magaldi, Lucania romana, Roma 1947, I, p. 230.

[29]  Ferri, Tiriolo.[13], p. 343.

[30] Copia nel 193 (Livio, XXXV, 9, 7-8.) e Vibo Valentia nel 192 (Livio, XXXIV, 53, 1-2; XXXV, 40, 5-6).

[31] Crotone e Temsa nel 194 (Livio, XXXIV, 45, 1-5).

[32] Givigliano G.P., Fondazione di colonie romane e latine nei Brutii postannibalici, in Miscellanea di Studi Storici, XV, 2008, p. 59.

[33] Knapp Festus 262 L., in «Athenaeum», 1980, p. 37 n.87: «Part of the purpose of these colonies may have been to provide judicial service to Roman citizens living in southern Italy after second Punic war».

[34] Guarino Storia del diritto romano, 1963, p. 213

[35] Cfr. Mouritsen, Italian unification, London 1998, p. 56: «Unlike his opposite, the praetor inter peregrinos, the praetor urbanus dealt exclusively with internal Roman disputes, not involving allies».

[36] CIL X, 104, 7-8: Bacas uir adiese uelet ceiuis romanus neue nominus Latini neue socium / quisquam.

[37] De libero, Italia, in «Klio», 76, 1994, p. 307.

[38]Mouritsen, Italian unification 1998, p. 55.

[39] Mouritsen, Italian unification 1998, p. 55: «Juridically, all foreigners staying on ager Romanus would as a matter of course have been covered by the general ban against Bacchanals expressed in line 2-3».

[40] Lintott, Nova Roma, Interview about the constitution of Roman  Republic, 13 august 2008.

[41] Albanese, Per l’interpretazione dell’iscrizione con norme del SC. (186 a.C.), in Iuris vincula: Studi in onore di Mario Talamanca, Napoli 2001.

[42] Briscoe, The Bacchanalia in A commentary on Livy. Books 38-40, pp. 230-290, Oxford 2007. p. 246

[43] Pailler, Bacchanalia, p. 290.

[44]  Calonghi 1957, art. foedus, col. 1143; Thesaurus,  vol. VI, art. foedus, col. 1003-1004 (foedus publicum), col 1004-1006 (foedus priuatum).

[45] Thesaurus, vol. VI, art. foedus, col. 1004-1006 (foedus priuatum).

[46] Thesaurus , vol. VI, art. foederatus, col. 994-995.

[47] CIL, X, 104, neue post hac inter sed coniurase neue comuouise neue conspondise neue conpromesise uelet neue quisquam fidem inter sed dedise uelet.

[48] For example: Bispham, From Asculum to Actium, p. 117-118: “The pleonastic language of the document elsewhere uses coniurare, convovere and conspondere to describe the illicit activity of Bacchanalians but non foedus or cognates”. Kupfer, , p. 178:“ …und Fehlen des ensprechenden verbums (foederare) in der Liste Z. 13“.

[49] Ernout-Meillet, s.u.  foederatus.

[50] Bispham, From Asculum, p. 117

[51] Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, I., Leipzig, 1887 – 1888, p. 249, n. 3; Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht., Leipzig, 1899, p. 875.

[52] Rudolph, Stadt und Staat, p. 162, 1.

[53] Lavency, Grammaire Fondamentale du Latin, Tome V, Paris, 1998, vol. II, p. 62.

[54] Degrassi, Inscriptiones latinae, p. 14. Cfr. Levi, Klearchos, 41-44, 1969, p. 15-23.

[55] This is already a clear sign of weakness of their opinions.

Ultimo aggiornamento Giovedì 09 Gennaio 2014 10:24