² But see, e.g., Walsh, P.G., Lwy, bis Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge, 1961), pp. 110 ff.Google Scholar

² See also Auctor de viris illustribus 4.9; Valerius Maximus, 6.3.6; 8.1. absol. 1;Schol. Bob. Cic. Mil. 7; Zonaras, 7.6.4.

³ See below, p. 446. This rejection of the version of Festus is a powerful argument against the recent claim by Bauman, R.A., The Duumviri in the Roman Criminal Law and in the Horatius Legend (Historia Ein-zelschrift 12, Wiesbaden, 1969Google Scholar), that the jurisdiction of the duoviri was not confined to cases of perduellio.

⁴ 1.26.2. Princeps Horatius ibat, trigemina spolia prae se gerens; cui soror virgo, quae desponsa uni ex Curiatiis fuerat, obvia ante portamCapenam fuit, cognitoque super umeros fratris paludamento sponsi quod ipsa confecerat, solvit crines et flebiliter nomine sponsum morruum appellat. 3. Movet feroci hiveni animum comploratio sororis in victoria sua tantoque gaudio publico. Stricto itaque gladio simul verbis increpans transfigit puellam 4. ‘Abi hinc cum immaturo amore ad sponsum’, inquit, ‘oblita fratrum mortuorum vivique, oblita patriae. Sic eat quaecumque Romam lugebit hostem’. 5. Atrox visum id facinus patribus plebique, sed recens meritum facto obstabat. Tamen raptus in ius ad regem. Rex ne ipse tarn tristis ingratique ad volgus hidicii ac secundum iudicium supplicii auctor esset, concilio populi aducato ‘Duumuiros’ inquit, ‘qui Horatio perduellionem iudicent, secundum legem facio.’ 6. Lex horrendi carminis erat: ‘Duumuiri perduellionem iudicent; si a duumuiris provocarit, provo-catione certato; si vincent, caput obnubito; infelici arbori reste suspendito; verberato vel intra pomerium vel extra pomerium.’ 7. Hac lege duumuiri creati, qui se absolvere non rebantur ea lege ne innoxium quidem posse, cum condemnassent, turn alter ex iis ‘Publi Horati, tibi perduellionem iudico’ inquit. ‘I, lictor, colliga manus.’ 8. Accesserat lictor iniciebatque laqueum. Turn Horatius auctore Tullo, clemente legis interprete, ‘Prouoco’ inquit. Itaque provocatione certatum ad populum est. 9. Moti homines sunt in eo iudicio maxime P. Horatio patre proclamante se filiam iure caesam iudicare; ni ita esset, patrio iure in filium animadversurum fuisse. Orabat deinde ne se quern paulo ante cum egregia stirpe conspexissent orbum liberis facerent. 10. Inter haec senex iuvenem amplexus, spolia Curiatiorum fixa eo loco qui nunc Pila Horatia appellator ostentans, ‘Huncine’ aiebat, ‘quern modo decoratum ovantemque victoria incedentem vidistis, Quirites, eum sub furca vinctum inter verbera et cruciatus videre potestis? quod vix Albanorum oculi tarn deforme spectaculum ferre possent. I, lictor, colliga manus, quae paulo ante armatae imperium populo Romano pepererunt. 11.1, caput obnube liberatoris urbis huius; arbore infelici suspende; verbera vel intra pomerium, modo inter ilia pila et spolia hostium, vel extra pomerium, modo inter sepulcra Curiatiorum; quo enim ducere hunc iuvenem potestis ubi non sua decora eum a tanta foeditate supplicii uindicent? 12. Non tulit populus nee patris lacrimas nee ipsius parem in omni periculo animum, absolveruntque admiratione magis virtutis quam iure causae. Itaque ut caedes manifesta aliquo tamen piaculo lueretur, imperatum patri ut filium expiaret pecunia publica. 13. Is quibusdam piacularibus sacrificiis factis quae deinde genti Horatiae tradita sunt, transmisso per viam tigillo, capite adoperto velut sub iugum misit iuuenem. 14. Id hodie quoque publice semper refectum manet; sororium tigillum vocant. Horatiae sepulcrum, quo loco corruerat icta, constructum est saxa quadrato.

⁵ Translation by Foster, B.O., Livy 1 (Loeb Classical Library, London, Heinemann, 1919), pp. 91 ff.Google Scholar

⁶ See e.g. Brecht, C.H., Perduellio (Munich, 1938), pp. 120 ff.Google Scholar

⁷ See e.g. Ogilvie, R.M., Commentary on Livy, Books 1–5 (Oxford, 1965), p. 114Google Scholar; Jones, A.H.M., Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate (Oxford, 1972), p. 35Google Scholar; Tyrrell, W.B., Legal and Historical Commentary to Cicero s Oratio pro C. Rabirio perduellionis reo (Amsterdam, 1978), pp.35 ff.Google Scholar

⁸ Perduellio.

⁹ For the expression of serious doubt see Daube, D.,JRS 31(1941), 180 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Translation by Cary, E., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 1 (Loeb Classical Library, London, 1968), pp. 343 f.Google Scholar

¹¹ ‘Roman private law and the leges regiae‘, JRS 62 (1972), 100Google Scholar ff.

¹² Dionysius' use of Greek makes it impossible to determine whether termino-logically he was thinking of perduellio or proditio. is etymologically connected with the latter, but that fact is not.helpful since it is also a natural translation of perduellio.

¹³ For views expressed see Brecht, , Perduellio, pp. 31 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See already Mommsen, T., Römisches Strafrecbt (Leipzig, 1899), pp. 567 fGoogle Scholar. For the father' domestic jurisdiction see now, Watson, A., Rome of the XII Tables (Princeton, 1974), pp. 42 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Romulus 22.

¹⁶ But not by Ogilvie, , Commentary, pp. 114 f: cf. below, pp. 442 f.Google Scholar

¹⁷ For Festus, s.v. Sororium tigillum, Horatius pater absolved his son.

¹⁸ The Roman tradition that provocatio existed under the kings may derive from that right for perduellio. Cicero, pro Milone, 3.7;Livy 1.26.6; Festus, s.v. Sororium tigjllum all refer to the case of Horatius. Cicero, de re publica, 2.31.54, though couched in general terms, could derive from sources concerned only with one offence.

¹⁹ One strand of scholarly opinion in fact holds that even later when it did exist provocatio was directed against the coercitio of magistrates, not against the decisions of judges: see e.g. Kunkel, W., Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des römischen Kriminalver-fahrens in vorsullanischer Zeit (Munich, 1962), pp. 24 ffGoogle Scholar. Against the view that provocatio was not known in the duumviral process see Bauman, R.A., Duumviri, pp. 1, 13 ff.Google Scholar

²⁰ D. 1.13.1 (Ulpian, sing, de off. quaest.); Tacitus, ann. 11.22. But see e.g. Mommsen, T., Römisches Staatsrecht 2, 3rd edn. (Leipzig, 1887), 523 ff.Google Scholar

²¹ See, e.g., Latte, K., ‘The Origin of the Roman Quaestorship’, Transactions of American Philological Association 67 (1936), 24 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who, however, accepts a date in the mid-fifth century for the introduction of the quaestorship.

²² See e.g. Kaser, M., Das altrömische Ius (Göttingen, 1949), pp. 53 f.Google Scholar

²³ In a primitive monarchy it would seem natural, as Jones says, for the king to act as judge. Indeed, Jones who believes that Horatius was tried for parrkidium suggests that the trial was by the king: Criminal Courts, p. 43Google Scholar. Valerius Maximus, 8.1. absol. 1, who does not record the charge against Horatius does make Tullus the judge.

²⁴ Commentary, pp. 114 fGoogle Scholar. see also Magdelain, A., ‘Remarques sur la Perduellio’, Historia 22 (1973), 405 ff. at p. 409Google Scholar, and the authors he cites, n. 13.

²⁵ I would accept that the passages are indicative of an old practice.

²⁶ Livy';s words here cannot square with the view most recently propounded by Tyrrell, , Commentary, pp. 19 ffGoogle Scholar. that the duoviri were not judges and were appointed when the culprit‘s guilt was self-evident.

²⁷ Cicero, pro Rabirio perduellionis at e.g. 3.10.

²⁸ 5.15. ‘Hic se popularem dicere audet, me alienum a commodis vestris, cum iste omnis et suppliciorum et verborum acerbitates non ex memoria vestra ac pat rum vestrorum sed annalium monumentis atque ex regum commentariis conquisierit…’

²⁹ We should not be misled by Cicero's ascription of the law to Tarquinius Superbus; 4.13. He wishes to portray Labiemis as wicked as possible hence the claim that the statute on which Labienus builds his case is the work of the worst of the kings.

³⁰ Criminal Courts, p. 10.Google Scholar

³¹ 4.12.

³² See e.g. Brecht, , Perduellio, pp. 157 f.Google Scholar

³³ See e.g. Kunkel, , Untersucbungen, p. 22 n. 50Google Scholar, following Latte and Bleicken.

³⁴ RE supp. 7, s.v. Todesstrafe, 1599 ff. at 1614.

³⁵ Though it does not affect the argument of this paper I accept the view of W. A. Oldfather that the penalty envisaged was death by beating and then suspension of the corpse, and not crucifixion: ‘Livy 1.26 and the Supplicium de More Maiorum’, Transactions of American Philological Society 39 (1908), 49 ff.Google Scholar

³⁶ ‘Ursprung und Bedeutung der Provocation’ ZSS 76 (1959), 324 ff. at p. 335.Google Scholar

³⁷ ‘Remarques’, p. 412.Google Scholar

³⁸ Thus, the XII Tables regulate aspects of the legal process, but have nothing on the forms of action; legislate on both mancipatio and stipulatio but set out the forms of neither; etc.

³⁹ Also against Bleicken on this point see Bauman, , Duumviri, pp. 13 ffGoogle Scholar; Tyrrell, , Commentary, p. 16.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Commentary, p. 115.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Storia del diritto romano 7th edn. (Naples, 1957), pp. 2 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Brecht, , Perduellio, p. 131.Google Scholar

⁴² Livy, 6.31.1,5.

⁴³ Cicero, ad fam. 12.30.7.

⁴⁴ Criminal Courts, pp. 43 f.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Divus Julius, 12.

⁴⁴ I am indebted to a letter from my friend Mr. Robin Seager for this further argument: ‘But what is also important is surely this: it was never on the cards that proceedings would have been allowed to reach a conclusion, and it's highly unlikely that even those who initiated them ever meant that they should be pushed through to the bitter end. Therefore the details just weren't important enough to have been invented ad hoc: they already existed and could be taken over, since they were convenient enough: if Caesar cared (which I doubt), he could condemn without incurring odium since he could say he had no choice and without anything drastic following from it, since appeal was inevitable.’

⁴⁷ See the entry iudico in Oxford Latin Dictionary 4 (Oxford, 1973), 979.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ ‘Remarques’, p. 413.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ I am grateful to Professors Neil MacCormick and R. M. Ogilvie and Mr. Robin Seager for their helpful criticisms.