To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Praetor.
Journal articles on the topic 'Praetor'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Praetor.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Lambrini, Paola. "ACTIO DE DOLO MALO I OCHRONA UMÓW PRAWNIE NIEWIĄŻĄCYCH." Zeszyty Prawnicze 9, no. 2 (June 25, 2017): 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.21697/zp.2009.9.2.01.
Full textAbstract:
Actio de dolo malo and Protection of Unbinding AgreementsSummaryActio de dolo was probably introduced to the praetor’s edict around 90- 80 BC at the request of C. Aquilius, famous jurist. The thesis that it was Aquilius who as praetor in 66 BC introduced it himself seems improbable on account of him being in charge of the quaestio de ambitu. Actio de dolo was a praetorian action in personam with an intentio in factum concepta, penal, infamating and arbitrary. It could be acquired only within a year. A previous causae cognitio of a praetor was necessary, because the action was a subsidiary means used only in absence of any other legal protection. The concept of dolus within this action was perceived very broadly as any improper behaviour causing damage the repair of which was impossible to be obtained by other means. Actio de dolo was probably an institution exceeding the typical contractual system in a furthest manner in order to introduce new possibilities of damage repair.
2
Christol, Michel. "Praetor Aquis Sextis." Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise 38, no. 1 (2005): 425–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/ran.2005.1168.
Full text
3
Quiviger, Pierre-Yves. "Praetor in fabula." Commentaire Numéro 106, no. 2 (June 1, 2004): 549–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/comm.106.0549.
Full text
4
Wiewiorowski, Jacek. "The Defence of the Long Walls of Thrace (Μακρά Τείχη τῆς Θρᾴκης) under Justinian the Great (527–565 A.D.)." Studia Ceranea 2 (December 30, 2012): 181–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/2084-140x.02.15.
Full textAbstract:
The paper discusses the question of the defence of the Long Walls of Thrace (Μακρά Τείχη τῆς Θρᾴκης) or the Anastasian Wall (Αναστάσειο Τείχος) under Justinian the Great (527–565 A.D.). Emperor Anastasius I (491–518 A.D.) probably put an end to the vicarius Thraciarum, the head of administration of the late Roman Diocese of Thrace, establishing two vicars instead. One of them was responsible for the defence of the Long Walls of Thrace while the other was a purely civil officer. Both vicars governed the area of the Anastasian Wall also in the first years of Justinian’s reign. This administrative framework was useful for the defence of Constantinople itself but it also gave rise to certain problems. When Justinian reformed the provincial administration and abolished all vicariates in 535 A.D., he replaced the vicars of the Anastasian Wall with praetor Iustinianus Thraciae (Nov. Iust., XXVI – a. 535). Next year, the emperor created the peculiar post of quaestor Iustinianus exercitus (Nov. Iust., XLI). The territory of the quaestura contained the provinces Moesia Secunda and Scythia Minor, located in the lower Danube region, as well as the provinces of Cyprus, Caria and the Aegean Islands. In turn, the responsibilities of the Praetor of Thrace were confined to the region of the Anastasian Wall. The new post combined the functions of military officer and head of civil administration. The nature of praetor Thraciae is discussed in the light of Nov. Iust., XXVI and compared with analogous praetors established in the provinces of Paphlagonia and Pisidia (Nov. Iust., XXIV–XXV), as well as other data. After the fall of John of Cappadocia in 541, Justinian revoked some administrative reforms, restoring the vicariate of Pontica and restoring former powers to the comes Orientis who played the same role as a vicar in the Diocese of Oriens. In the Balkans, Justinian left the post of quaestor Iustinianus exercitus intact. Meanwhile, the function of the preator Thraciae, which proved to be inefficient, as the incursions of the Slavs (ca. 550) and the Kutrigur Bulgars in 559 had shown, was possibly abolished. The repairs of the Anastasian Wall needed to be conducted after the great earthquake in 557 A.D. by Justinian himself, which indirectly demonstrates the weakness of administration under praetor Thraciae or the earlier abolishment of the post. It is likely that instead Justinian reinstated the post of the vicar of Thrace, who became a civil administrator over the part of the former Diocese of Thrace limited to the provinces of Europa, Haemimontus, Rhodopa and Thracia, a function which was probably more suited to overseeing construction undertakings conducted at the time in the Balkans.
5
McMaster, Aven. "NOTE ON THE OXFORD LATIN DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF IRRVMO." Classical Quarterly 68, no. 2 (November 8, 2018): 714–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0009838818000459.
Full textAbstract:
In the second edition of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (2012) an otherwise laudable attempt to be more forthright in defining obscene terms seems to have introduced an error. The word irrumo was defined in the first edition of the dictionary as ‘to practise irrumatio on’, which is correct but unilluminating, especially since irrumatio was defined as ‘the action of an irrumator’. Irrumator was then defined as ‘one who submits to fellatio’, which is technically correct, though it suggests a passivity in the action that is not found in the lines from Catullus given as an example of its usage: praesertim quibus esset irrumator | praetor, nec faceret pili cohortem (‘not least when said praetor was a fuckface | and didn't give a shit for his poor staffers’, Catull. 10.11–12). In this poem Catullus is using the word irrumator as a term of abuse, suggesting that his praetor (in Bithynia) took advantage of his staff members rather than taking care that they too should reap some rewards from the province. Although the literal meaning is secondary to a more metaphorical use here, the charge is repeated with more direct reference to its sexual usage in Catull. 28.9–10: o Memmi, bene me ac diu supinum | tota ista trabe lentus irrumasti (‘Memmius, man, you really reamed me over, | force-fed me slowly with that giant whanger!’). In both cases it is clear that Catullus is an unwilling recipient of the praetor's attentions, and the action is aggressive and demonstrates the latter's ability to dominate his victim. It would not therefore be correct to say that Memmius is ‘submitting to fellatio’ at the hands, or rather mouth, of Catullus, even metaphorically. The term fellatio, by the way, was not defined in the original OLD at all, and the verb fello had, as its second sense, only ‘transf., as a sexual perversion’. The definitions as given therefore seem deliberately obscure, as well as misleading about the roles and intent of the people involved.
6
Shaw-smith, R. "Two notes on Tacitus, Annals." Classical Quarterly 47, no. 1 (May 1997): 327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cq/47.1.327.
Full textAbstract:
Ann. 11.11: nam is quoque (Domitian) edidit ludos saecularis iisque intentius adfui sacerdotio quindecimvirali praeditus ac tune praetor; quod non iactantia refero sed quia collegio quindecimvirum antiquitus ea cura et magistratus potissimum exequebantur officia caerimoniarum.
7
Bellemore, Jane. "The Date of Cicero's Pro Archia." Antichthon 36 (November 2002): 41–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0066477400001325.
Full textAbstract:
The Bobiensian scholiast tells us that the speech Pro Archia was delivered by Cicero in a court presided over by his brother Quintus as praetor, who held this office in 62 B.C. The scholiast makes two clear references to Quintus (ad Pro Archia 3):(a) Archias presented this case, dealing with the Papian law on Roman citizenship, in the court of Quintus Cicero, the brother of this Marcus Tullius …(b) It is significant that he makes mention of the praetor himself, that is of his brother Quintus Cicero, who was in charge of the trial. Indeed, it is most appropriate that he speaks in praise of a fine poet in the court of someone who takes pleasure in pursuits of this kind, for Quintus Cicero was a writer not only of epic, but also of tragedy.
8
Tellegen-Couperus, Olga. "Pontiff, praetor, and iurisdictio in the Roman republic." Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit / The Legal History Review 74, no. 1-2 (2006): 31–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157181906776931162.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractIt is generally assumed that from 367 BC the praetor was charged with iurisdictio, i.e. the supervision of civil litigation, and that, before that time, this task was performed by some other magistrate. Pontiffs were legal experts who served as advisers. However, new research has shown that the praetor originally had military duties and that it was only around 200 BC that he became involved in administering the law. In this paper the author suggests that, up to 200 BC, it was the College of Pontiffs which was responsible for supervising civil litigation. Mitchell put forward a similar hypothesis a few years ago, but so far he failed to convince his readers. In the author's view, close reading of Pomp. D. 1,2,2,6 and appreciating the fact that around 200 BC the relationship between pontiffs and magistrates changed fundamentally indicate that, before that year, the pontiffs were directly involved in civil litigation and were more than simply advisers.
9
Tietz, Werner. "Praetor maximus – eine vage Formulierung aus den Anfangsjahren der römischen Republik." Historia 69, no. 2 (2020): 185. http://dx.doi.org/10.25162/historia-2020-0009.
Full text
10
Szolc-Nartowski, Bartosz. "Interdyktalna ochrona swobody żeglugi morskiej i zasobów morza." Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze, no. 3(43)/2019 (November 4, 2019): 55–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.26881/gsp.2019.3.04.
Full textAbstract:
The Author presents issues related to the legal status of the sea and its shores in ancient Rome, the course of interdict proceedings and individual interdict as legal tools developed by the Roman jurisprudence and praetor to protect the freedom of sea navigation and the use of sea coasts and sea resources.
11
Gridin, S. I. "Administrative proceedings in Roman law." Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)), no. 6 (September 25, 2021): 133–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2021.82.6.133-144.
Full textAbstract:
The article deals with the issues of administrative proceedings in Roman law. Its beginning was laid in the 5th century BC by the laws of ХII tables. They briefly deal with the issues of legal proceedings, which at that time was called court agreement. Free citizens gathered at the forum (city square), where the plaintiff presented claims to the defendant. In Roman law, the rule was established to make claims through claims, which the magistrate (praetor) had to support. The judges were elected by the people. Gradually, the praetors changed the formulas of claims, which contributed to the development of Roman law. Often they proceeded not from the law, but from the circumstances of the case, therefore they could instruct the judge to consider the case “in good faith.” Gradually, various forms of claims were formed, which contributed to the improvement of administrative proceedings. In Roman law, many concepts were laid that have remained in modern legal proceedings. This is the election and turnover of judges, the necessary defense, the writ of execution and the persons who monitored their execution; jurisdiction; corruption; search procedure; jurisdiction; privilege; appeal against court decisions; requirement for witnesses; consideration of cases by the police; torts; limitation of actions; and some others. This makes the study of Roman justice relevant.
12
Kamińska, Renata. "OCHRONA MIEJSC ŚWIĘTYCH W PRAWIE RZYMSKIM." Zeszyty Prawnicze 12, no. 1 (December 18, 2016): 79. http://dx.doi.org/10.21697/zp.2012.12.1.04.
Full textAbstract:
PROTECTION OF HOLY PLACES IN ROMAN LAW SUMMARY Loca sacra enjoyed a broad scope of legal protection in Roman law. They were protected by interdicts, operis novi nuntiatio, and by government officials. The interdictive protection of holy places was analogous to the protection given to public places. One of the injunctions issued by the praetor to protect holy places was the loca sacra ne quid in loco sacro fiat prohibitory interdict, which imposed a ban on harmful activities on loca sacra premises, and prohibited offensive behaviour by private individuals in holy places. A second interdict for the protection of holy places was restitutory, whereby the praetor could order full restitution for offences committed in a holy place (quod in loco sacro religiosove factum est restituatur). The purpose of these two interdicts was to eliminate all obstacles to free and open access for all to holy places. A third interdict for the protection of holy places, interdictum quod vi aut clam, was restitutory as well. The creation of such a broad catalogue of legal measures including interdicts as administrative law remedies, testifies to the importance of holy places both in the public (including religious) and private life of the ancient Romans.
13
Wang, Juan, Shirong Hao, Ru Wen, Boxian Zhang, Liqiang Zhang, Hongxin Hu, and Rongxing Lu. "IoT-Praetor: Undesired Behaviors Detection for IoT Devices." IEEE Internet of Things Journal 8, no. 2 (January 15, 2021): 927–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/jiot.2020.3010023.
Full text
14
Babusiaux, Ulrike. "Zum Rechtsschutz von Fideikommissen im Prinzipat." Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Romanistische Abteilung 136, no. 1 (June 26, 2019): 140–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/zrgr-2019-0007.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract „Es wäre auch ein ganz aussichtsloses Beginnen, wollten wir es versuchen, aus den wenigen unsicheren Andeutungen der Quellen ein nur in den Grundzügen zuverlässiges Bild des Fideikommißverfahrens zu entwerfen"K. Salkowski, in: C.L. Arndt (Hg.), Ausführliche Erläuterung der Pandekten nach Hellfeld, Ein Commentar begründet von Christian Friedrich v. Glück, 49. Theil, Erlangen 1889, 609.. Judicial protection of fideicommissa during the principate. The enforcement of fideicommissa via cognitio extra ordinem from the time of Augustus onwards has led much of the scholarship to neglect the evidence for agere per formulas in this field. The paper attempts to show that until the late Severan age, fideicommissa were enforced via both procedures. For fideicommissa hereditatis, it is shown that both the senatus consultum Trebellianum and the senatus consultum Pegasianum functioned with the formulary procedure and were therefore enacted by the ordinary praetor. The cognitio in this respect seems to have been limited to the determination of the existence, the content and the consequences of a fideicommissum. For pecuniary fideicommissa over singular items, a similar partition can be assumed. In fact, safeguarding the fideicommissum through cautio fideicommissorum servandorum causa and missio rei servandae causa was attributed to the ordinary praetor also in charge of the protection of legata: only the petitio fideicommissaria itself was left to the imperial officials and their cognitio.
15
Finkenauer, Thomas. "Das pactum ut minus solvatur und die maior pars im klassischen Recht." Tijdschrift voor rechtsgeschiedenis 85, no. 1-2 (June 22, 2017): 115–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718190-08512p05.
Full textAbstract:
The pactum ut minus solvatur and the maior pars in classical law. Marc Aurel established the institution of a creditors’ meeting, the purpose of which was to find a composition agreement between all creditors and the debtor’s heir. Such a debt cut required a majority decision of those creditors present at the meeting. Without discretion, the praetor had to follow this majority decision. His decretum and thus the quota agreed upon were binding even for dissenting creditors and those not present at the meeting.
16
Ryan, F. X. "The praetorship and consular candidacy of L. Rupilius." Classical Quarterly 45, no. 1 (May 1995): 263–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s000983880004194x.
Full textAbstract:
The praetorship of L. Rupilius is of great importance only to the biography of L. Rupilius. His consular candidacy has a wider significance, since his repulsa represents a reverse for his most prominent supporter, Scipio Aemilianus.As the praetorship is not explicitly mentioned in the sources, its terminus non post quem is fixed by the consular candidacy. Scholarly treatment of the question is hard to come by. The terminus post quem for the candidacy of Lucius is his brother's candidacy (in 133); the terminus ante quem, Scipio's death (in 129): Cicero (Lael. 73) tells us that Scipio brought about the election of P. Rupilius, but failed to make his brother Lucius consul. Broughton classified L. Rupilius as ‘Pr. by 133 ’, and in this seems to have followed Münzer, who indeed considered L. Rupilius ‘Praetor gegen 620 = 134’, but added that he was a candidate ‘urn das Consulat für 623 =131 oder noch eher für 624 = 130’. Of course, if L. Rupilius was a candidate in 131 for a consulship of 130, then he was praetor by 133. A candidacy in 1294 can be safely ruled out: Scipio died in the first half of the year, in spring or early summer. But we cannot rule out candidacy in 130 for 129: Scipio might have preferred L. Rupilius to either consul of that year. The latest possible date for the praetorship of L. Rupilius is therefore 132.
17
Beness, J. Lea, and T. W. Hillard. "The Death of Lucius Equitius on 10 December 100 b.c." Classical Quarterly 40, no. 1 (May 1990): 269–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0009838800026999.
Full textAbstract:
The picture of L. Appuleius Saturninus' last days is usually derived from the straightforward narrative account found in Appian's Civil Wars, an account which modern analysis has shown to be flawed. That narrative may be glossed as follows. At the consular elections for the year 99, Saturninus (a tribune who had that year been elected to a third tribunate) and Glaucia (a praetor and candidate for the consulship) instigated the death of a more hopeful contender. Chaos followed. On the following day, when the People (demos) had made its intention to do away with the ‘malefactors’ absolutely plain, Saturninus, Glaucia and the quaestor Saufeius seized the Capitol with followers from the country. The Senate voted for their suppression and Marius invested the hill. With hopes of a safe conduct, the beseiged surrendered and Marius detained them in the curia. Those who feared that the seditiosi might escape rough justice broke in and killed, amongst others, ‘a quaestor, a tribune and a praetor, still decorated with the insignia of office. Many others also perished in the stasis, including another tribune, thought to be the son of Gracchus and being a tribune for the first time on that very day’: ταμίαν τε κα⋯ δήμαρχον κα⋯ στρατηγόν, ἔτι περικειμ⋯νους τ⋯ σ⋯μβολα τ⋯ς ⋯ρχ⋯ς. πολὺς δ⋯ κα⋯ ἄλλος ὅμιλος ⋯ν τῇ στάσει δι⋯φθαρτο κα⋯ δήμαρχος ἕτερος, ⋯ το⋯ Γράκχου παῖς εἶναι νομιζ⋯μενος, πρώτην δημαρχ⋯ν ⋯κε⋯νην ⋯μ⋯ραν.
18
Crıspus, C. Sallustius. ""Iugurtha Savaşı"nın Önsözü." Belleten 51, no. 200 (August 1, 1987): 1027–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.37879/belleten.1987.1027.
Full textAbstract:
İ.Ö. I. yüzyılda yaşamış olan Gaius Sallustius Crispus üzerine yazılarından bilgi edinmekteyiz. Küçük yaşta tarihçiliğe eğilim duyduğunu, ancak, bundan daha büyük bir istekle kamu işlerine yöneldiğini kendisi söylemektedir. Sallustius halk temsilcisi olmuş, senatoya girmiş, soylular sınıfının karşısında yer almış, sağtöre bakımından suçlanarak senatodan çıkarılmış, bir yıl sonra Caesar'ın desteğiyle geri dönmüştür. 'Quaestor', 'praetor' olmuştur. Dalmatia'daki önderliğinde başarı gösterememiştir. Africa Nova yönetimi sırasında para edinmesi sonucu yolsuzlukla suçlanmış, sonunda temiz çıkmıştır. Siyasal alanda başına gelen tersliklerden bıkıp tarih yazma yolunu tutmuştur. Collis Quirinalis üzerinde yaptırdığı evine çekilip sonraları 'Horti Sallustiani' (Sallustius'un Bahçeleri) adıyla anılan yerde yaşamanın sonuna değin bu uğraşını sürdürmüştür.
19
Crawford, M. H. "The Text of the Lex Irnitana." Journal of Roman Studies 98 (November 2008): 182. http://dx.doi.org/10.3815/007543508786239535.
Full textAbstract:
The time is unripe for a new edition of the Lex Irnitana — more work is needed and more text might appear — but it seems desirable, given the availability via JSTOR of the text published in JRS 76 (1986), to publish a bare list of those places where that text is in serious need of correction. Most of the corrections are due to the sharp eye of Alan Rodger, who also observes that the action de sponsione in ch. LXXXIV is not an actio famosa, but an allegation that needs a causae cognitio and hence the intervention of the praetor.
20
Vlasova, Olga. "The Predecessors of the Magistracy of Praetor in Ancient Rome." Legal Concept, no. 2 (June 2018): 87–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.15688/lc.jvolsu.2018.2.13.
Full text
21
Mendoza Popoca, Oswaldo Aníbal. "FIDEICOMMISSUM ROMANO Y TRUST ANGLOSAJÓN. LA SEMEJANZA DE SU DESARROLLO." Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de México 67, no. 268 (July 1, 2017): 595. http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fder.24488933e.2017.268.61034.
Full textAbstract:
El Fideicommissum romano y el Trust anglosajón guardan significativas semejanzas. En ambos casos surgieron como solución a las restricciones que plantearon respectivamente el régimen suscesorio romano y el régimen de transacciones inmobiliarias en el sistema inglés. Ambas instituciones se desarrollaron en sistemas legales flexibles, como lo fueron el derecho honorario y el sistema de equity, tanto el Fideicommissum como el Trust son encomiendas de confianza; se otorgaban a terceras personas por la cercanía con ellas habida. Finalmente debe citarse que en los dos casos se crearon instancias jurisdiccionales especializadas para resolver conflictos originados por la conducta deshonesta de los receptores de la encomienda: el praetor fideicommissarii y la court of chancery.
22
Sorka, Kamil. "Rzymska przysięga procesowa jako prototyp umowy dowodowej." Prawo w Działaniu 44 (2020): 259–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.32041/pwd.4413.
Full textAbstract:
The recent amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure for the first time in the Polish legal system enabled the parties of proceedings to conclude a contract of evidence. This novelty concerns only special proceedings in commercial matters. By concluding a contract of evidence, the parties may avoid adducing a specific type of evidence in court. Such an agreement is also binding on the court. The introduction of contract of evidence is aimed at accelerating civil proceedings. However, doubts may arise as to whether the contract of evidence does not pose a significant hindrance to the court in learning about the actual facts of the case and whether that does not undermine the principle of material truth. The experience of Roman law brings to mind the institution of trial oath. When one of the parties suggested that the other one took an oath with a specific content, and the other immediately took that oath, the content of that oath was protected by the praetor as unquestionable. The oath could concern some factual circumstances or the very legitimacy of the plaintiff’s claim. In the latter case, the praetor immediately denied the plaintiff’s claim or issued a judgment against the defendant without any evidentiary proceedings. Therefore the Roman civil trial rules provided that the consensus of the parties could replace assertion of the truth by the judge. It turns out that the Polish evidence contract and the Roman trial oath, despite structural differences, were motivated by the same value: the economy of proceedings. They are also similar in that they give rise axiological doubts. The Roman example shows that material truth has an intuitively essential meaning in a civil trial. Formal truth, on the other hand, comes into play when specific values, such as the efficiency of proceedings or the sacredness of a word given, have to be protected in a particular way.
23
Kofanov, L. L. "Supranational Unification of Edict of the Praetor Peregrinus in Republican Rome." RUSSIAN JUSTICE 5 (May 2019): 58–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.17238/issn2072-909x.2019.5.58-70.
Full text
24
Zabłocka, Maria. "U ŹRÓDEŁ ZASADY ‘AUDIATUR ET ALTERA PARS’." Zeszyty Prawnicze 16, no. 4 (May 14, 2017): 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.21697/zp.2016.16.4.01.
Full textAbstract:
At the Root of the Principle of ‘audiatur et altera pars’ Summary The aim of the article is to show that the prototype of what later became the principle of audiatur et altera pars is a provision from Law 1,7 of the Twelve Tables, cum perorando ambo praesentes (let them speak when both are present). At the start of proceedings both parties were to put their case to the praetor; in other words both parties presented their evidence in the presence of the opposite party. This concise provision encapsulates the fundamental principles judges in modern civil proceedings are expected to observe: audi alteram partem (“hear the other side”), equal treatment of both parties, and direct examination of the evidence.
25
Turner, Andrew. "The Poet and the Praetor: Travel Narratives from Early Second-Century Italy." Antichthon 43 (2009): 109–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0066477400001982.
Full textAbstract:
Travel was an inescapable fact of life for the citizens of early second-century CE Rome. People constantly travelled from Rome to Italy, from Rome to the provinces, and from the provinces to Rome; on business, public or private, as immigrants, or for personal reasons, including health and tourism. News of travel was also ever present. In a rigidly hierarchical society which paid continual homage to the princeps, but which also maintained the fiction that his actions were accountable to the Roman people, his extensive travels throughout Italy and the provinces were constantly documented and available for all citizens to see – through inscriptions, through panegyric, and through coins.
26
Aoki, Takeshi, Sunil S. Chirayath, and Hiroshi Sagara. "Proliferation resistance evaluation of an HTGR transuranic fuel cycle using PRAETOR code." Annals of Nuclear Energy 141 (June 2020): 107325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107325.
Full text
27
Morgan, Llewelyn, and Barnaby Taylor. "MEMMIUS THE EPICUREAN." Classical Quarterly 67, no. 2 (October 12, 2017): 528–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0009838817000672.
Full textAbstract:
InFam.13.1 Cicero, visiting Athens en route to Cilicia in the summer of 51b.c., writes to C. Memmius L.f., praetor in 58 but by the time of Cicero's communication an exile in Athens after the shambolic consular elections for 53; Memmius was (temporarily, one assumes) absent from Athens in Mytilene, hence the need for Cicero to write to him. This letter, along withAtt.5.11.6 and 19.3, is our focus in the argument that follows, but, to summarize the situation in the very broadest terms, Cicero's concern in it is with Memmius’ intentions regarding a plot of land in Athens occupied by a house of Epicurus, and with the objections to Memmius’ plans that had been raised with Cicero by the scholarch of the Epicurean community in Athens, Patro.
28
DiLuzio, Joseph. "THE FIRST TRIUMVIRATE AT HOME AND ABROAD IN CICERO'SPRO FLACCO." Greece and Rome 65, no. 2 (September 17, 2018): 175–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s001738351800013x.
Full textAbstract:
In 59bc, in the second half of Caesar's tumultuous year as consul, a certain Decimus Laelius brought a charge of extortion against the former praetor and ally of Cicero – L. Valerius Flaccus. Flaccus had proven instrumental in the suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy four years earlier. From the beginning of his speechpro Flacco, the orator frames the case in terms of contemporary politics. Though ostensibly about the defendant's alleged misconduct as Governor of Asia, Cicero makes the contest a ‘trial of character’ and argues that the impetus for the prosecution was actually Flaccus’ role in foiling the Catilinarian plot. In contrast with his own heroism as consul and that of his client in preserving the Republic, Cicero portrays the prosecution and its backers as in league with the remnants of Catiline's ill-fated putsch.
29
Rodger, Alan. "OBJECTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS: THE PALINGENESIA OF D.43.24.17." Cambridge Law Journal 64, no. 1 (March 24, 2005): 79–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197305006793.
Full textAbstract:
A, the owner of a house in Rome, hears that, when carrying out some building work, C intends to interfere with one of the walls. A gives notice to C that he objects to the work (prohibet). Despite this, C goes ahead with it. Or else, being aware that A would object if he knew, C deliberately carries out the work while A is away at his seaside villa at Baiae. In the first situation C is regarded as doing the work by force (vi); in the second he does it clandestinely (clam). In either event, the praetor will grant A an interdict ordering C to put the wall back to its original state so that the parties’ rights may be determined and any appropriate security given: quod vi aut clam factum est … restituas.
30
Christol, Michel, Jean-Luc Fiches, Jean Gascó, and André Michelozzi. "Une nouvelle dédicace de T(itus) Carisius, praetor Volcarum, près d'Ugernum (Beaucaire, Gard)." Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise 38, no. 1 (2005): 409–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/ran.2005.1167.
Full text
31
Ruelas, Dennisse, and Víctor Pacheco. "A new species of Thomasomys Coues, 1884 (Rodentia: Sigmodontinae) from the montane forests of northern Peru with comments on the “aureus” group." Revista Peruana de Biología 28, no. 3 (August 30, 2021): e19912. http://dx.doi.org/10.15381/rpb.v28i3.19912.
Full textAbstract:
We describe a new species of the cricetid rodent Thomasomys (Sigmodontinae) of the "aureus" group based on four specimens collected from Carmen de la Frontera, Piura Department, Peru. This new species has a very long and white tail, very long mystacial vibrissae that extend posteriorly beyond the pinnae, and a distinctive cranial and dental morphology that differ from any other known species of Thomasomys. It is also one of the largest species of Thomasomys, exceeded in size only by T. apeco. A phylogenetic analysis using sequences of Cytb recovered this species within a non-monophyletic "aureus" group with a genetic distance between 5.47% (with T. auricularis) to 10.17% (with Thomasomys sp. 1). In addition to this finding, the phylogenetic position of T. apeco, T. praetor, and T. pyrrhonotus are presented for the first time, prompting a discussion on the nature of the "aureus" group.
32
Frolov, Roman M. "Better than (when) a Magistrate? Caesar’s Suspension from Magisterial Functions in 62 bc." Mnemosyne 70, no. 6 (October 26, 2017): 977–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-12342265.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractAccording to Suetonius, in 62bcthe praetor Caesar was ‘banished from the administration of the state’ and left the forum. A spontaneous gathering (coetus) offered him help in recovering his position. Unexpectedly he restrained the crowd, and the grateful senate itself restored him to his rank. Even though only Suetonius explicitly mentions Caesar’s suspension, in fact, all our sources allow this. I will argue that Caesar did not lose his magistracy, just like the plebeian tribune Metellus Nepos affected by the same measures. Nor did the suspension include the restriction of any magisterial prerogatives. Instead, it meant the loss of political initiative. However, Caesar was still able to respond to the initiative of others. Suetonius’ account raises a number of questions about the political role of those who found themselves at the moment of transition from a position of amagistratusto that of aprivatus, and vice versa.
33
Bettini, Maurizio. "Authority as ‘Resultant Voice’: Towards a Stylistic and Musical Anthropology of Effective Speech in Archaic Rome." Greek and Roman Musical Studies 1, no. 1 (2013): 175–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22129758-12341242.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Analysis of a large number of texts from the archaic period of Roman culture shows that the authoritative character of a solemn utterance (a prophecy, the formula uttered by a praetor, a religious praefatio) was based principally on specific sound patterns. From these utterances’ use of parallelisms, phonic echoes and syllabic repetitions there emerged a sort of ‘resultant voice’, which made their exceptional character immediately apparent. From the perspective of their intended hearers, the sound-construction of these pronouncements had the capacity to arouse what the Romans called delectatio: that is, the disposition to believe in the truth and validity of what they were hearing. That the Romans included all these acoustic phenomena within a single perceptual domain is demonstrated by the fact that music, too, had the power to produce delectatio—and by the fact that the verb cano and its derivatives refer as much to musical as to poetic expression.
34
Stanojlović, Vukašin. "Reimbursement of funeral costs in Roman law." Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad 56, no. 3 (2022): 857–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns56-40968.
Full textAbstract:
The sacred and moral duty of family members, primarily heirs, was to bury the deceased. The funeral ceremony and the size of the funeral monument reflected the social status of the decedent; nonetheless the funeral itself had a dual role - to ensure a peaceful transition of the soul into eternity and to provide peace for the descendants. Reading the legal texts, it could easily be seen that the issue of funeral costs was at the high level of importance for the offspring. In addition, we can assert that the Roman legislators, lawyers and priests were particular aware of its importance. In this regard, the praetor issued the Edictum de sumptibus funerum, establishing the actio funeraria, in order to determine who and under what conditions acquires the right of reimbursement of funeral costs, but also to ensure that no one is buried at someone else's expense. The aim of this paper is to answer the questions who had the liability and responsibility to organize the funeral and bear it costs, when and under what conditions could organizer sue for the incurred expense and what was considered as the funeral cost. Results indicate the following. The grandeur of the funeral and the amount of funeral expenses depended on the social status and wealth of the deceased. The costs of the funeral were divided into necessary, which cover expenses in the name of activities without funeral could not take place and convenient, which depend on the reputation of the defunctus. Although there have been attempts to expand Ulpian's classification into necessary and convenient expenses, this does not seem to have been the case at the outset. Funeral expenses were mostly - with a few exceptions, covered from the inheritance, and the obligation to reimburse the costs incurred was most often borne by the persons burying the deceased. From Cicero's and Ulpian's texts, we learn which persons were obliged to bury the deceased, i.e. cover funeral expenses. It is important to note that research shows that from the moment of death until the costs are paid, the inheritance is in the regime of hereditas iacens, and that it is administered by the praetor to ensure that no one is buried at someone else's expense. The paper uses linguistic, historical and systematic interpretation of passages D.11.7.12.4-6, D.11.7.13, D.11.7.14.3,4,6 and 10, D.11.7.21, Cic.Leg.2.48-49, as well as historical method.
35
Szolc-Nartowski, Bartosz. "UDZIAŁ OSÓB NIEUPRAWNIONYCH W WYDANIU ORZECZENIA W POSTĘPOWANIU CYWILNYM - UWAGI NA TLE D.1,14,3 I D.41,3,44 PR." Zeszyty Prawnicze 6, no. 2 (June 22, 2017): 97. http://dx.doi.org/10.21697/zp.2006.6.2.07.
Full textAbstract:
Participation of Unauthorised Persons in Issuance of Decisions in Civil Proceedings - Remarks on the Basis D. 1,14,3 and D. 41,3,44 pr.SummaryAccording to Polish civil procedure a sentence given by an unauthorized person is invalid. This was not always the case in ancien Roman law. Ulpianus declared that when a slave, who escaped from his master, became a praetor, his acts were valid. He took into consideration serious problems of those who had put their trust in the praetor’s office as well as the respect for humanitas. A basic common sense requires that what was well decided, should be considered valid. According to the author, Ulpianus realized that the rule of ius civile which determined the requirements for entering in a praetor’s duties had the character of a guarantee. If the purpose, for which this rule was established, was achieved, such acts should be accepted as valid.The question arises whether that approach could be applied to contemporary cases of iudex incompetens. Furthermore, whether it would be justifiable to extend this solution to other - not only procedural – but also material, guarantee rules?The answer is not easy. In D. 41,3,44 pr., a pater familias conducted the procedure of adrogation (adoption) improperly. Papinianus decided that, although pater familias made a justifiable mistake, all that the son enacted in the name of the father, was invalid. Nevertheless a different rule, as the jurist says in D. 41,3,44 pr., must be observed in the case of homo liber bona fide serviens - a person, who being unaware of his free man status, served as a slave. Actions taken by such a person were valid (the purchaser of a slave had to be protected), since transactions of that kind happened very often. More importantly, any other solution would be against the public interest. O n the other hand, it was very rare for a pater familias to wrongly adrogate, therefore the example of pater familias did not create a general rule.It seems quite difficult to indicate one principle which could be applied to all the guarantee rules. As far as the case of an unauthorized person giving sentence is concerned, the Roman private law shows that the regard for the public interest may sometimes justify solutions different from those preferred by Polish law.
36
DZINO, DANIJEL. "THE ‘PRAETOR’ OF PROPERTIUS 1.8 AND 2.16 AND THE ORIGINS OF THE PROVINCE OF ILLYRICUM." Classical Quarterly 58, no. 2 (December 2008): 699–703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0009838808000815.
Full text
37
Hulme-Beaman, Ardern, Thomas Cucchi, Allowen Evin, Jeremy B. Searle, and Keith Dobney. "Exploring Rattus praetor (Rodentia, Muridae) as a possible species complex using geometric morphometrics on dental morphology." Mammalian Biology 92 (September 2018): 62–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2018.04.002.
Full text
38
Kowalczyk, Beata Jolanta. "Pewność i jakość prawa a starorzymskie i współczesne czynniki prawotwórcze w Polsce." Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne 14, no. 2 (April 27, 2016): 79–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.25167/osap.1557.
Full textAbstract:
This publication analyzes three legislative factors functioning in Roman law, i.e., the activity of a praetor – creating law through appropriate handling of processing means and sanctions, jurisprudence – whose opinions by ius publice respondendi, had the force of law in force, and the emperor – who, as the supreme judge, issued decrees which were binding interpretations of the law as well as rescripts, which were replies to individual inquiries of citizens on legal matters. The aim of this analysis is to find their modern counterparts. The content of the article includes selected forms of law-making activity of these entities, which will be juxtaposed with contemporary activities of the judiciary which creates “precedents”, interprets and subsides the law, as well as elected officials who prepared binding interpretations of the law, e.g., within the tax law and the Court of Justice of the European Union which issued rescripts and decrees equivalent to the activity undertaken by the emperor in Roman law. As a result, an attempt is made to demonstrate whether, and if so, to what extent, their activities affect the quality and reliability of the law formed currently.
39
Nieva-Fenoll, Jordi. "Online dispute resolution for small claims: is this the only realistic solution?" Revista Ítalo-española de Derecho procesal 1 (January 25, 2022): 25–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.37417/rivitsproc/683.
Full textAbstract:
Some jurists believe that the judicial process is not adequate for these lawsuits when they are transnational, but in fact, neither is it when they are national. It is true that a transnational claim is challenging in terms of applicable law, the search for national lawyers, the search of evidence and even the translations. But actually all inconveniences are based upon a very old mentality linked with the also very old ‘de minimis non curat praetor’. Whoever thinks that dealing with transnational small claims is not really feasible, does not see how to deal with them adequately in domestic law either. These authors also think that the resolution of small claims should be transferred to mediation –often useless–, to consumer arbitration, whose institutional development as parallel to state justice is extremely complicated, or even to collective redress, although in the vast majority of cases there is not really a group of stakeholders that can be managed together. Furthermore, organizing this kind of collective redress is very difficult. It’s maybe necessary to remember that class-actions in the US almost never reach the trial phase.
40
Dostalík, Petr. "Od sestry k nuzné vdově. Změny postavení manželky v římském dědickém právu." PRÁVNĚHISTORICKÉ STUDIE 52, no. 2 (September 15, 2022): 25–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.14712/2464689x.2022.17.
Full textAbstract:
This paper deals with the position of wife in the Roman law of succession from the earliest period (as far as the Law of the Twelve Tables) to the changes of the law of intestate succession made by emperor Justinian. This paper follows changes in the position of a wife in case of the death of the husband. This position was determined by type of marriage (strict or free form of the marriage) and was deeply influenced by the reform of the law of succession made by praetor. Even in the praetorian law, the position of the wife and her possibility to obtain some substantial part of the deceased husband’s property was limited and nothing had changed also after the codification of Corpus Iuris Civilis. In order to defend the natural (and justified) needs of widow, emperor Justinian introduced a special provision for so-called needy widow (and temporarily even for the needy widower). The paper examines very closely those provisions and states that the protection of the needy widow can be marked as one the basic values of the Roman law of succession.
41
García Cantero, Gabriel. "Les Différentes Fonctions de la Possession en Droit Privé." European Review of Private Law 6, Issue 4 (December 1, 1998): 363–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/207597.
Full textAbstract:
Since the earliest times of Roman law, possession has passed through the history of law maintaining its status as an institution, and adapting its functions to meet changing social and economic circumstances. Apart from its evidential effect, which is preserved in all legal systems, it must be remembered that the mediaeval maxim en fait des meubles, possession vaut titre applies frequently today, in nearly every country, to trade in movable property, in spite of a certain tendency towards the need for contractual formalities, given further force by legislation on consumer protection. The possession of immovable property also retains its practical importance, and when it is possession in good faith it is the basis for attributing the profits arising to a person who is looking after the property on behalf of someone else. But registration remains important for usucapio contra tabulas; on the other hand usucapio secundum tabulas retains all its effectiveness. Actions for possession - a creation of the Roman praetor - are often brought before the courts. The conclusion must be that possession civilis, possessio ad interdicta, usucapio, praescriptio etc, are Roman terms that are in common use by modern jurists.
42
Linderski, Jerzy. "Natale Rampazzo: Quasi praetor non fuerit. Studi sulle elezioni magistratuali in Roma repubblicana tra regola ed eccezione." Gnomon 83, no. 6 (2011): 512–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.17104/0017-1417_2011_6_512.
Full text
43
Vuletic, Vladimir. "Praetor does not protect cowards: About the dual character of duress in the Roman and modern domestic law." Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad 49, no. 2 (2015): 727–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns49-8408.
Full text
44
Machida, Yoshihiko, Junsheng Zhong, Hiromitsu Endo, and Hanling Wu. "Mastigopterus imperator Smith and Radcliffe, 1913, a senior synonym of M. praetor Smith and Radcliffe, 1913 (Ophidiidae, Ophidiiformes)." Ichthyological Research 49, no. 2 (May 1, 2002): 194–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s102280200026.
Full text
45
Mrozewicz, Leszek. "Status prawny prowincji mezyjskich w okresie wojen markomańskich." Studia Europaea Gnesnensia, no. 21 (December 15, 2020): 9–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/seg.2020.21.1.
Full textAbstract:
In 1962, Anthony R. Birley advanced a remarkable thesis, claiming that the rank of the Roman province of Upper Moesia (Moesia superior) was temporarily reduced from consular to praetorian. To support the assertion, he cited the fact that one of the two legions stationed in the province left it for a period of time; this automatically entailed a revision of its status, which was thus downgraded. A province with one legion was governed by a former praetor, whereas a province with two or more legions was administered by a former consul (vir consularis). A.R. Birley drew on the account in SHA vita Marci 22.9, which states that Marcus Aurelius changed – pro belli necessitate – the status of several provinces, as well as on two inscriptions (CIL III 1566; XIII6806), which contained an unorthodox record of senatorial careers. Both inscriptions mention Upper Moesia. A.R. Birley’s proposition was widely accepted by researchers, though critical views were also expressed. Nonetheless, its impact was so effective that it was subsequently argued that the mechanism should be presumed to have applied to Lower Moesia (Moesia inferior) as well.
Still, a thorough analysis of all available sources permits one to conclude that the view is erroneous and altogether unfounded. In fact, its represents an outcome of a puristic application of the prosopographic method, which in this case proved a fundamental mistake.
46
Kincbok, Agnieszka. "DOPUSZCZALNOŚĆ SKARGI KASACYJNEJ ZE WZGLĘDU NA PRZEDMIOT ZASKARŻENIA." Zeszyty Prawnicze 7, no. 1 (June 23, 2017): 161. http://dx.doi.org/10.21697/zp.2007.7.1.09.
Full textAbstract:
Admissibility of Cassation Complaint Subject to the Matter of AppealSummaryThe cassation complaint is an appeal from sentences or decisions of courts of the second instance. After more than 40 years the cassation was reintroduced to the Polish civil proceedings by the amendment to the Civil Proceedings Code (CPC) of 1 March 1996. The court which handles cassation complaints is the Supreme C ourt located in Warsaw. The Supreme Court does not consider cases but examines whether the judicial decisions comply with applicable laws.The cassation complaint cannot be filed in all cases. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited by the type of the case and by the amount of the claim. This article addresses the question of when the cassation complaint is admissible (in civil proceedings, non - litigious proceedings, execution and bankruptcy proceedings and procedure for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments) because of the criteria ratione materiae, i.e. subject, type of the case. The above-mentioned instrument is excluded, for example, in the cases examined in the simplified procedure, in alimony cases, some inheritance cases and from divorce sentences.This paper also discusses the ratione valoris criteria. According to the Rom an law rule de minimis non curat praetor, in cases concerning property rights cassation complaint is inadmissible when the am ount of the claim does not exceed the sum specified in the CPC.
47
Lintott, Andrew. "Electoral Bribery in The Roman Republic." Journal of Roman Studies 80 (November 1990): 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/300277.
Full textAbstract:
In Western Europe to-day we tend to assume automatically that electoral bribery is pernicious, in that it distorts the democratic process, the selection by the people of their own representatives, by shifting whatever power lies in the generality of the electorate back into the hands of the people who seek office, so that a democratic procedure becomes in effect oligarchic. We even term bribery the presentation of attractive policies to the electorate by a person or party, which we believe will not be in the people's long-term interest or will be rapidly discarded in favour of policies which suit those in power. Such judgements may be superficial and too dependent on the presumption that without bribery elections will be free. It is arguable that in specific societies and in specific historical contexts bribery may on the contrary make elections less predictable, dissolving the existing ties by which the electorate are already bound to those seeking office, rather than reinforcing them. Alternatively, bribery may be regarded as an accepted part of the political scene, which does not materially affect the result of elections and thus the course of political history. In Roman politics it is hard to refute the suggestion that the sort of people who actually held magistracies was not seriously influenced by electoral bribery, even though on occasions this may have determined that one man rather than another should be consul or praetor.
48
Leraczyk, Izabela. "THE CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATING THE IMMUNITY OF CARTHAGINIAN ENVOYS IN THE LIGHT OF LIV. 38.42.7 AND VAL. MAX. 6.6.3 1." Review of European and Comparative Law 32, no. 1 (March 1, 2018): 19–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.31743/recl.3191.
Full textAbstract:
The article analyses the casus of beating Carthaginian envoys in 188 BC and the effects that this act exerted on the grounds of international law, sacral norms and, at a later time, on the grounds of criminal regulations laid by the Romans. Those issues are analyzed on the basis of the account by Titus Livius (38.42.7) and Valerius Maximus (6.6.3). The analysis demonstrates that emissaries dispatched to other peoples were protected by immunity and it also indicates the way in which envoys were chosen in the republican Rome, as well as the customs related to their reception. It is also presented in the article what types of behaviour might have been perceived as violations of envoys’ immunity and what sanctions were faced by those perpetrating such acts. On the grounds of ius gentium there was a threat of declaring war, which could be averted only if the perpetrator was delivered to the affected community. On the grounds of sacral law, it was assumed that a deed of that nature entailed sacrilegium, and a blame could not be in any way removed from an individual. However, the whole society could be remitted their guilt by delivering the wrongdoer to the injured party. Further, the text analyzes the proceedings in the case of causing bodily harm to Punic envoys – the actions undertaken by the urban praetor and the procedure of delivering the perpetrators (deditio) to Carthaginians, carried out by the fetiales.
49
SAIZ ARNAIZ, ALEJANDRO. "DE MINIMIS NON CURAT PRAETOR. EL «PERJUICIO IMPORTANTE» Y LA ADMISIÓN DE LAS DEMANDAS ANTE EL TRIBUNAL EUROPEO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS." RVAP 87-88, no. 87-88 (December 1, 2010): 943–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.47623/ivap-rvap.87.88.2010.30.
Full textAbstract:
En el estudio se analizan los contenidos de la reforma al Convenio
Europeo de Derechos Humanos que resulta del Protocolo 14, entrado en vigor el
1 de julio de 2010. En particular, se dedica especial atención al nuevo requisito de
admisión de las demandas individuales, el «perjuicio importante», y a la interpretación
que del mismo ha hecho el Tribunal de Estrasburgo en las primeras decisiones
de inadmisión que aplican aquel Protocolo. 2010eko uztailaren 1ean indarrean hasitako 14. protokoloak
ekarri zuen Giza Eskubideen Europako Hitzarmena berriztatzea. Bada berriztatze
horren edukiak aztertzen ditu lan honek. Bereziki, kontu hauek dira arreta gehien
jaso dutenak: banakakoen eskaerak onartzeko betebeharra, «aurretiko epaiketa
garrantzitsua» eta horri buruz Estrasburgoko Auzitegiak egindako interpretazioa,
protokolo hura aplikatzerakoan auzia ez onartzeko ematen diren aurreneko erabakietan. In this study, the contents of the amendment to the European
Convention on Human Rights by the Protocol 14 which entered into force this
July 1st, 2010 are analyzed. Particularly, special attention is devoted to the new
requirement of admissibility for individual complaints, significant disadvantage,
and the interpretation given by the Strasbourg Court of the latter in its first
decisions of inadmissibility which apply that protocol.
50
Dementyeva, Vera V. "Marcus Antonius Orator and his quaestors: positions of imperium bearer and the order of lower magistrates’ service under him." Vestnik Yaroslavskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. P. G. Demidova. Seriya gumanitarnye nauki 15, no. 3 (October 23, 2021): 306. http://dx.doi.org/10.18255/1996-5648-2021-3-306-319.
Full textAbstract:
The article examines controversial questions about what positions Marcus Antonius Orator held in 102-100 BC and in what order were the quaestors Caius Norbanus and Aulus Gabinius under him as the bearer of the imperium. The following historical reconstruction is proposed: sent in 102 BC in the position of praetor to Cilicia to fight pirates, M. Antonius continued his mission in 101 BC in the status of proconsul of the province of Asia. The Greek designation for the office of Anthony στραταγὸς ἀνθύπατος (IGRP 4.1116) is interpreted as a «proconsul». In the same 101 BC to him, the governor of Asia, Aulus Gabinius arrived as a quaestor (and not in 102 BC, as is often stated in historiography), who, most likely, remained with him in the status of proquestor for the 100th year. It doesn’t not look possible for the author to determine the year of questorship of C. Norbanus under M. Antonius and assumptions in the scientific literature about 102, 101, 100 and 99 BC years are rejected in the article. According to the author, the questorship of Norbanus occurred some year earlier than 103 BC; at the same time dating to 113 BC is practically excluded. There are more reasons to believe that in the chronological period from the pro-praetorian powers of M. Antonius in 113 to his mission in Cilicia he was endowed with an empire in some year and had C. Norbanus as a quaestor, but due to the «silence» of the sources, it is not possible to establish this year.