The So-Called Lex Gabinia

Author(s): H. A. Ormerod
Source: The Classical Review , Feb. - Mar., 1925, Vol. 39, No. 1/2 (Feb. - Mar., 1925), pp.
15-16
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/698534

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Classical Association and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Review

This content downloaded from

52.18.63.169 on Thu, 11 Feb 2021 09:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 15
A few more notes on Herodas. In
Ov p v, and on the right to the track
in col. 37 from an inch above 09 pta
I. 84 read, PvXx, & va[7rY OXducat]
down to cepSova r a v, thus giving exact
oa-' oi e votro. In II. 5 if., dvOd~'J
distances.
v7repfget BarTapOv& rT 7rqLva,. [7ravr] q The gap from the right
rye caL Ske>' Q&'Xv/c) vyapmargin [av] of col. 35 is about one-eighth of
an inch.
KXal;caat [CT'] o"Lr , o 77 acTToT 77 The following supplements
fit for length from v. 24, HId [Oov] (or
ao'r,.v (? 1. Ao"'r>W.V) X'Pp. I4,
EIEX]JCE0 EL]ew, . .. V Xye6. III. 75, p[eS6Lovo-' ovrr] or the like,
-177),
xpT or Kipr . . . 61oilco, 'summer 7r [e4 vcev obyv ck] --this is rather long,
1C] av 70E( 'Aw e]XX, x [pvoo^o -a-i-
and winter alike.' 88, divide speakers
pa](, K[6'pswv Lrayae7eiL], 8[arpa'tov
after Sepov 8', vS 14; -tv, 1v*x3k, ,tv, &8v,
<&dx>
avafyvewvat, and laior, with halt after tvv] - perhaps 1 [a3daeir';
yX/a -aav,
a"XX', /cA [-' artv ,ota], raa-av,
sentence to where Lamp.
avoid the changes his
aaice'4parov icadxcetv
of 8'], T'V ivcid8e, ], 78'
EbproXel co], ewpnIevi oi' I7], ol tevo-
EK7/clGet. V. 30, ,cal d~ Xpq (Milne's
86frat], XO )owero'v 0et], dp"G & 7rt],
certain reading) wo8'~7lo-rpov with 7rriEaX]<a cvh [oy] &ov,7)- r];, aEeC&]at
aposiopesis (M.) or loss of a line (b"/4Cv
yevea-at H Ivpp&l 71 o6L0t I LhXL;).
with EVropEW, rrelv; in 43. Below, in
68, ? 1ca7-aLpov, 'dyed as deep.' VI. 65,
68 f. read 6 TOrT' pOpv ryap odi aeoA 8pf1?O
Xpivat (from Xpaivw, non temere te (sc.
dX X' ipry' 6Iot' vr' Ep' draT7; VII. 7,
in viis] resperserit). EDTre CUv, etc. Per-
anXXov SE 7T7\ Pv dicavav (A " x[L] v icc.Xn
dIc Tro) rpaXrXou <eZp>ov.1 I would haps the fragment 7/op belongs here.
note a certain placing of the looseIn Mime IX. we must read 8eteXalot; in
strip in col. 36. There is a worm- v. 8 (M.). Vv. 2-3 may have had
track all round this fr. corresponding 18PiX et rTOY /tEV X]t7r[COva X]atcSpj: cf.
on the left to a line down from one inch Theocr. XV. 31, Sophron fr. 16.
My warmest thanks are due to Mr.
above Tr ,7ery8ovo-a in col. 34 through Milne, who has tested the vast majority
1 Or (<) 8> raov if Hrd. was deceived -I fancy
by all-of these suggestions.
false MSS. (of Hipponax ?). A. D. KNox.

THE SO-CALLED LEX GABINIA.

A SERIOUS blow has been dealt to Cuq's that this inscription, however
individual
identification of the Delphian mutilated,
inscrip- may prove to contain a part
tion (Suppl. Ep. Gr., I. 161) withof the
theLex
famous law of 67 B.C.
Gabinia of 67 B.c. by Mr. Cary's second If the question is one of probabilities,
article in this journal (XXXVIII., it is perhaps worth pointing out that it is
pp. 162-4). Cuq's principal reason forprobable that the law in question is not
assigning the Delphian law to the yearmuch later than the two events to
67 B.C. was the supposed reference towhich it expressly refers, the sixth con-
the Lex Gabinia de Senatu dando, a sulship of Marius (too B.C.), and the
measure which he assigned to the early reduction of Thrace by T. Didius
months of Gabinius' tribunate. I have (IOI B.C.), although the inscription itself
already pointed out (Piracy, p. 243)
is too fragmentary for us to know why
that Cuq was thereby forced to place
these events should be mentioned. It is
Pompeius' campaign against the pirates
probable that a measure enjoining the
in the year 66, which is impossible closing
on of the ports against the pirates
grounds of chronology. Now, accord- (the only certain inference that we can
ing to Mr. Cary,. the Lex de Senatu draw from the inscription) would be
dando is to be assigned to the year passed
of at an early stage of the Roman
Gabinius' praetorship (6r B.C.). With
operations against them. It is more
this dating the main argument for the
than probable that a law which mentions
ascription of the Delphian law to the the king in Cyprus, the king in Egypt, the
year 67 is shown to possess no value, king in Cyrene, and the kings in Syria,
and we are left to deal with probabilities,
belongs to a period when such political
or with the not unnatural desire of the
conditions existed-that is to say, before

This content downloaded from

52.18.63.169 on Thu, 11 Feb 2021 09:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 x6 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

should regard
the year 96. For with it be made, toto
connect the
Cyrene
I find it extremelyDelphian law with the
difficult tocommand of
believe,
with Mr. Cary, that a Isauricus.)
Servilius 'r5pavvov, even
though provisionally Personallyrecognised by
I can find nothing in the
Lucullus (if we assume
law which what is nowhere
would compel us to connect
stated by our authorities), could
it with any particular be
expedition de-
against
scribed in an official Roman document the pirates," and, as I have said, it is
as j&aauX4e ($) btXa ical o-vpaXla 6O-T,hard to believe that a measure which
seven years after Cyrene had been made prescribed the closing of the ports
a Roman Province.' It is undoubted should not have been passed until 67 B.c.
that a reorganisation of the province
We have no precise information as to
the immediate cause which provoked
took place in 67,2 the work of reorgani-
the by
sation being carried out, as it seems, Roman expedition of 102 B.C., but
Cn. Lentulus Marcellinus,3 the legatus
it may be taken as certain that it was
of Pompeius, and probably the brother
the complaints of the provincials which
of the Publius Lentulus Marcellinus
at last compelled the Romans to take
who, as Sallust says, had been sent as against the pirates. The principal
action
quaestor in novam provinci<am> purveyors of slaves at the close of the
Curenas in 75/4 B.C.; but if the evidence second century were the pirates and the
of a contemporary writer is worth any- taxfarmers. On the representations of
thing, the one point about the Cyrenaica Nicomedes of Bithynia, during the
of which we can be certain is that there Cimbrian wars, that the majority of his
was no 9acrltLeXE after 74 B.C. subjects had been carried off by the
Mr. Cary's suggestion that, if this lawtaxfarmers and were now in slavery, a
senatus consultum had ordered that all
is not the Lex Gabinia, it is possiblyto be
connected with the command conferred allies of free birth who were now in
on M. Antonius (Creticus) in 74 B.c., slavery should be set free. The Delphian
has already been put forward in anlaw, as was pointed out by Foucart,7
article by M. Jean Colin(Rev. Arch., provides the counterpart to this enact-
XVIII., pp. 289 ff.) which provoked ament against the taxfarmers. That
somewhat acrimonious reply from Cuqother scourge of the provincial, the
(ib. XIX., pp. 213 ff.) to the effect that pirate, is now to be, prevented from
Antonius derived his authority fromopenly trading his goods in Roman
the senate, not from a law, which the and allied ports. Were no provisions
Delphian inscription clearly is.4 The of this kind made until 67 B.c. ? The
same argument is rightly employed by sack of Delos by Athenodorus in 69 B.C.
Mr. Cary, who adds: 'At the time of is unthinkable if the pirates were still
Antonius' appointment the only rulersusing the anchorage and market.
of Syria whom the Roman government H. A. ORMEROD.
recognised had been expelled from
their possessions by Tigranes, and were 6 I am unable to accept Mr. Cary's view that
living as refugees in Rome itself.'5 (We lines 23 ff. of the inscription refer to officials
may note that the second argument iscreated KaT- roo70V 7by [vtpov], a 'special set of
magistrates appointed ad hoc.' The somewhat
equally valid against any attempt,fragmentary Greek ...ot oIr av X-coo-W7ara
7rot[?O-cer irp]vootav Kad ra70rOV70V TVy [O/LOV, O rTO
1 Sallust, frag. ii. 43, ed. Maurenbrecher.
See Piracy, p. 245. orwr
such ayev7)]=traL
view. WithpoVToadirtOeav scarcely
regard to his view thatwarrants
SDiod. Sic., xx. 4. 'an inscription which mentions Romani and
3 Dittenberger, Syll.3, 750. Latini, but no socii Italici, must be dated-not
4 My attention was drawn to these papers by but after 9o-89 B.C.,' one naturally asks
before,
M. Colin.
who were the r;-paaxot ,E E mr 'IraXuar Aarvot
after 90o-89. Scarcely the Transpadanes.
5 For the bearing of acrtXe1r roEr Ev ZIvphat
j#acrtXeov[Tar on the year 67 see Piracy, p. 246.7 Journal des Savants, 19o6, p. 367.

This content downloaded from

52.18.63.169 on Thu, 11 Feb 2021 09:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms