The Text of theLex Irnitana

M. H. CRAWFORD

The timeisunripefora new editionof theLex Irnitana - morework isneeded andmore

-
textmight appear but it seemsdesirable,given theavailabilityvia JSTOR of the text
published in JRS 76 (i986), to publish a bare listof thoseplaces where that text is in
Most of the correctionsare due to the sharp eye of Alan
serious need of correction.
Rodger,who also observes that theaction de sponsione in ch. LXXXIV is not an actio
famosa,but an allegation thatneeds a causae cognitioand hence the intervention of the
praetor.
Ch. K, line4z: read [... ite]mde ceteris,not [... ite]mde <interti>is.
The engraverfirstcut decretis,thencut eterabove ret; thecorrectionto de intertiis
was
unjustified;thetranslation will run 'likewiseconcerningothermatters ..
Ch. LIII, line5o: read latioesto,not latioest.
Ch. LXIX, line I3: read et iis,quocum agitur;lines25-6, readus, qui aget.
The rejectionof theformiis for iswas unjustified;theslightanacoluthon involvedin the
structure'Whateveris sued for ... or whatever is the subjectof an action ... and the
personagainstwhom theaction isbroughtisunwilling...' isperfectly acceptable.
Ch. LXXVII, linez6: itmay be thatcommunibusis amistake forcommuniter.
Ch. LXXIX, linesI3-I4: readnihilum{min[us]} r(ogatur),notnihilummin[us] r(ogatur).
The word minus was tacitly ignored in the translation.
Ch. LXXXI, line 23: itmay be thatone should readanteha<n>c lege<m latam>.
Ch. LXXXIII, line7: readoportere,not opertere.
Ch. LXXXIV, linesI3-I4: readaut cumhomine liberoliberaueaut cum seru[oquo]d
not aut cumhomine liberoliberaue,aut cum seru[odum i]d ...
With theeliminationof thecomma and thereplacement of dum by theneutralquod, we
have simplytwo formsof an action fortheft.
Ch. LXXXIV, linesI6-I9: read eaue de re [qua in re]praeiudiciumfuturumsit,not eaue
de re [aliquid]praeiudiciumfuturumsit.
Insertalso a comma afteragetur:neque in uiswill thencover (a) eaue de re and (b) de
ceterisquoque.
Ch. LXXXIV, linezo: readet omniumrerum[c. 7]+
It isunsafe to restore[dumtaxa]tor indeedanythingelse.
Ch. LXXXX, lines29, 37: read i<t>que proscriptum,
quiue itproscriptum,
not i<d>que
quiue et proscriptum.
proscriptum,
Ch. LXXXXVII, lines23-4: readper honores liberorum, not per honores libertorum.
I am unpersuaded that in line 33 legeLati scio, implyinga lex of Latium = Latinity, is
preferableto lege latescio (checkedinSeville,z6/o6/o8).

College London
University

JRS 98 (0oo8), p. i8z. ? World Copyright Reserved.

Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2008