Caesar CXXXVII Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) Went to the list of Roman laws here in searching for the Lex Baebia 1. The "de praetoribus" was passed in 181 and not c. 192 . Among many others - "The law cannot have been passed long before (179, when the law was activated for the first time) and the most likely magistrate to have proposed it is M. Baebius Tamphilus, the consul of 181." (Hispaniae: Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism, 218-82 BC, J. S. Richardson, p. 110-111) 2. There was another Lex Baebia - the evasive Lex Cornelia Baebia de ambitu - Passed on the same year with regard to....ambitu (should be on the list) . Btw - Why not chronological list instead of AB ? Edited March 10, 2009 by Caesar CXXXVII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Went to the list of Roman laws here in searching for the Lex Baebia 1. The "de praetoribus" was passed in 181 and not c. 192 . Among many others - "The law cannot have been passed long before (179, when the law was activated for the first time) and the most likely magistrate to have proposed it is M. Baebius Tamphilus, the consul of 181." (Hispaniae: Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism, 218-82 BC, J. S. Richardson, p. 110-111) 2. There was another Lex Baebia - the evasive Lex Cornelia Baebia de ambitu - Passed on the same year with regard to....ambitu (should be on the list) . Btw - Why not chronological list instead of AB ? Because it was superceded by this list... http://www.unrv.com/government/legal-insti...-chronology.php Note the correct date on this law and the notation on the possible law in 192. Thanks for pointing it out though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted March 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Went to the list of Roman laws here in searching for the Lex Baebia 1. The "de praetoribus" was passed in 181 and not c. 192 . Among many others - "The law cannot have been passed long before (179, when the law was activated for the first time) and the most likely magistrate to have proposed it is M. Baebius Tamphilus, the consul of 181." (Hispaniae: Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism, 218-82 BC, J. S. Richardson, p. 110-111) 2. There was another Lex Baebia - the evasive Lex Cornelia Baebia de ambitu - Passed on the same year with regard to....ambitu (should be on the list) . Btw - Why not chronological list instead of AB ? Because it was superceded by this list... http://www.unrv.com/government/legal-insti...-chronology.php Note the correct date on this law and the notation on the possible law in 192. Thanks for pointing it out though Aha ! I say About the ambitu - Livius said "Acting on the authority of the senate, the consuls brought before the people a measure dealing with bribery. " (40.19) . That is all . There is another source ? Details ? Scholars opinion ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Went to the list of Roman laws here in searching for the Lex Baebia 1. The "de praetoribus" was passed in 181 and not c. 192 . Among many others - "The law cannot have been passed long before (179, when the law was activated for the first time) and the most likely magistrate to have proposed it is M. Baebius Tamphilus, the consul of 181." (Hispaniae: Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism, 218-82 BC, J. S. Richardson, p. 110-111) 2. There was another Lex Baebia - the evasive Lex Cornelia Baebia de ambitu - Passed on the same year with regard to....ambitu (should be on the list) . Btw - Why not chronological list instead of AB ? Because it was superceded by this list... http://www.unrv.com/government/legal-insti...-chronology.php Note the correct date on this law and the notation on the possible law in 192. Thanks for pointing it out though Aha ! I say About the ambitu - Livius said "Acting on the authority of the senate, the consuls brought before the people a measure dealing with bribery. " (40.19) . That is all . There is another source ? Details ? Scholars opinion ? It's the only source I could find. Would likely explain the date confusion thanks to the difficulty in sometimes deciphering Livius. If anyone has anything I would gladly add it to the reference material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted March 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 The explanation of T. Corey Brennan (The praetorship in the Roman Republic( is the best I have found (yet) . For him the two parts of the Lex Baebia are connected . He says (as Richardson) that the law was passed in 181 . How the two parts were connected ? less ex-praetors (de praetoribus' part) would lessen the competition for the consulship and thus bribery (de ambitus' part) . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.