scholarly journals CZYM JEST MUNICYPIUM I CZYM SIĘ RÓŻNI OD KOLONII ORAZ KIM SĄ OBYWATELE MUNICYPIUM AULUS. GELLIUS, ‘NOCE ATTYCKIE’ 16,13 TEKST - TŁUMACZENIE - KOMENTARZ

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 373-379
Author(s):  
Anna Tarwacka
Keyword(s):  

.

Mnemosyne ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 436-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald Verbrugghe

AbstractManuscripts of two relatively late authors of classical Latin, Aulus Gellius and Nonius Marcellus, have garbled the word duovicesimus, a word that fell out of use after the first century BC. Modern scholars have had difficulty in restoring the true form of the word to the ancient manuscripts and then in assessing the effect of that restoration on the histories written by three authors of the second and first centuries BC, who are cited as having used that word: Fabius Pictor, Cato the Elder, and Varro. Once the valid form of the word is restored and its meaning realized, the following conclusions are possible. Fabius Pictor had his own peculiar chronology of the period between the Gallic sack of Rome and the first plebeian consul. Cato the Elder marked the beginning of the siege of Sarguntum as the sixth violation of a treaty by the Carthaginians. It is highly likely that Varro had Ancus Marcius die in the twenty-second year of his reign.


Scriptorium ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-225
Author(s):  
A.-C. De la Mare ◽  
P.-K. Marshall ◽  
Richard-H. Rouse
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 259-263
Author(s):  
Anna Tarwacka
Keyword(s):  

O TYM, ŻE PUBLIUS AFRICANUS I INNI SŁYNNI MĘŻOWIE JEGO CZASÓW WEDŁUG ZWYCZAJU PRZODKÓW GOLILI BRODĘ I POLICZKI DOPÓKI NIEOSIĄGNĘLI PODESZŁEGO WIEKU. AULUS GELLIUS, NOCE ATTYCKIE 3,4.TEKST – TŁUMACZENIE – KOMENTARZ


1995 ◽  
Vol 38 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 231-240
Author(s):  
Jan Zabłocki
Keyword(s):  

Aulus Gellius presented a discussion between a philosopher and a layer in his Noctes Atticae. According to Sextus Caecilius who was the lawyer the talon had been antiquated in the days of the Law of the Twelve Tables and it was substituted by pecuniary penalties. However, the praetor’s activity affected the abandonment of fines with amounts fixed in the Twelve Tables in favour of a penalty for iniuria which was estimated by a judge. It was similar the case of membri ruptio, when an offender had decided to avoid the talon. Yet Favorinus who was the philosopher emphasized that choice o f talon belonged to a sufferer. Nevertheless, he noted its cruelty and problems with the just execution of the talon. His attitude did not surprise: he took no account of social and legal circumstances not only of the time of the Twelve Tables, but of his own days as well. Defending the humanitarianism of the Twelve Tables, the layer analized their clauses in the broad cultural and legal context. He did not allege that the talon had been humanitarian, but he tended to clarify that the penalty had to be accepted by the offender and it was executed only on himself.


1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 215-226
Author(s):  
Jan Zabłocki

In the 2nd century B.C. in ancient Rome it was not required of the judges that they were conversant with the law. Every Roman citizen who had certain social status could be enroled on album iudiciorum selectorum. In The Attic Nights (Gell. 14.2) Gellius describes how after being chosen by the paetors among the iudices he sought texts in Greek as well as Latin on duties of a judge. But in complicated cases and in doubts engendered by conflicting opinions, such books simply could not help him. Aulus Gellius mentions one problem that was presented to him and that was a real conundrum. Namely a sun of money was claimed before him which was said to have been paid and counted out (pecunia non numerata) but the plaintiff did not support his case by witness, relying only on slender arguments. However, it was clear that he was on unimpeachable moral character while the defendant had a questionable reputation and was often convicted of mendacity, full of treachery and fraud. Since Gellius did not want to reach verdict precipitately, he consulted some friends of great legal experience. They had no doubt that the defendant should be acquitted and that it was no use retarding the proceedings since the plaintiff could not produce the legal evidence required (either expensilatio, mensae rationes, chirographum, tabulae obsignatae or testes). But Gellius knew well that if he had returned a verdict of not guilty, the plaintiff would have been subject to iudicium de calumnia. Therefore author of The Attic Nights didn’t feel satisfied and consulted Favorinus, a well-know philosopher. The latter proceeded to discuss various aspects of a judge’s function. He pondered, for instance, whether a judge should reach to verdict on the basis of his full knowledge or only in accordance with what has been brought up during the trial. In the end Favorinus advised Gellius a decision in favour of the plaintiff on the ground of his creditable character. Nevertheless Gellius could not make up his mind and accordingly took oath mihi non liquere and in that way he was relieved from rendering a decision.


2019 ◽  
pp. 21-37
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Amielańczyk

The objectives and functions of the punishment for a public offence (crimen) had already been discussed by M. Tullius Cicero, Seneca the Younger, or Aulus Gellius many centuries before Emperor Justinian. According to their statements, the Romans distinguished in principle all the types of punitive functions known today: deterrence (special and general prevention), reprisal (retaliation), elimination (protection of society against the perpetrator), and even the rehabilitation (educative) function. The emergence of the imperial judiciary extra ordinem in criminal matters could have been conducive to performance of various functions assigned to various penalties, along with the possibilities offered by the discretionary power of judicial decisions. However, when reading Emperor Justinian’s Constitutio Tanta and the numerous accounts from the Roman jurists included in his codification, contained in Book 48 of the Digest, one may be convinced that the function of paramount importance for the emperor was to deter potential perpetrators by means of severe penalties, including notably the death penalty. The educational function was rather marginal. The primary objective of the imperial criminal policy was the ruthlessly severe punishing for criminal offences (severitas, atrocitas) and the implementation of the postulate of inevitability of criminal responsibility.


2021 ◽  
pp. 156-178
Author(s):  
James Warren

Aulus Gellius reports a set of criticisms of Cicero raised by Asinius Gallus. The criticisms include the claim that Cicero uses the notion of regret (paenitentia) incorrectly by implying that regret may be an appropriate response to something not voluntarily performed or chosen. This claim is assessed in the light both of the general picture of ancient accounts of regret assembled so far and also in the light of R. Jay Wallace’s recent account of the limits of regret and the relationship between regret and affirmation. This returns to the discussion of what a virtuous person may and may not regret.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document