[ISSN
1825-0300]
N.
9 – 2010 – D. &
Innovazione
Did Leges Sumptuaria exist in Rome?
To Question About Corellation Terms
Leges
Sumptuariae and Leges Cibariae
University of Vologda, Russian Federation
The basic sources on the history of the
Roman sumptuary laws are two greater fragments from the works of Aulus Gellius
(II A.D.) and Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius (V A.D.). The messages of Cicero,
Livius, Plinius Secundus and Athenaeus, which have the mention of separate sumptuary
laws, serve as additions to them. Due to this main attention of researchers is
concentrated on the 24-th chapter of the Book II of «Noctes Atticae» by Aulus Gellius and the 17-th chapter of the
Book III of the «Saturnalia»
by Macrobius. Two of these fragments are close in structure and content, so
that has allowed researchers to raise the question about Macrobius borrowing of
the information from Aulus Gellius, or dependence of the both authors on one
source[1].
At the same time the certain distinctions have been revealed: the list of
sumptuary laws, resulted by authors, does not coincide, also they have
different chronological frameworks, dating of separate laws, etc., that specify
that Aulus Gellius and Macrobius could use various sources.
As Aulus Gellius reports, he used the
information from the «Coniectanea»,
belonging to the considerable lawyer of the beginning of the I century A.D.
Gaius Ateius Capito. Besides, Gellius quotes Levius and Licinius, Roman poets
of the II century B.C. Similarity of the information gived by Gellius and
Marcobius lets us suggest, that Marcobius also used Capito's work directly or
through intermediary of any author, most likely, Serenus Sammonicus to which he
refers twice in the 17-th chapter of his work. The fact, that Macrobius used
Aulus Gellius’ information directly looks doubtful in a view of noted
above divergences in the works of two authors, though there is a link on
certain Gellius, mentioned without the indication of praenomen, in the text of
«Saturnalia». As marks A.
Bottiglieri, wider scope of material is characteristic for Marcobius conception
as a whole. On the basis of the analysis of various versions of lex Fannia dating at both authors, she
comes to a conclusion about existence, at least, one more source, which
Marcobius has used. In Gellius mentioned in «Saturnalia» the research worker sees Gneus Gellius, the II
century B.C. annalist[2]. In her opinion, Marcobius used Gneus
Gellius information not directly, but in Varro's retelling («Annales», possibly), whose works
were well-known to him, as to Aulus Gellius[3].
As it is possible to see, distinctive
feature of the source base on the history of Roman sumptuary law is absence of
the Roman lawyer’s writings. The exception is only Capito's work, which
has reached us only in transfer of annalistic and antiquarian writings. This
circumstance explain why such questions as quantity of sumptuary laws, time of
their acceptance or a content of specific laws still causes sharp discussion[4]. The question of value of the term
«leges sumptuariae» is
still disputable. There are two approaches to its understanding in scientific
literature. More popular is the «wide» interpretation, when under leges sumptuariae the special group of
laws, which have been directed on restriction of expenses of private persons in
various areas of life is understood. It joins the acts of law of various sort,
which have been directed against the organization of expensive feasts, burials,
games, purchases of clothes and ornaments, household goods, practice of
extortion of expensive gifts. Such approach has found an extreme expression in
works of F.Wieacker, who had ranked
all actions of the Roman authorities, anyhow directed on improvement of public
morals, as sumptuary laws. On his estimates, there were 41 law against luxury
in Rome[5]. As fairly marks E.Baltrusch, defects
of such procedure are connected with voluntary or involuntary orientation of
researcher to modern concepts of law, forcing him to look for the signs of
precise organization and ordering in the Roman Law even there, where they were
absent[6].
The «narrow» approach, on
the contrary, connects the «leges
sumptuariae» term only with one version of laws, known as «leges cibariae». The idea that leges sumptuariae has been directed
against culinary luxury is not new, being present already in the first
writings, devoted to the Roman sumptuary laws. However, if researchers until
recently expressed it in a cautious form, with various clauses, in the works of
last time, devoted given problematics, identity of concepts «leges
sumptuariae» and «leges cibariae» affirms in the vigorous
form[7].
The main background of the «narrow» approach to the term
«leges sumptuariae» is that in two basic sources of history of
sumptuary law - writings of Aulus Gellius and Marcobius, only leges cibariae are mentioned (see tab.
I). Marcobius refers to Cato Maior, who directly names them «dinner
laws»[8]. Thus, however, it is necessary to
consider, that in this case we should rely on the later ancient author lived in
the V century A.D. (i.e. about six centuries later after Cato), who results the
statement of the Censor, which has been pulled out from the unknown context.
Besides, the disciples of «narrow» interpretation give the
knowledge of Cicero, Tacitus, Suetonius and Ammianus Marcellinus as an
additional argument.
Table
I. The list of sumptuary laws in the writings of
Aulus
Gellius and Marcobius
|
Aulus
Gellius |
Marcobius |
|
Senatconsultum, 161 B.C. |
_______ |
|
______ |
Lex Orchia |
|
Lex Fannia |
Lex Fannia |
|
______ |
Lex Didia |
|
Lex Licinia |
Lex Licinia |
|
Lex Cornelia |
Lex Cornelia |
|
Lex Aemilia |
Lex Aemilia |
|
Lex Antia |
Lex Antia |
|
______ |
Decretum Antonii |
|
Lex Iulia |
_______ |
|
Decretum Augusti seu Tiberi |
_______ |
(Bottiglieri A. La legislazione sul lusso nella Roma
republicana. Napoli, 2002. 92)
At the same time, scrutiny of the
information of antique authors, who the supporters of an identification leges
sumptuariae and leges cibariae refer to, does not allow to agree with such
categorical conclusions. For example, in the letter to Marсus Fadius Gallus (nearly 57 B.C.) Cicero
mentions sumptuary laws in a very specific context (Cic. Fam. XII, 26). It is possible to notice, that Cicero writes not
about sumptuary law as a whole, but about the specific law (it seems, that he
means lex Aemilia, 115 B.C.), and the
matter of its regulation – the food stuffs resolved to consumption
– is directly connected with those vital circumstances, which have
generated the given letter. It is necessary to give due both to the sense of
humour of the Roman author, and his skill to reduce together philosophical,
political and personal problems within the limits of discussion of gastronomic
questions, however, additional arguments in favour of that all sumptuary laws
were «dining laws», his letter does not give. The same we can say
about the other letter sent to Lucius Papirius Petus in 46 B.C. (Cic. Fam. IX.15). Most likely, Cicero here
ridicules provisions of lex Iulia
Caesaris, accepted in the same year, belonging to Caesar, who is mentioned
as praefectus moribus. It specifies a
mention of mushrooms, as well as the daily size of gastronomic expenses, which
were regulated by a number of sumptuary laws. The same law is mentioned in the
letter, addressed to Titus Pomponius Atticus, 45 B.C. (Cic. Att. XIII.7). Thus, in all the letters
resulted Cicero mentions only specific laws acted during his life, not pressing
in the discussion of the nature of sumptuary law anywhere.
Provisions of lex Iulia Caesaris, 46 B.C., are mentioned also by Gaius Suetonius
Tranquillus in his Caesar's biography (Suet. Caes. 43.2). As well as in case of Cicero correspondence, the
mention of food products as the object of law regulation arises in connection
with a content of the specific law accepted under the initiative of Caesar, but
not because all sumptuary laws have been connected with area of food
consumption. Confirming of it is message of Tacitus (Tac. Ann. III.52). It is easy to notice, that in his writing the matter
of luxury is connected not only with gluttony, but also such phenomenon as
libertinage (ventris et ganeae), that
is the direct indication on its actual context – Caesar's and Augustus'
legislation, which was violated by the population of Rome.
At first sight, Ammianus Marcellinus'
passage (Amm. Marc. XVI.5.1-2) is more informative. However, it is necessary to
consider, that Ammianus Marcellinus wrote the work to the second half of the IV
century, though last sumptuary laws have been accepted in the beginning of the
I century A.D. Most likely, any of ten sumptuary laws, existed during the
period of acceptance of the laws of XII tables and dictatorship of Lucius
Cornelius Sulla, six of which were «dining laws», were not known to
the late Roman historian. Evidently, that interest of Flavius Claudius Iulianus
to the legislation of the period of Late Republic, obviously archaic for that
time, has been directly caused by its «restoration» political
course. From all the restrictions established by sumptuary law at various
times, the urgency for emperor and his contemporaries was obviously kept only
with the restrictions in the sphere of food, which besides could be most easily
realized.
It is necessary to pay attention to the
fact, that other ancient authors, who were writing about the Republican period
of the Roman history, do not mention the existence of leges cibariae, though they have known one or another sumptuary
law. For example, Livius, illustrating history of repeal of the lex Oppia in 195 B.C., ranks it as a
sumptuary law. At the same time, there is no leges cibariae among the laws restricted luxury, mentioned by him
(Liv. XXIV.4.1-9). Besides, the existence of two independent terms concerning
one phenomenon is absolutely inexplicable. If leges cibariae represented group of laws, known as leges sumptuariae, instead of representing
their special version, there is even more a challenge for researchers to prove
parallel existence of two terms with one value.
But was it so? No one of the authors,
whose information were considered as a background of «narrow»
interpretation, have the term «leges
cibariae». On the contrary, they use expression «leges sumptuariae» for a
designation of dining laws. It is
not used by Aulus Gellius, while he gives a description of eight same laws.
There is a suspicion, that it is not legal term, because it is absent in
Marcobius' writing. The Roman author uses the term «leges sumptuariae» (three times in the text) though «leges cibariae» appears in the
text only once, in the form of the quotation from Cato Censor's speech. In
other cases Marcobius uses expression «coenis lex», alike «lex
cibaria», but not identical to it. The other expression used by
Macrobius – «leges de coenis
et sumptibus» – srecifies, that it has an artificial origin,
representing certain contamination of sumptuary laws and «dining laws».
Thus, expression «leges cibariae»
obviously has the literary-rhetorical nature. Most likely, it has been taken by
Marcobius from the collection of Cato Censor's speeches to emphasize specific
character of concrete group of sumptuary laws.
These observations force to pay
attention on the souce base of an investigated problematics again. As it has
already been noticed, its feature is the absence of juridical sources,
therefore the history of Roman sumptuary law is perceived by us through
historical-antiquarian studies of Aulus Gellius and Marcobius. Having
disappeared to the beginning of the I century A.D., these laws did not cause
the big interest for a long time not only because of the loss of urgency, but
also because of absence of the information on them. Apparently, this type of
the legislation has not drew attention of the Roman jurists, except of Gaius
Ateius Capito, who has evidenced last sumptuary laws during his life. Even in
greater juridical collections of lawyers of the classical period there are no
mentions of these laws as there are no even signs of existence of the special
writing in Rome, devoted to the analysis of leges sumptuariae. Splash of
interest to sumptuary laws is in the II century A.D., when the classicism,
which has accepted precise outlines of archaism, becomes central phenomenon of
a mental life of the Roman society. The orientation to the idealized past,
which has arisen in a society, has caused active search of an antiquarian
material, its laborious studying and attempts to reproduce it in imitations and
processings. At the same time, sumptuary laws, in time of Aulus Gellius and
more - Marcobius, were perceived as an archaic relict of a republican epoch,
from the very beginning were studied not from the point of view of a legal
science, but morally-ethical categories, because first of all they have been
called up to emphasize both the superiority of «ancient»
traditions, and imperfection of customs, characteristic for the time of
«archaists» of the epoch of Empire.
Thus, the analysis lead by us does not
give the grounds to review of the sight on sumptuary laws as to a special group
of laws regulated behaviour of a person in the area of consumption, which has
settled in scientific literature. As E.Baltrusch states, unification of various
Roman laws in one group with their general designation as leges sumptuariae is justified by their substantial unity[9]. Such approach assumes inclusion of the
accepted at various times and having various nature legal certificates
(plebiscites, SC, edicts) in group of sumptuary laws, directed against the
organization of expensive feasts, burials, games, purchasing of clothes and
ornaments, subject matters of an interior, etc. under the excessive prices. In
all, according to our estimates, there were accepted not less than 15 sumptuary
laws in Rome from the end of the III century B.C. and to the beginning of the I
century A.D. (see tab. II).
Table
II. The Roman sumptuary laws, III century B.C. - I century A.D.
|
№ |
Date |
B.
Kübler |
I.
Sauerwein |
E. Baltrusch |
A. Bottiglieri |
|
1 |
220-218 |
|
Lex Metilia |
Lex Metilia |
Lex Metilia |
|
2 |
215 |
Lex Oppia |
Lex Oppia |
Lex Oppia |
Lex Oppia |
|
3 |
209 |
|
Lex Publicia |
Lex Publicia |
Lex Publicia |
|
4 |
204 |
Lex Cincia |
Lex Cincia |
Lex Cincia |
Lex Cincia |
|
5 |
184 |
Edictum Cens. |
Edictum Cens. |
|
|
|
6 |
182 |
Lex Orchia |
Lex Orchia |
Lex Orchia |
Lex Orchia |
|
7 |
169 |
|
|
Lex
Furia* (doubt) |
Lex
Furia* |
|
8 |
169 |
|
|
Lex
Voconia* |
Lex
Voconia* |
|
9 |
161 |
Lex Fannia |
Lex Fannia |
Lex Fannia |
Lex Fannia |
|
10 |
161 |
Senatconsultum |
Senatconsultum |
|
Senatconsultum |
|
11 |
143 |
Lex Didia |
Lex Didia |
Lex Didia |
Lex Didia |
|
12 |
134-103 |
Lex Licinia |
Lex Licinia |
Lex Licinia |
Lex Licinia |
|
13 |
115 |
Lex Aemilia |
Lex Aemilia |
Lex Aemilia |
|
|
14 |
81 |
Lex Cornelia |
Lex Cornelia |
Lex Cornelia |
|
|
15 |
71-68 |
Lex Antia |
Lex Antia |
Lex Antia |
|
|
16 |
55 |
Rogatio Pompeia-Licinia |
Rogatio Pompeia-Licinia |
Rogatio Pompeia-Licinia |
Rogatio Pompeia-Licinia |
|
17 |
46 |
Lex Iulia |
Lex Iulia |
Lex Iulia |
Lex Iulia |
|
18 |
18 |
Lex Iulia Augusti |
Lex Iulia Augusti |
Lex Iulia Augusti |
Lex Iulia Augusti |
|
19 |
16-22 |
Edictum Tiberi |
Edictum Tiberi |
|
Edictum Tiberi |
*
means law, most likely is not sumptuary law