N. 5 – 2006 – Memorie


Vladimir A. Kvashnin

University of Vologda








Laws on luxury (leges sumptuariae), accepted during several centuries (since III B.C. up to I century A.D.) are the most curious phenomena of public and legal culture of ancient Rome[1]. It is possible to assume their genetic connection with social institutes like «potlatch», functioned in archaic society and had the purpose maintenance of unity and stability of collective by prevention of an opportunity of accumulation of superfluous property in hands of individual persons or families[2]. However them revival in a society possessing statehood, became possible in conditions of such specific social organism as the Greek polis or its typological continuation – Roman civitas. Seemingly, ancient laws on luxury pursued the same purposes, as archaic egalitarian establishments. It is necessary to note and great value of such factor as the public opinion which condemned moneymaking and an idle way of life and was frankly hostile to any excesses both in a pursuit of a profit, and in a private life[3].

Research of laws on luxury inevitably deduces on one of the acute problems of ancient history – the social structure of the polis/civitas defined character and laws of evolution of an ancient society. Noted Russian scientist E. M. Staerman after M. Finley has paid attention to the rare for ancient civilizations a phenomenon which is taken place only in the Greek cities and in Rome. To describe it is possible as process of inclusion of the free rural population as equal in rights group in structure of a city civil community[4]. Struggle roman plebs for the civil rights in a combination to constant need of a community in internal sources of updating of army (i.e. the processes connected with formation of a civil community) have led to that to the beginning of III century B.C. traditional norms of behavior of the person in a society and in a life are transformed to system of the values which have become dominating in Roman culture.

As a result of fastening at a level of consciousness Romans these values in the Roman civil community to aim on relative equal standard of well-being of citizens affirms. It traditions of a way of life developed by centuries and fed features of outlook of rural population of Italy. The output for these property limits was fraught with decomposition of the basis of an ancient civil community – a class of freeholders. Becoming dominating public norm, to aim at economic equality generated the public psychology focused on moderation in consumption and a life as norm of a life. Data containing in ancient tradition on a way of life and activity of statesmen of epoch Pirrys′ and the First Punic wars (a vivid example the censor 275 B.C. G. Fabricius Luscinus)[5] allow to assume existence of the first restrictions on luxury in first half III century B.C[6]. Possibly, they existed not in the form of laws, as later plebiscites the end of III century B.C., and in the form of censorial remarks (nota censoria) or edicts. By time of occurrence of the first laws on luxury they already became a part of a mos maiorum that allowed the legislators of a Second Punic war’s epoch appealing to them.

It is necessary to consider as the very first law on luxury the lex Claudia (or lex Claudia de nave senatorum), accepted in 218 B.C[7]. Despite of obvious scarcity of data on this law it till now causes the long discussion in a historiography[8]. Besides, that the disorder of opinions of authors is very great also conclusions to which they come at times opposite, inherently discussion is reduced to a question on a parity of economic, political and social aspects of the situation which have prepared acceptance of the law. In this connection it is necessary to note, that a weak place of many works, devoted to the lex Claudia, that on the foreground one of aspects of a problem to the detriment of another is put is, and is frequent without taking into account that concrete historical situation in which the law has been passed. In our opinion, the most fruitful is consideration of the lex Claudia in a context of first years Second Punic war in view of those social changes which took place in Roman civitas in III century B.C[9].

Chronologically the lex Claudia is adjoined with lex Metilia de fullionibus 217 B.C[10]. and lex Oppia 215 B.C[11]. Together they form a cycle of the laws accepted in initial stage Second Punic war. Though it is usual these three laws are considered separately, outside of any communication with each other, their occurrence in borders of one time period covering first four years of war, hardly was casual. Their association in one group will be justified in the event that we can connect their acceptance with any problem faced to the Roman society at this time. That, by messages of sources, there was a chronic shortage of material resources and, first of all, the money resources, felt in Rome from the very beginning of war[12]. To one of ways of an output from the developed situation became a series of the legislative measures directed on restriction of expenses inside of a family[13].

Laws are united also by that they have been accepted in the form of plebiscite. It would seem it specifies their democratic character, making struggle of a plebeian top with patricians. More likely them it is necessary to search in aspiration Roman state for ales-you to leave that unprecedented complex situation in which Rome has appeared in the first years of war. Laws 218-215 B.C., as well as activity of the magistrates during 214 - 210 B.C.[14], allow to approve, that in the center of attention of the Roman authorities constantly was a little bit greater problems (supply of army and fleet, purchase of slaves, a payoff, withdrawal at the population through tributus and extraordinary taxes necessary for war), so closely connected with each other, that they united in one, the most important problem for Rome uninterrupted supply of army and fleet material and manpower resources. In this connection it is necessary to note reserve of the term «laws on luxury» with reference to legal certificates of the considered period[15]. Raises the doubt that to Roman society of that time urgency such problem, as has got luxury of a private life of the citizens. Sources unequivocally connect growth of well-being, inflow of overseas luxury goods with consequences of wars of Rome on Hellenistic East of II century B.C[16]. At least, up to end Hannibal war of a measure on restriction of races-courses of citizens had exclusively pragmatically character and making whether during the moment of the highest danger with the purpose to direct all means of a community for military needs[17].

The changes which have come in a life of the Roman community after termination Hannibal war, have found the reflection in events 195 B.C., connected with a repeal of lex Oppia[18]. They deduce us on two significant problems – position of the woman in the Roman family and development of a familia in structure civitas. Burdens and deprivations long-term Hannibal war start to give an up the place to more and more appreciable displays of growth of well-being of citizens, especially among of the nobility. The repeal lex Oppia in a view of it looks the trial push opened road to process of uncontrollable growth of riches and luxury inside of the Roman families[19]. However development of this process conflicted with already developed to this time as system of values, and the public practice in which basis social experience and spiritual values of the most mass part of the Roman society – peasantry laid. In process of growth of comfort and well-being of citizens which sources, as a rule, were far from traditional agriculture, resistance to the new tendencies which to the full have proved in a life civitas already in 80th of II century B.C. increased also.

One of forms of struggle with negative tendencies was the edition of a new series of laws on the luxury, accepted with small intervals on all extent of II century B.C. Being created in conditions new socially and economic situation, these laws already essentially differed from leges sumptuariae epoch of Hannibal war. The analysis of laws on the luxury, accepted in 80 - 30th of II century B.C. (lex Orchia 181 B.C., Voconia 169 B.C., Fannia 161 B.C., Licinia 131 B.C.) [20] shows, that to a traditional source of expenditure of family resources – to charges on purchase of subjects of female luxury increases new, connected with an expenditure of money for dear dinners and food stuffs[21]. Most likely, changes in the field of a feed before others have proved in a life of the Roman community. Not casually Livy among first attributes of luxury names occurrence cookery art (39.6.9). The opportunity of unlimited consumption unknown until then is faster than food products and faults, than other innovations has come to the contradiction with the traditionally norms of a life. Both the moderation of Romans in a feed, and limitation of their diet during the early period of history of Rome are marked by many authors.

Thus it is necessary to pay attention that laws on luxury have reflected the changes occurred first of all in the notable families. Established restrictions mentioned, first of all, expensive products and the wines imported Rome, and also arisen in the circle of the nobility a habit to frequent feasts with a lot of the invited visitors. Since that moment as the riches became the obvious factor of a public life, the laws done obligatory restriction of personal charges periodically passed. The elements of constant feasts and unlimited food abundance were alien to traditions of thrift established by centuries, simplicity and moderation in a life. The most far-sighted part of the Roman ruling class should understand dangers of shaking of those foundations which fastened a building Roman civitas. To the full proved the opinion of the modern historian (E.M. Staerman) that «directed on preservation of known equality of citizens of a measure had the purpose reproduction of "great productive force" a civil community», i.e. peasantry looks[22]. Various manifestations of this policy can be found out and in activities of authors of laws on luxury, and measures of a Gracchan epoch, and in «restoration» line of policy of August. Legislators besides ideological reasons quite could consider and economic interests’ Roman-Italian peasantry suffered from inflow of overseas production. It is impossible to exclude and political reasons of some representatives nobility, addressed to peasantry in searches of new tools of political strike.

Thus, researching early laws on luxury, we can draw preliminary conclusions. Laws on luxury III-II centuries B.C. leaned on traditional norms and values of the Roman peasantry. The restrictions entered by laws on luxury in III - II centuries B.C., basically mentioned purchase of subjects of female luxury and charges on dear dinners and food stuffs. Iit is possible to allocate two greater groups of laws on luxury which conditional border is termination Second Punic war. The first group – the laws accepted in 218-215 B. C. (leges Claudia, Metilia and Oppia) which purpose was the control over non-productive costs inside of the Roman family in conditions of wartime. The second group – the laws accepted in 181-131 B.C. (leges Orchia, Voconia, Fannia, Licinia) in conditions of growth of riches and improvement of quality of a life of the Roman citizens as which also it is possible to consider to the real «laws on luxury».




[1] Long G. Sumptuariae leges // Smith W. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. London, 1875, 1077; Sauerwein I. Die leges sumptuarie als römische Maßnahme gegen den Sittenverfall. Hamburg, 1970. ff.; Clemente G. Le leggi sul lusso e la societa romana tra il III e il II secolo a.C. //  Societa romana e produzione schiavistica /А cura di A. Giardina, A. Schiavone. T. III.: Modelli etici, diritto e trasformazioni sociali. Bari, 1981. 1-14; de Ligt L. De Romeinse leges sumptuariae in vergelijkendperspectief // Tesserae Romanae. Opstellen aangeboden aan Hans Teitler (Ed. L. de Ligt, J. Blok, J.-J. Flinterman). Utrecht, 2002, 9-22; Bottiglieri A. La legislazione sul lusso nella Roma republicana. Napoli, 2002, 8 ss.; Venturini C. Leges sumptuariae //  Index 31, 2004, 355-380.


[2] Cf.: Long G. Op. cit. 1077; Sauerwein I. Op. cit. 10-19.


[3] Dionys. 20.13.2-3; Gell. 2.24.1; Macr. Sat. 3.17.10.


[4] Staerman E.M. Istoria krest′anstva v drevnem Rime. Moskva, 1996, 55-56 (= Штаерман Е. М. История крестьянства в древнем Риме. М., 1996, 55-56).


[5] Broughton T. R. S. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Vol. I. (Repr. 1951). Atlanta, 1986, 196.


[6] Val.Max. 2.9.4: Quid de Fabrici Luscini censura loquar? narrauit omnis aetas et deinceps narrabit ab eo Cornelium Rufinum duobus consulatibus et dictatura speciosissime functum, quod X pondo uasa argentea conparasset, perinde ac malo exemplo luxuriosum in ordine senatorio retentum non esse; 4.3.6: Idem sensit Fabricius Luscinus honoribus et auctoritate omni ciuitate temporibus suis maior, censu par unicuique pauperrimo, qui a Samnitibus, quos uniuersos in clientela habebat, x aeris et v pondo argenti et decem seruos sibi missos in Samnium remisit, continentiae suae beneficio sine pecunia praediues, sine usu familiae abunde comitatus, quia locupletem illum faciebat non multa possidere, sed modica desiderare. ergo domus eius quemadmodum aere et argento et mancipiis Samnitium uacua, ita gloria ex iis parta referta fuit. Consentanea repudiatis donis Fabricii uota extiterunt: legatus enim ad Pyrrum profectus, cum apud eum Cineam Thessalum narrantem audisset quendam Athenis esse clarum sapientia suadentem ne quid aliud homines quam uoluptatis causa facere uellent, pro monstro eam uocem accepit continuoque Pyrro et Samnitibus istam sapientiam deprecatus est. licet Athenae doctrina sua glorientur, uir tamen prudens Fabricii detestationem quam Epicuri malu<er>it praecepta. quod euentus quoque indicauit: nam quae urbs uoluptati plurimum tribuit, imperium maximum amisit, quae labore delectata est, occupauit, et illa libertatem tueri non ualuit, haec etiam donare potuit; Plin. NH. 33.54.3: Videret haec Fabricius et stratas argento mulierum balineas ita, ut vestigio locus non sit, cum viris lavantium! Fabricius, qui bellicos imperatores plus quam pateram et salinum habere ex argento vetabat, videret hinc dona fortium fieri aut in haec frangi! heu mores, Fabrici nos pudet! Cf.: Friedlender L. Darstellungen der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von Augustus bis zum Ausgang der Antike. 10. Aufl. Bd. II. Leipzig, 1922, 330.


[7] Baltrusch E. Regimen morum: Die Reglamentierung des Privatlebens der Senatoren und Ritter in der römischen Republik und frühen Kaiserzeit. München, 1989, 33 ff.; El Beheiri N. Die lex Claudia de nave senatorum // RIDA 48, 2001, 57.


[8] Liv.21.63.3-4: Hic in prouincia consulatum inire consilium erat memori ueterum certaminum cum patribus, quae tribunus plebis et quae postea consul prius de consulatu qui abrogabatur, dein de triumpho habuerat, inuisus etiam patribus ob nouam legem, quam Q. Claudius tribunus plebis aduersus senatum atque uno patrum adiuuante C. Flaminio tulerat, ne quis senator cuiue senator pater fuisset maritimam nauem, quae plus quam trecentarum amphorarum esset, haberet. Id satis habitum ad fructus ex agris uectandos; quaestus omnis patribus indecorus uisus. Res per summam contentionem acta inuidiam apud nobilitatem suasori legis Flaminio, fauorem apud plebem alterumque inde consulatum peperit; Cic. Verr.2.5.45: Quid mihi hoc loco respondebis? nisi forte id quod, tametsi probari nullo modo potest, tamen dici quidem in iudicio de pecuniis repetundis necesse est, de tua pecunia aedificatam esse navem. Aude hoc saltem dicere quod necesse est; noli metuere, Hortensi, ne quaeram qui licuerit aedificare navem senatori; antiquae sunt istae leges et mortuae, quem ad modum tu soles dicere, quae vetant. Fuit ista res publica quondam, fuit ista severitas in iudiciis, ut istam rem accusator in magnis criminibus obiciendam putaret. Quid enim tibi navi? qui si quo publice proficisceris, praesidi et vecturae causa sumptu publico navigia praebentur; privatim autem nec proficisci quoquam potes nec arcessere res transmarinas ex iis locis in quibus te habere nihil licet. About discussions XIX -half past XX cent. see: Cássola F. I gruppi politici romani nel III secolo a. C. Trieste, 1962, 216-217.


[9] Pelletier A. A propos de la lex Claudia de 218 av. J. C. // Rivista di studi liguri. XXXV, 1969, № 1-3, 7-14; Vishnia R.F. State, Society and Popular Leaders in Mid-Republican Rome, 241-167 B.C. London, 1996, 30  f.


[10] Plin. NH. 35.197: Umbrica non nisi poliendis vestibus adsumitur. Neque enim pigebit hanc quoque partem adtingere, cum lex Metilia extet fullonibus dicta, quam C. Flaminius L. Aemilius censores dedere ad populum ferendam. See: Lange L. Römische Altertümer. 3 Aufl. Berlin, 1876, 161; Fraccaro P. Ricerche storiche e letterarie sulla censura del 184/183 // Studi storici per l’antichit̀a classica 3, 1910, 1 ss.; Cássola F. Op. cit. 213 s.; Sauerwein I. Op. cit. 36 s.; Baltrusch E. Op. cit. 27.


[11] About lex Oppia see: Liv. 34.1.3; Tac. Ann.3.33.34; Val.Max. 9.1.3; Oros. 4.20.14; Zonar. 9.171. From recently works see: Gulham P. The lex Oppia // Latomus 41, 1982, 786-793; Desideri P. Catone e le donne (Il dibattio Liviano sull΄abrogazione della lex Oppia) // Opus 3, 1984, 63-74; Peppe L. Posizione giuridica e ruolo sociale della donna romana in eta repubblicana, Milano, 1984, 43-50; Moscovich M.J. Dio Cassius and the Repeal of the Lex Oppia // AHB. 4, 1990, 10-16; Evans J. War, Women and Children in Ancient Rome. New York, 1991, 73 f; Bauman R. Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. London, 1992, 31-34; Agati Madeira E.M. La lex Oppia et la condition juridique de la femme dans la Rome républicaine // RIDA 51, 2004, 88-99.


[12] Liv.22.26.6-8; 22.32.6-9; 23.21.1-6; 23.31.1-2.


[13] See: Kvashnin V. Zakoni o roskoshi epohi Punichescih voin. Vologda, 2006, 28-50 (= Квашнин В. А. Законы о роскоши эпохи Пунических войн. Вологда, 2006, 28-50).


[14] Liv. 24.11.5-9: Eas primo quoque tempore consules scribere iussi et classem parare, ut cum eis nauibus quae pro Calabriae litoribus in statione essent, centum quinquaginta longarum classis nauium eo anno expleretur. dilectu habito et centum nauibus nouis deductis Q. Fabius comitia censoribus creandis habuit; creati M. Atilius Regulus et P. Furius Philus. Cum increbresceret rumor bellum in Sicilia esse, T. Otacilius eo cum classe proficisci iussus est. cum deessent nautae, consules ex senatus consulto edixerunt ut, qui L. Aemilio C. Flaminio censoribus milibus aeris quinquaginta ipse aut pater eius census fuisset usque ad centum milia aut cui postea tanta res esset facta, nautam unum cum sex mensum stipendio daret; qui supra centum milia usque ad trecenta milia, tres nautas cum stipendio annuo; qui supra trecenta milia usque ad deciens aeris, quinque nautas; qui supra deciens, septem; senatores octo nautas cum annuo stipendio darent. ex hoc edicto dati nautae, armati instructique ab dominis, cum triginta dierum coctis cibariis naues conscenderunt. tum primum est factum ut classis Romana sociis naualibus priuata impensa paratis compleretur; 24.18.2-15: Censores, uacui ab operum locandorum cura propter inopiam aerarii, ad mores hominum regendos animum aduerterunt castigandaque uitia quae, uelut diutinis morbis aegra corpora ex sese gignunt, eo enata bello erant. primum eos citauerunt qui post Cannensem <cladem a re publica defecisse> dicebantur. princeps eorum M. Caecilius Metellus quaestor tum forte erat. iusso deinde eo ceterisque eiusdem noxae reis causam dicere cum purgari nequissent, pronuntiarunt uerba orationemque eos aduersus rem publicam habuisse, quo coniuratio deserendae Italiae causa fieret. secundum eos citati nimis callidi exsoluendi iuris iurandi interpretes, qui captiuorum ex itinere regressi clam in castra Hannibalis solutum quod iurauerant redituros rebantur. his superioribusque illis equi adempti qui publicum equum habebant, tribuque moti aerarii omnes facti. neque senatu modo aut equestri ordine regendo cura se censorum tenuit. nomina omnium ex iuniorum tabulis excerpserunt qui quadriennio non militassent, quibus neque uacatio iusta militiae neque morbus causa fuisset. et ea supra duo milia nominum in aerarios relata tribuque omnes moti; additumque tam truci censoriae notae triste senatus consultum, ut ei omnes quos censores notassent pedibus mererent mitterenturque in Siciliam ad Cannensis exercitus reliquias, cui militum generi non prius quam pulsus Italia hostis esset finitum stipendiorum tempus erat. cum censores ob inopiam aerarii se iam locationibus abstinerent aedium sacrarum tuendarum curuliumque equorum praebendorum ac similium his rerum, conuenere ad eos frequentes qui hastae huius generis adsueuerant hortarique censores ut omnia perinde agerent locarent ac si pecunia in aerario esset: neminem nisi bello confecto pecuniam ab aerario petiturum esse. conuenere deinde domini eorum quos Ti. Sempronius ad Beneuentum manu emiserat arcessitosque se ab triumuiris mensariis esse dixerunt ut pretia seruorum acciperent; ceterum non antequam bello confecto accepturos esse. cum haec inclinatio animorum plebis ad sustinendam inopiam aerarii fieret, pecuniae quoque pupillares primo, deinde uiduarum coeptae conferri, nusquam eas tutius sanctiusque deponere credentibus qui deferebant quam in publica fide; inde si quid emptum paratumque pupillis ac uiduis foret, a quaestore perscribebatur. manauit ea priuatorum benignitas ex urbe etiam in castra, ut non eques, non centurio stipendium acciperet, mercennariumque increpantes uocarent qui accepisset; 26.35.1-8: Scripto deinde exercitu de remigum supplemento agi coeptum; in quam rem cum neque hominum satis nec ex qua pararentur stipendiumque acciperent pecuniae quicquam ea tempestate in publico esset, edixerunt consules ut priuatim ex censu ordinibusque, sicut antea, remiges darent cum stipendio cibariisque dierum triginta. ad id edictum tantus fremitus hominum, tanta indignatio fuit ut magis dux quam materia seditioni deesset: secundum Siculos Campanosque plebem Romanam perdendam lacerandamque sibi consules sumpsisse. per tot annos tributo exhaustos nihil reliqui praeter terram nudam ac uastam habere. tecta hostes incendisse, seruos agri cultores rem publicam abduxisse, nunc ad militiam paruo aere emendo, nunc remiges imperando; si quid cui argenti aerisue fuerit, stipendio remigum et tributis annuis ablatum. se ut dent quod non habeant nulla ui nullo imperio cogi posse. bona sua uenderent; in corpora quae reliqua essent saeuirent; ne unde redimantur quidem quicquam superesse. haec non in occulto, sed propalam in foro atque oculis ipsorum consulum ingens turba circumfusi fremebant; nec eos sedare consules nunc castigando, nunc consolando poterant. spatium deinde iis tridui se dare ad cogitandum dixerunt; quo ipsi ad rem inspiciendam <et> expediendam usi sunt.


[15] By the example of lex Metilia see: Frank T. An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. Baltimore, 1933, 73; Sauerwein I. Op. cit. 36-40; Kunkel W. Staatsordnung und Staatspraxis der römischen Republik. München, 1995, 612; Wallinga H.T. Official Roman washing and finishing directions lex Metilia fullonibus dicta // Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeshiediens 64, 1996, 183-190.


[16] Liv. 39.6.6-9. Cf.: Weeber K.W. Luxus im alten Rom. Darmstadt, 2003, Kap. 1.


[17] Cf.: Frank T. Op. cit. 73 f.; Sauerwein I. Op. cit. 39-42.


[18] Liv. 34.1-8: Zonar. 9. 17. 1-4.


[19] Kienast D. Cato der Zensor: Seine Persönlichkeit und seine Zeit. Darmstadt, 1979, 93, 99; Desideri P. Op. cit. 65, 68.


[20] Gell. 2.24.2-6: Legi adeo nuper in Capitonis Atei coniectaneis senatus decretum vetus C. Fannio et M. Valerio Messala consulibus factum, in quo iubentur principes civitatis, qui ludis Megalensibus antiquo ritu mutitarent, id est mutua inter sese dominia agitarent, iurare apud consules verbis conceptis non amplius in singulas cenas sumptus esse facturos, quam centenos vicenosque aeris praeter olus et far et vinum, neque vino alienigena, sed patriae usuros neque argenti in convivio plus pondo quam libras centum inlaturos. Hanc Lucilius poeta legem significat, cum dicit: Fanni centussis misellus. In quo erraverunt quidam commentariorum in Lucilium scriptores, quod putaverunt Fannia lege perpetuos in omne dierum genus centenos aeris statutos. Centum enim aeris Fannius constituit, sicuti supra dixi, festis quibusdam diebus eosque ipsos dies nominavit, aliorum autem dierum omnium in singulos dies sumptum inclusit intra aeris alias tricenos, alias denos; Macr. Sat. 3.17.2-9: Prima autem omnium de coenis lex ad populum Orchia pervenit, quam tulit C. Orchius tribunus plebi de senatus sententia tertio anno quam Cato censor fuerat. Cuius verba, quia sunt prolixa, praetereo: summa autem eius praescribebat numerum convivarum. Et haec est lex Orchia de qua Cato mox orationibus suis vociferabatur, quod plures quam praescripto eius cavebatur ad coenam vocarentur. Cumque auctoritatem novae legis aucta necessitas imploraret, post annum vicesimum secundum legis Orchiae Fannia lex data est, anno post Romam conditam secundum Gelli opinionem quingentesimo nonagesimo secundo. De hac lege Sammonicus Serenus ita refert: Lex Fannia, sanctissimi Augusti, ingenti omnium ordinum consensu pervenit ad populum: neque eam praetores aut tribuni, ut plerasque alias, sed ex omnium bonorum consilio et sententia ipsi consules pertulerunt, cum res publica ex luxuria conviviorum maiora quam credi potest detrimenta pateretur, siquidem eo res redierat, ut gula inlecti plerique ingenui pueri pudicitiam et libertatem suam venditarent, plerique ex plebe Romana vino madidi in comitium venirent, et ebrii de rei publicae salute consulerent. Haec Sammonicus. Fanniae autem legis severitas in eo superabat Orchiam legem, quod in superiore numerus tantummodo coenantium cohibebatur, licebatque secundum eam unicuique bona sua inter paucos consumere, Fannia autem etiam sumptibus modum fecit assibus centum: unde a Lucilio poeta festivitatis suae more centussis vocatur. Fanniam legem post annos decem et octo lex Didia consecuta est. Eius ferundae duplex fuit causa: prima et potissima, ut universa Italia, non sola urbs, lege sumptuaria teneretur, Italicis existimantibus Fanniam legem non in se sed in solos urbanos cives esse conscriptam: deinde ut non soli qui prandia coenasve maiore sumptu fecissent, sed etiam qui ad ea vocitati essent atque omnino interfuissent, poenis legis tenerentur. Post Didiam Licinia lex lata est a P. Licinio Crasso Divite, cuius ferundae probandaeque tantum studium ab optimatibus inpensum est, ut consulto senatus iuberetur, ut ea tantummodo promulgata, priusquam trinundino confirmaretur, ita ab omnibus observaretur quasi iam populi sententia conprobata. Lex vero haec paucis mutatis in plerisque cum Fannia congruit. In ea enim ferenda quaesita est novae legis auctoritas exolescente metu legis antiquioris ita, Hercules, ut de ipsis duodecim tabulis factum est: quarum ubi contemni antiquitas coepit, eadem illa quae illius legibus cavebantur in alia latorum nomina transierunt. Sed legis Liciniae summa: ut Kalendis Nonis nundinis Romanis cuique in dies singulos triginta dumtaxat asses edundi causa consumere liceret, ceteris vero diebus, qui excepti non essent, ne amplius daretur adponeretur quam carnis aridae pondo tria et salsamentorum pondo libra et quod ex terra vite arboreve sit natum.


[21] Luc. 13.1-6; Gell. 2.24.4-6; Athen. 6.274; Macr. Sat. 3.17.2-9.


[22] Staerman E.M. Op. cit. 62 (= Штаерман Е.М. Указ. соч. 62).