The Judiciary Law of Caius Sempronius Gracchus: Documentary source and Literary Tradition
Myakin Timofey G.
A critical study of the text of a Roman republican lex iudiciaria preserved on tabula Bem-bina, undertaken by A.F. Rudorff and Th. Mommsen, proved that this important document was a part of Gaius Gracchus' legislation of 123-122 ВС pertaining to judiciary law. A small fragment of Tabula Bembina found in Fossombrone (ancient Forum Sempronii) and subsequent research of other scholars yielded further arguments in favour of such identification. Taking into consideration G. Tibiletti and Chr. Mackay's arguments, the author thinks it possible to define the law preserved on the tabula Bembina as lex Acilia (Sempronia) de iudiciis repetundarum. All attempts to get an idea of its contents only from the contradictory data of ancient literary tradition seem to miss the mark. Interpretations of Gaius Gracchus' judiciary law which can be found in Varro, Appianus, Plutarch, Livy and other writers do not agree with each other and go back, as the author supposes, to different sources, including Gaius Gracchus' speeches, still well known in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. However, comparing the data of the oldest branch of the tradition concerning Gaius Gracchus' judiciary law (Varro and Cicero) with those of tabula Bembina, one may infer that this law applied only to standing commissions appointed to try the cases of extortions (quaestiones perpetuae repetundarum). Senators were excluded from them, and unified legal proceedings were established for both citizens and non-citizens. The well known discrepancies between lex Acilia (Sempronia) and Plutarch's account can be due to the fact that in his «Life of Gracchi» Plutarch depends upon collected speeches of Tiberius Gracchus and commentaries on them. On the contrary, Livy's extant books show that he must have used Gaius Grachus programme speech De legibus promulgatis, in which Gaius could have submitted a proposal to introduce new members to the senate. A comparative analysis of Livy's phraseology in his extant books and the epitomes makes the author conclude that the Epitomator used Livy's text directly, without resorting to later sources