Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Litigation in Roman Law$

Ernest Metzger

Print publication date: 2005

Print ISBN-13: 9780198298557

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2010

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198298557.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 21 February 2017

(p.179) Appendix: Inscriptions and Papyri on Bail

(p.179) Appendix: Inscriptions and Papyri on Bail

Source:
Litigation in Roman Law
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

This appendix provides a list and short description of inscriptions and papyri on Roman (civil) bail. These sources are sometimes difficult to find, and have never been listed in a single place. The sources are dated according to the principal editions, except where noted. Reference is made to the dates of the inscriptions or papyri themselves and not necessarily the material they contain. In each instance, the first cited texts tend to be the better ones. The list includes sources which some have cited as evidence of bail, even if their relevance is doubtful. The list omits most Egyptian material, which does not reflect Roman procedure. For this material, see L. Wenger, Rechtshistorische Papyrusstudien (Graz, 1902), ch. 2; E. Seidl, Der Eid im römisch-ägyptischen Provincialrecht (Munich, 1933), p. 109; R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri. 332 BC–640 AD, 2nd edn. (Warsaw, 1955), pp. 500–2.

The bibliography that follows this appendix gives fuller information for literature that is cited in an abbreviated form. For sources appearing in either Roman Statutes or any of Camodeca’s editions of the Puteoli tablets, ample bibliographies are available in the cited works. For the Puteoli tablets, the list below supplements the primary texts cited in Camodeca’s 1999 (newest) edition.

1. Lex agraria, ll. 34, 36 (111 BC)

Texts: RS, 1, no. 2, p. 117; Lintott 1992, pp. 186–9; CIL I2, no. 585, p. 460 (= Mommsen 1905, pp. 82–3).

The two cited clauses seek to ensure that only a Consul, Praetor, or Censor may preside over the disputed matters. They may issue a decree in those matters even when a party refuses to make a vadimonium for appearance before them (or, in Lintott’s text, when that party fails to give an adequate vindex). The clauses are therefore anticipating that a vadimonium will be exacted by a magistrate who is not competent, for appearance before a Consul, Praetor, or (in line 36) Censor, who is. The text is restored by Lintott by comparison to a similar provision of the lex de Gallia Cisalpina (No. 5). Both Rudorff and Crawford refer to this as a Ladungsvadimonium: Rudorff 1859, p. 212 n. 6; RS, 1, p. 168; cf. Metzger, ‘Current View’ [2000], p. 135 n. 7.

2. Decree for Menippos (second century BC)

Text: Robert and Robert 1989, pp. 63–4.

This inscription from Claros praises its ambassador Menippos for securing freedom from compulsory vadimonia; Menippos was able to obtain a senatusconsultum (p.180) confirming local jurisdictional autonomy. The decree is discussed at length in Ferrary 1991, pp. 561–77, and the vadimonium at pp. 566–7. See also Lintott 1993, pp. 39, 62, 66.

3. Vetter no. 33 (second century BC–AD 79)

Texts: Antonini 1977, p. 337; Vetter 1953, p. 59; von Planta, 2, 1897, p. 505; CIL IV, no. 674.

A single Oscan word, painted in red in letters 38 cm high, appears on five columns in the forum at Pompeii; transliterated the word is vaamunim (in one instance, perhaps vaamúnim, in another, perhaps vaamuním). The ending may suggest a Latin loanword ending in -monium: Sironen 1990, p. 116; Vetter 1953, p. 442; von Planta, 1897, p. 710; Bücheler 1878, p. 50. The alternative -moniorum is dismissed by both Sironen 1990, pp. 114–15, and von Planta, 2, 1897, pp. 145–6. Other examples are lacking and the suggestion is based on phonology alone: see von Planta, 1, p. 117; 2, p. 68, and especially Sironen 1990, p. 115. Michael Crawford, without expressing an opinion himself, privately raised the possibility that the columns may be meeting places for parties who have promised to appear by vadimonium. The dates given above are suggested by Sironen 1990, p. 114, though his particular interpretation offers him a reason to narrow the span. I am grateful to Michael Crawford for bringing these inscriptions to my attention.

4. Lex Coloniae Genetivae, tab. d, frr. 5, 2. (first century BC)

Texts: RS, 1, pp. 411–12; González 1986, p. 240 (Crawford); Wenger 1949, pp. 264–7; d’Ors 1946, p. 231; Mallon 1944, pp. 211, 223.

Two of the fragments found at El Rubio and attributed to the lex Coloniae Genetivae appear to deal with vadimonium: fragment 5 appears to mention vadimonium and iniuria in proximity to [qui pro] vinciae prae[rit]. This recalls the jurisdictional provisions of the lex Irnitana, particularly c. 84, tab. IXB, ll. 15–23, where certain matters, iniuria among them, might not be heard locally, though the local magistrate nevertheless retained the power to send the case to the provincial governor by vadimonium. Johnston and Crawford suggest that fragment 5 may be treating the same sort of case: Johnston 1989, p. 12; Gonzalez 1986, p. 241 (Crawford). Elsewhere Crawford also acknowledges the very different explanation of Wenger, that the fragment is speaking of the vadimonium that arises in an actio iniuriarum (see G.3.224; Coll. 2.6.1): Wenger 1949, pp. 265–7; RS, 1, p. 447. Another explanation is offered by d’Ors; he suggests that a defendant is promising to appear by vadimonium, while the plaintiff is swearing that his claim is not calumniae causa, and perhaps that he is not committing an iniuria in making the claim: d’Ors 1946, p. 231. Fragment 2, which does not preserve any part of the word vadimonium, is (p.181) placed by Crawford after fragment 5, partly on the strength of the suggestion [vadimoniumpr]omittatfac[ito]: RS, 1, p. 448.

5. Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, col. 2, ll. 21–4 (first century BC)

Texts: RS, 1, no. 28, p. 466; FIRA, 1, no. 19, p. 174; Bruns7, 1, no. 16, p. 99; Hardy 1911, p. 130 (English translation); ARS, no. 102, p. 87 (English translation).

The relevant provision is discussing cases to recover certa pecunia. If the local jurisdictional amount is exceeded, the defendant may be compelled to make a vadimonium to Rome. If he refuses to do so, and refuses also to put forward a sufficiently wealthy vindex, he might face a trial by recuperatores. This provision probably became relevant when the claim was for more than 15,000 sesterces: Bruna 1972, p. 165.

6. Senatusconsultum de Aphrodisiensibus, ll. 47–8 (mid-first century BC)

Texts: Reynolds 1982, pp. 59 (text), 62 (English translation); Sherk 1969, no. 28B; FIRA, 1, no. 38.

The senatusconsultum survives in fragments inscribed on marble blocks from the theatre of Aphrodisias. The cited provision is referring to a grant of local jurisdictional autonomy, and forbidding within Plarasa and Aphrodisias the promise or order of a vadimonium (Ἇγγὐη) to Rome.

7. ‘Epistulae Octaviani Caesaris de Seleuco Nauarcha’, ll. 68–72 (42–30 BC)

Texts: FIRA, 1, no. 55 (with Latin translation); Sherk 1969, no. 58; Jalabert and Mouterde 1950, no. 718; ARS, no. 128 (English translation).

An inscription on a pillar found at Rhosos, describing the conferring of citizenship on Seleucus of Rhosos and his exemption from taxation. The relevant provision states that persons who interfere with these privileges will pay a fine to the Roman people, and an actio popularis is offered to Ἇγγὐας ἱκανῶς διδομένῳ. Nörr refers to these as vadimonia: Nörr 1998, p. 341 n. 135. Cf. FIRA, 1, p. 314 (‘sponsores’).

8. ‘Epistula cuiusdam Vinicii ad Cumas et iussum Augusti’, ll. 20–2 (27 BC)

Texts: Crook 1962, pp. 23–4 (= SEG, 18 (1962), no. 555); Sherk 1969, no. 61, p. 314; Kunkel 1973, pp. 212–13; Pleket 1958, no. 57.

(p.182) A marble stele on which the governor of Asia addresses the magistrates at Cyme, telling them, among other matters, that one Lysias must accept a price for a sanctuary he presently owns, or else give a vadimonium for appearance ‘where I shall be’. Crook paraphrases the substance thus: ‘Deal with this matter of Lysias; but if you would rather not, and prefer him to give bail to appear before me, I do not object’ (Crook 1962, p. 29). Only the -monium of what is presumed to be vadimonium is preserved.

TABULAE POMPEIANAE SULPICIORUM (Nos. 9–31)

9. TPSulp 1 (= TP 1) (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (AD 47)

Texts: Camodeca 1999, pp. 53–4; Camodeca 1992, pp. 57–8; Camodeca 1983/1984, p. 40 (= AE 1986, no. 170); Camodeca 1982, p. 49 (= Camodeca 1987, p. 44); Manthe 1981, p. 152; Landi 1980, p. 191 (= AE 1984, no. 206); Bove 1969, pp. 38–9 (= Bove 1971, pp. 143–5) (= AE 1971, no. 91) (= Bove 1979, pp. 48–9); Giordano 1966, pp. 110–12 (= AE 1969/1970, no. 94).

Two tablets of a diptych preserve a scriptura interior recording a vadimonium promised on 25 October AD 47 for appearance in the forum in Puteoli on 1 November (a case postponed for the Victoriae Sullanae?). The scriptura exterior on page 1 records the date of performance. The document is notable for recording three summae, which may correspond to three different claims: Wolf, ‘Der neue pompejanische Urkundenfund’ [2001], p. 94.

10. TPSulp 1 bis (cf. TP 31) (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (AD 41 or 43–5)

Texts: Camodeca 1999, pp. 54–5; Camodeca, ‘Nuovi documenti’ [1995], pp. 702–3 (= AE 1995, no. 301); Giordano 1971, p. 185 (= AE 1973, no. 152).

The second tablet of a diptych preserves parts of a scriptura exterior and scriptura interior recording a vadimonium promised on 10 November AD 41 or 43–5 for appearance in the forum in Puteoli on 12 November. The vadimonium may have been performed pursuant to a mandatory three-day postponement (intertium). The document is notable for preserving the names of some signatores on page 4.

11. TPSulp 2 (=TP 32) (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (AD 48)

Texts: Wolf, ‘Der neue pompejanische Urkundenfund’ [2001], p. 94; Camodeca 1999, p. 56; Camodeca 1992, p. 59; Camodeca 1983/1984, p. 41 (= AE 1986, (p.183) no. 171); Wolf, ‘Aus dem neuen pompejanischen Urkundenfund’ [1985], p. 781 n. 34; Camodeca 1982, p. 49 (= Camodeca 1987, p. 44); Manthe 1981, p. 153; Landi 1980, p. 192; Bove 1979, p. 54; Giordano 1971, p. 185 (= AE 1973, no. 153).

A single tablet preserves a scriptura interior on page 2 recording most of a vadi-monium for appearance in the forum in Puteoli on 24 June. The document names the same parties as found in TPSulp 3 and 27 (Nos. 12, 28), and all three may form part of the same lawsuit: Wolf, ‘Aus dem neuen pompejanischen Urkundenfund’ [1985]; Wolf, ‘Der neue pompejanische Urkundenfund’ [2001], pp. 100–2. The date of performance is not preserved, but the year ad 48 is presumed by association with TPSulp 3 and 27. The document is notable for reciting the nature of the action: ex empto (p. 2, ll. 5–6). In this respect it is like TPSulp 15 (No. 24).

12. TPSulp 3 (= TP 41) (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (AD 48)

Texts: Wolf, ‘Der neue pompejanische Urkundenfund’ [2001], p. 94; Camodeca 1999, pp. 56–7; Camodeca 1992, pp. 60–1; Camodeca 1991, p. 53 (= AE 1991, no. 439); Camodeca 1983/1984, pp. 42–3 (= AE 1986, no. 172); Wolf, ‘Aus dem neuen pompejanischen Urkundenfund’ [1985], p. 782 n. 37; Giménez-Candela, ‘A propósito del “vadimonium”’ [1982], p. 190; Manthe 1981, p. 154; Bove 1979, pp. 56–7; Sbordone 1976, pp. 148–9; Giordano 1971, pp. 192–3 (=AE 1973, nos. 163, 164).

The first and last tablets of a triptych twice record a vadimonium promised on 3 July AD 48 for appearance in the forum in Puteoli on 5 July. The document names the same parties as found in TPSulp 2 and 27 (Nos. 11, 28), and all three may form part of the same lawsuit: Wolf, ‘Aus dem neuen pompejanischen Urkundenfund’ [1985]; Wolf, ‘Der neue pompejanische Urkundenfund’ [2001], pp. 100–2. The vadimonium may have been performed pursuant to a mandatory three-day postponement (intertium). The document is notable for the fact that the plaintiff is stipulating for a promise of both 50,000 sesterces and 1,000 sesterces in the form of a ring deposited as arra. The document is also notable for the fact that it recites that the plaintiff is suing for an amount greater than 50,000 sesterces.

13. TPSulp 4 (= TP 70 + 139) (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (AD 52)

Texts: Camodeca 1999, p. 58; Camodeca 1992, pp. 62–3; Camodeca 1983/1984, pp. 43–4; Camodeca 1982, p. 23 (= AE 1984, no. 230) (= Camodeca 1987, pp. 26–7); Landi 1980, p. 196; Bove 1979, p. 58 (=AE 1982, no. 184); Sbordone 1978, p. 249.

The single tablet of a diptych preserves a scriptura interior recording a vadimonium promised on 9 June AD 52 for appearance in the forum in Puteoli on 11 June, and recording also the promise of a sum. The vadimonium may have (p.184) been performed pursuant to a mandatory three-day postponement (intertium). The document is notable for the fact that the contract took the form of a fidepromissio, the promisor being peregrinus. For this, see also TPSulp 13, 14 (Nos. 22, 23).

14. TPSulp 5 (= TP 36) (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (first century AD)

Texts: Wolf, ‘Der neue pompejanische Urkundenfund’ [2001], p. 95; Camodeca 1999, pp. 59–60; Camodeca 1992, pp. 65–6; Camodeca 1983/1984, pp. 44–5 (= AE 1986, no. 173); Gimenez-Candela, ‘A propósito del “vadimonium”’ [1982], p. 187 (= AE 1984, no. 240); Camodeca 1982, p. 50 (= Camodeca 1987, p. 44); Bove 1979, p. 55; Giordano 1971, p. 189 (= AE 1973, no. 158).

The single surviving tablet preserves a scriptura interior recording a vadimonium for appearance in the forum in Puteoli on 6–13 January. The promisor appears to have promised two summae.

15. TPSulp 6 (= TP 38) (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (first century AD)

Texts: Camodeca 1999, p. 60; Camodeca 1992, pp. 66–7; Camodeca 1983/1984, pp. 45–6 (= AE 1986, no. 174); Camodeca 1982, p. 50 (= Camodeca 1987, p. 44); Manthe 1981, p. 154; Bove 1979, pp. 55–6; Giordano 1971, p. 190 (= AE 1973, no. 160).

The third tablet of a triptych preserves a scriptura exterior recording a vadimonium for appearance in the forum in Puteoli on 12 September of an unknown year, and recording also the promise of a sum. Exceptionally, the document does not record the hour of the promised appearance.

16. TPSulp 7 (= TP 12) (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (first century AD)

Texts: Wolf, ‘Der neue pompejanische Urkundenfund’ [2001], p. 95; Camodeca 1999, pp. 60–1; Gröschler 1997, p. 164 n. 58; Camodeca 1992, pp. 67–8; Camodeca 1983/1984, pp. 46–7 (= AE 1986, no. 175); Manthe 1981, p. 152; Bove 1979, pp. 53–4; Bove 1969, p. 41 n. 43 (= Bove 1971, p. 147 n. 43); Giordano 1966, p. 120 (=AE 1969/1970, no. 105).

The single surviving tablet preserves a scriptura interior recording a vadimonium for appearance (probably) in the forum in Puteoli in an unknown year, perhaps on a day in March; for the latter detail, see Wolf’s reading. The promisor appears to have promised two summae.

(p.185) 17. TPSulp 8 (= TP 2) (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (first century AD).

Texts: Camodeca 1999, pp. 61–2; Camodeca 1992, pp. 68–9; Camodeca 1983/1984, p. 47 (= AE 1986, no. 176); Manthe 1981, p. 152; Giordano 1971, p. 196 (= AE 1973, no. 168); Bove 1969, pp. 39–40 (= Bove 1971, p. 145) (= AE 1971, no. 91) (= Bove 1979, pp. 49–50); Giordano 1966, p. 112 (= AE 1969/1970, no. 95).

The single surviving tablet preserves a scriptura interior recording a vadimonium for appearance in the forum in Puteoli on 13 January of an unknown year. The document is notable for recording two summae.

18. TPSulp 9 (= TP 106) (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (first century AD)

Texts: Wolf, ‘Der neue pompejanische Urkundenfund’ [2001], p. 95; Camodeca 1999, p. 62; Camodeca 1992, p. 69; Camodeca 1983/1984, p. 48 (= AE 1986, no. 177); Manthe 1981, p. 155; Bove 1979, p. 58; Sbordone 1978, p. 260 (= AE 1982, no. 205).

A single tablet, either page 2 of a diptych or page 5 of a triptych, preserving a (probably) scriptura exterior recording a vadimonium for appearance in the forum in Puteoli on 27 May of an unknown year, and recording also the promise of a sum.

19. TPSulp 10 (= TP 42) (= TP 93) (‘Testatio vadimonii’?) (first century AD)

Texts: Wolf, ‘Der neue pompejanische Urkundenfund’ [2001], p. 95; Camodeca 1999, p. 63; Camodeca 1992, p. 71; Camodeca 1983/1984, p. 49 (= AE 1986, no. 178); Camodeca 1982, p. 50 (= Camodeca 1987, p. 44); Bove 1979, p. 57; Sbordone 1978, p. 257 (= AE 1982, no. 200); Giordano 1971, p. 193 (= AE 1973, no. 165).

The third tablet of a triptych appears to record a vadimonium, but exceptionally the usual formula is not used: it states simply vadimonium cum Cassio Sereno, followed by a day and place for appearance, and the place of performance. The date of performance and penalty clause is omitted. Camodeca 1999, p. 63, suggests the document may only be a draft. He also notes in his apparatus that there may have been some attempt to correct cum to factum: ibid. Wolf prefers to read factum, as otherwise Serenus must be understood to be the plaintiff, and the purpose of the document obscure (Wolf, ‘Der neue pompejanische Urkundenfund’ [2001], p. 95). (p.186) The formula vadimonium cum also appears in TPSulp 18, 20, 21 (Nos. 25, 26, 27), all testationes sistendi.

20. TPSulp 11 (= TP 11) (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (first century AD)

Texts: Camodeca 1999, p. 64; Camodeca 1992, pp. 72–3; Camodeca 1983/1984, p. 49 (= AE 1986, no. 179); Manthe 1981, p. 152; Bove 1979, p. 53; Bove 1969, p. 41 n. 43 (= Bove 1971, p. 147 n. 43); Giordano 1966, pp. 119–20 (= AE 1969/1970, no. 104).

The single surviving tablet preserves a scriptura interior recording a vadimonium for appearance in the forum in Puteoli on 2 June of an unknown year.

21. TPSulp 12 (= TP 116 + 79 addendum) (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (AD 40 or 43–4)

Texts: Camodeca 1999, pp. 64–5; Camodeca 1992, p. 74; Camodeca 1983/1984, p. 52 (= AE 1986, no. 180); Wolf 1982, p. 245 n. 1; Manthe 1981, p. 155; Landi 1980, p. 193; Bove 1979, p. 59; Sbordone 1978, pp. 263–4.

Two tablets preserve a scriptura interior recording a vadimonium performed in Capua on 29 August ad 40 or 43–4, for appearance in Capua on an unknown date, and recording also the promise of a sum. The document appears to be part of the same lawsuit as TPSulp 26 (‘Denuntiatio de servo in potestate habendo’: Camodeca 1999, p. 87).

22. TPSulp 13 (= TP 3) (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (post-AD 44)

Texts: Camodeca 1999, p. 66; Camodeca 1992, p. 79; Camodeca 1983/1984, p. 56; Bove 1979, p. 52; Triantaphyllopoulos 1974, pp. 136–8 (= AE 1974, no. 278); Bove 1969, p. 40 n. 41 (= Bove 1971, p. 146 n. 41) (= AE 1971, no. 91); Giordano 1966, p. 113 (= AE 1969/1970, no. 96).

A single tablet preserves a scriptura interior recording the performance of a vadimonium in an unknown place (Puteoli?) and on an unknown day for appearance in the Forum Augustum in Rome on 17 or 20 March of an unknown year, and recording also the promise of a sum. The parties are the same as in TPSulp 14 (No. 23). The document is notable for the fact that the contract took the form of a fidepromissio, the promisor being peregrinus. For this, see also TPSulp 4, 14 (Nos. 13, 23).

(p.187) 23. TPSulp 14 (cf. TP 4) (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (post-AD 44)

Texts: Camodeca 1999, pp. 66–7; Camodeca 1992, pp. 80–1; Camodeca 1983/ 1984, p. 57; Camodeca 1982, pp. 28–9 (= AE 1984, no. 231) (= Camodeca 1987, pp. 30–1); Triantaphyllopoulos 1974, pp. 136–8 (= AE 1974, no. 278); Bove 1969, p. 41 n. 42 (= AE 1971, no. 91) (= Bove 1971, p. 146 n. 42) (= Bove 1979, p. 53); Giordano 1966, pp. 113–14 (= AE 1969/1970, no. 97).

Two tablets of a diptych preserve a scriptura interior recording the performance of a vadimonium in an unknown place (Puteoli?) and on an unknown day for appearance in the Forum Augustum in Rome on 30 September of an unknown year, and recording also the promise of a sum. The parties are the same as in TPSulp 13 (No. 22). The document is notable for the fact that the contract took the form of a fidepromissio, the promisor being peregrinus. For this, see also TPSulp 4, 13 (Nos. 13, 22).

24. TPSulp 15 (cf. TP 33) (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (first century AD)

Texts: Wolf, ‘Der neue pompejanische Urkundenfund’ [2001], p. 95; Camodeca 1999, pp. 68–9; Camodeca 1992, pp. 82–3 (= AE 1992, no. 272); Camodeca 1983/1984, pp. 58–9 (= AE 1986, no. 182); Camodeca 1982, p. 49 (= Camodeca 1987, p. 44); Manthe 1981, p. 153; Bove 1979, pp. 54–5; Giordano 1971, p. 186 (= AE 1973, no. 154).

Two tablets of a diptych preserve a scriptura interior on page 2 recording a vadimonium performed in an unknown place and on an unknown day for appearance in the Forum Augustum in Rome on 16 or 19 November of an unknown year, and recording also the promise of a sum. The document is notable for reciting the nature of the action: ex vendito (page 2, l. 6). In this respect it is like TPSulp 2 (No. 11). The document is also notable for preserving the names of some signatores. A scriptura exterior on page 4 on the second tablet records the same details as page 2, except that the reference to the nature of the action is omitted.

25. TPSulp 18 (= TP 101) (‘Testatio sistendi) (first century AD)

Texts: Camodeca 1999, p. 71; Camodeca 1992, p. 87; Camodeca 1983/1984, p. 62 (see AE 1986, no. 184); Camodeca 1982, pp. 32–3 n. 27 (= AE 1984, no. 233) (= Camodeca 1987, p. 33 n. 27); Manthe 1981, p. 155; Landi 1980, p. 196; Bove 1979, p. 62 (= AE 1984, no. 225); Sbordone 1978, p. 259 (= AE 1982, no. 203).

(p.188) The document attests that a party appeared at the second hour in the forum at Puteoli, and adds the tag quod diceret se cum <adversario> vadimonium habere.

26. TPSulp 20 (= TP 71) (= TP 122) (= TP 132) (‘Testatio sistendi’) (first century AD)

Texts: Camodeca 1999, p. 73; Camodeca 1992, pp. 91–2; Camodeca 1983/1984, pp. 66–7; Camodeca 1982, p. 32 n. 27; Sbordone 1978, pp. 249 (TP 71) (= AE 1982, no. 185) (= Bove 1979, pp. 61–2), 265 (TP 122), 268 (TP 132).

The document attests that a party appeared at the third hour, and adds the tag quod habere se vadimonium cum <adversario> diceret.

27. TPSulp 21 (cf. TP 142) (‘Testatio sistendi’) (first century AD)

Texts: Camodeca 1999, pp. 73–4; Camodeca 1992, p. 93 (= Camodeca 1988/1989, p. 58); Camodeca 1982, p. 31 (= AE 1984, no. 232) (= Camodeca 1987, p. 32); Landi 1980, p. 193 (= AE 1984, no. 212).

The document attests that a party is present, and adds the tag quod habere se vadimonium diceret cum <adversario>.

28. TPSulp 27 (= TP 66a–c + TP 113) (‘Conventio finiendae controversiae’) (AD 48)

Texts: Camodeca 1999, p. 88; Camodeca 1992, p. 106 (= Camodeca 1988/1989, p. 42) (= AE 1990, no. 175); Wolf, ‘Aus dem neuen pompejanischen Urkundenfund’ [1985], p. 776; Giménez-Candela, ‘A propósito del “vadimonium”’ [1982], pp. 191–2; Sbordone 1978, p. 262; Sbordone 1976, p. 166 (= AE 1978, nos. 132–4).

The document attests a settlement agreement made in Puteoli, for a suit which the parties had anticipated transferring to Rome, but later no longer wished to. The relevant part of the agreement states that, if the defendant’s cognitor does not appear to the vadimonium that he had agreed with the plaintiffs cognitor, no action will be taken against the cognitor or the defendant himself, and if action is nevertheless taken, the plaintiff promises to pay what the matter is worth. The document appears to be part of the same lawsuit as TPSulp 2, 3 (Nos. 11, 12).

(p.189) 29. TPSulp 28 (= TP 10 + 37) (‘Iusiurandum in iure’?) (AD 49)

Texts: Camodeca 2000, pp. 183–4; Camodeca 1999, pp. 93–4; Manthe 1981, pp. 153–4; Bove 1979, p. 60; Giordano 1966, p. 119 (= AE 1969/1970, no. 103); Giordano 1971, p. 190 (= AE 1973, no. 159).

This document, initially (1999) interpreted by Camodeca as a iusiurandum in iure but later (2000) as a ‘iusiurandum stragiudiziale’, describes the settlement of an actio iniuriarum by oath, and alludes to the fact that the defendant has appeared to the vadimonium he had earlier promised. On the character of the document, see especially Humbert 2000.

30. TPSulp 96 (cf. TP 114, 112) (‘negotium incertum’) (AD 34)

Texts: Camodeca 1999, pp. 207–8; Sbordone 1978, pp. 262–3.

This is a testatio of uncertain content which preserves the date at the beginning in the manner of a chirographum, but also in the manner of the testationes sistendi from Puteoli. Meyer 2004, p. 135 n. 23, identifies this as a vadimonium, though I cannot see the grounds for this.

31. TPSulp 125 (‘negotium incertum’) (first century AD 59)

Text: Camodeca 1999, p. 233.

The scriptura exterior on the third tablet of a triptych preserves a few words of what might be a vadimonium document. I suggest this because, going only by Camodeca’s readings, one could see [idu]s A[priles] at l. 2, and [a]ram at 1. 3. Camodeca himself suggests stipu[la]tus [est–spopondit] at l. 4.

32. P. Oxy. 260 (‘Promise of attendance in court’) (AD 59)

Texts: Grenfell and Hunt 1898, pp. 229–30; Mitteis 1912, no. 74.

The papyrus preserves the nearly identical promises of two men. The promises took place in a matter referred by the strategus of Oxyrhynchus to Alexandria. The two men promise mutually, and swear to appear before the archidikastes at Alexandria. It is treated as a vadimonium iureiurando (see G.4.185; D.2.8.16 (Paul 6 ed.)) by Wenger 1902, pp. 63–73, 92–100, and Ferrari 1958, pp. 176–7. Contra: Lenel, EP 3, p. 81 n. 5.

33. T. Iucundus 33 (mid-first century AD)

Text: CIL IV1 (suppl.), no. 3340, tab. 33.

(p.190) A waxed tablet, apparently a triptych, part of the archive of Caecilius Iucundus found in Pompeii in 1875. On page 2 of the document, the word ‘vadimonium’ appears. On page 5, there are traces of a date, sum, and place of execution. It is mentioned briefly in Erman 1899, p. 174 n. 1. The summa (342 sesterces) is discussed briefly in Andreau 1974, p. 85.

TABULAE HERCULANENSES (Nos. 34–37)

34. TH 6 (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (first century AD)

Texts: Arangio-Ruiz, ‘Tavolette cerate ercolanesi’ [1948], p. 396 (= Arangio-Ruiz 1974, pp. 311–12); Pugliese Carratelli 1946, p. 383.

The left side of the fourth page of a triptych. This is the only published vadimonium document from Herculaneum that is not part of the ‘Petronia Iusta’ corpus. A party promises to appear in Rome, in front of the statue of Diana Lucifera, and (possibly) at column 10 (for the last detail, see Pugliese Carratelli’s reading). The date of performance is not preserved.

35. TH 13 (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (AD 74)

Text: Pugliese Carratelli 1948, pp. 168–9 (= AE 1951, no. 215).

Part of a triptych, in which a small part of a scriptura interior is preserved on page 3, and a large part of a scriptura exterior is preserved on page 5. The document belongs to the ‘Petronia Iusta’ corpus, and records the promises of Iusta’s opponent, Cal-atoria Themis, and her tutor, to appear in Rome. Much of the document is restored by reference to TH 14, and in fact has been restored so as to be identical to TH 14. The date of performance is partly preserved and may indeed be identical to that of TH 14 (7 September ad 74). The date of the promised appearance, 3 December, is restored wholly by reference to TH 14. This is a day on which judicial business could not be conducted: Piganiol 1956, p. 566. Conceivably the vadimonium recorded in TH 13 was performed after that recorded in TH 14, to correct the appearance date: Metzger, ‘The Case of Petronia Iusta’ [2000], pp. 164–5. But equally probably it could be a duplicate.

36. TH 14 (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (AD 74)

Texts: Arangio-Ruiz 1959, pp. 226–8 (= Arangio-Ruiz 1974, pp. 555–6); Bove 1979, p. 50 (= Mantovani 1999, no. 203); Dušanič 1968, pp. 72–3; Pugliese Carratelli 1948, pp. 169–70.

(p.191) Part of a triptych, in which substantially all of a vadimonium is preserved twice, on pages 2 and 3 (scriptura interior) and page 5 (scriptura exterior). The edge of the middle tablet also records ‘Vadimonium Calatoriae’. The document belongs to the ‘Petronia Iusta’ corpus, and records the promises made on 7 September ad 74 by Iusta’s opponent, Calatoria Themis, and her tutor, to appear in Rome on 3 December. On this latter date, see the note under TH 13 (No. 35). Dušanič made progress in restoring the consular date. The promisors were to appear ante tribunal praetoris urbani (p. 2, ll. 4–5; p. 5, ll. 2–3) which, before the discovery of the Puteoli tablets, was taken to mean ‘at’ the Praetor’s tribunal, though ‘in front of’ is more accurate: Cloud, ‘The Pompeian Tablets’ [2002], p. 234 n. 12; Camodeca 1992, p. 50.

37. TH 15 (‘Testatio vadimonii’) (AD 75)

Texts: Arangio-Ruiz 1959, pp. 228–9 (= Arangio-Ruiz 1974, pp. 556–7; Dušanič 1968, pp. 72–3; Pugliese Carratelli 1948, pp. 170–1.

A triptych preserves a vadimonium on pages 2 and 3 (scriptura interior), and again on page 5 (scriptura exterior), as well as the names of seven signatores on page 4 (given in Pugliese Carratelli’s text but not Arangio-Ruiz’s). The document belongs to the ‘Petronia Iusta’ corpus, and records the promise, on 12 March ad 75, of one M. Calatorius Speudon to appear in Rome precisely one year later (on the interval of one year, cf. Arangio-Ruiz 1959, p. 229; idem, 1951, p. 118). Dušanič made progress in restoring the consular date.

38. Lex Irnitana, c. 49, tab. VC, ll. 40–4 (AD 91)

Texts: Lamberti 1993, p. 302; González 1986, pp. 161–2; d’Ors and d’Ors 1988, p. 39; Fernández Gomez and del Amo y de la Hera 1990, p. 83.

The chapter in which this provision falls is speaking of days of postponed business. For those days, magistrates are instructed not to grant vadimonia, unless it happens to be a case in which, at Rome, justice is administered notwithstanding postponed business. There are a few significant differences in emendations among Lamberti, Gonzalez, and d’Ors, most significantly in the latter part of the cited provision: see Metzger 1997, pp. 20–1. The language is discussed at length in Rodger, ‘Postponed Business at Irni’ [1996], especially pp. 69–73.

39. Lex Irnitana, c. 84, tab. IXB, ll. 20–3 (AD 91)

Texts: Lamberti 1993, p. 350; González 1986, p. 176; d’Ors and d’Ors 1988, p. 69; Fernández Gomez and del Amo y de la Hera 1990, p. 99.

(p.192) The chapter in which this provision falls is speaking of the extent of local jurisdiction in Irni. The cited provision states that the local magistrate always has jurisdiction to order vadimonia, so that the defendant may be obliged to appear in the place where the governor of the province is, or is expected to be, on the day for which the vadimonium was requested to be promised. See Wolf, ‘Iurisdictio Irnitana’ [2000], p. 53. Lemosse suggests that the local magistrates had the power to order a recu-peratorial trial against a defendant who refused to participate in the vadimonium (Lemosse 1993, p. 42). The ‘transfer procedure’ described here is discussed more generally in Burton 1996.