Scanned text contains errors.
The proper enacting word in the Senatusconsulta is " censeo," but the word " decerno " was also used in ordinary language to express the enacting of a Senatusconsultum. (Cic. ad Fain. viii. 8 ; Sena-tus dccrevit ut d-c. ad Att. i. 19.) But a Senatusconsultum, which was a law in the proper sense of the term, is not called a Decretum, which was a rule made by the Senate as to some matter which was strictly within its competence. The words Decretum and Senatusconsultum are often used indiscriminately and with little precision. (Gell. ii. 24.) (See Aelius Gallus, apud Festum, s. v. Senatus Decretum, and decretum.)
The forms of the Senatusconsulta are the best evidence of their character. The following are some of the principal S2natusconsulta which are preserved: the Senatusconsultum de Tiburtibus, printed by Gruter and others, which is " undoubtedly the oldest of all Roman documents " (Niebuhr, Rom. Hist. vol. iii. p. 264, note 66) ; the Senatusconsultum de Bacchanalibus ; the Senatusconsultum in the Letter of Cicero already referred to ; Cic. Philipp. v. 13 ; Gellius, xv. 11 ; the six Senatusconsulta about the Roman Aqueducts in the second book of Frontinus de Aquae-ductibus ; the Senatusconsultum about the Aphro-disienses (Tacit. Ann. iii. 62 ; Tacit. Oberlin. ii. 835) ; the oration of Claudius (Tacit. Ann. xi. 24; Tacit. Oberlin. ii. 806) ; the various Senatuscon-sulta preserved in the Digest, which are mentioned in a subsequent part of this article. See also the Senatusconsultum printed in Sigonius, " De Antiquo Jure Provinciarum," i. 288 ; and the Sctum by which the name Augustus was given to the month Sextilis. (Macrob. Salurnal. i. 12.)
The following list of Senatusconsulta contains perhaps all of them which are distinguished by the name of a consul or other distinctive name. Numerous Senatusconsulta under the Empire are referred to in the Latin writers, for which we find no distinctive name, though it is probable that all of them had a title like the Leges, but many of them being of little importance were not much referred to or cited, and thus their names were forgotten. Tacitus, for instance, often speaks of S. C. without giving their names, and in some cases we are able to affix the titles from other authorities. Many of the Imperial Senatusconsulta were merety amendments of Leges ; but they were laws in the proper sense of the word.
Some of the Senatusconsulta .of the Republican period were laws, as already observed, but others were only determinations of the Senate, which became Leges by being carried in the comitia. Such S. C. were really only auctoritates. One instance of this kind occurred on the occasion of the trial of Clodius for violating the mysteries of the Bona Dea. A rogatio on the subject of the trial was proposed to the Comitia ex Senatuscon-sulto (Cic. ad Att. i. 14) ; which is also spoken of as the Auctoritas of the Senate, and as " quod ab Senatu Constitutum " (the words of Gains, i. 4).
apiionjanum, probably enacted in the time of Hadrian, empowered all Civitates which were within the Roman Imperium to take a fideieom-missa hereditas. This Senatusconsultum is cited by Ulpian (Frag. tit. 22) without the name, but it appears from comparing Ulpian with the Digest (86. tit. 1. s. 26) to be the Senatusconsultum Apronianum. A Senatusconsultum also allowed Civitates or Municipia, which were legally con-
sidered as Universitates, to be appointed herodes by their liberti or libertae. Ulpian speaks of this Senatusconsultum in the passage referred to, immediately before he speaks of that Senatusconsultum which we know to be the Apronianum, and it appears probable that the two Senatusconsulta were the same, for their objects were similar and they are mentioned together without any indication of their being different. This last mentioned provision is also mentioned in the Digest (38. tit. 3) as being contained in a Senatusconsultum which was posterior to the Trebelli-anum, but the name is not given in the Digest. Under this provision a Municipium could obtain the Bonorum Possessio. Bachius (Historia Juris-prudentiae Romanae) assigns this Senatusconsultum to the reign of Trajan. But it appears to belong to the time of Hadrian, and to be the same S. C. which allowed Civitates- to take a legacy. (Ulp. Frag. tit. 24.)
articuleianum gave the Praeses of a Province jurisdiction in the case of fideicommissa libertas, even when the heres did not belong to the Province. The heres could be compelled to give the libertas which was the subject of the fideicommis-sum. (manumissio ; Dig. 40. tit. 5. s. 44, 51.) This Senatusconsultum was enacted a. d. 101, in which year Sex. Articuleius Paetus was consul.
de bacchanalibus. This Senatusconsultum. which is sometimes called Marcianum, was passed in the year b. c. 186. The terms of it are stated generally by Livy (xxxix. 18), and may be compared with the original Senatusconsultum which is printed in the edition of Livy by Drakenborch, and in that by J. Clericus, Amsterdam, 1710. There is a dissertation on this Senatusconsultum by Bynkershoek (De Cultu Religionis Peregrinae apud Veteres Romanes, Op. i. 412), who has printed the Senatusconsultum and commented upon it at some length. The provisions of this Senatusconsultum are stated generally under dionysia, p. 414, b. There is no ancient authority, as it appears, for the name Marcianum, which has been given to it from the name of one of the Consuls who proposed it, and in accordance with the usual titles of S. C. in the Imperial period. This Sctum was found in a. p. 1640, in a village in Calabria, and is said to be now at Vienna. (Senatusconsulti De Bacchanalibus, &c. Explicatio, auctore Matthaeo Ae-gyptio, Neapol. 1729.)
calvitianum. (Ulpian, Frag. tit. xvi. ; julia et papia poppaea lex, p. 692, b.)
claudianum passed in the time of the Emperor Claudius, reduced a free woman to the condition of a slave (ancilla) if she cohabited with the slave of another person, after the master had given her notice that he would not permit it. But if a woman, who was a Roman citizen, cohabited with a slave with the consent of the slave's master, she might by agreement with the master remain free and yet any child born from this cohabitation would be a slave ; for the Senatusconsultum made valid any agreement between the free woman and the slave's master, and by such agreement the woman was relieved from the penalty of the Senatusconsultum. But Hadrian, being moved thereto by a consideration of the hardship of the case and the incongruity of this rule of law (inelegantia juris), restored the old rule of the Jus Gentium, according to which the woman continuing free was the mother ct" a free child.