가이우스 그라쿠스의 사법 개혁 : 그의 반환법(lex Sempronia repetundarum)을 중심으로

許勝一(Hoe Seung-Il) 역사교육연구회 2004 역사교육 Vol.89 No.-

Gaius Gracchus who had served the tribune in Rome from BC. 123 to 122 had a great effect upon the history of Roman republican politics though he failed to achieve his target completely as he was assassinated by his political foes in the Senate in opposition to the drastic reformative measures he had taken covering all sectors including social, economic, and judiciary affairs. His legislation in social and economic reformation has attracted an intensive attention from the academic circles up to this date. However, the importance of his legislation in judiciary reformation has been lately brought to the fore. The widely accepted understanding on what Gracchus had intended to achieve through his legislation in the judiciary reformation so-called lex Sempronia repetundarum was that he tried to use the legislation as a political weapon in strife with his foes in the Senate who had blocked his other reformative measures; he placed an emphasis in the legislation further on weakening the opposing forces in the Senate and on securing the supports of equites by transferring the judiciary rights of lex repetundarum from senators to equites. However, the purpose of this paper is to deny and negate this widely accepted understanding. The lex repetundarum Gaius Gracchus had introduced was closely related with his policy to deal with distribution of grain. He treated the provincia Asia as the financial source for his grain distribution policy; he set up a series of laws related with the provincia Asia in a great effort to expand and protect the tax source of provincia Asia. He went further to establish the lex portoria Asiae which helped him to increase the national revenue, collecting the enormous amount of customs tax charges. He also enacted the lex Sempronia de provincia Asia a censoribus locanda under which he collected five-year installment tax in cash at once; he further stopped the plundering of the provincial people by the tax-collecting publicani as well as the black deals between proconsul and them. In order to enforce the strict official discipline of the upper class in the Senate, he also established lex Sempronia de provinciis consulraribus which aimed at electing the provincial consuls after the nomination of the provincia Asia proconsul and at the same time at preventing the briberies from those who tried to be the proconsul supported by their accumulated wealth. In closing, he succeeded in preparing a complete legal device of cracking down the greeds of the provincial proconsul-lex Sempronia repeturndarum, the real purpose of which was to protect the tax source of the provincia Asia and to maximize the inflow of the national revenue into Rome and to soothe the plundered people in provincia Asia. The lex repetundarum Gaius Gracchus introduced can be judged to have been effective expectedly in stopping the widely prevalent corruptive actions in the Senate, in protecting the provincial people and in preventing the proconsul"s defrauding since the Senate had not intended to scrap the law immediately or within several years from the date of his assassination as the Senate was compelled to honour the law hampered by its shameful past ; equites selected as the juries had showed no evidence of being bribed over 50 years from the legislation of the law.

The Significance of ‘the Lex Sempronia Portorii Asiae’

Seungil Heo(허승일) 한국서양사연구회 2014 서양사연구 Vol.0 No.51

로마 공화정 말기와 제정 초기 곡물배급과 정치적 소통의 관계

김상엽 ( Kim Sang-yeop ) 한국서양고대역사문화학회 ( 구 한국서양고대사학회 ) 2013 서양고대사연구 Vol.35 No.-

가이우스 그라쿠스 시대 이후 곡물법들은 그라쿠스의 곡물법의 규정들을 토대로 단지 곡물법의 적용범위를 확대 또는 축소하고자 했다. 이 과정을 통해 통치계층 내 두 개의 정치당파인 옵티마테스와 포플라레스 사이의 정쟁의 맥락에서 로마 시민들의 지지력에 기반을 둔 포플라레스 정치가들은 곡물배급 정책을 확대시키고자 했고 체제수호를 위해 원로원 귀족층의 지지력에 기반을 둔 옵티마테스 정치가들은 곡물배급 정책을 억제하고자 했다. 그러나 옥타비우스의 곡물법과 카토의 곡물법을 위시로 한 원로원주도, 즉 옵티마테스 주도의 곡물법들은 곡물배급 정책의 억제가 아닌 확대로 나타났다. 따라서 가이우스 그라쿠스 곡물법 이후의 곡물법들은 옵티마테스의 곡물배급 정책의 축소 그리고 포플라레스의 곡물배급 정책의 확대라는 구도가 아닌 당시의 정치적 상황에 따라 보수적인 정치세력의 체제유지와 개혁적인 정치세력의 정치쇄신이라는 정치적 소통관계라는 측면이 내재한 것으로 파악할 수 있다. 카이사르와 아우구스투스가 시행한 곡물배급 수혜자들에 대한 자격요건의 강화와 감원조치에 대해서 반 베르켐은 곡물배급 수혜자가 로마 시 거주 시민과 로마 시 출신자인 시민으로 한정되어 있던 점을 지적하면서 곡물배급의 이념이 도시국가의 시민 사회적 가치관속에서 존속했던 것으로 평가했다. 또한 그는 율리우스 카이사르가 제 3의 조건으로 로마 시 출신이어야 한다는 기준을 적용시켜 곡물배급수혜자들을 원로원 신분과 에퀴테스 신분 이외의 또 하나의 특권신분을 형성한 것으로 파악하였고 이러한 견해를 아우구스투스 시대까지 확대시켜 곡물공급 제도의 부재와 특권신분의 유지라는 구도 속에서 로마 제정이 로마 공화정의 과두정적인 통치방식을 계승한 것으로 결론 내렸다. 로마공화정 말기와 제정초기 로마정부가 염가 또는 무상으로 곡물을 배급한것은 로마 시민들을 나태하게 만든 것이 아니라 곡물운송 비용이 너무나 비쌌고 사적 상인이 그 업무를 수행해 낼 능력이 없었기 때문이다. 결국, 로마 정부는 빈곤에 시달린 로마 시민에게 비싼 가격으로 곡물을 판매하지 않도록 하기 위해 부분적으로든, 전적으로든 로마 정부 소유의 곡물을 제공하였다. 이처럼 염가 또는 무상 곡물배급 제도의 체계화 등은 공화정 말기와 제정 초기에 시작된 국가 보호제에 근거하여 로마 정부의 철저한 관할 하에 이루어졌다. 이러한 국가보호제의 확립자로 대표할 수 있는 로마제국의 수장으로서 아우구스투스는 항상 이중적인 역할을 수행했다. 즉 한편으로 그는 합법적인 권한들로 무장한 일종의 최고 행정관이었다. 다른 한편으로 그는 카이사르처럼 내란을 진압하여 로마시민을 구제한 일개인으로서 그 자신의 위치를 표출시켰다. 요컨대, 그는 절반은 최고 행정관이었고 절반은 민족의 영웅이거나 당대인들이 이야기하는 바와 같이 구원자 이기도 했다. After the age of Gaius Gracchus, grain laws based on the provision of Gaius Gracchus’ lex frumentaria and were to try to expand or reduce its application scope. In a context of the political strife between optimates and populares within the government groups, the populares which have the support base on Roman peoples are to try to expand the policy of grain distribution and the optimates which have the support base on the Roman aristocracy are to try to reduce it. But optimates’ grain laws including the lex Octavia frumentaria and Cato’s lex frumentaria are not the restrain of grain distribution but the expand of it. Therefore, the political communication of conservative powers and reformative powers is inherent in grain laws after Gaius Gracchus’ lex frumentaria. Considering on the reinforcement of qualification and the measure of personnel reduction about the beneficiary of free grain distribution, Van Berchem point out that the beneficiary of free grain distribution is limited to the native of Rome and the resident of Rome and estimate that the idea of grain distribution exist within civil values of polis. Based on this opinion, Van Berchem conclude that the Roman empire succeed to the oligarchic regime of Roman republic. In the later Roman republic and the early Roman empire, Roman government distributed the grain to roman citizens at a cheap price or free. Because the cost for grain transport was very expensive and the private merchants were not able to carry out the grain transport. But it can’t make roman citizens lazy. In the end, Roman government provided the poor with public grain in order not to sell expensively grain. The systematization of free grain distribution based on the state patronage which began in the later Roman republic and the early Roman empire and controlled vigorously under Roman government. Augustus, the princeps of Roman empire who was represented as a founder of the state patronage, carried out the dual function. On the one hand, he is a supreme magistrate who held reasonable powers. On the other hand, he quelled civil wars, and saved Roman citizens. To sum up, Augustus is a supreme magistrate and a national hero and a savior.

로마 공화정 후기와 제정 초기 선거 민회의 입후보신고(professio)

강성길 ( Kang Seong Gil ) 대구사학회 2003 대구사학 Vol.72 No.-

Professio in Roman elective assemblies in the late Republic means that an aspirant for a Roman magistracy reports his intention to stand office to the magistrate who is to preside at the election. Theodore Mommsen contended that in the late Republic candidates had to declare their intention to stand for election to the presiding officer, who had the right to accept or refuse their declararation. Most of scholars have received his opinion. Babara Levick recently contended as follows. In the Republic and at least down to A. D. 14, profiteri(or professio) never became an obligatory declaration of candidates to the presiding officer, but remained a publication of intention to stand for office made to the electorate at large(and probably not at that required by law until 52 B. C.) which itself formed part of the candidate’s campaign. If Mommen’s contention is right, it is to difficult to solve the elections of Augutus to a consulship in 22 B. C. and 19 B. C. According to Cassius Dio(LIV. 6.2; 10, 1), Augustus, who was not a candidate, was elected consul in 22 B. C. and 19 B. C. Furthermore it appears that the people might, if they chose, elect a man who was not even a candidate. This paper aims to solve this problem in the light of a fresh interpretation of Appianus, Bellum Civile, Ⅰ, 21. According to Appianus, Bellum Civile, Ⅰ, 21, Caius Gracchus, who was not a candidate, was reelected tribune for 122 B. C. Because ‘ε?? δ??μαρχο?? ??νδ??οι παραννελ??αι??,’ the law authorized the people to choose further tribune from the whole body of citizens. The clause ‘ε?? δ??μαρχο?? ??νδ??οι παραννελ??αι??,’ in Appianus can interpreted afresh as follows. Here παραννελ??α stands for the Latin professio. The phrase ‘τα???? παραννελ??αι??’ may denote the dative of respect in case. The meaning of the clause may, therefore, be “if a tribune lacked in respect of professions.” What does the meaning of the clause refer in voting procedure in elective assemblies? Suppose, for convenience’ sake, that tribuneships to be elected in tribal elective assemblies are two places and candidates for the magistracies are five(A, B, C, D, E). 35 tribes voted simultaneously. Then the officials known as custodes(guardians) had to register the votes of all the tribes on large waxed tablets(tabulae). After the large waxed tablets of all the tribes were brought back, the presiding officer had to draw lots with the names of the tribes and had to draw out the name of each tribe by lot. If all the tribes would be declared by lot, A and C candidates, who secured the ½ + 1 votes(tribes) necessary for election, must have been elected tribunes. Nevertheless, suppose that people also gave an absolute majority of tribes to a man(F) who was not even a candidate. If the presiding officer wish to declare all the voting results including F’s voting results by lot, A and C candidates, and voters who voted for A and C, would not accept the declaration(renuntiatio) in an order determined by the lot. Becuase if the presiding officer declare all the candidates’(A, B, C, D, E) voting results only, people must have elelcted A and C candidates tribunes. If an insufficient number of candidates recieved an absolute majority of the tribes at first ballot, in other words if only A candidate got the ½ + 1 votes(tribes) necessary for election, a man(F) who was not a candidate can be elected tribune in order to fill the vacancy. In my opinion, the clause “if a tribune lacked in respect of professiones” in Appianus, Bellum Civile, Ⅰ, 21, suggests this voting procedure. Caius Gracchus, who was not a candidate at the tribunician elections for 122 B. C. may have been elected tribune according to this voting procedure. Therefore, in order that the presiding officer has to declare first all the candidates’ voting results by lot in simultaeneous voting, professio became obligatory for election. In conclusion, fir