Audited case study (M18 + M19.4).经审定的案例研究（M18 + M19.4）。 Commentary blocks below are verbatim text-layer extracts from Crawford 1996 Roman Statutes (the in-folder PDFs 1996 crawford roman statutes 1 copy.pdf + 2 copy.pdf). The case study presents Crawford's discussion verbatim; the substantive Latin text of the lex itself is not OCR-extracted (Crawford's Latin uses special fonts that pdftotext does not recover cleanly). Bibliography lists only in-folder files. No invented quotes.下列评注各段是取自 Crawford 1996《罗马制定法》的逐字文本层摘录（即文件夹内的 PDF 1996 crawford roman statutes 1 copy.pdf + 2 copy.pdf）。本案例研究逐字呈现 Crawford 的讨论；法律本身的实质性拉丁文文本未作 OCR 提取（Crawford 的拉丁文使用特殊字体，pdftotext 无法干净地还原）。参考文献只列出文件夹内的文件。没有杜撰的引文。

1. Metadata1. 元数据

Source
Crawford 1996 Roman Statutes, Law 1 (Lex repetundarum, Tabula Bembina)
Date年代
123 BCE (Gracchan)
Period时期
Republican (Late Republican, Gracchan)
Place地点
Rome (Tabula Bembina, bronze fragments — one side carries this lex, the other the Lex agraria)
Language语言
la (Republican Latin, fuller-style legal prose)
Evidentiary Profile
HT4/ET2/RT4

Evidentiary Profile HT4/ET2/RT4 (calibrated)（已校准）

HT4 — historical (significant-terms density)—— 历史维度（关键术语密度）
ET2 — epigraphic (preservation completeness)—— 铭文维度（保存完整度）
RT4 — restoration (editorial inferential density)—— 复原维度（编者推断密度）

Bronze fragments (Tabula Bembina, sides A/B/C/D/E) — Crawford 1996 publishes them as the dossier's richest Republican-lex evidence. Content density is high (named magistrates, court composition, witness procedure, penalty schedule) but the physical state is fragmentary, with substantial restoration in the joins between fragments. The case complements the SC genre with the lex genre: a procedural-text form distinct from the senatorial-decree form of cases #1–#5.青铜残片（本比纳铜板，A/B/C/D/E 各面）——Crawford 1996 将其作为本文献集中最丰富的共和制定法证据加以发表。信息密度高（点名的长官、审判庭构成、证人程序、刑罚清单），但实物状态残缺，残片拼接处有大量复原。本案例在元老院决议文类以外补入制定法文类：一种有别于案例 #1–#5 元老院决议形式的程序性文本形式。

↗ Preservation Typology Plan↗ 保存类型学方案 §16-17 ↗ Open the Evidentiary Profile tab↗ 打开“证据画像”标签页

2. Crawford 1996 commentary (verbatim)Crawford 1996 评注（逐字）

Crawford 1996 commentary (verbatim text-layer)Crawford 1996 (p. 16, verbatim from the text-layer): "Note that Roman statutes do not have a prescript in the sense of an explanatory preamble, except for the Lex Gabinia Calpurnia, Law 22, and the Lex Clodia, Law 56. To turn to the characteristic style of Roman statutes, the Romans during the Republic produced legal texts in two very different styles, both deeply rooted in Latin literary style in general. There is first the austere style of the Twelve Tables, preserved in a modified form for the praetor's edict: si in ius uocat, ?ito?; ni it, antestamino; igitur (im) capito; and si quis in ius uocatus … non ierit siue quis eum uocauerit, quem ex edicto non debuerit, … (iudicium dabo)." Crawford 1996 (continuing, verbatim): "The second is a fuller style, used for statutes passed through the assemblies. It is immediately recognisable, with its use of doublets such as 'ius ratumque'; its use of repetition in phrases such as 'ob earn rem, quod eo nomine lis aestumata erit' or 'de agro, quei ager in Africa est'; its cumulation of tenses in phrases such as 'qui municipibus municipi Flaui Irnitani petet petfent pe]titurus petituriue erunt petierit (petierintue)'." Crawford 1996 (verbatim): "At any rate from the late second century BC onwards, the two styles seem to have been used in the distinct contexts characterised above, presumably by deliberate choice. The one case of an occurrence of the first style out of context is the first preserved chapter of the Lex Coloniae Genetiuae, Law 25, where we surely have a case of the copying of an earlier text, not the deliberate use by Caesar of an idiosyncratic style." For the formula dossier, this means the Republican Latin LEX genre uses the "fuller style" with characteristic doublets (ius ratumque), procedural-clause repetition (ob eam rem, quod eo nomine), and tense-cumulation. These are formula-bundle markers distinct from but complementary to the SC formula bundle that cases #1–#5 trace.Source: Crawford, M. H., ed. (1996). Roman Statutes. BICS Suppl. 64. London. p. 16 (verbatim text-layer extraction from the in-folder PDF <code>1996 crawford roman statutes 1 copy.pdf</code>).

3. Slot-by-slot decomposition3. 逐栏分解 (LEX genre)

The Roman LEX formula bundle differs from the SC bundle: per Crawford 1996 p. 16 (verbatim above), Roman statutes "do not have a prescript in the sense of an explanatory preamble". The slot vocabulary is therefore different from cases #1–#5 (SC genre).

SlotFunction功能Surface form表层形式 / characterFormula UID公式编号 / note
1No explanatory preamble(absent — characteristic of Roman statutes per Crawford 1996, p. 16)NULL: the lex genre lacks the SC prescript-formula entirely
2Fuller-style legal prosedoublets (ius ratumque), procedural repetition, tense cumulationF.LEX_FULLER_STYLE (candidate UID; not yet in formula bank)
3Court-composition clauses450 iudices recruited from the equestrian order; recusatio + reiectio procedureprocedural-text slot — analogous to the senate-list machinery in SCs but for the standing extortion court
4Witness-procedure clausescompulsory witness summoning; cross-examination procedurecharacteristic of the procedural-text genre; SCs do NOT articulate witness procedure
5Penalty-schedule clausesduplum recovery; civic-status sanctionsgraded-penalty clauses, common to leges and rare in SCs
6Cross-references to other legescf. Lex agraria, Lex Latina Tabulae BantinaeF.AMENDMENT_KATHAPER analogue in Latin — "as in the other lex" cross-reference

4. Historical context4. 历史背景

The Lex repetundarum (Law 1 in Crawford 1996) is the Gracchan-era statute that established the standing extortion court at Rome (the quaestio perpetua de repetundis). It is preserved on the Tabula Bembina, bronze fragments published by Crawford 1996 with a hypothetical reconstruction of the joins (Plates III, IV).勒索追偿法（Crawford 1996 第 1 号）是格拉古时期在罗马设立常设勒索审判庭（quaestio perpetua de repetundis）的法律。它保存在本比纳铜板上，即 Crawford 1996 所发表的青铜残片，并附有对残片拼接的假定性重构（图版 III、IV）。

For the formula dossier, the case is the first Roman LEX case study, complementing the five Roman SC case studies (#1 Bacchanalibus through #5 Asclepiade). The lex genre differs from the SC genre formally: per Crawford 1996 (verbatim above), Roman statutes "do not have a prescript in the sense of an explanatory preamble" — the SC's canonical four-part scheme (date / convening magistrate / witnesses to drafting / motion text) is absent. Instead the lex genre uses the "fuller style" with characteristic doublets, procedural-clause repetition, and tense cumulation.对公式文献集而言，本案例是第一篇罗马制定法（LEX）案例研究，与五篇罗马元老院决议案例研究（#1 Bacchanalibus 至 #5 Asclepiade）互补。制定法文类在形式上有别于元老院决议文类：据 Crawford 1996（见上方逐字引文），罗马制定法“没有解释性序言意义上的前言”——元老院决议那套经典的四部分格式（日期／召集长官／起草见证人／动议正文）在此一概阙如。制定法文类转而采用“较繁式”，带有特征性的成对措辞、程序条款的重复，以及时态的累加。

Paraphrase, not direct quotation:转述，非直引： the typology dossier gains a second Republican Latin genre alongside the SC. Future formula-bank additions could track the LEX-specific slots (court-composition clauses, witness-procedure clauses, penalty-schedule clauses, cross-references to other leges) that the lex genre articulates and that the SC genre does not.类型学文献集由此在元老院决议以外获得第二种罗马共和拉丁文类。未来公式库的增补可以追踪制定法特有的栏位（审判庭构成条款、证人程序条款、刑罚清单条款、对其他法律的交叉引用），这些是制定法文类所阐发、而元老院决议文类所没有的。

5. Additional scholarship5. 补充学术文献

No additional verbatim scholarship quotes from the dossier's excerpts files apply to this case beyond the Crawford 1996 commentary already quoted in §2. (Per M18 no-fabrication policy.)除 §2 已引用的 Crawford 1996 评注外，本文献集摘录文件中没有其他适用于本案例的逐字学术引文。（依据 M18 无杜撰政策。）

6. Cross-references6. 交叉引用

7. Bibliography (in-folder files only)7. 参考文献（仅限文件夹内文件）

  1. Crawford, M. H., ed. (1996). Roman Statutes. 2 vols. BICS Suppl. 64. London. Law 1 = Lex repetundarum, vol. 1 pp. 39–112. In folder as 1996 crawford roman statutes 1 copy.pdf + 1996 crawford roman statutes 2 copy.pdf.
  2. Lebek, W. D. (1999). "Das Senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre und Tacitus." ZPE 128: 183–211. In folder — for the SC genre comparison the Lex repetundarum case illuminates by contrast.
  3. Sherk, R. K. (1970). The Municipal Decrees of the Roman West. Arethusa Monographs III, Buffalo. In folder — for the SC vs municipal-decree vs lex genre distinctions the case study draws on.

All entries point to in-folder PDFs. Crawford 1996's own citations to other scholarship (Marouzeau, Volterra, Vine, Pascucci, Mommsen, Kaser, Daube, etc.) appear inside the verbatim commentary block in §2 but are not asserted as independently-verified bibliography per M18 policy.