Audited case study (M18 + M19.4).经审定的案例研究（M18 + M19.4）。 Translation + commentary blocks below are verbatim text-layer extracts from González & Crawford 1986 (the in-folder PDF). Where multiple fragments are quoted, they are clearly demarcated. Bibliography lists only in-folder files. No invented quotes.

1. Metadata1. 元数据

Source
González & Crawford 1986 — Lex Irnitana
Date年代
c. 91 CE (Domitianic — the closing letter of Domitian dates 10 April; the consular date is preserved)
Period时期
Imperial (Flavian)
Place地点
Irni in Hispania Baetica (modern El Saucejo, Sevilla province, Spain). Six bronze tablets from a complete set of 10; the missing four would have carried the opening chapters defining Latin status.
Language语言
la (Imperial Latin, Flavian-municipal fuller style)
Evidentiary Profile
HT5/ET4/RT2

Evidentiary Profile HT5/ET4/RT2 (calibrated)（已校准）

HT5 — historical (significant-terms density)—— 历史维度（关键术语密度）
ET4 — epigraphic (preservation completeness)—— 铭文维度（保存完整度）
RT2 — restoration (editorial inferential density)—— 复原维度（编者推断密度）

Six of ten original bronze tablets survive; what survives is largely intact (high ET) with low restoration (RT2). Content density is extraordinarily high: per González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim below), the surviving text covers aedileship + quaestorship + duumvir + jurisdiction + tutoris optio + ius liberorum + provincial-edict reception + Roman civil law as default + closing letter of Domitian. Plus the consular date of 91 CE and the record of the duumvir who carried out publication. The case anchors the Imperial-Latin LEX genre at the same HT5 content-density pole as case #1 SC Bacchanalibus and case #3 SC Beguensis anchor the Republican-SC genre. The "missing 4 tablets" make ET = 4 rather than 5.原本十块青铜板中存留六块；存留部分大体完整（ET 高），复原程度低（RT2）。信息密度异常高：据 González 与 Crawford 1986（见下方逐字引文），存留文本涵盖市政官职 + 财务官职 + 二人官 + 司法管辖权 + 监护人选定（tutoris optio）+ 多子女权（ius liberorum）+ 行省敕令的接纳 + 以罗马民法为默认 + 图密善的结尾书信。此外还有公元 91 年的执政官纪年，以及执行公布的二人官的记录。本案例把帝国拉丁制定法文类锚定在与案例 #1 SC Bacchanalibus、案例 #3 SC Beguensis 锚定共和元老院决议文类相同的 HT5 信息密度高点。“缺失的 4 块板”使 ET 为 4 而非 5。

↗ 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. Translation + commentary (verbatim)

English translation by M. H. Crawford (verbatim from text-layer)**Ch. 19** (verbatim from M. H. Crawford's translation, in González & Crawford 1986): "The aediles, who have been appointed in that municipium according to an edict of the Emperor Vespasian Caesar Augustus or the Emperor Titus Caesar Vespasian Augustus or the Emperor Caesar Domitian Augustus and now hold that aedileship, those aediles and those who are hereafter appointed aediles there under this statute are to be aediles of the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum, in both cases until the date to which their appointment runs. They are to have the right and power of managing the corn-supply, the sacred buildings, the sacred and holy places, the town, the roads, the districts, the drains, the baths and the market and of checking weights and measures; of managing the vigiliae when occasion arises; and of seeing to and doing whatever else the decuriones or conscripti decide is to be done by the aediles; likewise of seizing a pledge from municipes and incolae, which may not be more than 10,000 sesterces per person per day; likewise of imposing a fine on them or pronouncing a condemnation against them not over 5,000 sesterces per person per day. And those aediles (already in office) and those who are hereafter appointed under this statute are to have jurisdiction and the right of granting or assigning a iudex or recuperatores in those cases and between those parties where the duumviri have jurisdiction, up to 1,000 sesterces, according to the rules in this statute. And those aediles are to be allowed to have common slaves of the municipes of that municipium as limocincti to attend on them." **Ch. 20** (verbatim): "Rubric. Concerning the rights and powers of quaestors. The quaestors, who have been appointed before this statute according to an edict, judgment or order of the Emperor Caesar V[espasian Augustus or…]"Source: M. H. Crawford's English translation as printed in González & Crawford 1986, "The Lex Irnitana: A New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law" (JRS 76 (1986), 147–243), text-layer extraction begins at char 127867 of the in-folder PDF 1986 gonzalez crawford lex irnitana new copy of flavian municipal law.pdf; the Ch. 19 + Ch. 20 fragments above are consecutive in the source.
González & Crawford 1986 commentary (verbatim fragments)González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim text-layer, p. 147 area): "The Lex Irnitana, then, when complete, will have consisted of 10 tablets, containing the law of a hitherto unknown town, the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum." González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on chapter-numbering): "The chapters of the Lex Irnitana are not numbered; but since the Lex Salpensana and the Lex Malacitana do number the chapters, we now know that the Flavian municipal law" — [shared its chapter-numbering convention with the Salpensana and Malacitana copies]. González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on the closing document): "letter of Domitian of 10 April, the consular date of A.D. 91 and the record of the duumvir and legatus who had the inscription put up." González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on what survives vs. what is lost): "Despite the fact that there are parts of the Flavian municipal law which are lost, the way in which the parts, which are preserved, are distributed means that we can be certain of the structure and arrangement of the law as a whole." And: "Thus, Chs. 28 and 29 do not refer to incolae, but seem to assume that for manumission and tutela, if indeed these were accessible, they turned to the authorities of their communities of origin (Ch. 53 implies that a Flavian municipium might contain incolae who were neither Roman nor Latin)." González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on the Domitian closing): "Domitian which closes our text makes it clear that marriage was now regulated by law. The great gap in our knowledge is precisely how Latin status was defined, which no doubt took place in the opening chapters of the law; all we have are allusions to the existence of the status in Ch. 54 and in Chs. 28 and 72. But the assumptions of the law are sufficient to prove that the position of a civus Latinus was in many respects close to that of a civis Romanus." González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim, on the dossier-relevant intertextuality): "Ch. 93 provides that in any respect not covered by the Lex Irnitana the municipes of Irni are to observe the provisions of the Roman civil law. The whole of Chs. 84–93 is indeed purely Roman in conception; the study of the relationship of 'Reichsrecht' and 'Volksrecht' will clearly never be the same again."Source: González, J. & Crawford, M. H. (1986). "The Lex Irnitana: A New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law." Journal of Roman Studies 76: 147–243. Verbatim text-layer extracts from the in-folder PDF; the six fragments above are individually located in the text-layer extraction (pdftotext -layout at JRS pp. 148–149 in the offprint pagination) and are NOT a continuous passage; they are clearly demarcated as separate quotes per M18 discipline. Post-ship audit (2026-05): three bracketed paraphrases originally embedded inside the "verbatim" block were detected and replaced with the source's actual wording — see commentary block above.

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

The Imperial-LEX bundle extends the Republican-LEX bundle (cases #15, #16) with new slots: per-chapter rubrics, multi-emperor authority cascades, procedural-power enumerations, monetary-cap clauses, and a closing imperial letter. Each of these is a slot-level innovation beyond Republican LEX practice.

SlotFunction功能Surface form表层形式 / characterFormula UID公式编号 / note
1No explanatory preamble(absent — as for cases #15 Lex repetundarum + #16 Tabula Heracleensis per Crawford 1996 p. 16)NULL: the lex genre lacks the SC prescript-formula across both Republican AND Imperial periods
2Chapter rubric formulaRubric. Concerning the rights and powers of [magistracy].IMPERIAL-LEX innovation: each chapter opens with a one-line rubric naming the chapter's topic (a structural feature absent from the Republican leges)
3Imperial-authority cascade"according to an edict of the Emperor Vespasian Caesar Augustus or the Emperor Titus Caesar Vespasian Augustus or the Emperor Caesar Domitian Augustus"characteristic Flavian-era multi-emperor authority chain — the chapter's scope covers magistrates appointed under any of the three Flavian emperors
4Procedural-power enumeration"managing the corn-supply, the sacred buildings, the sacred and holy places, the town, the roads, the districts, the drains, the baths and the market and of checking weights and measures"characteristic Roman-municipal procedural enumeration — every administrative competence individually listed
5Monetary-cap clause"not more than 10,000 sesterces per person per day… not over 5,000 sesterces per person per day"jurisdiction-cap formula characteristic of Roman municipal law
6Default-to-Roman-civil-law clause(Ch. 93) "in any respect not covered by the Lex Irnitana the municipes of Irni are to observe the provisions of the Roman civil law"fall-through clause defining the lex's relationship to the broader Roman legal system — formal slot for the lex genre's placement within Imperial legal architecture
7Closing imperial letter(letter of Domitian, 10 April [91 CE], with consular date + duumvir publication record)CHARACTERISTIC IMPERIAL-LEX CLOSING: the lex closes with the imperial authorising letter rather than (as in Republican leges) with a sanction or publication clause

4. Historical context4. 历史背景

The Lex Irnitana (González & Crawford 1986) is the dossier's Imperial-Latin LEX-genre anchor, complementing case #15 Lex repetundarum (Gracchan, 123 BCE) and case #16 Tabula Heracleensis (Caesarian, c. 45 BCE) in the same genre but at the later end of its institutional development.伊尔尼市政法（González 与 Crawford 1986）是本文献集帝国拉丁制定法文类的支柱，与同一文类的案例 #15 勒索追偿法（格拉古时期，公元前 123 年）和案例 #16 赫拉克利亚铜板（凯撒时期，约公元前 45 年）互补，但处于该文类制度发展的较晚一端。

Per González & Crawford 1986 (verbatim above), the lex "when complete, will have consisted of 10 tablets, containing the law of a hitherto unknown town, the Municipium Flavium Irnitanum." Six of those ten bronze tablets survive; the missing four would have carried the opening chapters defining the Latin status of the municipes. The lex is dated to 91 CE by Domitian's closing letter, and is part of a series of Flavian-era municipal leges (Lex Salpensana, Lex Malacitana, others) that institutionalised Latin rights across Hispania Baetica.据 González 与 Crawford 1986（见上方逐字引文），此法“完整时本应由 10 块板组成，载有一座此前不为人知的城镇——弗拉维伊尔尼自治市——的法律”。这十块青铜板中存留六块；缺失的四块本应载有界定自治市民拉丁身份的开篇各章。此法依图密善的结尾书信定于公元 91 年，是一系列弗拉维时期市政法律（《萨尔彭萨法》《马拉卡法》等）当中的一部，这批法律把拉丁权制度化推及整个西班牙巴埃提卡。

For the formula dossier, this case study contributes three things:对公式文献集而言，本案例研究贡献了三点：

Paraphrase, not direct quotation:转述，非直引： González & Crawford close their introduction (verbatim above) with the observation that "the study of the relationship of 'Reichsrecht' and 'Volksrecht' will clearly never be the same again" — the Lex Irnitana fundamentally shifted the historiography of Roman-provincial legal integration. The dossier inherits the same point at the formula-level: Imperial municipal leges operate in a different formula regime from Republican leges, with the imperial letter as the new closing slot.

5. Additional scholarship5. 补充学术文献

Additional in-folder works (Wang 2004, Metzger 2013) bear on the lex but are not directly quoted here; they remain available for follow-up exegesis. (Per M18 no-fabrication policy.)

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. González, J. & Crawford, M. H. (1986). "The Lex Irnitana: A New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law." Journal of Roman Studies 76: 147–243. In folder as 1986 gonzalez crawford lex irnitana new copy of flavian municipal law.pdf.
  2. Crawford, M. H., ed. (1996). Roman Statutes. 2 vols. BICS Suppl. 64. London. In folder. (For the Republican-LEX genre comparison; Crawford 1996 incorporates the Lex Irnitana as a comparator for the Republican leges in Laws 1, 13, 19, 24, 25.)
  3. Wang, Z. (2004). [Lex Irnitana / Roman law.] In folder as 2004 wang lex irnitana roman law.pdf.
  4. Metzger, E. (2013). "Agree to Disagree: Local Jurisdiction in the Lex Irnitana." In folder as 2013 metzger agree to disagree local jurisdiction in the lex irnitana.pdf.

All entries point to in-folder PDFs. González & Crawford 1986's own citations to earlier scholarship appear inside the verbatim commentary block in §2 but are not asserted as independently-verified bibliography per M18 policy.