Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Roman emperors and legislation on public water use in the Roman Empire: clarifications and problems

  • Published:
Water History Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One often encounters a lack of clarity about the emperor’s role when it comes to water distribution and the right to draw public water in the Roman world, in cities and towns, in the countryside and from rivers. Certainly, much is known about his involvement in water distribution at Rome, yet it is less clear what role he played in supplying water in the empire more broadly. This article discusses, necessarily in a fairly compressed fashion, the ways in which the Roman emperor legislated on and influenced the management of public water resources in the Roman world. In order to place the emperor’s actions in their proper context, something is said also about other sources of Roman law, and about legislation concerning private water resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is so, regardless of the author’s perusing more than a score of scholarly works when writing Pompeii (dutifully listed in a bibliography), consulting Oxonian and Cantabrigiensian dons, and meeting and corresponding with helpful experts in the field; see Harris (2004, pp. 395–397) ‘Acknowledgements’.

  2. Incidentally, Frontinus figures in another recent novel, Three Hands in the Fountain, by the bestselling author Lindsay Davies (Century, London 1996). Literary licence can be found here too, cf. p. 53: ‘The curator of Aqueducts was an imperial freedman’.

  3. Compare, on the law of rent in the late antique law codes, Peachin (2001, p. 119) (based on research by Frier (1980, pp. 39–47): ‘The jurists who wrote this law must have assumed that those living elsewhere would either adapt their dealings to what had been produced with Rome in mind, or, alternatively, would simply adhere to their local customs or law’.

  4. Imperial sponsorship of hydraulic constructions will not be included, as this theme strictly speaking belongs in a different context, namely that of public building and benefactions, and in addition this vast topic would necessitate far too much space.

  5. Gaius, Inst. 1.2; text and translation are found in Gordon and Robinson (1988, pp. 18–21). On the character of the Institutiones (the Latin title), see Robinson (1997, pp. 62–63).

  6. See Robinson (1997, pp. 13–16, 29–53) (The Principate) and 19–21 (Late Antiquity).

  7. For the lex Quinctia (see Frontin. aq. 129 and Crawford et al. 1996, II pp. 793–800). Senatus consulta, all from 11 bc, are quoted in Frontin. aq. 100–101.1, 104, 106, 108, 125, 127.

  8. Frontin. aq. 94–97 provides scattered references to the legislative and administrative powers of magistrates in relation to Rome’s water supply during the Republican period. For the imperial period, see, e.g. the edict by the proconsul Asiae Vicirius Martialis for the protection of an aqueduct at Ephesus, dating to ad 113/114, and that of a successor of his, Sex. Subrius Dexter Cornelius Priscus, from ad 120/121 (Inschr. Eph. VII.1 = IK 17 3217a–b) and Eck (1995, pp. 245–246); Geißler (1998, pp. 109–113).

  9. Part of imperial mandata in Frontin. aq. 111; on the role of the emperor regarding Rome’s water supply, see Frontin. aq. 99.3 (an edictum), 103.2, 105.1.

  10. The late antique legal collections will be discussed below. An early reference to a jurist’s opinion in Frontin. aq. 97.1–2.

  11. On this aqueduct, see Catalano (2003), with pp. 85–87 for the use of the name Aqua Augusta; a new epigraphic discovery now documents that name in ad 10; see Camodeca (1997) (not cited in the AE). One should note that there were many aqueducts called Aqua Augusta in the Roman world; only some of them were built during Augustus’ reign (see Alföldy1992, pp. 61–62). The others drew their name from the fact that every emperor carried the name ‘Augustus’ in his imperial name formula.

  12. There is the inscription AE 1939, 151 which documents repair works under the emperor Constantine and his sons Crispus and Constantius; the emperors paid for the work (sua pecunia), see now Catalano (2003, pp. 83–84).

  13. See CTh 15.2.8: Ex forma, cui nomen Augusta est, quae in Campania sumptu publico reparata est, nihil privatim singulorum usurpatio praesumat neque cuiquam posthac derivandae aquae copia tribuatur…; ‘No person shall presume to appropriate for private use any water out of the aqueduct named Augusta, which has been repaired at public expense in Campania, and to no person hereafter shall the right be granted to divert water therefrom …’, translation by Pharr (1952, p. 431). Sumptus publicus normally refers to expenditure by local authorities or the senate in Rome, see, e.g. CIL II 2070, VI 1683, VI 1792, VIII 309 = 11532 = ILS 5649; AE 2004, 1681, all from the third or fourth century ad.

  14. CIL X 4842 = ILS 5743, lines 37–43, for the passage translated above. The whole text is also printed by Bianco (2007, pp. 143–144, 147). The edict was last discussed in detail by Pantoni 1960–1961, who presented another epigraphic copy of it.

  15. It is the case, however, that in his edict for Venafrum Augustus laid down that private individuals who receive the permission to draw water from the public supply must use a lead conduit for the first fifty feet of their private conduit, and he also legislated on how to lay out the conduits, see CIL X 4842 = ILS 5743, l. 43–47.

  16. These municipal statutes constituted a lex data, that is a law which had been issued by a Roman magistrate (thus strictly speaking included in Gaius’ definition), see Crawford et al. (1996, I pp. 5–6, 396).

  17. The law is originally from the Caesarian period, at which time one could obviously not expect the mention of a Roman emperor, but it was engraved in the Flavian period, towards the end of the first century ad. This, according to Michael Crawford and his team, ‘is not in itself a reason for supposing that the text was substantially altered in the course of the intervening century or so’, see Crawford et al. (1996, I p. 395). Either way, it is significant that no mention of the emperor appears at the time when the text was engraved, in time not far from when Frontinus wrote his De aquaeductu.

  18. Translation from Crawford et al. (1996, I p. 427) (slightly modified); Latin original on p. 408.

  19. Translation from Crawford et al. (1996, I pp. 427–428) (slightly modified); Latin original on p. 408.

  20. See González (1986, pp. 175) (Latin: De viis itineribus fluminibus fossis cloacis …), 195 (English translation), and 227 (commentary). The commentary wrongly states that the paragraph in question, §82, ‘essentially’ is the same as a corresponding one in some earlier Roman town statutes. In those earlier documents there is no mention of rivers, flumina, which may be significant.

  21. Dig. 43.14.1.6 (Ulpian, Book 68 on the Praetor’s Edict): Possunt autem etiam haec esse publica, with reference to the previous sentences 43.14.1.4–5.

  22. Dig. 43.12.1.3 (Ulpian, Book 68 on the Praetor’s Edict): Fluminum quaedam publica sunt, quaedam non. publicum flumen esse Cassius definit, quod perenne sit: haec sententia Cassii, quam et Celsus probat, videtur esse probabilis.

  23. Dig. 43.12.1.4 (Ulpian, Book 68 on the Praetor’s Edict): Hoc interdictum ad flumina publica pertinet: si autem flumen privatum sit, cessabit interdictum: nihil enim differt a ceteris locis privatis flumen privatum.

  24. Cf. Dig. 43.12.1.8. (Ulpian, Book 68 on the Praetor’s Edict): ‘A canal dug by hand through which a public river flows becomes public all the same, and so anything that is done in it is held to be done in a public river’.

  25. As always, Frontinus is our prime source for these terms, which can also be found elsewhere, see the commentary in Rodgers (2004, pp. 135–136) (castella), 137 (lacus), 175 (salientes), and the corresponding explanations in Del Chicca (2004, pp. 132–134, 135, 212).

  26. Archaeological remains of Roman dams are found on the Iberian peninsula, in North Africa and the Near East (see Schnitter 1992; Hodge 2000, pp. 334–339). The only dam in Italy was the one at Subiaco near Rome built during Nero’s reign, see Frontin. aq. 93.2 and Schnitter (1992, p. 161), Hodge (2000, p. 334).

  27. Frontinus refers to the water in Rome’s aqueducts as aqua publica (aq. 103.2, 104.1, etc.). There appear various abbreviations of this term inscribed on lead pipes that supplied towns in Roman Italy, namely at Cumae (CIL X 3711: publ. munic. Cumanor.), near Rome in the community Ad Decimum (CIL XIV 4229 = XV 7811: pub. Decimiensium), at Fundi (CIL X 6245: pub. mun. Fund.), Mevana (CIL XI 5063: publica Mevanatium, the only case where the word is written out in full, evidently to be completed (aqua)), Patavium (Nsc 1931, 157 = AE 1932, 65: pub. m. Pa.), Pompeii (NSc 1931, 561d + f publi. Pompe.), Rusellae (CIL XI 2618 = AE 1964, 254b: pub. col. Rus.), Saepinum (Chiari 1982, 121: publi. Saepin.), Teanum Sidicinum CIL X 4799: pub. col. Cl. F[i]r. Tea.), and at Veii near Rome (CIL XI 3817 = ILS 8704: public. Veientanorum).

  28. See Pomponius in Dig. 43.20.3.1 (Book 34 on Sabinus): ‘Several people may draw water from a river, but on condition of not harming the neighbours, or even, if the river is narrow, those on the opposite bank’, and the same jurist in Dig. 43.12.2 (Book 34 on Sabinus): ‘Nothing prevents water from being drawn off from a public river (unless the emperor or the senate forbid it), provided that it will not be water in public use …’.

  29. The view of De Ruggiero (1895, p. 557) that aqua publica in such situations denotes water owned by the Roman state, and thus controlled by the emperor or his agents, cannot be right. A quote from Dig. 50.16.16 invoked by De Ruggiero (publica appellatio in compluribus causis ad populum Romanum respicit; civitates enim privatorum loco habentur, ‘the term “public” in many situations refers to the Roman people, for towns are considered like private owners’) is not applicable here, just as it does not apply to servi publici (municipal slaves) in Roman towns either; on the latter, see the recent study by Weiss (2004).

  30. Three examples of private water concessions are CIL VIII 51 = ILS 5777 from Thysdrus in North Africa (the decision seems to have been made by a senator who was curator civitatis); CIL X 4654 from Cales (based on a decision of the local senatus); CIL X 4760 from Suessa (decision of the ordo decurionum).

  31. A recent survey of fountains and other installation in Roman domus, which would have required piped water, in Schmölder (2009, pp. 59–154) (Augusta Raurica, Cuicul, Herculaneum, Italica, Ostia, Paestum, Pompeii, Thamugadi and Volubilis).

  32. Frontin. aq. 103–111 on the modalities for acquiring the ius aquae ducendae in Rome, and on Frontinus and private water grants in the capital (see Bruun 1991, passim; Eck 1998, pp. 245–248; Bruun 2007).

  33. See Berger (1953, pp. 449, 647), Robinson (1997, pp. 39–42). For the Edict itself, see Lenel (1927).

  34. Dig. 43.20.1.41–43 (Ulpian, Book 70 on the Praetor’s Edict): Permittitur autem aquam ex castello vel ex rivo vel ex quo alio loco publico ducere. (42) Idque a principe conceditur: alii nulli competit ius aquae dandae. (43) Et datur interdum praediis, interdum personis.

  35. See above n. 30. In these, the only known cases, various local authorities made the decision.

  36. See for instance, Palma (1987, pp. 447–449), Geißler (1998, p. 66) and passim; Taylor (2000, pp. 67, 71). Cf. Del Chicca (2005), p. 30, who in an article which discusses the distribution of aqua publica according to Frontinus compares the latter’s description of how the water of Rome’s aqueducts was distributed with this passage, without fully realizing that if Ulpian’s passage was meant to apply on an empire-wide scale, as seems to be the case, it would be futile to expect an analoguous situation. Uncertainties also in Bianco (2007, pp. 126–129, although elsewhere she is fully aware that water grants were given out by other authorities as well). Biundo (2008, p. 170) seems somewhat uncertain.

  37. For the Edict, see Lenel (1927); even from the overview of its content on pp. xvi–xxiv it is clear that many paragraphs concern situations outside Rome.

  38. Cf. a very similar view in Saliou (1994, p. 138): ‘La caractère péremptoire de l’affirmation d’Ulpien selon laquelle seuls les pouvoirs publics, et en particulier l’empereur, peuvent accorder la concession d’une adduction d’eau, semble refléter la vision qu’un membre du consilium principis devait avoir du caractère exclusif et absolu du pouvour impérial …’

  39. For a description of the various forms of imperial enactments, see Sirks (2001), pp. 122–123).

  40. For the Codex Gregorianus, see recently Sperandio 2005; the debate on the character and content is vast; see e.g. Wenger (1953, pp. 642–643), Honoré (1994, pp. 48–50, 53–54); briefly Robinson (1997, p. 61). For the Codex Hermogenianus, there is now Connolly (2010), with bibliography and a list of known rescripts attributed to the code on pp. 176–200. The fragments of the Gregorianus and the Hermogenianus are published in Krueger (1890).

  41. There is much recent work on the Codex Theodosianus, see Harries and Woods (1993), Honoré (1998, pp. 123–153), Matthews (2000), Barnes (2001), Sirks (2007b).

  42. On Constantinople, cf. Crow, this volume.

  43. I am here relying on Jaillette and Reduzzi Merola (2008), a preliminary work which used a computer to search for a few central key words. A future close reading of the text is likely to supplement their findings. Besides the passages in CTh 15.2, they turned up two others: 7.1.13 (partly in CJ), an order to soldiers not to pollute a river; and 9.32.1 concerning the Nile. In addition, there are the somewhat more peripheral CTh 6.4.29, 15.1.32, 36 and 52, in which baths and/or aqueducts are mentioned. Among new legislation in the Novellae, there is NovT XX (partially also in CJ 7.41.3) on the status of alluvial land, and NovV XIII.9, concerning public water for the town of Constantine in N. Africa (which must not be used by private parties).

  44. Possessores, per quorum fines formarum meatus transeunt, ab extraordinariis oneribus volumus esse immunes, ut eorum opera aquarum ductus sordibus obpleti mundentur, nec ad aliud superindictae rei onus isdem possessoribus adtinendis, ne circa res alias occupati repurgium formarum facere non occurrant. Quod si neglexerint, amissione possessionum multabuntur: nam fiscus eius praedium obtinebit, cuius neglegentia perniciem formae congesserit. Praeterea scire eos oportet, per quorum praedia [aquae in CJ 11.43.1] ductus commeat, ut dextra laevaque de ipsis formis quindecim pedibus intermissis arbores habeant; observante tuo officio [‘officio iudicis’ in CJ 11.43.1], ut, si quo tempore pullulaverint, excidantur, ne earum radices fabricam formae conrumpant.

  45. Translated by Lewis and Reinhold (1966, pp. 479–480). This enactment was also included in the Codex Justinianus, as 11.43.1, with one change worth mentioning: ‘your office’, tuo officio, was changed to officio iudicis, in which I take the mention of a iudex to be a general reference to a government official having the right to make administrative decisions. This indicates that the post of consularis aquarum was no longer current.

  46. For passages concerning water management in the Codex Theodosianus and the Codex Justinianus, see the convenient overview in Jaillette and Reduzzi Merola (2008, pp. 238–241), with notes 43 and 67 in this article.

  47. Frontin. aq. 127.1; in general Bruun (2000, pp. 593–594).

  48. For instance by Liebenam (1900, pp. 410–411), considered to have been a traditional requirement, but, as will be seen, this is not likely.

  49. The available space prevents a detailed comparison.

  50. On the vexing problem of the Roman calix (known only from Frontinus’ text and possibly never really adopted in actual practice), see Bruun (2003, pp. 64–67).

  51. Translation by A. Wilson and J. N. Adams (pers. comm.); Latin text from Campbell (2000, p. 256) (Ex libris Magonis et Vegoiae auctorum): Aquarum ductus per medias possessiones diriguntur, quae a possessoribus ipsis vice temporum repurgantur: propter quod et levia tributa persolvunt. (Campbell’s translation of this passage is incorrect.) For the date, Campbell (2000, p. 445).

  52. CIL III 568 = ILS 5794: … Ut memini, non repurgari modo aquae ductum, verum etiam induci aquam iusseram …; part of the text is mentioned in Taylor (2000, p. 66); briefly in Eck (1995, p. 247). In PLRE I p. 814, Decim(ius) Secundinus is dated to the late fourth century ad.

  53. See Buonocore (1994) (purgatio), Wilson (1999, pp. 317–318) (ditto), Rodriguez-Almeida (2000) (furcatio), Segenni (2005) (arcatio); most recently Bianco (2007, pp. 80–81) (survey of earlier views). The brief discussion in Bannon (2009, pp. 75–76) is not accurate.

  54. On the organization of the import of grain to Rome for imperial handouts, as well as on the requisition of cattle for meat distribution, see in general Sirks 1991, and for a summary Sirks 2007a, pp. 176–178.

  55. Interestingly enough, the inscription from Amphissa just mentioned (CIL III 568 = ILS 5794) also refers to private water having been illegally tapped from the public aqueduct. This ought to have led to the confiscation of the fundus of the guilty party, but the proconsul credits the happy age and his own magnanimity (beatitudo temporis, moderatio mea) with not exacting this punishment.

  56. That the text was included also in CJ 11.43.1 does not necessarily prove that it was successful.

  57. See Frontin. aq. 119–124, where the difficulties facing a repair and cleaning crew are presented. To begin with, it would be a major operation to divert the water in one of Rome’s aqueducts so that cleaning could take place, and this needed to be done simultaneously along the whole course. This would have required major cooperation and coordination among the landowners.

  58. This is based on the cautious figures cited for the Aqua Claudia and the Aqua Marcia by Fahlbusch (1982, p. 134); much higher figures are often given, cf. Hodge (2002, p. 347), though they seem less convincing to me.

  59. There is nothing on how to apply for a private water grant, cf. Frontin. aq. 103.3, 105.1, nor do these late-antique rescripts say anything about what happens when the holder of such a grant dies. On the latter question Frontinus too is unclear; see Bruun (2007, pp. 464–465).

  60. This point made by Sargenti (1995, p. 376) on the basis of a few examples; see also pp. 377–383.

  61. On the not unproblematic issue of what constituted a general law and what should have been included in the Codex Theodosianus (see Sargenti 1995; Honoré 1998, pp. 128–129; Matthews 2000, pp. 65–70); Sirks 2007b, pp. 24–35; cf. Harries 1999, p. 27). On generalitas and leges generales, see also Schmidt-Hofner (2008, pp. 21–35).

  62. Thus Sirks (2007b, pp. 140–141, 147–148); for a severe criticism of the achievement of Theodosius’ commission in regard to completeness and coherence, and for a number of missing laws, see Sargenti (1995, pp. 377–390).

  63. See above n. 40.

  64. Honoré (1978, p. 140). The Constitutio Deo auctore, which started the project by setting up the commission, is dated 15 December 530.

  65. Robinson (1997, p. 61): ‘Probably all the pre-Constantinian material in Justinian’s Code is derived from them [scil. the Gregorianus and the Hermogenianus]’; Barnes (2001, p. 676). For the remaining fragments, see Krueger (1890).

  66. Barnes (2001, p. 676), following Theodor Mommsen (only four brief passages are thought to derive from the Codex Hermogenianus instead).

  67. Jaillette and Reduzzi Merola (2008, pp. 238–241). As for the CTh, their preliminary inventory is based on a search of key words by computer; for some reason, CJ 11.43.7–8 are missing from their tables.

  68. The urban passages are CJ 1.4.26 pr. 10; 11.43.1–11; those on rural water use are: CJ 3.34.2–4, 6–7, 10. 12; 3.35.2; 7.1–3; 11.63.1; 11.66(65).5.

  69. There is also CJ 1.4.26, enacted by Justinian himself, which concerns the upkeep of urban aqueducts and public baths (pr.) and the distribution of water (10).

  70. A German translation of these rescripts with comments can be found in Geißler 1998; the commentary is not always as exhaustive as one might wish.

  71. Cf. Geißler (1998, p. 216).

  72. One can argue that imperial investment in new aqueducts for Rome was driven by the need to provide water luxury and entertainment for the people (for instance lavish fountains, imperial thermae, gladiatorial games in the form of naval battles), in the same way as bread and circus games were crucial for propping up the regime: see Bruun (1997, pp. 124–126).

  73. On this conflict, see now Kehoe (2008, pp. 247–248). A short comment by Jaillette and Reduzzi Merola (2008, p. 234).

  74. Jaillette and Reduzzi Merola (2008, pp. 236–237).

  75. There is a well-known dossier of letters from the emperor Hadrian to the town of Koroneia in Boiotia, Greece, which among other matters concern Lake Kopais and aim at containing flooding, see Fossey (1991, esp. pp. 9–10 no. 7). Here, as in many instances of imperial activity, it is not so easy to draw a distinction between administrative measures and what should properly be called ‘legislation’.

  76. See e.g. Capogrossi Colognesi (1966, pp. 55–56). There is much debate about how these two definitions interrelate, but that cannot be discussed here.

  77. For the document, see text and commentary in Beltrán Lloris (2006).

  78. Roman rivers are one of the topics in Fiorentini (2003). There are general discussions of the derivation of riverine water in Longo (1965, 1966); see further below.

  79. On the efforts to prevent any changes to the flow of a river, see Fiorentini (2003, pp. 161–230).

  80. In Dig. 39.3.10.2, one encounters another passage from Ulpian’s commentary on the Praetor’s Edict (his Book 53), which says: ‘Labeo says that if a river is navigable, the praetor ought not to allow any leading of water from it which may render it less so’.

  81. Fiorentini (2003, pp. 234–238). The passage in the previous footnote is also to be interpreted in this way: ‘not allow’ means ‘interpose an interdict (prohibition) if someone breaks the rules and impedes navigation’.

  82. Fiorentini (2003, p. 230) n. 123: ‘La bibl. su D. 43.12.2 è immensa …’; the text has generated interest, for understandable reasons, since the Middle Ages; cf. ibid., 5–6 n. 8.

  83. Dig. 43.12.2: Quominus ex publico flumine ducatur aqua nihil impedit (nisi imperator vel senatus vetet), si modo ea aqua in usu publico non erit: sed si aut navigabile est aut ex eo aliud navigabile fit, non permittitur id facere. Fiorentini (2003, p. 231) n. 125 agrees with previous scholars who held that the emperor’s powers in this regard concerned imperial provinces, while the senate could determine the matter in so-called senatorial provinces (i.e. provinces of the Roman people). This is somewhat doubtful but Fiorentini is right that when Pomponius wrote this division may no longer have been relevant in Roman government. Longo (1966, p. 152) considers the second part, beginning with si modo ea aqua … to be a Justinian addition (see also in Longo 1965, p. 383). That would remove the passage from the discussion of Classical Roman law, while according to Longo (1966, p. 152), in the Byzantine context in usu publico simply means water that has not been assigned to any private party. Fiorentini (2003, p. 231) n. 124 disagrees with Longo’s suggestion of an interpolation.

  84. Fiorentini (2003, p. 237): ‘la derivazione era libera, salva opposizione dei terzi in caso di pregiudizio’; channelling water was allowed as long as no harm was done to navigation and no change in the level or the course of the river occurred, see also ibid., pp. 192–194; similarly, Longo (1966, p. 152): ‘la derivazione d’acqua dai fiumi pubblici—e da tutti, sia navigabili sia non navigabili—era libera’.

  85. Translation by Watson (1985) (slightly revised) of Dig. 8.3.17 Papirius Iustus libro primo de constitutionibus. Imperatores Antoninus et Verus Augusti rescripserunt aquam de flumine publico pro modo possessionum ad irrigandos agros dividi oportere, nisi proprio iure quis plus sibi datum ostenderit. Item rescripserunt aquam ita demum permitti duci, si sine iniuria alterius id fiat.

  86. Longo (1965, p. 378, 1966, pp. 158–159) argued that the phrase about someone receiving more by own right (nisi proprio iure quis plus sibi datum ostenderit) was interpolated; in disagreement Biondi (1938, p. 599). Fiorentini (2003, p. 239) n. 139 argues that the passage is composed of two separate rescripts, the second short and fairly evidently introduced by Item.

  87. Thus, for instance, Solazzi (1951, p. 380) with earlier literature; similarly Biondi (1938, p. 603–606) (on Dig. 43.20.3.2).

  88. Fiorentini 2003 does not voice an opinion in this regard.

  89. De aqua per rotam tollenda ex flumine vel haurienda, vel si quis servitutem castello imposuerit, quidam dubitaverunt, ne hae servitutes non essent: sed rescripto imperatoris Antonini ad Tullianum adicitur, licet servitus iure non valuit, si tamen hac lege comparavit seu alio quocumque legitimo modo sibi hoc ius adquisivit, tuendum esse eum, qui hoc ius possedit.

  90. See Capogrossi Colognesi (1966, pp. 34) n. 51, 35 n. 57; he also considered vel haurienda an interpolation (l.c. 41). Grosso (1969, p. 181) considers at least the last part qui hoc ius possedit a later addition; see the extensive comment in Saliou (1994, p. 144). Bannon (2009, p. 15) n. 42 is not aware of the discussion concerning interpolations. Möller (2010, pp. 78–79) quotes and briefly discusses the text, in general following Capogrossi Colognesi on the servitus aquaeductus.

  91. Biondi (1938) resolves the problems by assuming that both river and castellum were private, but his view is not supported by later scholars.

  92. Capogrossi Colognesi (1966, pp. 33–51), esp. 34–44; more recently, some comments in Fiorentini (2003, pp. 65, 112–114, 125), mostly addressing the technological aspect of drawing water from a river.

References

  • Alföldy G (1992) Studi sull’epigrafia augustea e tiberiana di Roma. Casa editrice Quasar, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannon CJ (2009) Gardens and Neighbors. Private water rights in Roman Italy. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes TD (2001) Foregrounding the Theodosian Code. J Roman Archaeol 14:671–685

    Google Scholar 

  • Beltrán Lloris F (2006) An irrigation decree from Roman Spain: the Lex Rivi Hiberiensis. J Roman Stud 96:147–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger A (1953) Encyclopedic dictionary of Roman Law (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society n.s. 43.2). The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia (repr. 1991)

  • Bianco AD (2007) ‘Aqua ducta, aqua distributa’. La gestione delle risorse idriche in età romana. Silvio Zamorani editore, Torino

  • Biondi B (1938) La categoria romana delle servitutes. Società editrice “Vita e pensiero”, Milano

  • Biundo R (2008) La gestion publique de l’eau: finances municipales et centre du pouvoir à l’époque impériale. In: Hermon E (ed) Vers une gestion intégrée de l’eau dans l’empire romain. «L’Erma’ di Bretschneider, Rome, pp 163–174

  • Bruun C (1991) The water supply of Ancient Rome. A study of Roman imperial administration. Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruun C (1997) Acquedotti e condizioni sociali di Roma imperiale: immagini e realtà. In: La Rome impériale démographie et logistique (Collection École Française de Rome 230). École Française de Rome, Rome, pp 121–155

  • Bruun C (2000) Water legislation in the ancient world (c. 2200 b.c.–a.d. 500). In: Wikander Ö (ed) Handbook of ancient water technology. E.J. Brill, Leiden, pp 539–604

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruun C (2003) Frontinus and the “Nachleben” of his De aquaeductu from Antiquity to the Baroque. In: Bruun C, Saastamoinen A (eds) Technology, Ideology, Water: From Frontinus to the Renaissance and beyond. Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, Rome, pp 41–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruun C (2007) Why did Frontinus write the De Aquaeductu? J Roman Archaeol 20:460–466

    Google Scholar 

  • Buonocore M (1994) Fra epigrafia e topografia. L’acquedotto di Amiternum (L’Aquila). J Ancient Topogr 4:185–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Camodeca G (1997) Una ignorata galleria stradale d’età augustea fra Lucrinum e Baiae e la più antica iscrizione di un curator aquae Augustae (10 d.c.). Aion Archeologia Storia Antica n.s. 4:191–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell B (2000) The writings of the Roman Land Surveyors. Introduction, text, translation and commentary. Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Capogrossi Colognesi L (1966) Ricerche sulla struttura delle servitù d’acqua in diritto romano. Dott. A. Giuffrè editore, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Catalano R (2003) Acqua e acquedotti romani. ‘Fontis Augustei Aquaeductus’. Arte Tipografica Editrice, Napoli

  • Chiari MM (1982) Saepinum. Museo documentario dell’Altilia. Soprintendenza archeologica del Molise, Istituto di Archeologia dell’Università di Perugia, Campobasso

  • Connolly S (2010) Lives behind the laws. The world of the Codex Hermogenianus. Indiana University Press, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford M et al (1996) Roman Statutes I-II. Institute of Classical Studies, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Chicca F (2004) Frontino De aquae ductu urbis Romae. Herder editrice e libreria, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Chicca F (2005) Il regime delle concessioni di aqua publica ai privati nella testimonianza di Frontino. In: Riera I (ed) In binos actus lumina. Rivista di studi e ricerche sull’idraulica storica e la storia della tecnica 2:28–33

  • De Ruggiero E (1895) Aqua—Aquae ductus. In: Dizionario Epigrafico, vol I. Accademia dei Lincei, Roma, pp 537–565

  • Eck W (1995) Die Wasserversorgung im Römischen Reich: Sozio-politische Bedingungen, Recht und Administration. In: Eck W, Die Verwaltung des Römischen Reiches in der Hohen Kaiserzeit. Ausgewählte und erweiterte Beiträge, vol I. Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag, Basel, pp 179–252 (orig. 1982)

  • Eck W (1998) Die fistulae aquarum der Stadt Rom. Zum Einfluß des sozialen Status auf administratives Handeln, Eck W, Die Verwaltung des Römischen Reiches in der Hohen Kaiserzeit. Ausgewählte und erweiterte Beiträge vol. II. Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag, Basel, pp 245–277

  • Fahlbusch H (1982) Über Abflußmessungen und Standardisierungen bei den Wasserversorgungsanlagen Roms. In: Frontinus-Gesellschaft (ed) Wasserversorgung im antiken Rom: Sextus Iulius Frontinus, curator aquarum. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein, pp 129–144

  • Fiorentini M (2003) Fiumi e mari nell’esperienza giuridica romana. Profili di tutela processuale e di inquadramento sistematico. Dott. A. Giuffrè editore, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Fossey JM (1991) Epigraphica Boeotica I: studies in Boiotian Inscriptions. J.C. Gieben, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Frier B (1980) Landlords and tenants in imperial Rome. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Geißler K (1998) Die öffentliche Wasserversorgung im römischen Recht. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • González J (1986) The Lex Irnitana. A new copy of the Flavian Municipal Law. J Roman Stud 76:147–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon WM, Robinson OF (1988) The Institutes of Gaius. Duckworth, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosso G (1969) Le servitù prediali nel diritto romano. G. Giappichelli editore, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Harries J (1999) Law and empire in late antiquity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harries J, Woods I (1993) The Theodosian Code. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris R (2004) Pompeii. Arrow Books, London (first publ. 2003)

  • Hodge AT (2000) Reservoirs and Dams. In: Wikander Ö (ed) Handbook of ancient water technology. E. J. Brill, Leiden, pp 331–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge AT (2002) Roman aqueducts and water supply, 2nd edn. Duckworth, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Honoré T (1994) Emperors and lawyers. With a ‘Palingenesia’ of third-century imperial rescripts 193–305 ad, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Honoré T (1998) Law in the crisis of empire 379–455 ad. The Theodosian Dynasty and its Quaestors. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jaillette P and Reduzzi Merola, F (2008) L’eau à usage agricole dans la législation romaine de l’époque tardive: du Code Théodosien au Code Justinien. In: Hérmon E (ed) Vers une gestion intégrée de l’eau dans l’empire romain. «L’Erma» di Bretschneider, Rome, pp 229–241

  • Kehoe D (2008) Economics and the Law of Water Rights in the Roman Empire. In: Hérmon E (ed) Vers une gestion intégrée de l’eau dans l’empire romain. «L’Erma» di Bretschneider, Rome, pp 243–251

  • Krueger P (1890) Codices Gregorianus et Hermogenianus. In: Mommsen Th, Krueger P (eds) Collatio librorum Iuris Anteiustiniani vol. III. Weidmann, Berolini, pp 221–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenel O (1927) Das Edictum Perpetuum. Ein Versuch seiner Wiederherstellung, 3rd edn. B. Tauchnitz, Leipzig (repr. Aalen 1956)

  • Lewis N, Reinhold M (1966) Roman Civilization Sourcebook, vol. II: The Empire, 2nd edn. Columbia University Press, New York

  • Liebenam W (1900) Städteverwaltung im römischen Kaiserreiche. Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig (repr. 1967)

  • Longo G (1965) Il regime delle concessioni e le derivazioni di acque pubbliche nel diritto romano classico e giustinianeo. In: Studi in memoria di Guido Zanobini, vol. V. Dott. A. Giuffrè editore, Milano, pp 361–384

  • Longo G (1966) Sull’uso delle acque pubbliche in diritto romano. In: Longo G, Ricerche romanistiche. Dott. A. Giuffrè editore, Milano, 149–177 (orig. 1933, Studi U. Ratti)

  • Matthews J (2000) Laying down the law: a study of the Theodosian Code. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller C (2010) Die Servituten. Entwicklungsgeschichte, Funktion und Struktur der grundstückvermittelten Privatrechtverhältnisse im römischen Recht. Mit einem Ausblick auf die Rezeptionsgeschichte und das BGB. Wallstein, Göttingen

  • Palma A (1987) Le derivazioni di acqua ex castello. Index 15:439–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Palma A (1988) ‘Iura vicinitatis’. Solidarietà e limitazioni nel rapporto di vicinato in diritto romano dell‘età classica. G. Giappichelli editore, Torino

  • Pantoni A (1960–61) L’editto augusteo sull’acquedotto di Venafro e una sua replica alle fonti del Volturno. Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia d’Archeologia 33:155–171

  • Peachin M (2001) Jurists and the law in the early Roman Empire. In: De Blois L (ed) Administration, prosopography and appointment policies in the Roman Empire. J.C. Gieben, Amsterdam, pp 109–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Pharr C (transl. 1952) The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions. Princeton University Press, Princeton (reprint Greenwood Press, New York, 1969)

  • Robinson OF (1997) The sources of Roman Law: problems and methods for ancient historians. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers RH (2004) Frontinus, De aqueductu urbis Romae. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Almeida E (2000) Breve nota sulla lex di una furcatio aquaria. Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome (Antiquité) 112:231–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saliou C (1994) Les lois de batiments. Voisinage et habitat urbain dans l’empire romain. Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche Orient, Beyrouth

  • Sargenti M (1995) Il codice teodosiano: tra mito e realtà. Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 61:373–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Hofner S (2008) Reagieren und Gestalten. Der Regierungsstil des spätrömischen Kaisers am Beispiel der Gesetzgebung Valentinians I. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmölder A (2009) Brunnen in den Städten des westlichen Römischen Reichs. Dr. Ludwig Reichert, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnitter N (1992) Römische Talsperren und Wehre auf der Iberischen Halbinsel. Mitteilungen des Leichtweiss-Instituts für Wasserbau der TU Braunschweig 117:159–177

  • Segenni S (2005) Frontino, gli archivi della cura aquarum e l’acquedotto tardo repubblicano di Amiternum (CIL, I2 1853 = ILLRP, 487). Athenaeum 93:603–618

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirks AJB (1991) Food for Rome. The legal structure of the transportation and processing of supplies for the imperial distributions in Rome and Constantinople. J.C. Gieben, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirks AJB (2001) Making a request to the emperor: rescripts in the Roman Empire. In: De Blois L (ed) Administration, prosopography and appointment policies in the Roman Empire. J.C. Gieben, Leiden, pp 121–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirks AJB (2007a) Supplying Rome: safeguarding the system. In: Papi E (ed) Supplying Rome and the Empire (JRA Supplement 61). J Roman Archaeol, Portsmouth, pp 173–178

  • Sirks AJB (2007b) The Theodosian Code. A study, Éditions Tortuga, Friedrichsdorf

  • Solazzi S (1951) Un editto del pretore sulla servitù di acquedotto? In: Festschrift Fritz Schultz I. Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, Weimar, pp 380–387

  • Sperandio MU (2005) Codex Gregorianus origini e vicende. Jovene editore, Napoli

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor R (2000) Public needs and private pleasures. Water distribution, the Tiber river and the urban development of ancient Rome. «L’Erma» di Bretschneider, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson A (1985) The Digest of Justinian I–IV. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss A (2004) Sklave der Stadt. Untersuchungen zur öffentlichen Sklaverei in den Städten des Römischen Reiches. Franz Steiner, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger L (1953) Die Quellen des römischen Rechts. Verlag Adolf Holzhausens Nfg, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson A (1999) Deliveries extra urbem: aqueducts and the countryside. J Roman Archaeol 12(1):314–331

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article owes much to the splendid hospitality of the Institute of Advanced Study of Durham University, where I spent the autumn term of 2009 as a Fellow. It is my pleasure to thank Anna Leone, Edmund Thomas, and Tony Wilkinson for organizing the 2009 conference in Durham, and Andrew Wilson for his patient and careful editing of this article. I am also grateful to Dennis Kehoe and Kyle Harper for discussing some of the issues with me, and above all to the three anonymous referees for their penetrating remarks, in particular on matters of Roman law. I am solely to blame for remaining mistakes or misunderstandings. Translations from the Digest are from Watson 1985.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Toronto, Lillian Massey Building, 125 Queen’s Park, Toronto, ON, M5S 2C7, Canada

    Christer Bruun

Authors
  1. Christer Bruun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christer Bruun.

Additional information

Abbreviations

CIL = Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften (1862-1916) Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. G. Reimer/W. de Gruyter, Berlin

CJ = Codex Justinianus : Krueger P (1877) Codex Iustinianus. In: Krueger P, Mommsen Th (eds) Corpus Iuris Civilis vol. II. Weidmann, Berlin

CTh = Codex Theodosianus : Mommsen Th, Meyer PM (1905) Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutionibus Sirmondianis et leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes. Weidmann, Berlin

Dig = Digesta : Mommsen Th (1870) Digesta Iustiniani Augusti. In: Krueger P, Mommsen Th (eds) Corpus Iuris Civilis vol. I. Weidmann, Berlin

ILS = Dessau H (ed) (1892–1916) Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. Weidmann, Berlin

PLRE = Jones AHM, Martindale JR, Morris J (1971–1992) The prosopography of the later Roman Empire. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bruun, C. Roman emperors and legislation on public water use in the Roman Empire: clarifications and problems. Water Hist 4, 11–33 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12685-012-0051-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12685-012-0051-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation