¹ Criminum, si quae residua ex priore tempore manebant, omnium gratiam fecit.

² See e.g. Bauman, R. A., Impietas in Principem(Munich, 1974), pp. 205, 208Google Scholar; Barrett, A. A., Caligula: The Corruption of Power(London, 1989), pp. 64,93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Note once more what Suetonius says (n. 1) and contrast with the wider immunity given by Claudius (Dio 60.3.6): Contrary to what Bauman, p. 205, seems to imply, there is no question here of the abolition of a lex–as the Loeb translator saw, Caligula simply did away with a set of charges brought under that law.

⁴ We find no merit in the argument that Caligula here is revoking Augustus' supposed (see Cic. adFam.3.11.2 with Keaveney, A., ‘Studies in the Dominatio Sullae’, Klio 65 [1983], 201–202)CrossRefGoogle Scholar first extension of the definition of maiestasto include libel (Tac. Ann.1.72 with Fumeaux, H., The Annals of Tacitus [Oxford, 1896]Google Scholar, 2 vols, vol. I, pp. 274–5 or Goodyear, F. R. D., The Annals of Tacitus [Cambridge, 1972], vol. II, pp. 141–53; cfGoogle Scholar. Allison, J. E. and Cloud, J. D., ‘The Lex Julia Maiestatis’, Latomus 21 [1962], 711–731, at 718 and Bauman, p. 3), referring the reader to our nn. 1 and 3 above, and adding only that the libelliin Ann.1.72 (see below) are of the type we find in Pliny Ep.7.27.14 (with Sherwin-White ad loc.) rather than that in Suet. Div.Aug.55 or Dio 56.27.1.Google Scholar

⁵ ‘Did emperors ever suspend the law of "Maiestas"’, in Sodalitas: Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino,Bibl. di Labeo VIII (Naples, 1984), pp. 469–80, at pp. 469–70.Google Scholar

⁶ See Bauman, p. 5, and Tacitus cited in n. 4 above.

⁷ See also Suet. Gaius30.2. The Loeb translation of (Dio 59.16.8) as ‘the charge of maiestas’is misleading. Bauman, p. 208 n. 107, is uneasy with the plural, admits it is not generic, and tries to explain it as ‘no doubt reflecting a maiestatis criminain (Dio’s) source’. However, if Dio had a generic recindment in mind surely he would have used the singular ().Google ScholarThere is nothing in the ancient evidence to support Balsdon's, J. P. V. D. assertion, The Emperor Gaius (Oxford, 1934), pp. 150–151Google Scholar, that Gaius revised the law of maiestasnow. The Romans, living as they did in a pre-technological society, were, of course, completely familiar with the practice of public proclamation, followed by permanent engraved recoid; Hinard, cf. F., Les Proscriptions de la Rome republicaine (Rome, 1985), pp. 18–28, 32–35. Caligula's action is, therefore, nothing more than a slightly eccentric variant on well established custom, as are the rather strange proclamations attributed to Claudius in Suet. Div. Claud.16.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. Dio 59.16: It is grammatically preferable to refer the anaphoric here to rather than to the more remote . (This is the interpretation of Bauman, p. 208, but on p. 209 n. 112 he seems to go beyond the evidence.) Thus, we believe that the inscribed charges are those mentioned in 59.4.3 and 59.6.2–3. (Admittedly it is clear from Dio 59.16.8 and 59.16.1–2 that the senators were in fear not merely of charges based on behaviour in Tiberius' reign but also on conduct since his death. But their fear in the latter case, i.e. of new charges, was natural once the old charges had been reactivated and inscribed.)

⁹ Allison and Cloud, pp. 723–4 (cf. also pp. 729–30) hold that the law of maiestasthen operative was that of Julius, which laid down as a penalty the aquae atque ignis interdictio.They thus claim this was a formal abolition of the death penalty. In our opinion this is mistaken and we would adhere to the view that the interdictio,since it involves the caput,is itself a capital penalty. See Strachan-Davidson, J. L., Problems of the Roman Criminal Law (Oxford, 1912), 2 vols, vol. 2, pp. 16–74 (esp. pp. 23–8); Keaveney (1983), pp. 204–206; Hinard, pp. 37 n. 86, 78–80, 325. Allison and Cloud's theory also leaves them with the difficulty, which they acknowledge (pp. 724–30), that here, as elsewhere (see Furneaux, vol. 1, pp. 141–3), the emperors applied the death penalty under the law. Their proposed solution that ‘the legally prescribed penalties [are no] more than a guiding line’ (p. 726) which could be exceeded carries, in our view, less than total conviction (cf. the lucid discussion of Goodyear, vol. 2, pp. 143–5), especially as it fails to recognize that the interdictiois a capital punishment. The legal effect of the interdictiois the same as that of sacratio.A man declared sacercould be killed on sight, although in practice this rarely happened under the Republic (Strachan-Davidson, vol. 2, pp. 31–41). The instances where it did happen, namely in the proscriptions of Sulla and the Triumvirs, show very clearly how the interdictiocould be taken to its logical conclusion (Strachan-Davidson, vol. 2, p. 56; Hinard, pp. 35–7). It is our contention, therefore, that the emperors did not act illegally. In some instances they suffered the sacerto live in exile (cf. Strachan–Davidson, vol. 2, pp. 55–8), but in others they applied the full rigour of the law and had him executed.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The evidence is too ambiguous to give a definitive judgement as may be seen, for example, from the suggestions of Sandison, A. T., ‘The madness of Caligula’, Medical History 2(1958), 202–209CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Benediktson, D. T., ‘Caligula's madness: madness or interictal temporal lobe epilepsy’, CIV 82 (1989), 370–375; see Barrett, op. cit., pp. 73, 271 n. 4.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. Dio 59.4.1. We would add that Gaius' engraving of charges on a steleis further manifestation of his capriciousness (see n. 7).Google Scholar

¹² For a parallel under the Republic see Keaveney, A., ‘Civis Romanus sum’, Crit Stor 21 (1984), 355 and Strachan-Davidson, vol. 1, p. 121.Google Scholar

¹³ We readily admit to being far less certain about the correct categorization of some of these cases than Bauman passimappears to be. In what follows we have kept before us the vagueness and flexibility of the concept of maiestas.See Th. Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht(Leipzig, 1899), pp. 537–94; REBand XIV, 1 col. 542–559 (Kiibler); or, more briefly, Barrett, pp. 64–65.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Dio 59.8.1–3, who is supported by Philo Leg.23–31. The need for prudence is underlined by the rather different tale told by Suetonius Gains23. 3. It should be noted that Dio also says that the charge deployed against Tiberius was also used by Caligula against many more unnamed victims. Allison and Cloud, pp. 719–20, point out that, since at least the time of Sulla, maiestashad embraced insults of any kind to persons of importance.Google Scholar

¹⁵ But obviously not if we elect to follow Suetonius' version. Following Dio we divine ‘in private’ from his words (59.8.2) The precedent for this goes back to A.D. 20. See Tac. Am.3.10–12, Furneaux ad loc. Cf. also Dio 59.18.1.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Dio 59.10.4. This case is mentioned by Dio with a number of others where the accused also wound up in the arena (59.10.1–5), but there is no reason to suppose that these other victims were charged with maiestas.Google Scholar

¹⁷ As Bauman, p. 106, admits (see our n. 13). He then accepts without question that the charge against the equeswas maiestas,but as this is fatal to his own thesis he is forced into the unconvincing position of having to argue that Dio has dated the case a year too early and that Dio is referring to when the crime was allegedly committed (A.D. 38) and not to when it was supposed (A.D. 39) to have been punished (cf. his n. 211). In fact, as Bauman is forced to admit, the crime is virtually undateable. See further, n. 19.Google Scholar

¹⁸ In the narrative this comes after the enforced suicide of Macro and Ennia (59.10.6) on a charge of adultery, see Bauman, p. 176.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Dio 59.10.8. Cf. Dio 59.4.3, which also shows that these victims must be differentiated from those of A.D. 39. The fact that Dio suggests the charges were trumped up does not, of course, mean they were not brought. As these men were put to death for something they had done under Tiberius, it becomes obvious that our eques(in n. 17) could have committed his crime then or perhaps later.Google Scholar

²⁰ Dio 59.13.1–8. It seems clear from Dio 59.16.1 that these events preceded the rehabilitation of Tiberius.Google Scholar

²¹ See Balsdon, p. 43, and the Loeb edn of Dio n. 2 on 57.14.10.Google Scholar

²² This incontrovertible case has naturally caused difficulties for those who wish to believe that Gaius had abolished the lex maiestatis.Thus Barrett asserts (p. 86) that some lesser charge is more likely here but offers no evidence or argument. Bauman's treatment (pp. 105–6) is most unsatisfactory. He believes Caligula abolished the lex maiestatisentirely (pp. 23,20S) but still sees this incident as an instance of impietas(i.e. maiestas)and makes no attempt to resolve the contradiction. A. Ferrill, Caligula Emperor of Rome(London, 1991), pp. 98, 112–113, is also inconsistent. He notes the destruction of documents relating to specific cases at the start of the reign but then goes on to talk of a revival of the treason law when the documents were resurrected in A.D. 39.Google Scholar

²³ Cf. Bauman, p. 210; M. Grant, The Twelve Caesars(London, 1975), pp. 118–19.Google Scholar

²⁴ Notably in the biographies of Barrett and Ferrill.Google Scholar

²⁵ We should like to thank an anonymous referee for some helpful suggestions.Google Scholar