Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T19:34:33.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Senate, the courts, and the SC de Cn. Pisone patre*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. S. Richardson
J. S. Richardson
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The origins and nature of the judicial role of the senate in cases which under the republic were the business of the permanent quaestiones have been the subject of long debate, and a satisfactory explanation has yet to be found for the change that had undoubtedly taken place by the reign of Tiberius. The discovery and publication of the senatorial decree which concluded the investigation into the charge brought in A.D. 20 against Cn. Piso following the murder of Germanicus,2 in addition to the wealth of new material it provides for the political history of the period and the understanding of the methods of the historian Tacitus, allows an insight into the relation of the senate to the quaestio maiestatis which may prove useful in unravelling some of the puzzles which have troubled scholars hitherto.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , December 1997 , pp. 510 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See the useful summary of views in Talbert, R. J. A., The Senate of Imperial Rome(1984), pp. ,460–4. For a careful and still valuable examination of the whole question of senatorial ‘judicial’ procedure, see F. de Marini Avonzo, Lafunzione giurisdizionale del senato romano(Milan 1957).Google Scholar

2 Eck, W., Caballos, A., AND Fernandez, F., Das senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre (Vestigia48, 1996).Google Scholar

3 Tacitus, Ann.1.72.3: legem maiestatis reduxerat.A similar phrase occurs in Pliny, Pan.11.1, who states that dicavit caelo Tiberius Augustum, sedut maiestatis legem induceret,which suggests, wrongly, that Tiberius first introduced the statute.Google Scholar

4 Tacitus, Ann.1.72.4: mox Tiberius, consul tun le Pompeio Macro praetore an indicia maiestatis redderentur, exercendas leges esse respondit.Suetonius, Tib.59, provides instances of such verses.

5 Tacitus, Ann.1.73.1,74.2.Google Scholar

6 See the brief history of the leges de maiestatein J. D. Cloud, ‘The Constitution and the Criminal Law’, CAHix2 (1994), 491–530, at pp. 518–520.; O. F. Robinson, The Criminal Law of Ancient Rome(1995), pp. 74–78. On the identity of the lex Mia,Google Scholar see Allison, J. E. and Cloud, J. D., ‘The Lex Julia maiestatis’, Latomus 21 (1962), 711–31Google Scholar and Cloud, J. D., ‘The Text of D 48.4, ad legem Iuliam maiestatis’, ZSS 80 (1963), 206–232.Google Scholar

7 Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome,p. 466. Talbert acknowledges (loc cit.)the possibility that the trial of Antistius Vetus from Macedonia in 21 (Tacitus, Ann.3.38.2–3) took place before a quaestio,but properly observes that this is conceivable and no more than that. There is no indication in Tacitus' account as to where this hearing was held.

8 Thus Henry Furneaux, in his edition of the Annals I-VI(1884), p. 246, concluded that ‘from this answer to the praetor it is to be gathered that, besides the numerous trials for ‘maiestas’ held before the senate, which alone are reported by Tacitus, other persons, apparently of lower rank, must have been tried under this law before the courts.’ So too Eck et al. Das senatus consul turn,pp. 231, n. 737Google Scholar

9 Thus Pliny, ep.2.11.2, where both men were involved in the prosecution of Marius Priscus in 100.

10 Thus Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome,pp. 470–2,487; Robinson, O. F., ‘The Role of the Senate in Roman Criminal Law during the Principate’, Journal of Legal History 17 (1996), 130–143, at p. 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Tacitus, Ann.1.73.2: nam legem maiestatem reduxerat;cf. Pliny, Pan.11.1 (see above n. 1).

12 Tacitus, Ann.2.50.1,4.34.3

13 Paulisent.5.29; D.48.4; Cod. Theod9.5; Cod Just.9.8; Inst.4.18.3.

14 So Jones, A. H. M., The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate(1972), pp. 106–107.Google Scholar

15 The clearest example is the lex repetundarumfrom the tabula Bembina (Roman Statutes,Law 1), but fragments of many similar statutes have survived (thus Roman Statutes,Laws 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, and perhaps 20 and 21).Google Scholar

16 This was indeed argued by Siber, H., Romisches Verfassungsrecht in geschichtlicher Entwickling(1952)Google Scholar, p. 290, and Jones, A. H. M., ‘Imperial and Senatorial Jurisdiction in the Early Principate’, Historia 3 (1955), 464–488, at pp. 487–8 (= Studies in Roman Government and Law[1960], pp. 67–98, at 97–8).Google Scholar

17 Hence the frustration of modern scholars in attempting to explain the change, for example Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome,pp. 462–4; Robinson, The Criminal Law of Ancient Rome,pp. 7–9.Google Scholar

18 Livy 43. 2.1–11.

19 Sherk, R. K., RDGEno. 31; J. Oliver, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri(1989), no. 12.Google Scholar

20 Magnesia v. Priene (Syll.3679); Narthacium v. Melitaea (Syll.1674); Lacedaemonia v. Messene (57/.3 683); Priene v. Samos (Syll.3 688); Hierapytna v. Itanos (Inscr. Cret.III.4.9 and 10), See Marshall, A. J., ‘The Survival and Development of International Jurisdiction in the Greek World’, ANRW2 13 (1980), 626–661.Google Scholar

21 This is also the role of the senate in the appeal of the city of Oropus in 73 B.C. against the actions of publicaniin taxes on lands belonging to the god Amphiaraus, contrary to the exemption given by Sulla (Sherk, RDGEno. 23).Google Scholar

22 Bleicken, J., Senatsgericht und Kaisergericht—eine Studie zur Entwicklung des Prozefirechtes imfriihen Prinzipat (Abh. Akad. Gottingen, phil.-hist. Kl.,3 Folge, nr. 53,1962)Google Scholar

23 Tacitus, Ann.4.19.2: nee infringendum consulis ius, cuius vigiliis niteretur ne quod respublica detrimentum caperet.Tacitus notes this as an instance of Tiberius' use of antiquated terminology to conceal new villainies (scelera nuper reperta priscis verbis obtegere).

24 Cassius Dio 48.33.3.

25 Kunkel, W., Uber die Entstehung des Senatsgericht (Sitzb. Bayer. Akad Wiss., phil.-hist. KL,Heft 2, 1969) [= Kleine Schriften(1974), pp. 279–323].Google Scholar

26 Kunkel, Senatsgericht,pp. 7–9 [= KS,pp. 270–2]; Cicero, in Cat.,4.5.10.Google Scholar

27 Kunkel, Senatsgericht,pp. 14–20 [= KS,pp. 277–84]; Cassius Dio 53.23.7–24.1. Suetonius' account (Div. Aug.,66.1–2) is different from Dio's but compatible with it. Ammianus, 17.4.5, has a garbled version of the story.Google Scholar

28 Kunkel, Senatsgericht,pp. 61–4 [= KS,pp. 320–3].Google Scholar

29 The text with a German translation can now be found in Eck et al., Das senatus consul turn,pp. 38–51. For the relatio,see lines 4–11.Google Scholar

30 quid de Visellio Karo et Sempronio Basso, comitibus I Cn. Pisonis patris, iudicaret senatus(lines 10–11). See Eck et al, Das senatus consultum, pp. 137–138.Google Scholar

31 Eck et al., Das senatus consultum,pp. 230–2.Google Scholar

32 This is the standard penalty under the lex Mia(Cic, Phil.1.9.23; Tac, Ann.3.50.4).

33 On the meaning of oportere,see Daube, D., Forms of Roman legislation (Oxford, 1956), pp. 8–23.Google Scholar

34 Cic, Verr.2.93; 5.14; Pis.97. Cf. Cic, Att.4.17.5.

35 This is stated explicitly by Cicero, at inv.2.59 and Sull.63 (see Jones, The Criminal Courts,pp. 73–4).

36 On the process, see, for instance, Jones, The Criminal Courts,pp. 58.79.

37 See above n. 4. Eck et ai, Das senatus consultum,pp. 231, n. 737, believe that Macer's question related only to cases heard in his own court. This is not what Tacitus, Ann.1.72.3, says; and the distinction ignores the place of this passage in Tacitus' presentation of the maiestastrials (see above p. 510–11).

38 See above n. 27. Eck et ai, Das senatus consultum,pp. 231, n. 732, argue that the senate can only have made a recommendation to the court that Gallus be condemned; but that is not what Dio, 53.23.7, says. In Dio's text, the senate votes for Gallus' condemnation in the courts and his punishment. This is strikingly like the position of the two comitesin the SCde Cn. Pisone patre.

39 See now M. Crawford et al., Roman Statutes(1996), nos. 37–8, with bibliography and brief commentary.Google Scholar

40 See F. G. B. Millar, ‘Imperial Ideology in the Tabula Siarensis’, in J. Gonzalez and J. Arce, Estudios sobre laTabula Siarensis (1988), pp. 11–19, and J. S. Richardson, ‘The Rogatio Valeria Aurelia: Form and Content’, Ibid., pp. 35–41. Note in particular the suspension of the requirement for the period of notice (trinum nundinum)in the presentation of the rogatio,normally waived only in cases of emergency (Tab. Siar.,col. II, 11. 28–30; see Roman Statutes,p. 536).