Chapter 39

[1734]ib. xiii. 28 (A.D.56) “cohibita artius et aedilium potestas statutumque quantum curules, quantum plebei pignoris caperent vel poenae inrogarent.”[1735]GaiusInst.i. 6 (of thejus edicendi) “amplissimum jus est in edictis duorum praetorum ... item in edictis aedilium curulium.” Their edict was codified under Hadrian, and appears inDig.21, 1.[1736]Karlowa (Rechtsgesch.i. p. 532) thus distributes them—two urban, four of the consuls, twelve for the public provinces, and two attached to the Emperor.[1737]See § 5.[1738]See chap. xi.[1739]The practice first began in 38B.C.(Dio Cass. xlviii. 43). Cf. Tac.Ann.xvi. 34 “Tum ad Thraseam in hortis agentem quaestor consulis missus.” They were selected by the consuls themselves (Plin.Ep.iv. 15, 8).[1740]Dig.1, 13, 1, 2 and 4 “sane non omnes quaestores provincias sortiebantur, verum excepti erant candidati principis ... qui ... epistulas ejus in senatu legunt.”[1741]Tac.Ann.xi. 22 (A.D.47) “quaestura ... velut venundaretur.”[1742]The obligation imposed in 47 was modified in 54A.D.(Tac.Ann.xi. 22; xiii. 5), but was renewed under Domitian (Suet.Dom.4).[1743]Vita Alexandri43 “quaestores candidatos ex sua pecunia jussit munera populo dare ... arcarios vero instituit, qui de arca fisci ederent munera eademque parciora.”[1744]The tribunate is to the younger Pliny “inanis umbra et sine honore nomen” (Ep.i 23).[1745]Tac.Ann.i. 77 (A.D.15, on the proposal ofjus virgarum in histriones) “intercessit Haterius Agrippa tribunus plebei increpitusque est Asinii Galli oratione, silente Tiberio, qui ea simulacra libertatis senatui praebebat.”[1746]Tac.Hist.iv. 9 (A.D.69, on the praetors of theaerariumannouncing a deficit) “cum perrogarent sententias consules, Volcatius Tertullinus tribunus plebis intercessit, ne quid super tanta re principe absente statueretur.” This is the last recorded instance of theintercessio(Momms.Staatsr.ii. p. 309 n. 1).[1747]Tac.Ann.vi. 47 [53] (inA.D.37 a woman was accused ofmajestas) “qua damnata cum praemium accusatori decerneretur, Junius Otho tribunus plebei intercessit, unde ... mox Othoni exitium.” Rusticus Arulenus, aflagrans juvenis, offered to veto the decree of the Senate which condemned Thrasea Paetus inA.D.66 (xvi. 26).[1748]ib. xiii. 28 “inter Vibullium praetorem et plebei tribunum Antistium ortum certamen, quod immodestos fautores histrionum et a praetore in vincla ductos tribunos omitti jussisset.”[1749]Tac.Hist.ii. 91 (Vitellius, when Emperor, attacked by Helvidius Priscus in the Senate) “commotus ... non tamen ultra quam tribunos plebis in auxilium spretae potestatis advocavit.”[1750]InA.D.56 they were forbidden “vocare ex Italia cum quibus lege agi posset” (Tac.Ann.xiii. 28). See Appendix.[1751]Tac. l.c.[1752]Juvenal vii. 228 “Rara tamen merces, quae cognitione tribuni Non egeat.” The words doubtless mean “which does not lead to theappellatio.” In such a case even the Republican tribunes took “cognisance” of the merits of the appeal. The explanation that the tribunes were now given some extraordinary jurisdiction in civil cases is unnecessary.[1753]p. 365.[1754]Dio Cass. liv. 26.[1755]ib. lx. 11.[1756]e.g.Cod.6, 60, 1 (A.D.319) “Imp. Constantinus A. consulibus, praetoribus tribunis plebis senatui salutem.”[1757]Suet.Aug.40 “Comitiorum quoque pristinum jus reduxit.”[1758]p. 344.[1759]Dio Cass. lvi. 40 (Augustus) ἐκ ... τοῦ δήμου τὸ δύσκριτον ἐν ταῖς διαγνώσεσιν ἐς τὴν τῶν δικαστηρίων ἀκρίβειαν μεταστήσας.[1760]e.g. the Julian laws passed by Augustus in theconcilium plebis, thelex Junia Norbanaof the reign of Tiberius,plebiscitaof Claudius. The last knownlexis an agrarian law of Nerva (Dig.47, 21, 3, 1).[1761]Dio Cass. liii. 21 (when the election was entrusted to the people, Augustus) ἐπεμελεῖτο ὅπως μήτ’ ἀνεπιτήδειοι μήτ’ ἐκ παρακελεύσεως ἤ καὶ δεκασμοῦ ἀποδεικνύωνται. Cf. Tac.Ann.i. 15 “potissima arbitrio principis, quaedam tamen studiis tribuum fiebant.”[1762]Tac.Ann.i. 15. The change was, we are told by Velleius (ii. 124), in accordance with the instructions of Augustus.[1763]p. 188.[1764]Dio Cass. lviii. 20.[1765]p. 349. InC.I.L.vi. 10213 we find a notice of “improbae comitiae in Aventino, ubi (Sej)anus cos. factus est.” We find Vitellius canvassing for his candidates in the circus (Tac.Hist.ii. 91 “comitia consulum cum candidatis civiliter celebrans omnem infimae plebis rumorem in theatro ut spectator, in circo ut fautor adfectavit”). On the other hand, we haveab senatu destinatusin the inscription quoted on p. 349 n. 6. Dio Cassius (lix. 20), in speaking of the temporary restoration of popular elections by Caligula, mentions them in connexion with the consulship.[1766]Dio Cass. xxxvii. 28.[1767]p. 369.[1768]p. 364.[1769]p. 365.[1770]p. 364. Hence the expression “nondum senatoria aetate” (Tac.Ann.xv. 28;Hist.iv. 42).[1771]Dio Cass. liv. 17, 30; Tac.Ann.i. 75, ii. 37.[1772]He declared “non lecturum se senatorem nisi civis Romani abnepotem” (Suet.Claud.24).[1773]Vita Commodi6 “ad cujus (Cleandri) nutum etiam libertini in senatum atque in patricios lecti sunt”;Vita Elagabali11 “Fecit libertos praesides, legatos, consules, duces.”[1774]Tac.Ann.iii. 4 “simul novi homines e municipiis et coloniis atque etiam provinciis in senatum crebro adsumpti”; Suet.Vesp.9 “Amplissimos ordines ... purgavit supplevitque, recenso senatu et equite ... honestissimo quoque Italicorum ac provincialium adlecto.”[1775]Tac.Ann.xi 25; Prof. Pelham inClassical Reviewix. p. 441.[1776]Plin.Ep.vi. 19.[1777]Vita Marci11.[1778]For the infliction of such anotaby Domitian see Suet.Dom.8, “quaestorium virum, quod gesticulandi saltandique studio teneretur, movit senatu.”[1779]p. 347.[1780]Tac.Ann.iv. 42 (Tiberius) “Apidium ... Merulam, quod in acta divi Augusti non juraverat, albo senatorio erasit.”[1781]ib. iii. 17; vi. 48.[1782]ib. iv. 31; xii. 59.[1783]Dio Cass. lv. 3; Tac.Ann.iv. 42.[1784]Dio Cass. liii. 1 (Augustus in 28B.C.during the censorship of himself and Agrippa) ἐν αὐταῖς (ταῖς ἀπογραφαῖς) πρόκριτος τῆς γερουσίας ἐπεκλήθη: cf. lxxii. 5, where Pertinax πρόκριτος ... τῆς γερουσίας κατὰ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐπωνομάσθη: an expression which seems to show that it was not a constant designation of the Princeps at this period.[1785]ib. liv. 13, 14.[1786]ib. lv. 3; Suet.Aug.35; Merkel ad Ovid.Fast.p. vi[1787]Lex de imp. Vesp.l. 9 “ac si e lege senatus edictus esset habereturque.”[1788]Vita Gordianorum, 11;Vita Hadriani, 7; Dio Cass. liv. 3.[1789]For the summons by a praetor see Tac.Hist.iv. 39; by tribunes, Dio Cass. lvi. 47, lx. 16, lxxviii. 37; by tribunes and praetors, ib. lix. 24.[1790]The doubt is raised by Piso’s address to Tiberius during a trial formajestas, “quo ... loco censebis, Caesar? Si primus, habebo quod sequar: si post omnes, vereor ne imprudens dissentiam” (Tac.Ann.i 74). Dio Cassius also says of Tiberius (lvii. 7) καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς ψῆφον πολλάκις ἐδίδου. But neither writer may be using strictly technical language; and it is not certain that the Princeps could beaskedhis opinion. On the other hand, when Caesar put the question, the other magistrates gavesententiae(Tac.Ann.iii. 17). The question is not of much importance for the Principate as a whole, as in its later period the Emperor usually consulted the Senate by letter. See p. 369.[1791]See Tac.Ann.i. 74, quoted in the last note.[1792]p. 348.[1793]p. 359.[1794]p. 350.[1795]The formula for the formation of acollegium legitimumruns “quibus senatus c(oire) c(onvocari) c(ogi) permisit e lege Julia ex auctoritate Augusti” (C.I.L.vi n. 4416).[1796]p. 372.[1797]Dio Cass. lxviii. 29.[1798]Tac.Ann.iii. 60; xii. 62.[1799]ib. xiii 48.[1800]“de legendo vel exauctorando milite, ac legionum et auxiliorum descriptione” (Suet.Tib.30).[1801]Tac.Hist.iv. 61; Dio Cass. lxviii. 9, 10. In 49A.D.during the reign of Claudius we also read of a reception of Parthian envoys in the Senate (Tac.Ann.xii. 10).[1802]p. 358.[1803]p. 358.[1804]p. 372.[1805]p. 275.[1806]Thus theS. C. Velleianum, which limited the obligations which women might incur, begins, “Quod Marcus Silanus et Velleus Tutor consules verba fecerunt ... quid de ea re fieri oportet, de ea re ita censuere” (Dig. 16, 1, 2, 1); cf.Dig.36, 1, 1, 2 (S. C. Trebellianum), 14, 6, 1 (S. C. Macedonianum), and see KippQuellenkunde des röm. Rechtsp. 27.[1807]The jurists refer to them by the names of their proposers; hence such designations asVelleianum,Trebellianum(see last note). But such designations are not official. TheS. C. Macedonianumis called after the offender who had been the occasion of the decree.[1808]Gaius i. 4 “Senatus consultum est, quod senatus jubet atque constituit: idque legis vicem obtinet, quamvis fuerit quaesitum.”[1809]Dig.1, 1, 7; 1, 3, 9.[1810]Lex de imp. Vesp.1. 17 “utique quaecunque ex usu rei publicae majestateque divinarum humanarum publicarum privatarumque rerum esse censebit, ei agere facere jus potestasque sit, ita uti divo Augusto ... fuit.”[1811]Tac.Ann.i. 77 “divus Augustus immunes verberum histriones quondam responderat, neque fas Tiberio infringere dicta ejus.”[1812]p. 363.[1813]Paulus inDig.28. 2, 26 “Filius familias, si militet ... aut heres scribi aut exheredari debet, jam sublato edicto divi Augusti, quo cautum fuerat ne pater filium militem exheredet.”[1814]It was sometimes used in a more general sense forconstitutio principis, as when Papinian says “Jus ... civile est quod ex legibus, plebis scitis, senatus consultis, decretis principum, auctoritate prudentium venit” (Dig.1, 1, 7).[1815]Dig.4, 2, 13 “Exstat enim decretum divi Marci in haec verba, etc.... Caesar dixit, etc.”[1816]“Rescript” is properly ananswerto a letter, but it soon came to be used as exquivalent toepistola. See Kippop. cit.p. 37.[1817]Cf.Dig.1, 16, 4, 5 “imperator noster Antoninus Augustus ad desideria Asianorum rescripsit” (on the mode in which the proconsul should arrive at the province of Asia).[1818]Gaius i. 5 “Constitutio principis est, quod imperator decreto vel edicto vel epistola constituit; nec unquam dubitatum est quin id legis vicem obtineat.” Cf. Ulpian inDig.1, 4, 1, 1 “Quodcumque ... imperator per epistulam et subscriptionem statuit vel cognoscens decrevit ... vel edicto praecepit, legem esse constat. Haec sunt quas vulgo constitutiones appellamus.”[1819]Thus the soldier’s testament was created by a series of mandates: “divus Julius Caesar concessit ... divus Titus dedit: post hoc Domitianus: postea divus Nerva plenissimam indulgentiam in milites contulit: eamque et Trajanus secutus est et exinde mandatis inseri coepit caput tale. Caput ex mandatis, etc.” (Ulpian inDig.29, 1, 1).[1820]Gell. xii. 13, 1 “Cum Romae a consulibus judex extra ordinem datus pronuntiare ... jussus essem.”[1821]Dio Cass. li. 19 (in 30B.C.it was decreed) τὸν Καίσαρα τήν τε ἐξουσίαν τὴν τῶν δημάρχων διὰ βίου ἔχειν ... ἔκκλητόν τε δικάζειν. It is probable that the last words only describe the establishment of the Princeps as a high court of voluntary jurisdiction. See Greenidge inClassical Reviewviii. p. 144.[1822]p. 368.[1823]Paulus inDig.5, 1, 58 “Judicium solvitur vetante eo qui judicare jusserat vel etiam eo qui majus imperium in eadem jurisdictione habet.” The veto in virtue ofpar potestasis here omitted on account of its disappearance in the time of Paulus (circa200A.D.). See MerkelGesch. der klassischen Appellationii. p. 19.[1824]Tac.Ann.i. 75 “judiciis adsidebat in cornu tribunalis, ne praetorem curuli depelleret; multaque eo coram adversus ambitum et potentium preces constituta”; Dio Cass. lvii. 7 ἐπεφοίτα δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων δικαστήρια, καὶ παρακαλούμενος ὑπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἀπαράκλητος, καὶ ... ἔλεγεν ὅσα ἐδόκει αὐτῷ, ὡς πάρεδρος. The civil courts are here meant, or at least included; but it is possible that Tiberius may often have appeared in them as a self-constituted adviser, not as an authority to be appealed to; cf. Suet.Tib.33 “magistratibus pro tribunali cognoscentibus plerumque se offerebat consiliarium; adsidebatque juxtim vel exadversum in parte primori.” According to Suetonius (l.c.) he exercised a similar influence over the jurisdiction of thequaestiones.[1825]p. 178.[1826]p. 382.[1827]Cic.pro Tullio16, 38 “quid attinuit te tam multis verbis a praetore postulare ut adderet in judicium ‘injuria,’ et, quia non impetrasses, tribunos plebis appellare et hic in judicio queri praetoris iniquitatem quod de injuria non addiderit?” So the tribunician veto might be employed to elicit an exception. Cic.Acad. Prior.ii. 30, 97 “Tribunum aliquem censeo adeant [al.videant]: a me istam exceptionem nunquam impetrabunt.”[1828]Tac.Ann.xiii. 28 (A.D.56). See Appendix.[1829]Dio Cass. lix. 8 ὁ μὲν γὰρ Τιβέριος οὕτως αὐτὸν (Silanus) ἐτίμησεν, ὥστε μήτ’ ἔκκλητόν ποτε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ δικάσαι ἐθελῆσαι, ἀλλ’ ἐκείνῳ πάντα αὖθις τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐγχειρίσαι. We do not know what position Silanus held. If, as is generally supposed, he was consul, the reference may be to appeals from jurisdiction infidei commissadelegated by the Princeps to the consul.[1830]Suet.Aug.33 “Appellationes quotannis urbanorum quidem litigatorum praetori delegabat urbano: at provincialium consularibus viris, quos singulos cujusque provinciae negotiis praeposuisset.” That the conjecturepraefecto delegabat urbisis untenable has been pointed out by Mommsen (Staatsr.ii. p. 985 note 1).[1831]For the delegation to praetors see p. 368; for that to consuls cf. Quint.Inst. Or.iii. 6, 70 “Non debes apud praetorem petere fidei commissum sed apud consules, major enim praetoria cognitione summa est.”[1832]Tac.Ann.xiii. 4 “teneret antiqua munia senatus, consulum tribunalibus Italia et publicae provinciae adsisterent.”[1833]Cic.in Verr.iii. 60, 138;ad Fam.xiii. 26, 3;Fragmentum Atestinum(BrunsFontes) l. 10.[1834]When the Senate granted theproconsulare imperiumto Augustus in 23B.C.ἐν τῷ ὑπηκόῳ τὸ πλεῖον τῶν ἑκασταχόθι ἀρχόντων ἰσχύειν ἐπέτρεψεν (Dio Cass. liii. 32). Cf. Ulpian inDig.1, 16, 8 [“(proconsul) majus imperium in ea provincia habet omnibus post principem”] and in 1, 18, 4. It is a passive rather than an activemajus imperiumthat is here contemplated. The whole scheme of the provincial dyarchy rested on the assumption that there should be no relations between the proconsul and the Princeps.[1835]p. 368.[1836]Ulpian inDig.49, 2, 1, 2 “sciendum est appellari a senatu non posse principem, idque oratione divi Hadriani effectum.” It was doubtless the original principle, confirmed and not created by Hadrian.[1837]Tac.Ann.iii. 14, xvi. 8; Suet.Aug.5.[1838]There was no legal principle of the kind. According to Dio Cassius (liii. 17) the monarchical power extended so far ὥστε καὶ ἐντὸς τοῦ πωμηρίου καὶ τοὺς ἰππέας καὶ τοὺς βουλευτὰς θανατοῦ δύνασθαι, and a senator, like Calpurnius Piso in 20A.D., might be brought before the Emperor (Tac.Ann.iii. 10). But Septimius Severus permitted asenatus consultumto be passed that the Emperor should not be allowed to put a senator to death without the will of the Senate (Dio Cass. lxxiv. 2;Vita Severi7). The principle had been stated earlier by Hadrian (Vita Hadriani7 “juravit se nunquam senatorem nisi ex senatus sententia puniturum”).[1839]Augustus in 29B.C.brought Antiochus of Commagene, Tiberius inA.D.17 Archelaus of Cappadocia before the Senate (Dio Cass. lii. 43, lvii. 17; Tac.Ann.ii. 42). InA.D.19 Rhescuporis of Thrace was accused there (Tac.Ann.ii. 67).[1840]Cases of extortion are to be found in Tac.Ann.iii. 66, xii. 59;Hist.iv. 45. InA.D.23 we find the imperialprocurator(patrimonii) of Asia brought before the Senate for exceeding his powers (Tac.Ann.iv. 15).[1841]Tac.Ann.iv. 13 (A.D.23) “Carsidius Sacerdos, reus tamquam frumento hostem Tacfarinatem juvisset, absolvitur, ejusdemque criminis C. Gracchus.”[1842]Amongst the prosecutions for treason against the Princeps which disfigure the reign of Tiberius we may mention those against Libo Drusus (Tac.Ann.ii. 27 ff.), against Cremutius Cordus (ib. iv. 34, 35), and against Sejanus (Dio Cass. lviii. 9, 10).[1843]InA.D.37 we find that a mother, who had caused her son to commit suicide, “accusata in senatu ... urbe ... in decem annos prohibita est” (Tac.Ann.vi. 49). InA.D.61 we find interdiction from Italy pronounced against a man for a kind ofpraevaricatio, “quod reos, ne apud praefectum urbis arguerentur, ad praetorem detulisset” (ib. xiv. 41).[1844]Quintil.Inst. Or.iii. 10, 1; vii. 2, 20. For instances see Tac.Ann.ii. 50, iv. 21; Plin.Ep.ii. 11, 3 ff. In the last passage we find the question of the legality of this procedure raised (“Respondit Fronto Catius deprecatusque est ne quid ultra repetundarum legem quaereretur.... Magna contentio, magni utrimque clamores, aliis cognitionem senatus lege conclusam, aliis liberam solutamque dicentibus”).[1845]It is possible, however, that the Senate was held to continue the extraordinary criminal jurisdiction of thecomitia. Tacitus certainly regards thecognitioas belonging to the Senate (Ann.ii. 28 “Statim corripit reum, adit consules, cognitionem senatus poscit”).[1846]Plin.Ep.vi. 31, 8 (in a case of a forgery of a will) “Heredes, cum Caesar (Trajanus) esset in Dacia, communiter epistula scripta, petierant ut susciperet cognitionem.”[1847]Tac.Ann.ii. 79 “Marsus ... Vibius nuntiavit Pisoni Romam ad dicendam causam veniret. Ille eludens respondit adfuturum, ubi praetor, qui de veneficiis quaereret, reo atque accusatoribus diem prodixisset”; ib. iii 10 “petitum ... est a principe cognitionem exciperet; quod ne reus quidem abnuebat, studia populi et patrum metuens ... haud fallebat Tiberium moles cognitionis quaque ipse fama distraheretur. Igitur paucis familiarium adhibitis minas accusantium et hinc preces audit integramque causam ad senatum remittit.” “Remittit” does not imply that the Senate was bound to take the case. For the technically voluntary nature of its jurisdiction cf. ib. iv. 21, xiii. 10, where we find the expressions “receptus est reus,” “recepti sunt inter reos.”[1848]Dio Cass. lii. 22, 33. A case of adultery of a centurion with a tribune’s wife comes before the Emperor. Trajan stated the ground on which he tried this case (Plin.Ep.vi. 31, 6 “Caesar et nomen centurionis et commemorationem disciplinae militaris sententiae adjecit, ne omnes ejusmodi causas revocare ad se videretur”).[1849]An instance is mentioned by Pliny (Ep.vii. 6, 8 “mater, amisso filio ... libertos ejus eosdemque coheredes suos falsi et veneficii reos detulerat ad principem judicemque impetraverat Julium Servianum”).[1850]See the section on the functionaries of the Princeps (p. 406 sq.).[1851]Plin.ad Traj.96, 4 “quia cives Romani erant, adnotavi in urbem remittendos.”[1852]It is not properly an appeal but a denial of jurisdiction. But on what ground the jurisdiction of the procurator was denied is not clear. The Roman citizenship, in virtue of which St. Paul claimed exemption from scourging at Philippi and Jerusalem, is not mentioned here. SeeClass. Rev.x. p. 231.[1853]Plin.Ep.ii. 11; Suet.Galba9.[1854]For its attachment to procurators and to persons with extraordinary commands see the instances given by Mommsen (Staatsr.ii p. 270). So the praefectures of the guard, thevigilesand the fleet, arehonores juris gladii(Vita Alex.49). In the case of ordinary provincial governors it is, perhaps, safer to say that thejus gladiiis possessed by them, or permitted to them, rather than that it was attached to them by the Princeps (Ulp. inDig.1, 18, 6, 8 “qui universas provincias regunt, jus gladii habent et in metallum dandi potestas iis permissa est”).[1855]Dio Cass. lii. 22, 33;Dig.48, 19, 27, 1 and 2.[1856]Even by Tiberius’ reign this procedure had become so formal that a rule was framed for its exercise. A definite interval was prescribed within which the Princeps might consider the request for the intercession (Tac.Ann.iii. 51 [A.D.21] “factum senatus consultum, ne decreta patrum ante diemdecimumad aerarium deferrentur idque vitae spatium damnatis prorogaretur”; cf. Dio Cass. lvii. 20; Suet.Tib.75).[1857]p. 385.[1858]“Ob laetitiam aliquam vel honorem domus divinae vel ex aliqua causa, ex qua senatus censuit abolitionem reorum fieri” (Ulp. inDig.48, 16, 12; cf. 48, 3, 2, 1). Domitian by an edict declared that suchabolitionesdid not extend to slaves who were in custody awaiting trial (Dig.48, 16, 16; cf. 48, 3, 2, 1).[1859]p. 249.[1860]Ulp. inDig.3, 1, 1, 10 “De qua autem restitutione praetor loquitur? Utrum de ea quae a principe vel a senatu? Pomponius quaerit: et putat de ea restitutione sensum, quam princeps vel senatus indulsit.”

[1734]ib. xiii. 28 (A.D.56) “cohibita artius et aedilium potestas statutumque quantum curules, quantum plebei pignoris caperent vel poenae inrogarent.”

[1735]GaiusInst.i. 6 (of thejus edicendi) “amplissimum jus est in edictis duorum praetorum ... item in edictis aedilium curulium.” Their edict was codified under Hadrian, and appears inDig.21, 1.

[1736]Karlowa (Rechtsgesch.i. p. 532) thus distributes them—two urban, four of the consuls, twelve for the public provinces, and two attached to the Emperor.

[1737]See § 5.

[1738]See chap. xi.

[1739]The practice first began in 38B.C.(Dio Cass. xlviii. 43). Cf. Tac.Ann.xvi. 34 “Tum ad Thraseam in hortis agentem quaestor consulis missus.” They were selected by the consuls themselves (Plin.Ep.iv. 15, 8).

[1740]Dig.1, 13, 1, 2 and 4 “sane non omnes quaestores provincias sortiebantur, verum excepti erant candidati principis ... qui ... epistulas ejus in senatu legunt.”

[1741]Tac.Ann.xi. 22 (A.D.47) “quaestura ... velut venundaretur.”

[1742]The obligation imposed in 47 was modified in 54A.D.(Tac.Ann.xi. 22; xiii. 5), but was renewed under Domitian (Suet.Dom.4).

[1743]Vita Alexandri43 “quaestores candidatos ex sua pecunia jussit munera populo dare ... arcarios vero instituit, qui de arca fisci ederent munera eademque parciora.”

[1744]The tribunate is to the younger Pliny “inanis umbra et sine honore nomen” (Ep.i 23).

[1745]Tac.Ann.i. 77 (A.D.15, on the proposal ofjus virgarum in histriones) “intercessit Haterius Agrippa tribunus plebei increpitusque est Asinii Galli oratione, silente Tiberio, qui ea simulacra libertatis senatui praebebat.”

[1746]Tac.Hist.iv. 9 (A.D.69, on the praetors of theaerariumannouncing a deficit) “cum perrogarent sententias consules, Volcatius Tertullinus tribunus plebis intercessit, ne quid super tanta re principe absente statueretur.” This is the last recorded instance of theintercessio(Momms.Staatsr.ii. p. 309 n. 1).

[1747]Tac.Ann.vi. 47 [53] (inA.D.37 a woman was accused ofmajestas) “qua damnata cum praemium accusatori decerneretur, Junius Otho tribunus plebei intercessit, unde ... mox Othoni exitium.” Rusticus Arulenus, aflagrans juvenis, offered to veto the decree of the Senate which condemned Thrasea Paetus inA.D.66 (xvi. 26).

[1748]ib. xiii. 28 “inter Vibullium praetorem et plebei tribunum Antistium ortum certamen, quod immodestos fautores histrionum et a praetore in vincla ductos tribunos omitti jussisset.”

[1749]Tac.Hist.ii. 91 (Vitellius, when Emperor, attacked by Helvidius Priscus in the Senate) “commotus ... non tamen ultra quam tribunos plebis in auxilium spretae potestatis advocavit.”

[1750]InA.D.56 they were forbidden “vocare ex Italia cum quibus lege agi posset” (Tac.Ann.xiii. 28). See Appendix.

[1751]Tac. l.c.

[1752]Juvenal vii. 228 “Rara tamen merces, quae cognitione tribuni Non egeat.” The words doubtless mean “which does not lead to theappellatio.” In such a case even the Republican tribunes took “cognisance” of the merits of the appeal. The explanation that the tribunes were now given some extraordinary jurisdiction in civil cases is unnecessary.

[1753]p. 365.

[1754]Dio Cass. liv. 26.

[1755]ib. lx. 11.

[1756]e.g.Cod.6, 60, 1 (A.D.319) “Imp. Constantinus A. consulibus, praetoribus tribunis plebis senatui salutem.”

[1757]Suet.Aug.40 “Comitiorum quoque pristinum jus reduxit.”

[1758]p. 344.

[1759]Dio Cass. lvi. 40 (Augustus) ἐκ ... τοῦ δήμου τὸ δύσκριτον ἐν ταῖς διαγνώσεσιν ἐς τὴν τῶν δικαστηρίων ἀκρίβειαν μεταστήσας.

[1760]e.g. the Julian laws passed by Augustus in theconcilium plebis, thelex Junia Norbanaof the reign of Tiberius,plebiscitaof Claudius. The last knownlexis an agrarian law of Nerva (Dig.47, 21, 3, 1).

[1761]Dio Cass. liii. 21 (when the election was entrusted to the people, Augustus) ἐπεμελεῖτο ὅπως μήτ’ ἀνεπιτήδειοι μήτ’ ἐκ παρακελεύσεως ἤ καὶ δεκασμοῦ ἀποδεικνύωνται. Cf. Tac.Ann.i. 15 “potissima arbitrio principis, quaedam tamen studiis tribuum fiebant.”

[1762]Tac.Ann.i. 15. The change was, we are told by Velleius (ii. 124), in accordance with the instructions of Augustus.

[1763]p. 188.

[1764]Dio Cass. lviii. 20.

[1765]p. 349. InC.I.L.vi. 10213 we find a notice of “improbae comitiae in Aventino, ubi (Sej)anus cos. factus est.” We find Vitellius canvassing for his candidates in the circus (Tac.Hist.ii. 91 “comitia consulum cum candidatis civiliter celebrans omnem infimae plebis rumorem in theatro ut spectator, in circo ut fautor adfectavit”). On the other hand, we haveab senatu destinatusin the inscription quoted on p. 349 n. 6. Dio Cassius (lix. 20), in speaking of the temporary restoration of popular elections by Caligula, mentions them in connexion with the consulship.

[1766]Dio Cass. xxxvii. 28.

[1767]p. 369.

[1768]p. 364.

[1769]p. 365.

[1770]p. 364. Hence the expression “nondum senatoria aetate” (Tac.Ann.xv. 28;Hist.iv. 42).

[1771]Dio Cass. liv. 17, 30; Tac.Ann.i. 75, ii. 37.

[1772]He declared “non lecturum se senatorem nisi civis Romani abnepotem” (Suet.Claud.24).

[1773]Vita Commodi6 “ad cujus (Cleandri) nutum etiam libertini in senatum atque in patricios lecti sunt”;Vita Elagabali11 “Fecit libertos praesides, legatos, consules, duces.”

[1774]Tac.Ann.iii. 4 “simul novi homines e municipiis et coloniis atque etiam provinciis in senatum crebro adsumpti”; Suet.Vesp.9 “Amplissimos ordines ... purgavit supplevitque, recenso senatu et equite ... honestissimo quoque Italicorum ac provincialium adlecto.”

[1775]Tac.Ann.xi 25; Prof. Pelham inClassical Reviewix. p. 441.

[1776]Plin.Ep.vi. 19.

[1777]Vita Marci11.

[1778]For the infliction of such anotaby Domitian see Suet.Dom.8, “quaestorium virum, quod gesticulandi saltandique studio teneretur, movit senatu.”

[1779]p. 347.

[1780]Tac.Ann.iv. 42 (Tiberius) “Apidium ... Merulam, quod in acta divi Augusti non juraverat, albo senatorio erasit.”

[1781]ib. iii. 17; vi. 48.

[1782]ib. iv. 31; xii. 59.

[1783]Dio Cass. lv. 3; Tac.Ann.iv. 42.

[1784]Dio Cass. liii. 1 (Augustus in 28B.C.during the censorship of himself and Agrippa) ἐν αὐταῖς (ταῖς ἀπογραφαῖς) πρόκριτος τῆς γερουσίας ἐπεκλήθη: cf. lxxii. 5, where Pertinax πρόκριτος ... τῆς γερουσίας κατὰ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐπωνομάσθη: an expression which seems to show that it was not a constant designation of the Princeps at this period.

[1785]ib. liv. 13, 14.

[1786]ib. lv. 3; Suet.Aug.35; Merkel ad Ovid.Fast.p. vi

[1787]Lex de imp. Vesp.l. 9 “ac si e lege senatus edictus esset habereturque.”

[1788]Vita Gordianorum, 11;Vita Hadriani, 7; Dio Cass. liv. 3.

[1789]For the summons by a praetor see Tac.Hist.iv. 39; by tribunes, Dio Cass. lvi. 47, lx. 16, lxxviii. 37; by tribunes and praetors, ib. lix. 24.

[1790]The doubt is raised by Piso’s address to Tiberius during a trial formajestas, “quo ... loco censebis, Caesar? Si primus, habebo quod sequar: si post omnes, vereor ne imprudens dissentiam” (Tac.Ann.i 74). Dio Cassius also says of Tiberius (lvii. 7) καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς ψῆφον πολλάκις ἐδίδου. But neither writer may be using strictly technical language; and it is not certain that the Princeps could beaskedhis opinion. On the other hand, when Caesar put the question, the other magistrates gavesententiae(Tac.Ann.iii. 17). The question is not of much importance for the Principate as a whole, as in its later period the Emperor usually consulted the Senate by letter. See p. 369.

[1791]See Tac.Ann.i. 74, quoted in the last note.

[1792]p. 348.

[1793]p. 359.

[1794]p. 350.

[1795]The formula for the formation of acollegium legitimumruns “quibus senatus c(oire) c(onvocari) c(ogi) permisit e lege Julia ex auctoritate Augusti” (C.I.L.vi n. 4416).

[1796]p. 372.

[1797]Dio Cass. lxviii. 29.

[1798]Tac.Ann.iii. 60; xii. 62.

[1799]ib. xiii 48.

[1800]“de legendo vel exauctorando milite, ac legionum et auxiliorum descriptione” (Suet.Tib.30).

[1801]Tac.Hist.iv. 61; Dio Cass. lxviii. 9, 10. In 49A.D.during the reign of Claudius we also read of a reception of Parthian envoys in the Senate (Tac.Ann.xii. 10).

[1802]p. 358.

[1803]p. 358.

[1804]p. 372.

[1805]p. 275.

[1806]Thus theS. C. Velleianum, which limited the obligations which women might incur, begins, “Quod Marcus Silanus et Velleus Tutor consules verba fecerunt ... quid de ea re fieri oportet, de ea re ita censuere” (Dig. 16, 1, 2, 1); cf.Dig.36, 1, 1, 2 (S. C. Trebellianum), 14, 6, 1 (S. C. Macedonianum), and see KippQuellenkunde des röm. Rechtsp. 27.

[1807]The jurists refer to them by the names of their proposers; hence such designations asVelleianum,Trebellianum(see last note). But such designations are not official. TheS. C. Macedonianumis called after the offender who had been the occasion of the decree.

[1808]Gaius i. 4 “Senatus consultum est, quod senatus jubet atque constituit: idque legis vicem obtinet, quamvis fuerit quaesitum.”

[1809]Dig.1, 1, 7; 1, 3, 9.

[1810]Lex de imp. Vesp.1. 17 “utique quaecunque ex usu rei publicae majestateque divinarum humanarum publicarum privatarumque rerum esse censebit, ei agere facere jus potestasque sit, ita uti divo Augusto ... fuit.”

[1811]Tac.Ann.i. 77 “divus Augustus immunes verberum histriones quondam responderat, neque fas Tiberio infringere dicta ejus.”

[1812]p. 363.

[1813]Paulus inDig.28. 2, 26 “Filius familias, si militet ... aut heres scribi aut exheredari debet, jam sublato edicto divi Augusti, quo cautum fuerat ne pater filium militem exheredet.”

[1814]It was sometimes used in a more general sense forconstitutio principis, as when Papinian says “Jus ... civile est quod ex legibus, plebis scitis, senatus consultis, decretis principum, auctoritate prudentium venit” (Dig.1, 1, 7).

[1815]Dig.4, 2, 13 “Exstat enim decretum divi Marci in haec verba, etc.... Caesar dixit, etc.”

[1816]“Rescript” is properly ananswerto a letter, but it soon came to be used as exquivalent toepistola. See Kippop. cit.p. 37.

[1817]Cf.Dig.1, 16, 4, 5 “imperator noster Antoninus Augustus ad desideria Asianorum rescripsit” (on the mode in which the proconsul should arrive at the province of Asia).

[1818]Gaius i. 5 “Constitutio principis est, quod imperator decreto vel edicto vel epistola constituit; nec unquam dubitatum est quin id legis vicem obtineat.” Cf. Ulpian inDig.1, 4, 1, 1 “Quodcumque ... imperator per epistulam et subscriptionem statuit vel cognoscens decrevit ... vel edicto praecepit, legem esse constat. Haec sunt quas vulgo constitutiones appellamus.”

[1819]Thus the soldier’s testament was created by a series of mandates: “divus Julius Caesar concessit ... divus Titus dedit: post hoc Domitianus: postea divus Nerva plenissimam indulgentiam in milites contulit: eamque et Trajanus secutus est et exinde mandatis inseri coepit caput tale. Caput ex mandatis, etc.” (Ulpian inDig.29, 1, 1).

[1820]Gell. xii. 13, 1 “Cum Romae a consulibus judex extra ordinem datus pronuntiare ... jussus essem.”

[1821]Dio Cass. li. 19 (in 30B.C.it was decreed) τὸν Καίσαρα τήν τε ἐξουσίαν τὴν τῶν δημάρχων διὰ βίου ἔχειν ... ἔκκλητόν τε δικάζειν. It is probable that the last words only describe the establishment of the Princeps as a high court of voluntary jurisdiction. See Greenidge inClassical Reviewviii. p. 144.

[1822]p. 368.

[1823]Paulus inDig.5, 1, 58 “Judicium solvitur vetante eo qui judicare jusserat vel etiam eo qui majus imperium in eadem jurisdictione habet.” The veto in virtue ofpar potestasis here omitted on account of its disappearance in the time of Paulus (circa200A.D.). See MerkelGesch. der klassischen Appellationii. p. 19.

[1824]Tac.Ann.i. 75 “judiciis adsidebat in cornu tribunalis, ne praetorem curuli depelleret; multaque eo coram adversus ambitum et potentium preces constituta”; Dio Cass. lvii. 7 ἐπεφοίτα δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων δικαστήρια, καὶ παρακαλούμενος ὑπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἀπαράκλητος, καὶ ... ἔλεγεν ὅσα ἐδόκει αὐτῷ, ὡς πάρεδρος. The civil courts are here meant, or at least included; but it is possible that Tiberius may often have appeared in them as a self-constituted adviser, not as an authority to be appealed to; cf. Suet.Tib.33 “magistratibus pro tribunali cognoscentibus plerumque se offerebat consiliarium; adsidebatque juxtim vel exadversum in parte primori.” According to Suetonius (l.c.) he exercised a similar influence over the jurisdiction of thequaestiones.

[1825]p. 178.

[1826]p. 382.

[1827]Cic.pro Tullio16, 38 “quid attinuit te tam multis verbis a praetore postulare ut adderet in judicium ‘injuria,’ et, quia non impetrasses, tribunos plebis appellare et hic in judicio queri praetoris iniquitatem quod de injuria non addiderit?” So the tribunician veto might be employed to elicit an exception. Cic.Acad. Prior.ii. 30, 97 “Tribunum aliquem censeo adeant [al.videant]: a me istam exceptionem nunquam impetrabunt.”

[1828]Tac.Ann.xiii. 28 (A.D.56). See Appendix.

[1829]Dio Cass. lix. 8 ὁ μὲν γὰρ Τιβέριος οὕτως αὐτὸν (Silanus) ἐτίμησεν, ὥστε μήτ’ ἔκκλητόν ποτε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ δικάσαι ἐθελῆσαι, ἀλλ’ ἐκείνῳ πάντα αὖθις τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐγχειρίσαι. We do not know what position Silanus held. If, as is generally supposed, he was consul, the reference may be to appeals from jurisdiction infidei commissadelegated by the Princeps to the consul.

[1830]Suet.Aug.33 “Appellationes quotannis urbanorum quidem litigatorum praetori delegabat urbano: at provincialium consularibus viris, quos singulos cujusque provinciae negotiis praeposuisset.” That the conjecturepraefecto delegabat urbisis untenable has been pointed out by Mommsen (Staatsr.ii. p. 985 note 1).

[1831]For the delegation to praetors see p. 368; for that to consuls cf. Quint.Inst. Or.iii. 6, 70 “Non debes apud praetorem petere fidei commissum sed apud consules, major enim praetoria cognitione summa est.”

[1832]Tac.Ann.xiii. 4 “teneret antiqua munia senatus, consulum tribunalibus Italia et publicae provinciae adsisterent.”

[1833]Cic.in Verr.iii. 60, 138;ad Fam.xiii. 26, 3;Fragmentum Atestinum(BrunsFontes) l. 10.

[1834]When the Senate granted theproconsulare imperiumto Augustus in 23B.C.ἐν τῷ ὑπηκόῳ τὸ πλεῖον τῶν ἑκασταχόθι ἀρχόντων ἰσχύειν ἐπέτρεψεν (Dio Cass. liii. 32). Cf. Ulpian inDig.1, 16, 8 [“(proconsul) majus imperium in ea provincia habet omnibus post principem”] and in 1, 18, 4. It is a passive rather than an activemajus imperiumthat is here contemplated. The whole scheme of the provincial dyarchy rested on the assumption that there should be no relations between the proconsul and the Princeps.

[1835]p. 368.

[1836]Ulpian inDig.49, 2, 1, 2 “sciendum est appellari a senatu non posse principem, idque oratione divi Hadriani effectum.” It was doubtless the original principle, confirmed and not created by Hadrian.

[1837]Tac.Ann.iii. 14, xvi. 8; Suet.Aug.5.

[1838]There was no legal principle of the kind. According to Dio Cassius (liii. 17) the monarchical power extended so far ὥστε καὶ ἐντὸς τοῦ πωμηρίου καὶ τοὺς ἰππέας καὶ τοὺς βουλευτὰς θανατοῦ δύνασθαι, and a senator, like Calpurnius Piso in 20A.D., might be brought before the Emperor (Tac.Ann.iii. 10). But Septimius Severus permitted asenatus consultumto be passed that the Emperor should not be allowed to put a senator to death without the will of the Senate (Dio Cass. lxxiv. 2;Vita Severi7). The principle had been stated earlier by Hadrian (Vita Hadriani7 “juravit se nunquam senatorem nisi ex senatus sententia puniturum”).

[1839]Augustus in 29B.C.brought Antiochus of Commagene, Tiberius inA.D.17 Archelaus of Cappadocia before the Senate (Dio Cass. lii. 43, lvii. 17; Tac.Ann.ii. 42). InA.D.19 Rhescuporis of Thrace was accused there (Tac.Ann.ii. 67).

[1840]Cases of extortion are to be found in Tac.Ann.iii. 66, xii. 59;Hist.iv. 45. InA.D.23 we find the imperialprocurator(patrimonii) of Asia brought before the Senate for exceeding his powers (Tac.Ann.iv. 15).

[1841]Tac.Ann.iv. 13 (A.D.23) “Carsidius Sacerdos, reus tamquam frumento hostem Tacfarinatem juvisset, absolvitur, ejusdemque criminis C. Gracchus.”

[1842]Amongst the prosecutions for treason against the Princeps which disfigure the reign of Tiberius we may mention those against Libo Drusus (Tac.Ann.ii. 27 ff.), against Cremutius Cordus (ib. iv. 34, 35), and against Sejanus (Dio Cass. lviii. 9, 10).

[1843]InA.D.37 we find that a mother, who had caused her son to commit suicide, “accusata in senatu ... urbe ... in decem annos prohibita est” (Tac.Ann.vi. 49). InA.D.61 we find interdiction from Italy pronounced against a man for a kind ofpraevaricatio, “quod reos, ne apud praefectum urbis arguerentur, ad praetorem detulisset” (ib. xiv. 41).

[1844]Quintil.Inst. Or.iii. 10, 1; vii. 2, 20. For instances see Tac.Ann.ii. 50, iv. 21; Plin.Ep.ii. 11, 3 ff. In the last passage we find the question of the legality of this procedure raised (“Respondit Fronto Catius deprecatusque est ne quid ultra repetundarum legem quaereretur.... Magna contentio, magni utrimque clamores, aliis cognitionem senatus lege conclusam, aliis liberam solutamque dicentibus”).

[1845]It is possible, however, that the Senate was held to continue the extraordinary criminal jurisdiction of thecomitia. Tacitus certainly regards thecognitioas belonging to the Senate (Ann.ii. 28 “Statim corripit reum, adit consules, cognitionem senatus poscit”).

[1846]Plin.Ep.vi. 31, 8 (in a case of a forgery of a will) “Heredes, cum Caesar (Trajanus) esset in Dacia, communiter epistula scripta, petierant ut susciperet cognitionem.”

[1847]Tac.Ann.ii. 79 “Marsus ... Vibius nuntiavit Pisoni Romam ad dicendam causam veniret. Ille eludens respondit adfuturum, ubi praetor, qui de veneficiis quaereret, reo atque accusatoribus diem prodixisset”; ib. iii 10 “petitum ... est a principe cognitionem exciperet; quod ne reus quidem abnuebat, studia populi et patrum metuens ... haud fallebat Tiberium moles cognitionis quaque ipse fama distraheretur. Igitur paucis familiarium adhibitis minas accusantium et hinc preces audit integramque causam ad senatum remittit.” “Remittit” does not imply that the Senate was bound to take the case. For the technically voluntary nature of its jurisdiction cf. ib. iv. 21, xiii. 10, where we find the expressions “receptus est reus,” “recepti sunt inter reos.”

[1848]Dio Cass. lii. 22, 33. A case of adultery of a centurion with a tribune’s wife comes before the Emperor. Trajan stated the ground on which he tried this case (Plin.Ep.vi. 31, 6 “Caesar et nomen centurionis et commemorationem disciplinae militaris sententiae adjecit, ne omnes ejusmodi causas revocare ad se videretur”).

[1849]An instance is mentioned by Pliny (Ep.vii. 6, 8 “mater, amisso filio ... libertos ejus eosdemque coheredes suos falsi et veneficii reos detulerat ad principem judicemque impetraverat Julium Servianum”).

[1850]See the section on the functionaries of the Princeps (p. 406 sq.).

[1851]Plin.ad Traj.96, 4 “quia cives Romani erant, adnotavi in urbem remittendos.”

[1852]It is not properly an appeal but a denial of jurisdiction. But on what ground the jurisdiction of the procurator was denied is not clear. The Roman citizenship, in virtue of which St. Paul claimed exemption from scourging at Philippi and Jerusalem, is not mentioned here. SeeClass. Rev.x. p. 231.

[1853]Plin.Ep.ii. 11; Suet.Galba9.

[1854]For its attachment to procurators and to persons with extraordinary commands see the instances given by Mommsen (Staatsr.ii p. 270). So the praefectures of the guard, thevigilesand the fleet, arehonores juris gladii(Vita Alex.49). In the case of ordinary provincial governors it is, perhaps, safer to say that thejus gladiiis possessed by them, or permitted to them, rather than that it was attached to them by the Princeps (Ulp. inDig.1, 18, 6, 8 “qui universas provincias regunt, jus gladii habent et in metallum dandi potestas iis permissa est”).

[1855]Dio Cass. lii. 22, 33;Dig.48, 19, 27, 1 and 2.

[1856]Even by Tiberius’ reign this procedure had become so formal that a rule was framed for its exercise. A definite interval was prescribed within which the Princeps might consider the request for the intercession (Tac.Ann.iii. 51 [A.D.21] “factum senatus consultum, ne decreta patrum ante diemdecimumad aerarium deferrentur idque vitae spatium damnatis prorogaretur”; cf. Dio Cass. lvii. 20; Suet.Tib.75).

[1857]p. 385.

[1858]“Ob laetitiam aliquam vel honorem domus divinae vel ex aliqua causa, ex qua senatus censuit abolitionem reorum fieri” (Ulp. inDig.48, 16, 12; cf. 48, 3, 2, 1). Domitian by an edict declared that suchabolitionesdid not extend to slaves who were in custody awaiting trial (Dig.48, 16, 16; cf. 48, 3, 2, 1).

[1859]p. 249.

[1860]Ulp. inDig.3, 1, 1, 10 “De qua autem restitutione praetor loquitur? Utrum de ea quae a principe vel a senatu? Pomponius quaerit: et putat de ea restitutione sensum, quam princeps vel senatus indulsit.”

Back to Index Next