Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome
Richard A. Bauman
First Published in 2004. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.
state and my consular duty demand it. Rabirius is not in jeopardy because of any fault on his part. They would destroy the main prop of majesty and empire by nullifying the senate’s authority, the consuls’ powers, the concerted action of good citizens, the guarantee of the security of the state. (Ib. 1–4 adapted) But the main thrust was on humanitas, a line that would appeal to an audience accustomed, by now, to more civilized penalties. If Suetonius is right the appeal succeeded, and humanitas
his promotion of both humanitas and utilitas publica. Dislike of cruel punishments is seen to have inspired a genre of black comedy, including Apocolocyntosis. 76 7 NERO AND THE STOICS THE TWO FACES OF STOICISM Nero’s reign is one of the most important in the entire Principate. Theories of punishment, touched on only sporadically since Cicero, were exposed to sustained debate, and attempts were made to translate ideas into practice. But true to its dichotomous character, the dominant
the least likely to have prompted subcapital sentences. But there is a way out. The solution lies in determining, if possible, what types of case took up Rutilius’ time. Statius gives a useful pointer when he praises Rutilius for the judgment and understanding that he made available to the Hundred Men (1.4.24–5). The reference is to the Centumviral Court, the 102 PREFECTS AND CRIMINAL TRIALS most prestigious Roman court, which tried cases of wills and related matters. This meant a whole
not including them amongst his exclusions Ulpian implicitly allows the governor to inflict them, but this is weakened by the fact that he does make express mention of vivicombustion, which he says is used against enemies of the state and deserters (8.2). Why Ulpian should have singled out these particular perpetrators of maiestas is a mystery; elsewhere in De officio proconsulis he gives a full list of acts falling under that crime (D. 48.4.1). In any event the point is that enemies and deserters
date see Cloud 1971, 27–36. Cantarella, 274–9 goes somewhat further back. She 181 NOTES TO PAGES 72–3 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 rejects Malleolus’ primacy for parricide but concedes it for matricide. She notes the earlier sacking of L.Ostius in 202 BC, but puts the origin of that penalty slightly earlier in the third century. The preservation of dignity was of paramount importance. Garnsey 1970, 1 cites it as a non-Platonian motive devised by the Romans. The same appears to