The senate, the courts, and the SC de Cn. Pisone patre

Classical Quarterly

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 510-518

  Richardson, J S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61149416460     PISSN: 00098388     EISSN: 14716844     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cq/47.2.510     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. See the useful summary of views in R. J. A. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (1984), pp. 460-4
2. For a careful and still valuable examination of the whole question of senatorial 'judicial' procedure, see F. de Marini Avonzo, La funzione giurisdizionale del senato romano (Milan 1957)
3. W. Eck, A. Caballos, and F. Fernández, Das senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre (Vestigia 48, 1996)
4. O. F. Robinson, The Criminal Law of Ancient Rome (1995), pp. 74-78
5. On the identity of the lex Iulia, see J. E. Allison and J. D. Cloud, 'The Lex Julia maiestatis', Latomus 21 (1962), 711-31
6. and J. D. Cloud, 'The Text of D 48.4, ad legem Iuliam maiestatis', ZSS 80 (1963), 206-32
7. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome, p. 466
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 consultum, pp. 231, n. 737
9. Thus Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome, pp. 470-2, 487
10. O. F. Robinson, 'The Role of the Senate in Roman Criminal Law during the Principate', Journal of Legal History 17 (1996), 130-43, at p. 130
11. So A. H. M. Jones, The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate (1972), pp. 106-7
12. This was indeed argued by H. Siber, Römisches Verfassungsrecht in geschichtlicher Entwickling (1952), p. 290
13. and A. H. M. Jones, 'Imperial and Senatorial Jurisdiction in the Early Principate', Historia 3 (1955), 464-88, at pp. 487-8
14. (= Studies in Roman Government and Law [1960], pp. 67-98, at 97-8)
15. Robinson, The Criminal Law of Ancient Rome, pp. 7-9
16. R. K. Sherk, RDGE no. 31
17. J. Oliver, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri (1989), no. 12
18. See A. J. Marshall, 'The Survival and Development of International Jurisdiction in the Greek World', ANRW 2.13 (1980), 626-61
19. J. Bleicken, Senatsgericht und Kaisergcricht - eine Studie zur Entwickiung des Prozeßrechtes im frühen Prinzipat (Abh. Akad. Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl., 3 Folge, nr. 53, 1962)
20. W. Kunkel, Über die Entstehung des Senatsgericht (Sitzb. Bayer. Akad Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl., Heft 2, 1969)
21. [= Kleine Schriften (1974), pp. 279-323]
22. Kunkel, Senatsgericht, pp. 7-9 [= KS, pp. 270-2]
23. On the meaning of oporlerc, see D. Daube, Forms of Roman legislation (Oxford, 1956), pp. 8-23
24. (see Jones, The Criminal Courts, pp. 73-4)
25. See above n. 4. Eck et al,. Das senatus consultum, pp. 231, n. 737, believe that Macer's question related only to cases heard in his own court
26. See above n. 27. Eck et al., 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 comites in the SC de Cn. Pisone patre
27. See now M. Crawford et al., Roman Statutes (1996), nos. 37-8, with bibliography and brief commentary
28. See F. G. B. Millar, 'Imperial Ideology in the Tabula Siarensis', in J. González and J. Arce, Estudios sobre la Tabula Siarensis (1988), pp. 11-19
29. and J. S. Richardson, 'The Rogatio Valeria Aurelia: Form and Content', ibid., pp. 35-41
30. see Roman Statutes, p. 536)