Violence and State Response in the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
VIOLENCE AND STATE RESPONSE IN THE REIGNS OF AUGUSTUS AND TIBERIUS by ~-· Malcolm Frederick Munro I I J Submitted in accordance with the requirements Universityfor the degree of Capeof Master of Town Arts I Supervisor: Dr D. Wardle Department of Classics I University of Cape Town February 1995 -·""'·'"*''·"'• • I' ·'. ·- .. :. "- '• '''-"·<>•'<f0!:41~:.:::.,_ The Uni·.:sr2'ty of Cape Tmvn has been given I the rinht to reproduce this thesis in whole r.. or in pdrt. Copyrir;ht is held by the author. I The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. University of Cape Town ABSTRACT This thesis examines the concept of violence during the transition from Republic to Principate. Many of the provisions against violence which evolved during the course of the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius were a direct response to the violence of the Late ,I Republic. They were to a large extent, new and revolutionary, but were not caused by the I violence of the Late Republic: rather they were developed as part of the new political scenario to stabilise Roman society and secure the princeps' position. A by-product of these measures was to provide a new context in which violence (particularly institutionalised state violence) could occur, be monitored and controlled. In chapter one I attempt to define violence and to extract the contemporary Roman attitude, without which any conclusions drawn would be inaccurate and unrealistic. I have used Roman legislation - especially the lex Julia de vi (c 18 BC) and have examined the works of Cicero for the frequency and function of vis, the Latin word which most closely corresponds to the English word "violence." I conclude that the Romans had a sophisticated understanding of the concept: i) anything that was not conducted through the due process of law was considered vis, ii) violence was tolerated only in exceptional circumstances, when state security was threatened. In chapter two I explore in greater detail the attempts by goverment to legislate against violence in particular the lex Julia de vi and the lex maiestatis. Although the latter was not employed initially to remove political rivals from the scene, its abuse during the reign of Tiberi us became one of the great themes of the historians to illustrate the decline and moral bankruptcy of the Principate and to look nostalgically at the Republic. Chapter three examines how the structure of the Roman criminal system changed, the gradual disintegration of the legal principle of self-help, and the growth and exploitation of the cognitio procedure in Roman courts. The state intruded more into the lives of citizens and therefore exerted more control. The role of three new jurisdictions, imperial, senatorial and that of the urban prefect, in the context of the minimisation and control of violence, is also discussed. The fourth chapter deals with punishment and considers the theory that there was a trend to greater severity in this form of state violence. It examines, against the background of Roman penal aims, the evolution of the symbols and rituals which accompanied different types of punishment. Chapters five and six discuss collective violence, its manifestations and explain the absence of revolution by the plebs. The introduction of new forces into the city (something which was anathema in the Republic) is discussed in the context of policing and law and order. They had a significant impact in the limitation of violence. In the Early Principate violence manifested itself in new contexts and was controlled more effectively than in the Late Republic. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am particularly grateful to my supervisor, Dr David Wardle, without whose guidance, encouragement, tolerance and friendship this project would not have been completed. I would also like to thank my head of department Professor J.E. Atkinson, who supervised me during Dr. Wardle's absence, and who made possible the maximum enjoyment of this · project. The financial assistance of the CSD and the University of Cape Town is also gratefully acknowledged. My greatest debt, however, is to my mother who was unfailing in her interest, support and encouragement. It is to her, and the memory of my father that this thesis is dedicated. Malcolm Munro C,ape Town February 1995. CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE : The Problem of Violence- Definition and Approach.................................................... 1 CHAPTER TWO: Violence and the Evolution of the Criminal Law in the Early Principate ........................ , .... 28 CHAPTER THREE: Violence and Structural Changes in the Roman Criminal Law and Procedure ........................ 64 CHAPTER FOUR: Punishment and Violence in the Early Principate ........................................................ 93 CHAPTER FIVE: The Physical Containment of Violence - the Forces of Law and Order .............................. 133 CHAPTER SIX: Collective Violence in the Early Empire .................................................................. 157 CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 192 BffiLIOGRAPHY: .......................................................................................... 197 I 1 VIOLENCE THE PROBLEM OF VIOLENCE- DEFINITION AND APPROACH. INTRODUCTION Investigating violence is immediately problematic. To undertake such a task without prejudice and preconception is particularly difficult because violence is defined both morally and subjectively. Complete objectivity where violence is concerned is impossible, to attain. Consequently, it is dangerous to arrive at absolute conclusions too hastily. Wrong and misleading judgements are easily made, especially when investigating one civilization from the perceptions and attitudes of another. A late twentieth century observer would, in accordance with western Judaeo-Christian principles, find the executions in the amphitheatre in the first century AD violent, cruel and morally repugnant. Yet it was only in the 1930s that public execution by guillotine was abandoned. It is this very kind of paradox and irony which complicates objective investigations into violence and can render any conclusions attained unrealistic and misleading because modem perceptions and attitudes have been superimposed onto an ancient context. 1 Two specific problems must be addressed right at the outset of this investigation. The first is one of definition. This is difficult, since we are dealing with an abstract concept. A modem lexicographical definition can provide a departure point and assist in establishing a basis of approach to this issue. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of violence is: 'the exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury or cause damage to persons or property. Action or conduct characterised by this. Treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury forcibly interfering with personal freedom; undue constraint applied to some natural process, habit etc. so as to prevent its free development or exercise.' This definition is not, however, to be adhered to absolutely. Although too narrow a definition can be both fallacious and inaccurate, we can extract from this elements which can be applied to each instance of violence. Physical force is the first element. This need not 1 Labruna at 3-7, considers the anxiety of overcoming the multiple contradictions and tensions within the subject of violence which are caused by the precariousness of the cultural and historical moment in which we live and the differences in standards of value as an increasingly deepening crisis of approach which both modem and classical scholarship has failed to address satisfactorily. 2 actually materialize, but there should be at least the situation where such physical force is either possible or potential and where the second element, that is injury or damage, may realistically result. Injury or damage need not take a material or physical form. It is sufficient that there is the fear of its realisation. 'I include in violence a dire threat, even if it does not materialize. '2 The third element is the victim of damage or injury, whether to person or property. The dynamics of violence can be formulated thus: there must be a cause, a method, and effect of violence employed by an agent and exercised upon a victim. There is also the dimension of violence as the forcible interference in a natural process. This will become clearer when a definite relationship is postulated between the extent of violence and social instability on the one hand, and the control and minimisation of personal and political freedom on the other. At this point a basic distinction must be drawn between the concepts of "violence" and I "force". Because violence often involves physical force, the connection between "force" and "violence" is very close and in some contexts the words become synonyms. 3 In this distinction lies a means by which the difficult issue of violence can be understood. "Violence" is a loaded concept because it involves negative and hostile connotations, whereas "force" does not necessarily have these connotations and is therefore more problematic. But the distinction affords particular relevance to this study because the Romans used the same