Ancient Rome and Modern America; A Comparative Study of Morals and MannersFerrero, Guglielmo
History
Ancient Rome and Modern America; A Comparative Study of Morals and Manners
Ferrero, Guglielmo
America -- Civilization; Europe -- Civilization; Justice, Administration of -- Rome; Progress
Could he do so, however? This Emperor, whom so many inexperienced
historians have represented as a terrible despot, was in reality
possessed of much less power as head of the State than his present-day
detractors suppose. He was obliged to take into account public opinion,
however obtuse and mad it might be. He was vaguely suspected of having
prompted Piso to poison Germanicus, or at least of having willingly
shut his eyes to the crime. If he prevented the charge being brought,
would not this be the strongest confirmation of this mad calumny? Would
not the whole populace murmur in their anger that the unfortunate
Germanicus had been robbed, first of life, and then of vengeance,—and
by the man who was his adoptive father? This, in the eyes of the
ancients, constituted the gravest dereliction of family obligations.
The trial was a satisfaction which the public demanded; and the
Emperor—that pretended despot, lord of the whole State—had not power
enough to refuse it.
So Tiberius was forced to consent to the trial. Being, however, a
wise and level-headed man, he remitted it to the Senate, the one of
the two tribunals which might be expected with greater reason to be
enlightened and serene. The other—the _quæstio_, or, as we should say,
the jury—was too closely in contact with public opinion, and not likely
to be able to exercise calm judgment in a case in which public opinion
was so much excited and prejudiced against the principal defendant.
The Senate, on the contrary, was the gravest body in the Republic,
and might be expected to rise superior to popular passions in the
exercise of its judicial functions. Nevertheless, even in the Senate,
the friends of Germanicus and the enemies of Tiberius were to be found
in force. Not only this, but a fierce antipathy divided the ancient
from the new nobility. During the fifty years which followed the end
of the civil wars, many recently ennobled families had entered the
Senate. Amongst these, the families of ancient nobility, those whose
glory dated back to the grand era of the Republic, at this time formed
only a small yet haughty minority, which lived apart, despised the new
nobility, and kept aloof as far as possible. Now Piso belonged to one
of these ancient families, and to one of the most glorious of them.
The constitution of the Senate as the tribunal, meant, therefore,
entrusting the decision of the case to the new, upstart nobility, which
was full of blind rancour against the haughtiness of the old families.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account