The Roman assemblies from their origin to the end of the RepublicBotsford, George Willis
History
The Roman assemblies from their origin to the end of the Republic
Botsford, George Willis
Constitutional law -- Rome; Rome -- Politics and government
Several prosecutions in the era extending from the Gracchi to Sulla
partake of the revolutionary nature of the time. The inconsistency in the
position of Ti. Gracchus, who depended on the sanctity of the tribunate
while technically violating it in the person of his colleague Octavius,
is illustrated by his attack on T. Annius Luscus. The latter, a man of
consular rank, challenged Tiberius in the senate to answer definitely
whether or not he had branded with infamy a brother tribune whom the law
declared sacred and inviolable. The senators applauded the challenge; but
Tiberius, hurrying from the Curia, convoked the plebs, and ordered Annius
to come forward and defend himself against the charge of violating by
his words the tribunician sanctity. Before the proceedings could begin,
Annius by permission asked his accuser: “If you intend to deprive me of
my rank and disgrace me, and I appeal to a colleague of yours, and he
comes to my support, and you thereupon lose your temper, will you deprive
him of his office?” Plutarch, who tells this story, alleges further that
Tiberius, not knowing what to reply, dismissed the assembly and withdrew
his accusation.[1962] But the fact that Annius made a speech against
Tiberius[1963] indicates that the proceedings went farther. Evidently
the accused in some way escaped condemnation. The same political
significance attaches to the tribunician capital prosecutions of the
time, mentioned in an earlier chapter.[1964] No more actions, however,
are known to have been brought by the tribunes before the tribes till
103,[1965] when Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, a popular tribune of the plebs,
author of the famous statute concerning the election of sacerdotes,[1966]
prosecuted M. Junius Silanus for misconduct as consul in 109. The
charge was that he had begun war on the Cimbri without an order of the
people. Notwithstanding the stigma of defeat borne by the accused, he
was acquitted by thirty-three of the thirty-five tribes.[1967] In the
same year Domitius prosecuted M. Aemilius Scaurus for having as consul
neglected the sacra of the di Penates at Lavinium. The accused was
acquitted by the votes of thirty-two tribes.[1968] These prosecutions,
together with the plebiscite just mentioned, excited against Domitius an
antipathy among the optimates which reveals itself in the sources but
which his character hardly deserved.[1969]
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