Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:50:00.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Trial of Clutorius Priscus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

D. C. A. Shotter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The trial of Clutorius Priscus, as Walker says, ‘gives the first instance of a condemnation based only on trivial charges’. Even so, it is clear that the charges against Clutorius had been made possible by Augustus' extension of the law to cover famosi libelli, although Tacitus' words on that occasion (‘cognitionem de famosis libellis specie legis eius tractavit’) may indicate that no formal change in the law was made. Similarly, then, at the beginning of his reign, Tiberius was instructing Pompeius Macer to observe the spirit rather than the letter of Augustus' law. Support may be lent to this view by the fact that both Augustus and Tiberius were prompted in their actions by particular incidents which annoyed them. In the case of Clutorius, the delator may well, in view of Tiberius' absence from Rome, have been encouraged to attempt a similar rather loose interpretation of the law. But is there a ‘false emphasis’ in Tacitus' presentation of the case?

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , April 1969 , pp. 14 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 14 note 1 Walker, B., The Annals of Tacitus (Manchester, 1952), 99–100Google Scholar; Marsh, F. B., The Reign of Tiberius (Oxford, 1931)Google Scholar, in and 293–4; Rogers, R. S., Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation under Tiberius (Middletown, 1935), 62–4.Google Scholar Accounts of the trial are to be found in Ann. iii. 49–51Google Scholar and Dio Cassius, lvii. 20. 3–4.Google Scholar

page 14 note 2 Ann. i. 72. 4.Google Scholar With regard to Marsh's idea that Clutorius may not have been guilty under the maiestas law, since the latter might not have been applicable to the person of Drusus, it can be seen that Cassius Severus' writings covered ‘viri feminaeque inlustres’.

page 14 note 3 For a discussion of the proper sentence under the maiestas law see Furneaux, H., The Annals of Tacitus (Oxford, 1896), i. 451 (note on ‘quod perinde’).Google Scholar

page 15 note 1 Ann. ii. 51. For another occasion on which it may have looked as if Haterius had been ‘planted’ see Ann. i. 7 7. 3.Google Scholar

page 15 note 2 Ann. iii. 65. 3–4.Google Scholar

page 15 note 3 Only Rubellius Blandus supported Marcus Lepidus' proposal for mitigation of sentence (Ann. iii. 51. 1).Google Scholar

page 15 note 4 Libo Drusus (Ann. ii. 29. 1)Google Scholar; Cn. Piso (Ann. iii. 11. 2)Google Scholar; Junius Silanus (Ann. iii. 67. 3Google Scholar—‘Et ne quis necessariorum iuvaret periclitantem, maiestatis crimina subdebantur, vinclum et necessitas silendi.’ The meaning of this passage is slightly doubtful, but it may possibly mean that people who might otherwise have gone to Silanus' aid were intimidated by means of threatened ‘maiestas’ charges against themselves.).

page 15 note 5 e.g., Ann. ii. 32. 2–4.Google Scholar

page 15 note 6 Ann. iv. 20. 4Google Scholar—‘Nam pleraque ab saevis adulationibus aliorum in melius flexit.’

page 15 note 7 Ann. i. 73. 1Google Scholar; i. 74. 1–2; ii. 27. 1.

page 15 note 8 For Tiberius' moderatio see Sutherland, C. H. V., ‘Two “Virtues” of Tiberius: a Numismatic Contribution to the History of his Reign,’ JRS xxviii (1938), 129 ff.Google Scholar

page 16 note 1 Both of these after some hesitation, because disrespect to Augustus was involved. See my article, ‘Tiberius and the Spirit of Augustus’, Greece & Rome xiii (1966), 207 ff.Google Scholar

page 16 note 2 He was prepared to defend Cn. Piso (Ann. iii. 11. 2).Google Scholar

page 16 note 3 See Tiberius' remark after the suicide of Libo Drusus (Ann. ii. 31.Google Scholar 4—‘iuravitque Tiberius petiturum se vitam quamvis nocenti, nisi voluntariam mortem properavisset’). Cf. Dio lvii. 20. 4, who seems to miss the point—“ὁ οὗν τιβέριος ἀγανακτήσας, οὐχ ὃτι ἐκεῑνος ἐκολάσθη ἀλλ' ὅτι τις ὕπὸ τῶν βουλευτῶν ἄνευ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γνμης ἐθανατώθη …”

page 16 note 4 His belief that the informers were acting as the ‘guardians’ of the laws illustrates the depth of his blindness (Ann. iv. 30. 4–5—‘Subverterent potius iura quam custodes eorum amoverent. sic delatores, genus hominum publico exitio repertum et ne poenis quidem umquam satis coercitum, per praemia eliciebantur.’)Google Scholar

page 17 note 1 Vibius Serenus (Ann. iv. 28)Google Scholar and Cominius Proculus (Ann. iv. 31).Google Scholar The cases of Q. Servaeus and Minucius Thermus (Ann. vi. 7)Google Scholar are rather different, for they ‘earned’ their reprieve by turning State's evidence.

page 17 note 2 For example, in this case only one man had the courage to support Lepidus.

page 17 note 3 For Tiberius' storing up of his anger see Ann. i. 7. 11Google Scholar, i. 13. 5, and i. 69. 7. Cf. his anger with Gaius Silius (Ann. iv. 18. 2–3)Google Scholar, which seems to have been at least partly responsible for Tiberius' unsympathetic attitude which drove Silius to suicide. In any case, Tiberius usually saw through flagrant injustices, and dealt with them on the spot (e.g. Ann. i. 73).Google Scholar

page 17 note 4 Ann. iv. 6. 3.Google Scholar

page 18 note 1 Ann. ii. 50. 1.Google Scholar

page 18 note 2 Statistics are eloquent; up to A.d. 23 Tacitus mentions 16 cases, of which 5 resulted in punishment, 2 in suicide, and 9 in acquittal or dismissal without trial (7 of these at the instigation of Tiberius). In over 50 per cent of these cases, then, the guardians' of the law had to be overruled. This shows at once the emperor's moderatio and the need for reform. It might also have raised the question in the minds of some as“ to what would happen, should Tiberius at some time not take such an active interest in the City's affairs.