In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Murder Was Not a CriMe, 9–1 b.C.e. If murder was not a crime, what was? Before the middle of the second century B.C.e., there were no crimes. This does not mean that before the middle of the second century the Romans experienced either total nihilistic anarchy or beatific peaceful relations, only that the mechanisms for dealing with disputes, even violent disputes, must almost always have been beyond the purview of the government. Social structures such as the familia and the patron/client relationship must have served as the mechanisms for the resolution of myriad disputes. There alsowere additional methods of private arbitration when these more personal forms of resolution were unmanageable.1 Although the precise mechanisms are unknown, what is known is that the government did not legislate regarding criminal acts until the middle of the second century B.C.e., when the legislation was tied to the creation of standing criminal courts, the quaestiones perpetuae. The Romans’ territory expanded more than exponentially during the period between the mid fifth century and the early first century B.C.e.; the changes resulted in an increase in the size and complexity of Roman government; and this complexity and size included, eventually, quaestiones perpetuae (the standing public courts that dealt with acts “done in violation of those duties which an individual owes to the community and for the breach of which the law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public”2). Nevertheless, murder still was not a crime. Certain offenses involving homicide did become actionable—at first irregularly and some, eventually, regularly—in Roman courts, but homicide per se was not the reason these activities were actionable in a public venue. The reason often had little to do with the act of one human being killing another. four  murder was not a Crime the goverNMeNt’s sPhere of authority The concern about murder and unintentional homicide during the monarchy does not seem to have reappeared in the historical period of the republic. Instead, when Roman institutions began to take an interest in criminal activities (to some degree before the second century, but certainly during the second century), offenses that included homicide found their way into what eventually became a permanent system of standing courts. The reasons for the inclusion reflect Roman perceptions of the role of government and its responsibilities and limitations. Murder was not a crime because the judicial forces of the government did not involve themselves with the private activity of one Roman killing another, and because it was not an act intended to harm the res publica. Only specific kinds of killing, or killings that occurred under particular circumstances, became crimes because they did endanger the res publica. The reasons for a public trial were often, no doubt, more complicated in each individual case than the limited descriptions in the sources will allow us to determine, but there are certain tendencies that reveal themselves . In particular, the res publica was threatened by the death of large numbers of victims, by acts of public violence (though not yet defined as such), and, in particular, by threats to the elite, who guided the res publica. These characteristics of actionable homicide reflect the personal nature of Roman political administration and the role of the government, which was primarily the protection, preservation, and success of the res publica. In the period before the institution of the quaestiones perpetuae, starting in 149 B.C.e., the offense itself was not necessarily the determining factor for a public trial, yet some offenses appeared more often in the reports of public trials than others. For example, with regard to homicide-related offenses, parricidium (kin-killing) and veneficium (poisoning) seem to have been tried in a public venue. Each of these offenses has its own particular qualities that brought it to the attention of the community at large. Furthermore, an act of intentional homicide could fall under the rubric of another offense: perduellio (treason), and being a sicarius (a daggerwielder ) was of interest to the government at least as earlyas the beginning of the second century, though no trials are recorded in the extant record. Most of these became actionable in the standing courts instituted in the late second century and early first century. Each of these offenses is explored in this chapter to demonstrate how the concerns of the legislators and of those who might have presided over public courts reflect the values and concerns of the...

Share