Columbia Studies in the Spaces of Justice Classical Tradition in the Roman World william Ftd by ‘Alan Cam Said, Francesco de Angelis Kathy H. Eden, Gareth D. Williams, Holger Klein ‘VOLUME 35 BRILL LEIDEN - BOSTON 2010ue 3 1008 9 & Opt ‘contents 1s of tusratons, List of Abbrev. List of Contribs Preface | and Space: An Introduction rancid Angels Ci Procedure in Clasical Rome: Having an Aalence wth the Magistrate rmest Metager| A lace fo aris the Spaces of Justice? Kaus Tuer Finding a Place fr Law in the High Enpire Tacitus, Dialogus race Fir The Urban Practor Tibunal nthe Roman Republic rie Konda The Emperor’ Justice ants Spacesin Rome an ly. Francesco de Angle The Forum of Augusta n Rome: Law andl Orderin Sacred Spaces 161 Richnd Neudecher ‘What Was he Forum aium Used forthe Ficus and its Janson in Fist Century ex Rome, ‘Rei Some Letters and the Centumviel Court, ime Babe Space of fustice in Roman Egypt Livia CapponiThe Sting and Staging of Christin Tas Kangaroo Courts: Displaced Justice in the Roman Novel Ton Bode Chronotoperof nic inthe Greck Novel: Has in Naraive Sura Scars ography Index of Sources Index of Name, Inder of Plces Inder of Subjects LUST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Kondne the Urba Pract Tribunal nthe Roman Republic Fig. RICE August 633, doar Lugtucu (Ly), (photo ‘cust of Casal Nomi ro) ‘Ghssical Nomisatie Group) “ Pg. Phan he Fras Romanum 7588, ape rm LM, Davi and bo tat Soh lsc! Numismati Grp) * enor EC 474- dnar, Ror, 688 (ph cores of de Angeli, The Enero Justice anit Spas in Rome daly Pg. Forum Romana (Ander 317, Colui Photo Calletion) [Rf Paatheo, ead Leonard Mat Coli Pht Cllstion) De 3. Cut ais Alina 337h Colombia hot alton) Ft, Pla ofthe Palin, sat indeton of he Al ga (0) an Rasa .Gatesch Resta dl Roma peril asap Fig. Pathe, ew ofthe trie (enna Mat, Clunsa Pot atecon)A RBLIER, SOME LETTERS AND THE CENTUMVIRAL COURT Laanwe Banu Ieis a sruism of humanity that we rarely record the most common or repetitive aspects of our lives, thovgh Taternet culture with its “Face ‘book and "blogging" is tempting to change that. The Romans likewise focused their historical eye on the unusual, the exceptional, the ideal “This certainly isan sue when considering the physical nature of Rome’ legal system, Answering simple questions such as when or where certain legal procedures happened can become, on occasion, surprisingly dif cult, We are certainly slaves to what information survives, Some of our best evidence concerning the physical nature of courtroom activities da: ing the early imperial period concerns the centumviral court, and wien we think ofthis court the letters of Pliny immediately spring to mind, for itis within his writings that we find some ofthe most vivid descriptions of proceedings before the centwmviri. in fact, these are among the most vibrant descriptions of any judicial spaces within Rome. To his descip- tions we can also ada the comments of his teacher, Quinlan, about the same court, Paling these literary sources withthe a print of the structure in which this court mot during the easly imperial period, the Basilica Tali, we gain a relatively rare opportunity to super: impose activities described in literary texts onto a specific physical land scape. Certainly, the centumviral court was not an average Roman judicial arena; it dealt withthe causes eébres of the day forthe most part, par ticularly those involving inheritance, Since these cases inyolved wealth and on occasion some scandal, itis not an exaggeration to say that a large swath of the general public no doubt attended this court at least ‘once to witness the proceedings. But while this court stood out within the legal system, it didnot exist alone or in isolation, and for that we ora deal cum ofthis cr see Kay (2976) 1-39 end ore recently hie (009 son enim ne!are thankful. Much of what we learn about thie court sheds light on Romeés other courts and the reverse is also true. This article examines three topic, Fist 1 will discuss the physical arrangement of the centumviral court within the Basilica Iulia. To do this I wil rely heavily on those letters of Pliny in which he describes this court and on some passages from Quintlian. Having arrived at a reconstruction that best its the evidence, we will then tuen to theee pas sages from Pliny’ eters, Pliny’ terminology i of particular interest for what it tells us about both the physical layout ofthe centunmvizal court, sand the abstract, somewhat fuid boundaries of «courtroom. Third, we will examine in detail a fragmentary reli sculpture. This fascinating scene is suggestive and frustratingly elusive, but much can be gleaned from it regarding several aspects of Rome’ courts Study of this fragment ‘demonstrates how interconnected information drawn froma relief, from the vocabulary f spataity within the Latin language, and from the prac= tical issves of courtroom function can create a frea, animate landscape and a more complete understanding ofthe social and political dy at work in this and other courtrooms in Rome. Since I deal here with not only the centumviral court but also some ofthe other single-magistrate courts, I must clarify that I use the term “hearing” as a catch-all fr both criminal and civil cases, Howeves, the word does not incide within its seope the apua iudicem portion of a iil ease, which would be heard by a private citizen acting asa judge Soy its general scope includes cases before the centurvital court, before the practors and other magistrates with jurisdiction, and before those magistrates who could hear eases extra ondiner. Iwill indicate when clfferentiation between these various courts is intended. ‘We mast start with the Basilica Iulia, located on the south side of the Forum Romanum. Our sources make clear that the centumviral court was housed within this structure inthe first and second centuries i The Basilica Toa was first dedicated, in an unfinished state, in 46cw and later completed by Augustus Iwas destzoyed by fire, perhaps in 12 ncn, then rebuilt and rededicated in 12x. Yeas ater, twas again consurned by fieand rebuil by Diocletian in 283, the remains of thisstructurebeing still visible in the Forum Archaeological study suggests that Diocletians construction altered neither the ground plan nor the overall size of the original structure, and so we wil use the measurements of this stcture 2 Fr aline ing ofthe ue se LTUR wa. 408 fig 9, 9 Giuliani at Verduchi (1993). * for our calculations." The building also contained, inthe rst century C8, tn accessible second-floor gallery from which, according to Pliny, one ‘could look dovn tothe ground loorinterior® Based on this information it has been suggested that the second floor stood on top of the ground: floor aisles, leaving the central ground-floor arca uncovered except by third-loor roof, supported upon plas rising above the second floor. Light would have entered the building through this colonnade® The ground floor was accessible from the strect on the west, north, and east sides. ‘Within this space, the centumviral court met as either four separate panel of 45 judges or one large panel of 180 judges. The ancient sources fare guite clear that the four individual courts frequently met within the basilica a the same tlme, though each heard a separate ease, Quintilian, describing Trachalus’ presentation of a case before the contri, iden tifes the listening court as the “the first court” (primo tribunal)? This terminology likely was used to distinguish between concurrent courts. ‘Before we can consider in detail the arrangement of the four courts ‘we must have some idea of their elements. From my research | have reproduced what I believe is a courtroom arrangement corresponding (0 the existing evidence. We cannot go into this topic deeply here, bu the figure on p. 226 presents a diagram of what I envision the organization te have been. ‘This arrangement would be found in those courts which included a sizable body of judges, whether one of the quaestions perpetuae or the ‘entunsviral court In these courts the litigants were often represented by multiple advocates, of equal standing of a mix of senior and junior. How the advocates’ benches were arranged is a bit more complicated. ‘The arrangement that corresponds best with the evidence places these benches facing cach other. On the thd side of the central open area would be the presiding magistrates) and the 45 judges. In my recon: struction [ have divided the judges into two groups, half on either side “the parameter ofthe recta he sides ofthe sccenive bugs woul have spade mach ation dla Ale te son dass betwen the depiction fhe igus aan nnn the rar tr ad ho resins om Dalia ays perenne Pn, Bp es. Staeappearo have been located i the tbe section of the buigi n Vrdsi gn 17) One han oe ora, in epee Sere pe sun of oney tm th ep oro the ese cuie 10 ‘Repu anered below ine Pru Roman (Stet, Cl 37.3) Gan and Verdc (93) 378 Gaines ues26 [BANWE BABLITa, of the presiding magistrate. The placement of the judges is a topic to ‘which ve will retuen in the next section. On the fourth sie ofthe cen: tral area ltgants'and advocates supporters and/or the general audience ‘would occupy the benches. And finaly, in addition tothe seated audience ‘would be standing spectators—people who arrived too late to et a seat bout were planning on attending the trial fora length of time, and also curious passers-by who would remain only brief, just long enough to hear a popular speaker or figure out the matter ofthe case. This arrange: ment af the courtroom guarantees that the advocate could speak to three ‘quarters of those present without turning his back on any ofthe judges (which was, according to Quintiian to be avoided) * Now let us tuen to placing the four courts within the Basilica Iulia, It is my belief that the four courts occupied the open central nave ‘of the basilica, which measures 75% 16 metres. Two rows of columas surround the central nave, creating two aisles on all four sides, each measuring approximately 5.5 metres wide. Limiting the courts to the ‘central nae is sound for three reasons. First, visibility and audibly. The " orthe filament ce abl (207) 51-6, columns would have greatly reduced visibility from many points within the basilica, Ian advocate had stood in he outermost aisle, a person in the central nave would not have been able to see him well unless he was directly in front ofthe speaker; persons within the aisle closest tothe nave ‘would only have been able to see if they stood within approximately fity percent ofthe available space. Thus, the only practical option would be forthe audience to expand within the same asl, down the length ofthe building, Hovever in this arrangement audibility quickly becomes an issue the further one stands from the speaker. In addition, the outermost aisles would surely be affected by noise coming from the forum or the streets, which would further limit one's hearin. “The building’ overall design also suppocts the courts being limited to the central nave. External access to the building was possible on three of its four sides from the Via Saera, the Vicus Tuscus and the Vicus Tugarius.Situating court of judges, advocates and audience inthe aisles would have very much inhibited the netural flow of traffic, whereas concentrating the courts within the central area would have allowed for trafic to move around the nave via the aisles. Pliny description ofthe court during the cave involving Atti Virola supports the same conclusion, The courtroom, Pliny says, was so full that men and women occupied the second floor and leaned over in their eagerness to see—vshich was easy—and to hear—which was dificult IF the court officals and advocates had been located in the central nave, this area would have been easily visible ftom the second loot, but if the court had been withia the aisles, those on the second floor woud have seen very litle, With the court in the eentral nave, people on the second floor would in fact have had a much better view than many on the main floor, where it would have become increasingly difficult forthe audience to see the speaker once the avalable benches were filed and only standing room remained, "Thus, we can assume that once the main led, spectators would have moved to the second floor, scrificing audibilty fora clear view. “Thus, we must arrange four separate courts ina space of 1200 square metres. The awkwardness of the space (the width to length ratio of the central nave ie 4 to 4.25) greatly restricts the possiblities. Three additional fuctots need to be kept in mind when we consider various layouts. Fist, because these four courts met simultaneously we must * Pn, Fp. 633.4a8 {TEEANWE RADLIT { TATA | Ln [att dt | try to postion them in such a way thatthe speaking advocates ofeach court areas far away’ from one another as possible; practicality suggests an arrangement that mininsised interference between courts. Secondly, and in the same vein, the most favourable arrangement would be one in which as much of the courts audiences a5 possible would be kept inthe closest feasible proximity to the speaking advocates, And finaly, the overall flow of traffic through the building must be remembered, As already mentioned, the Basilica llia was accessible from various strvets along thre ofits four sides (west, north aud east) An arrangement ofthe outs that works with rather than against this fact isthe goal The configuration ofthe four courts that best meets the above criteria divides the central nave into four equal squares and places the court officials and advoestes along the southern boundary ofthe central nave. The space used by each court is evenly demarcated, which would aid in limiting the interference between the courts, and the great majority of the audience for each court is within a comfortable distance of the speaking advocate The advocates are almost as distant from each other asthe space allows." Audience members can enter the building from all three accessible sides and move direct to the appropriate court without passing through any other. The arrangement also can accommodate a certain amount of audience overfiow. The far end of the court (what ‘would be the very back ofthe audience area) would be easily acoesed by smers and could if need be, continue to expand out ofthe central nave into the aisle Visibility woul be reduced but there would be son opportunity to hear the speakers, Rach couet would also be visible to some observers onthe second floor if they were standing at the railing ‘We must also identify how the same space was utilised when the centurnviri met as one united court, From Quintilian and Pliny we earn > For ul asin ofthe other posible imately ete co cout se Bale (200 In Fig 29 i Dalit (oe her loon ofthe oes area the estes tance rom ea A RELIBR, SOME LAOTERS AND THE CENFUMVIRAL COURT 229 that the majority ofthe time, the centumyari metas four separate courts. However, the same space clearly accommodated both. As mentioned cae, the long rectangular shape ofthe space is very awkward and we really have only two possibilities—placing the tribunal in the midale of the short or the long side of the nave. Considering the acoustics and voice projection in a building sided with marble and lacking a focal architectural feature, the mos efficient location would be the long south side of the central nave, The speaker could alternately face one way or the other while stil keeping the judges at his side. This location would demand that he projet his voie as far as half the length of the central nave. ‘The cost of keeping the judges to his side would be that half ofthe time the advocate would have his back to half of the audience ‘Unortanately, there i itle room to work around this necessity. [would like now to turn to some problematic passages in Pliny’ letters that are very pertinent to this discussion. Plinys terminology, and in particular his use of the word tribunal, make a good starting point Inletter 2.14 Pliny complains that advocates speaking inthe cenkaravi ral court ate buying audiences to supply applause and continues ‘Si quando transis per basta et vole sci, quo modo qulsgue dia, iki ‘st quod tribunal asendas, nih quod prasbeas aver fetisdvnai: sco tum pssine der quo ladabitur maine (Pin, Ep 2.148) Radice provides this translation: Ifyou happen to be passing the court and want to know about the sea crs there eno need to come onto the bench oF pay atention to te po ‘ceeding it easy to guest the man who raises most cheers isthe worst speaker ‘The phrase tribunal ascendas is puzzling. Surely Pliny isnot saying with, tribunal ascendas that passers-by ought to actully climb up onto the platform accommodating the presiding magistrate and specifically ask him about the nature ofthe case being heard. A magistrate tribunal ‘was, lke the sllacuralis, one ofthe symbols of his authority and not & structure that all and sundry could climb upon. The impossibility ofthis interpretation Is further supported by the disruption such interruptions © Gund mestings of the fur oars Osi, st 13.56 excepto meetings of tel court: Pls Ep 44 835 Radice aye}. Wali (208) provider thie wandalon “I at any die you pas ‘hough the bce, and you sehen eo koe hw exch advocates pecormi, thee inno aed io mou the tm or eve to lend a cr. Yoo eam easy gues Tha the ane who wine elon! apse ithe eat competent Speake”230 177-5. Ab tribunal: Liv. 26.15. Plt Epis, 4.26.1; Pane. 28.3, De tribuaal: Liv: 2.29.4 tions of other first century authors It is surprising to discover, however, that on the only three occasions when Pliny uses tribunal in a descrip tion ofthe centunvial court the interpretation ofthe word to mean the platform of the magistrate jst cannot work with what we know of the physical nature ofthat court. The first peoblematic passage is that whieh ‘opened this discussion of the term tribunal, where Pliny states that one does not need to tribunal ascend(ere) to discover the nature of the case. “The two other passages muddy the waters farther but mast be brought into the discussion. In 633 Pliny provides us witha detailed description ‘ofthe Basilica Tula, during a hearing before the centumviral court meet ing asa single united body: Sedebantcantum eoctginta judi (ft enim guatiuor consis eolgun furl ngensurimque advacato et monerova eli, praeterea densa cr ‘umstatium corona ats adit lpi creulo abba. Aa hoe ibusal, atqu etiam ex supeiorebasicae parte qua feminae qua tudlend (quod dif) ef (quod fae) vsend studio iraminehant (Phin, Fpist 6333-4) (One hundeed an eighty judges were sting (thats the numer of the four ‘courts joined togeter), and both ses had enormous legal representation nd many benees. Moreover a denae crowd of bystanders, Several rows ‘dep, surrounded, ina semicircular fashion, the broadest court “Thus far my own translation; I provide the translations of Radice and ‘Walsh forthe rest ofthis passage in order to aid further discussion, ‘The bench wi also crowded, and even the gales wer full of men and women Isning over in thee eagerness to See and also fo heat, though hearing was rather more difical.* “Then, too, the bench of the judges was crowded an inthe gallery ofthe Daslca both men and women loomed over us in thei eagerness to hear (rich was diol) and to see (hich was easy). Finally in letter 4.16 Pliny describes arcival one day at the centumviral dean mii locus is tribunal, nis per ipsos iudics nom fs tata ‘tipatione cetera encbantu. (lin, Hpst. 4162) ural) 586 (cons tina), 6. bn. ace, 7 ean 7.5 oa. Radice (969. al (2008).And again the translations of Radice and Walsh There was no room lft for me to reach my place except by way of the magistrates bench, through thei astembled! ranks, asthe rt of te Noor twas crowded. "could make my way throug fom the tribunal only by passng throygh the judges, forthe rst of the curt was swamped by lange crush people It should be noted that in the Latin of Radice’ Loeb edition of Pliny’ letters the ist nist is omitted, without explanation, from the Latin text. ‘Theeditions of Gullemin (Bude), Schuster (Teubner), and Mynor (OL) allinchude the first nis® Again inthis final pasage, the vocabulary Pliny ‘ses leaves the reader puzzled when thinking about the physicality of this, court. [have provided Radice’ and Walsh translations to these dificult passages not to criticize but to exemplify the difficulties of interpreting and translating spatial terms into English idiom, It is no mere coincidence that the three passages of Pliny’ letters, in which the use of ¢ribunal is not immediately clea, all pertain to the centumviral court. Examination ofthe location and form of Romes ‘outts in the early imperil period reveals that it isthe centunviral court about which we have the most detailed description. This court i rare in that it was housed within a specific building, a building which retained its basic form throughout antiquity and survived into the modern period. It is only in such cases when we can put the various participants within a given physical space tha itis possible for us to co tribunal is being used Let us begin then with the positioning and arrangement of the 180 judges. In 6.33.5 Pliny states thatthe audience surrounded, ina semi circular fashion, the iatssimum iudicium. the iudicium must be inter preted to mean the court participants that he has already described inthe passage—the 180 judges, the advocates, and those occupying the immme- diate benches, which would include the junior advocates, the aides, and ‘of course the litigants. The use of latisimum seems strange but I would like to propose physical arrangement fr the court that may help justify Pliny’s choice of adjective. If we return to my proposed recanstruction of @ courtroom presented in the first past ofthis article, we must now ‘consider the positioning ofthe judges within this space. Iti clear that, sider hove the term Radic (6) 2% Wal (000. 2 Galen a) Schuster (8), Mra (2969) BO A RBLIBS SOME LETTERS AND THE CENTUMVIRAL COURT 233, the judges were accessible to both advocates and litigants, We hear of the latter clutching atthe knees of julges and shedding tears—the effect could help one’s case The judges must also have been near the adv: cates, whose speeches were naturally directed towards them. With this evidence alone, itis clear that we must position the judges on the edge of the central open are: that isthe only way they could be accessible. Since swehear of advocates falinginto the arms oftheir supporters, and litigants having supporters sitting close by in the first rows, we cannot arrange ‘the jadges ina single line occupying the front-most seats of ench section ‘of the benches. I think it most practical to have them sit together asa ‘group. For these reasons T have placed the judges on the third side ofthe ‘courtroom. In this reconstruction the judges are in two groupings of 27 and 28, with the presiding magistrate between them, Thus we have three benches (each holding 9) on either side, indicated by solid lines in the raving (ig, p. 226) 1 draw the number 9 from a combination of ancient evidence that says the trbunes ofthe plebs, which numbered 10, oceu: pied a single bench at offical functions, and from modem architectural triteia that indicates a portable bench could manage to hold 9 people. ‘We mst also consider how the judges were arranged when they met as ‘one caurt of 180, To accommodate 180 judges on benches seating 9 each, zo benches ae requited. It is posible that 7 mote rows of benches could bbe added to the blocks already present in our reconstruction, but sch ann arrangement would result inthe back rows ofthe judges being quite 4 distance from the central area. If benches were placed vo that seated individuals knees were right up against the backs ofthe row in front of them, a depth of about acm would be required foreach row. That would nean two blocks measuring 9.14 metres deep—which i quite distance, perhaps manageable 1 believe an alternative arrangement may be more likely. The judges oul be separated into 4 blocks instead of 2, with § rows each, and these ‘extra blocks could be putbeside those n our reconstruction, indicated by dotted lines in the drawing. This would make the entice block of jadges ‘wider across the front, but even those at the back woud be much loser to the advocate. I think such an arrangement explains Pliny’ use of the term latssinu és. IF we add extra benches forthe judges a the front ofthe court, it would also be necessary to enlarge the open central 2 Sen, Coir 6: Set Claud 153 5 ult fa ab 239.56 298, 538 13. © Vans Sac al Phi, C290: Ramsey ad Hoke (000) 619.234 ane want, sea ofthe court by pushing back the advocates benches and the benches behind them, When the 180 judges came together to hear a case, the configuration ofthe court necessarily widened to accommodate them all and iti to this transformation that Pliny refers, Thus I argue that this passage aids us in concluding that the presiding magistrate occupied a platform by himself and benches were used by the judges which could be arranged in two configurations, one for when the four courts met separately and one for when the centumviral court met as one united ‘An issue that also most be addressed Is whether the judges were ee vated, While Tam quite comfortable with placing the presiding magis ‘rate upon a small platform, I see no reason to put the judges on a plat form of similar eight. Such a structure would be unwieldy and could ‘actually impair their patticipation, While the advocates did stand to speak, they were not elevated abave ground level. Kall of the jadges were elevated on a platform that rose to the height ofa standing adults waist, worry that the back roves ofthe judges would be unable to see the advo cate ihe stood relatively close to them at ground level We will return to this topic below, ‘Turning again to Pliny’s arrival in the cout in leter 4.16, we can now ‘make more sense of his description which I translate: “There was no room lef for me to reach my ple excep fom the tribunal ane through the judges themselves, as the rst ofthe Hoot was crowded.” 1 must clarify that Tem quite sure Pliny was speaking before only 45, judges on this occasion; Pliny would never have missed a chance to tell, tus that he addressed the united cousts, This passage has been taken by some scholars as proof thatthe judges were elevated, sitting on the same platform as the presiding magistrate. The fact however, that nis is used {wice,as wells the appearance of two prepositions-the a and the per— surely indicate that Pliny Is identifying two separate things; Pliny had to go by way of the tribunal and the judges to reach his seat, We have already determined above that practicality suggests thatthe judges were not on the tribunal with the presiding magistrate, If we think of our reconstructed courtroom with the audience sucrounding three sides of the court space, Pliny’ only option was to walk around tothe south aisle Fordincason of plata lhl se Babli (008. > aden i lacks ist aaa, per pos ne on ata tiptoe carr tenant thank M. Cres and 8, Ma or tee sage advice Seeding Pinyin of the basilica and by passing the tribunal and then through the rows ofthe judges, who were spread out along the south side, he reached the advocate bench, within the encircling audience. Teremains for ue now to return to Pliny’ use of tribunal i passages. Understanding each centumviral court to have a platform for the magistrate and benches which the judges occupied separate from ‘that platform, is clea in letter 4.16.1 that Pliny is using a tribal in tie standard manner to refer to the platform occupied by the presiding magistrate, However, the ais slightly worrisome. Does he rally mean that he physically climbed up on the platform and dovn on the other side? Considering tha this platform stood 3~4 fet off the ground and had a surface ares of about nine square fee (it was only large enough to comfortably accommodate a seated magistrate), could the crowd really be that dense that he fet the need to clamber over the platform? Furthermore, as was mentioned earlier, there was a great deal of respect given tothe magistrates ribunal, would it have been seen as acceptable for one of the speaking advocates to thus use it? Perhaps we should take Pliny’ use ofthe preposition slightly les literally to mean that he went around the structure itself but approached the central area ofthe court from the location ofthe platform. Itiswithletter 6.33 that we ind Pliny using she term tribunal in auch rarer wy T provide the text and my translation ofthe first part aga these three Pliny continues “Ad hoe sfpature tribunal..." 1 provide Radice and Walsh’ transtations here again aswell “he bench wis also crowed, and even the galeries were ull of men and ‘women Ising over in thee eagerness See and also to eas, though hearing wes rather more dificult For dsc ofplatorm sie veo Balt (2007) 37 an 200 » Radice (299)the, tao, the bench ofthe judges was crowded, and in the gallery ofthe basilica oth men and women loomed over us in ther eagerness to hear (ic as dificult) and co see (hich was asp)” {1am confident that neither Radice or Walsh intend the word “bench” in their translations to be taken literally. It is certain that 45 judges could not physicaly occupy one bench as Walsh states. Both scholars here provide what hey believe to be the best English idiom to translate tribunal. The problem then is whether we, the readers of Radice’ and Walsh translations, all agree on what is meant by the bench’ T take Radice’ use of “bene” to refer tothe platform ofthe magistrate. [believe that Walsh is using "bench? to refer to judges as a single entity, those ‘who were judging the ease, In English we use various phrases to refer to involvement in a legal heating "I stood before the court on trial’, “I went before the tribunal’, “Twas heard before the bencl’. All of these phrases basically mean the same thing, and while an aspect of physicality is present within them, each one uses a diferent word, ‘court, ‘tribunal, “bench to refer tothe environment, [am dwelling on this issue because 1 ‘would like to propose a slightly different translation of Pliny’s phrase “ad hoc stipatum tibunaP one in wich Pliny is not using the term tribunal ina technical sense but ina far more idiomatic sense: [atl were paying keen atenion] to this packed cout, and there were even ‘women and men hanging rom the higher part ofthe basic, ox oftheir ‘oyeenes to heatwhich ws dificall~and eagerness to see —which was ae It seems more likely that ad hoc stipatu tribunal refers generally to the court participants already described in the previous sentence—the 180 judges the advocates, aad the surrounding audience. For the Lat {o carry this meaning two options are possible. Bther a verb should bbe understood in the ad hoe stipatun tribunal clause (presumably one fof movement, though possibly one that implies clase attention) or by Zzeugma imminebant governs bath clauses, something which itis not possible to express by English idiom. Ad is, however, rarely found with Wak 006. "Tmt ot tu eee hs xan oe an impreneent on tht rev on pgs ebey ef Babli a) A, Lam sre tha hs nerve ton Sy obenatc nth rps how Py yl se the se al Yo mex “soreore en sdf for example xe Phy pt 1106 1242333 244 isn 7b 20a, 345.4540, 45%, fa: Rasa. My ppos ere Zc ne dea fbgnng testes om iy wth a we know fhe yl pce ARELIBR, SOME LETTERS AND THIE.CENTUMVIRAL COURT 237, ‘imminco in the sense of “paying attention” the prefered preposition ‘eng ir (OLD 3), of “intent upon” Is posible that Pliny is sacrificing ‘some correctness fora neat turn of expression. Thus, in this passage Pls is using tribunal to refer to the courtroom asa whole rather than just the platform ofthe presiding magistrate. Such an interpretation gives a cerian eiciency to Pliny’s description fama physical perspective. He begins with central element, the judges, describes the advocates siting before the judges, the benches close by, and the audience on the benches around the central open area. He then Comments more generally about how crowded the entite ground-floor space was, and completes his description by referring to the audience ‘which overflowed tothe second floor. His description thus moves from the centre of the court to its extremities. 1 Pliny is speaking of the presiding magistrate when he refers tothe tribunal, the natural physical, flow of this description i interrupted, We find further support for Pliny’ usage in a passage from another author ofthe imperial period, Quinlan, Interestingly, Quintilian is also describing the centunnviral court on an occasion when the great orator Trachalus was arguing a esse: Carte cum in bia Ila deeret primo tribunal, quattuor auten iui, a morse cogerentu atgue oma clamorbusfrmerent et audit ew intellect, quod aentbuscterlscontumeliostsiruo ft lado ‘toque ox quatuor tunis eran (Quint, fast 125.8) CCertuinly T remember that, when he was speaking in the Basics Julia before the fist court, and'the four courts were convened, as is usu, and the whole place was in uproar with shouting, aot only was he heard fnd tnderstood, bu alto he was consmended (a thing which was most insulting tothe other speakers} by all four courts. In this passage Quintilian frst identifies the court in which Tyachalus appears, He does not include any preposition with the noun which typi cally we find, as was mentioned before, in references tothe platform ise, [Rather inthis cae, we get a sense that Quintilian i using prim tribunal asa name fr the court to differentiate it from the second, third or fourth ‘cout, The second appearance of tribunal also makes the most sense ifitis taken to refer tothe four courts in their entirety. How reasonable would it be for the four magistrates on their four tribunals to applaud ‘rachalus ‘success while ll others in their individual courts remained silent? The reality is far more plausible if we understand Quintiian to be using bunal, as Pliny does, to refer to each couet with its magistrate, judges, advocates, and audience,a8 "ERANWE RABLITE Finally, we must return to the passage with which we started this discussion, leter 2.14 in which Pliny complains about advocates buying audience support Si quando transbis pr basta er vole sie, quo modo qusque dca nit ‘quod iba ascenda, mil quod praheas aur as diva scilo ‘i pss der, gu ledaiur mas. (Phin, Hpi. 2148) 1, when you ae crossing through the bailica, you wish to know who is speaking and how well they are doing ther sno need for yo to ascend 1 the courtroom or perk up your eas; discovery is easy: you wil kaw ‘who speaks the worst ashe wil be the one pease the most [give here my own translation and I have translated tribunal ascendas using Pliny’ broader meaning of trwna, which makes Plinys statement farmore plausible. Ascendas requires comment. What-could be “climbed” in the Basilica Ilia, if not the tribunal itself? There are two possibilities Pliny is perhaps using ascendas here to tefet to the act of climbing the several steps from the Forum Romanum up to the ground floor of the basilica itselé The problem with this interpretation is that in Plny’s passage it seems that he envisions the passer-by to already be in the structure. Its possible to (ransate cransibis per as “going along” the basilica which would then place the passer-by outside the stricture, though this is perhaps going too far with the Latin.” Another possiblity ‘exists; however, its discussion must wait until the final section ofthis paper Such consideration of the physical arrangement of the centumvial ‘court within the Basilic Ili leads us of course to ask how four courts managed to conduct business within such close quarters, Organised in this way, the advocate who spoke in the centurnviral court indeed faced certain problems. He was speaking in a building faced in marble, with three other advocates like himself in cousts that, as we hypothesise, were pressing on his own on one or perhaps two sides, Competing with noise from both within one’ own court and without must have been a huge challenge for advocates. While positioning the cousts within the central nave meant that the asles and their columns would offer some slight bulfer between the court and the bustling Forum Romanum, noise from there and the streets on the west and east sides of the building still ‘must have penetrated the courts. rom other references we know that an ™ OLD mmeo 1; OLD per, SOME LETYERS AND THE CENTUMVIRAL COURT 239 audience at atrial yas alvays changing.—people were constantly coming and going—causing much noise i the process. And the Basilica Tula design certainly fclitated the temporary attendance of passers-by. The likely chsotic atmosphere required great concentration on the pat ofthe advocate, an unenvinble aspect of the role. And finally we must multiply all this by 4. We have 4 cauris, each consisting of as many as 45 people ‘being carried along by 4 speaking advocates, who would each be drawing laughter or joes from tne mdienceat frequent intervals Quintin tells ‘wo stories of how advocates speaking in one court could be affected by those speaking in the other courts and/or the other audiences. The first, isthe above-mentioned aneedote in Quintlian about ‘Trachalos drawing ‘applause from the audience not only in his own court but from those ofthe other courts as well Notice as well in this passage Quintilia’s statement that “the whole place was in uproar with shouting” Quintilian (as recorded by Pliny) also tells @ story about Domitius Afer in the centumiral court, Apparently on one occasion Afer was interrupted repeatedly during his speech by noise from another court ex praxime; finally, at the third interruption he stopped his speech, asked who was speaking, and was told it was Licinus.® This story about Afer has led some modern scholars to suggest that partitions were used to divide the four courts, which would then have made the courts invisible to each other and thus led to Afers question bout the identity of his rival speaker, But I believe our proposed recon ‘struction proves partitions to be an unnecessary feature. In this arrange: ment ofthe four courts there could have been between Afer and Licinus inthe next court a sizeable portion of both their audiences. We know from various references that atleast a portion ofan audience stood rather 2 Fg. Quin ns 42.3; Tae. Dia 620.9: Pin pt 2148 for dacui ad th eatin tral athe miber a 430 ee Bete Ota, 12.56% Cert comin Bas I det rin tana ut cor ain mao opt tae oa amor ero am fom tnt ued ops ees coment quague qtr nna men Sin’ Ep augseet: Aacabet fe ‘Adsctabar Domi Afam. Cam pad centrist got enter ent clots gee oui x Prosi Irmo note amoren: Annas eel a ent jst ee eet und abrpera eran cro ern ee pest letra Nowe Aine gu tec quart, Resp ess Tum ire caer tpl ec arc pt240 LANNE RABLITa than sat, "There is no way Afer could have seen Licinus in the next coutt while both men were surrounded by their respective audiences. Thus, Aer asked those near the back of his own court to turn and ascertain the other speakers name from an audience member of the next court ‘who was also standing near the back. each tribunal had been separated from the others by partitions, how could the members of Afer audience boave discovered the identity of the other speaker? ‘The very inclusion of the story of Trachalus’ booming voice mos Hkely attests tothe exception rather than the rule. Itwas no doubt rare tha a speaker could overpower those speaking in al three other courts. Quintlian included the story of fer fr diferent purpose, to comment on how audiences in the court were being “stacked” with claques (paid applauders), and we ean pechaps conclude that interference, at least between diretly adjacent courts, was far more frequent. “This discussion of partitions and inte-audience communication in di ferent courts leads tothe final topic of ths atiele—a fragmentary relief that I propose may provide further information on the physical nature ‘of Rome courts and perhaps the centunwiral court in particula The fragment (ig. 2) was discovered near the Lacus Iuturnae, located in the south-east comer of the Forum Romanum between the temple of Castor and Poll and the Atrium Vestae;” We see platform (ort least the top ight corner oft inthe lower left. On top of te platform we ind the bot tom half ofthe magistrate, as indicated by the sllacurulis (of which one legis visible) upon which he sts2¥ Before the magistrate, at ground level tnd to the right ofthe platform, stands an individual in profile, ho scroll in is left hand and raising his right hand toward the magistrate “Tas central igure is balanced on the opposite side (with respect to the magistrate) by another whose body is mostly missing, except for his wo hhands visible on the fr let edge ofthe fragment. Like the central figure, hhetoo holdsaserollin his eft hand but is right hand is open towards that other figure. Immediately tothe right ofthe central figure is another indi Vidal facing diretly outward, At the far right of the scene we see por- tions oftwo additional figures, They bth ae clearly facing away from the © oni (901 94-6 fig 5: Pellet Ma) 1977 p24 9: Gabelnan (984) 62~ gy, peau. nk (96) val 142s Dav Cn) 404-495 499. 430-02 The ‘ee was in the Antigua Foren, Rome bt sag, Bo a nadsctOy Alieron ofthe Lac ture be Sy Toran excelent sto the sel cs eee (98), primary figures of the fragment, which suggests thatthe former ace part ‘of another grouping tothe right ofthe surviving fragment-—the destruc ion of which is most disappointing Although quite fragmentary, the surviving piece contains enough crucial elements to enable uso place thisscene confidenty within asmall group of extant artistic representations of legal activities.” Determining both theidentty ofthe figures and, therefore, the nature ofthe legal event ‘more dificult, The motion portrayed within the scene is of some help. ‘The positioning of the hands of the central figure indicates that he is in the process of addressing the magistrate, waile the figure to the left ‘of the magistrate apparently speaks as well, though his gesture suggests that hei talking about something the central figure has sid. While this leftmost figure’ movement could indicate agreement, the fact that the too figures face each other and ace divided inthe space by the platform ‘ofthe magistrate makes it more likely thathis outstretched hand indicates his rebuttal toa remark made by the central figure. This interaction then implies that the two individuals are adversaries, But what kind ‘of adversaries? Are they the parties in dispute or are they advocates representing others? Examination ofthe clothing is helpful. The figure on the lft, of whom only the hands survive, most likely is wearing a toga, as indicated by the folds which hang heavily over his let wrist (jus visible on the fragments edge). The central figure also appears to be wearing a toga, While his lft arm snot covered with the folds of the garment, the prominent gathering ‘of cloth that cascades down from hs eft shoulder i suggestive. The figure Sacing towards the central figre also appears toe wearing a toga, a small fold of material nea his waist indicates the umibo.® ‘What isthe relationship between these two men? Three discreet cle _ments, when combined with each other and what we know ofthe Roman courtroom, identify the relationship. First, the man bebind the central figure i clearly holding in his let band a rather imp piece of cloth, some thing ikea handkerchief, Second, note the large fold of cloth daven the > For an invoducory lak at lel ces in oman set see bls (208) Fr xamplesof trols ileal scenes sc abelian 14} nos 9 (G2, 93 ste). (and) and She (3985) a6 m2 p20, 96 Thee cue ae examine in more dept in Bate (orhcomag # Gatelmann (98) 183 Suggest that both he cental Eure and the ma rang lode iit wea tani hme changed my postin concerning the thing from what propose reviusy in Bate (a0) 26) thnk K- Oko or her ace through pete crresponans he hing found ntheaa rans wanes central figures beck. ‘The third element isthe swirling flow of the fab ric on the back lft sce of the central figure. think the most obvious interpretation ofthese two figures is that we have an advocate strenu- ously engaged in putting his ease before the magistrate while his ass lant stands at his side, prepared to offer support. We certainly hear that advocates were expected and even encouraged to go all out when pe senting a case, and it was quite fitting for their appearance to become altered with the exertion, The toga, being a complicated and somewhat dlficult garment to keep in order if much degree of exertion was under ken, was the fist item to be afecte. Quintlian states that there was nothing wrong in the advocate throwing back the toga fold from his arm, of letting the toga slip loose in the course af delivering his speech," Such alteration provided yet another way fr theadvacate to appeal to the ‘emotions of his listeners, who would be moved by his intense efforts on behalf of his client. I propose then that inthis scene we have an advocate ‘who has thrown the fold of his toga, which normally would have rested across his eft arm, up and over his shoulder instead, thus forming the prominent folds that we see descending from that shoulder, The energy of is presentation is Further indicated by the strong oppositional sits cut into the folds of his toga on the lft side, At his ight hand stands his assistant, While Quintilian requires that advocates beable to handle on their own anything a case might throw at them, he acknowledges that advocates often surrounded themselves with an entourage made up of junior advocates (nsinus avocatus) wanting toleara the profession, legal ‘experts (peritus iris, promptors, and clerks (librarius) These individ als occupied seats cose by. It would certainly aot have been unit for example, for one of these assistants to hold a handkerchiet for the ‘working advocate. The emperor Nero had such an assistant. Whenever he was givinga vocal performance—a ong or a specch—Nero had “a voice :master standing by him who would caution him against overstraining his vocal organs, and would apply a handkerchief to his mouth if he did" ‘Suetonius’ description is very similar to what we find in our scene. Quin. tli reports that Pliny the Elder advised orators to dry their brow with ‘handkerchief, making sure they did not muss thei hair in the process, Quin ts unsagesge * Cintra 10.3138 33.24 ly estan dein is whe edie ero sae nth il of Mae ie api 199). "Suc ew 53: ase phos gl moe act artes cara cf 1 vp A RELI, SOMH LETTERS AND THE CENTUMVIRAL COURT 243 For his part, Quintiian felt that signs of exertion and fatigue made an extra appeal o the emotions ofthe audience and therefore were good for the cause and shonld not be removed. With this proposed set of identifications it remains for us to discuss the fragmentary figures in the far right section ofthe reli Iti feature ‘of these figures that connects this relief to the focus of this article, the ‘enturviral court. The upper figure, of which we see oly the legs, is clad ina tunic; the fold of cfth tothe left ofthe figure’ thigh is perhaps part, ‘of a closk. Only the head ofthe bottom figure survives. "The triangular shape that is resting on what must have been the figute’s shoulder may be ‘hood, as Gabelmann soggests, though the shape seems abit too sti. Pethaps itis an object not made of cloth, sach a8 a box that served as something like a backpack? Lite more can be said until comparative images become available. (Of especial interests the height variation between these «wo figutes ‘The one figure is clearly elevated—e can se under his foot something of aline denoting the thing upon which he stands, but tis very nondescript and unhelpful. The other figure must be siting, unless the ground level changes radically between the central igures and these ones. So what do we havet We must step back for a moment from the detailed elements ‘ofthis fragment to consider both the scene of which this was but a par, 5 well as its context. The location of discovery is of great importance, surely this scene depicts the legal activities that took place so clase the Lacus luturnae (as noted above, the site ofthis fragment’ discovery), in the neighbouring Basilica fulia or the Forum Romanum, The date ‘of the fragment, placed by Gabelmann in the mid-first century cx of slightly later, certainly supports this interpretation." Evidence places the ‘centumviral court in the Basilica Iulia alceady around 68 cx. Mounting pressure on the courts, which met within the Forum Romanm, was somewhat relieved by the fora of ulus Caesar and Augustus, particularly ‘the Forum of Augustus, which became the new home for the courts of the praetor urbanus and the praetor peregrinus;hawever,itislikely that other courts continued to meet within the Forum Romanutt.”” Quint, 1.5.47-148 Quitlian mt hae fund have of Pliny his lest wor, he Stal (GeL 963), The defend Vain paren gh Wat onthe ot seat sea white andehi (Quist 6:80. Gabe (389) 15 an (989) 165. © See alts a007) 19-50 forthe lacaton af coats inthe Forum Roman athe imperil fora and 663 forthe cesta cout,aad LeANNx BALI Iris not too much of steetch to suggest that not only the central figures but also those on the right are involved in legal activities. Seldom, * “The possible use of bleachers in the centunnviral court also provides an alternative interpretation of Pliny’ comment that one should ascenlere) tribunal to identify speakers before the centumviral court. I proposed in ‘the previous section ofthis article that one interpretation ofthis phrase is that the alternative to listening to the shouts of the audience is that the passer-by should climb the stairs into the main level ofthe Basilica Tuli, That translation required quit liberal finessing of the Latin itsel However i bleachers were used by the centurnvral court, we can then take Pliny’ use ofascendas at its most literal. Pliny thus els the passer-by ‘that ifhe wants to know who i the best speaker he just needs to listen to the cheering He does not need to climb onto the bleachers, which would occupy the edges ofeach cour, or trunal, in order to talk to audience ‘members or see the speakers themselves. 57am ava tht th poposl ofthe we of leschrs within the ceturiel court ‘een ati byond what Twig to argue Bal (007. tll oly ovine ato dcr wu but elev hat we shoulda at conser the possibly tng on his evidence. ‘A MALIEE SOM LETTERS AND THE CERTUMVIRAE COURT 247 In his discussion ofthis relief Gabelmann suggests thatthe clothing and the smaller size ofthe two fragmentary figures on the right-most edge indicate their lower social status Since we do not know the boundaries ofthe rele in is full form, I wonder whether Gabelmann is correct, Ifthe height of the relief was restricted and the artist wanted tostack the men one above the other he may have had to alter the seale ‘of these figures to fit them in, However, our knowledge of the makeup of the audience may support both Gabelmannis postion as well asthe argument of this article, namely that we see here the rearmost portion ‘of the audience, Ancient authors report that people ofthe lower classes {tunics are even mentioned) attended the courts While the evidence from the imperil period does not enable us to place them specifically in the rearmost area ofthe courtroom, a passage from Plautus in which the republican theater seating arrangement is described suggests that such ‘people could be found in jus such a location.” tis disappoioting that this scene is so unique within Roman art With no other similar more complete scenes extant we are unable to reconstruct the missing portions. We cannot even be certain as to the type of court activity taking place. Its reasonable to conclude that bleachers tended to be used only for the fll hearing of Rome’ legal cases (be they civil or criminal) The preliminary activities would not have ‘generated much public interest, unless under exceptional circumstances. (Of tothe right of the surviving fragment there perhaps was a depiction of full hearing. So, what of our central figures and the magistrate? If ‘we are correct that the advocate is pulling out the stops and presenting his case with all his skill, then we must conclude that we find here another representation of eithee a civil or a criminal hearing, rather tha 1 depiction of the preliminary activities. Thus, we need a court thal consisted ofa single magistrate who could heat the main portion of a ‘ase, We can exclude the emperor, who had such ability: Gabelmann rightly concludes that the quality ofthe sculpture is too low to have been © Gaba (98) 6, Lansume hate ens in comparion wih the rtf the tat gues, Rone pe) 145 ale lees there Bigaresweeoloe slts eg Tac, Dil 74a, Pu pit, Pen 23-27 Se More 6) 73-78. "The cows amparbl scene seca fragmentary, rom Osi tt hows + plato with # magi, man standing befre the pao speaking 1 the ‘att, ond snheeving oars him png the ros een the 0 en Fearon amphora, For dso sd nage see Gabslaana (196) 0.65, 20.