No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Cicero, Ad Familiares XIII, 26 and 28: Evidence for Revocatio or Reiectio Romae/Romam?*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
Extract
The two letters of recommendation, Ad Familiares XIII, 26 and 28, were addressed in 46 B.C. to Ser. Sulpicius Rufus, the foremost jurist of the day, and at the time the governor of Achaea. They were written on behalf of Cicero's former quaestor, L. Mescinius Rufus, in anticipation of legal difficulties in the succession of the latter to the inheritance left to him in Achaea by his cousin(?) M. Mindius.
Cicero's request, ‘ ut … eos (i.e. Mescinius' opponents) … Romam reieceris ’, backed, as he informed his correspondent, by a letter (litterae quasi commendaticiae) from the consul in Rome (Fam. XIII, 26, 3) has received the most contradictory and mutually exclusive interpretations. Whereas some see in it a perfect example of an appeal launched before trial, others firmly deny this, or reject the very existence of this form of appeal. In its stead a little-used right of Roman citizens in the provinces to request a remittal of their case to Rome is invoked. The alleged appeal or right is variously designated revocatio Romae, revocatio Romam, reiectio Romae or most recently, reiectio Romam.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright ©Hannah M. Cotton 1979. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
References
1 Mescinius served as Cicero's quaestor in Cilicia in 51–50 B.C. until succeeded by C. Coelius Caldus; cf. MRR 11, 242, 250. Opinions vary about Cicero's relations with Mescinius at the time; cf. L. A. Thompson, ‘Cicero's Succession Problem in Cilicia’, AJP 86 (1965), 375–86, esp. 381 f.; contra A. J. Marshall, ‘The Lex Pompeia de provinciis (52 B.C. ) and Cicero's Imperium in 51–50 B.C.: Constitutional Aspects’, ANRW 1. 1 (1972), 917 and nn. Fam. v, 19 (49 B.C.) and 21 (46 B.C.) as well as the letters under discussion suggest a renewed or newly developed intimacy: cf. Drumann-Groebe VI2, 96.
2 For frater as cousin cf. Tyrrell, and Purser, , The Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero IV 2 (1918), 505,Google Scholar n.: ‘frater patruelis’; cf. Bailey, D. R. Shackleton, Cicero: Epistulae ad Familiares I (1977), 4–66,Google Scholar on Fam. v, 20 (No. 128)—brother, half brother or cousin. For Mindius see Fam. v, 20, 3, and cf. Nicolet, C., L'ordre equestre I (1966), 258–9;Google Scholar II (1974), No. 233.
3 Jones, A. H. M., ‘Imperial and Senatorial Jurisdiction’, Studies in Roman Government and Law (1960), 76–7Google Scholar.
4 cf. Kaser, M., Das römische Zivilprozessrecht (1966), 181,Google Scholar n. 10 (= ZPR): ‘eine Vorentscheidung in der Sache selbst, gegen die appelliert würde, ist hier nicht vorausgesetzt’.
5 cf. Garnsey, P., ‘The Lex Iulia and Appeal under the Empire’, JRS 56 (1966), 167–8;Google Scholar 180 f.
6 Garnsey, op. cit. (n. 5), 182–3; cf. idem, ‘The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors’, JRS 58 (1968), 56–7, and Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (1970), 263–4.
7 Jones, op. cit. (n. 3), 75.
8 Greenidge, A. H. J., The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time (1901), 292Google Scholar, who, however, does not regard it as a right but as ‘an outcome of customary law’.
9 Jones, op. cit. (n. 3), 76: ‘revocatio or reiectio Romae’.
10 Garnsey, ‘The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors’, op. cit. (n. 6), 56; Social Status and Legal Privilege …, 76; 263–4.
11 cf. Dig. I, 16, 7, 2 (Ulpian). As Mommsen points out (Strafrecht, 233), the fact that praetor was a generic term for provincial governors indicates that civil jurisdiction always belonged to them. For the evidence on the use of praetor as a generic term cf. Staatsrecht II3, 240, n. 5.
12 Mommsen, , Staatsrecht II 3, 267–8Google Scholar and n. 1 on 268; III, 748 and n. 5; 1214 and nn. 3 and 4; Wlassak, M., Römische Prozessgesetze II (1891), 256;Google ScholarDer Judikationsbefehl der römischen Prozesse (S. Ber. Ak. Wien 4, 1921), 95–6Google Scholar—to cite only those who mention the two letters explicitly.
13 Staatsrecht III, 1214, n. But it should be pointed out that Mommsen considers this an abuse.
14 op. cit. (n. 3), 76–7.
14a Wlassak, op. cit. (n. 12) 11, 256.
15 Greenidge, loc. cit. (n. 8).
16 Garnsey, ‘The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors’, op. cit. (n. 6), 57.
17 Most of those addressed to provincial governors can be found in Book XIII of Ad Familiares (cf. Gurlitt, L., ‘De M. Tulli Ciceronis Epistulis Earumque Pristina Collectione’ (Diss. Götting. 1879), 14Google Scholar f. for a plausible hypothesis that this collection was made in Cicero's own lifetime). But there are others elsewhere among Cicero's letters. Nicolet, op. cit. (n. 2) 1 (1966), 680, n. 5 comments on the absence of a special study and expresses the hope of providing one.
18 See below, p. 43 f.
19 For a brief survey of both the form of letters of recommendation and their recurring themes cf. Lossman, F., Cicero und Caesar im Jahre 54: Studien zur Theorie und Praxis der römischen Freundschaft (Hermes Einzelschrift 17, 1962), 11–24Google Scholar. Some useful comments can be found in Kroll, W., Die Kultur der ciceron. Zeit I (1933), 60Google Scholar f. and Plasberg, O., Cicero in seinen Werken und Briefen. Das Erbe der Alien XI (1926), 27 fGoogle Scholar.
20 For other examples cf. Fam. XIII, 3; 10, 3; 13; 14, 1; 15, 1; 16, 2; 21, 1; 25; 30, 1. There are many others.
21 For the relationship between provincial quaestors and governors cf. Thompson, L. A., Historia 11 (1962), 339Google Scholar.
22 See Schulz, F., Principles of Roman Law (1936), 233–4Google Scholar; and cf. Fam. XIII, 70; ‘Quia non est obscura tua in me benevolentia sic fiat ut multi per me tibi velint commendari’; Fam. XIII, 71: ‘Multos tibi commendem necesse est quoniam omnibus nota nostra necessitudo est tuaque erga me benevolentia’. As a matter of fact, the recommender would be guilty of neglegentia towards the recommended person if the request was not complied with: cf. Fam. XIII, 1, 5; 19, 3.
23 The decorum observed in letters of recommendation deserves a special study. For some comments see Gurlitt, L., ‘Die Briefe Ciceros an M. Brutus’, Philologus suppl. IV (1884), 593Google Scholarf; Lossman, loc. cit. (n. 19). Cf. in general Miller, A. B., Roman Etiquette of the Late Republic as revealed by the Correspondence of Cicero (Univ. of Pennsylvania Thesis, 1914)Google Scholar; Ramage, E. S., Urbanitas: Ancient Sophistication and Refinement (Univ. of Cincinnati Classical Studies III, 1973)Google Scholar.
24 So Kelly, J. M. in a chapter entitled ‘Improper Influences in Roman Litigation’, Roman Litigation (1966), 69–84Google Scholar.
25 We may ask, indeed, whether hard and fast rules regarding the legal status of Roman citizens in the provinces could have crystallized by this time into a system. It seems to me that everything we know suggests the contrary, but this is not the place to argue for this view.
26 e.g. Fam. XIII, 13: ‘Cui quibuscumque rebus commodaveris’; 18, 2: ‘quibuscumque ofiiciis in Epiroticis reliquisque rebus Atticum obstrinxeris’; 22, 2: ‘T. Manlium quam maxime, quibuscumque rebus honeste ac pro tua dignitate poteris, iuveris atque ornaveris’; 27, 3: ‘quiquid habent negoti, des operam, quod commodo tuo fiat, ut te obtinente Achaiam confidant’; cf. also 23, 2; 31, 1; 32, 2; 35, 2; 63, 2; 66, 2; 67, 2; 79.
27 As seems to be the case in Fam. XIII, 17 (M. Curius); 20 (Ascalpo); 22 (T. Manlius); 23 (L. Cossinius Anchialus); 25 (Hagesaretus of Larissa); 28a (The Lacedaemonii), to mention only those sent to Ser. Sulpicius Rufus.
28 To spare the governor's existimatio a saving clause is often inserted, e.g.: ‘quoad tibi aequum et rectum videbitur’, Fam. XIII, 14, 2; ‘quibuscumque rebus honeste ac pro tua dignitate poteris, iuveris atque ornaveris’, 22, 2; ‘commendo tibi hominem, sic ut tua fides et meus pudor postulat … quae aequa postulabit ut libente te impetret’, 58; ‘servabis, ut tua fides et dignitas postulat, edictum et institutum tuum’, 59; cf. also Fam. XIII, 61; 63; 67; 69, 2; 70; 72, 2; 73, 2. An elaborate expansion of the saving clause to justify the custom of recommendation is found in Fronto, Ad Am. 1, 1 (van den Hout, 164). On the importance of a man's existimatio cf. Z. Yavetz, ‘Existimatio, Fama, and the Ides of March’, HSCPh 78 (1974), 35, esp. 41–2 on the governor's existimatio.
29 So Tyrrell-Purser, loc. cit. (n. 2).
30 As is implied in Shackleton Bailey's commentary ad loc., op. cit. (n. 2) II (1977), 447 (No. 292).
31 ‘Peto igitur … ut eius negotia, quae sunt in Achaia ex eo quod heres est M. Mindio, fratri suo … explices et expedias cum iure et potestate, quam habes, turn etiam auctoritate et consilio tuo’(26, 2). For other instances of the juxtaposition of official powers and personal qualities see Fam., XIII, 42: ‘vehementer opus est nobis et voluntatem et auctoritatem et imperium tuum accedere’; 6, 4: ‘omne genus liberalitatis, quod et ab humanitate et potestate tua proficisci potent’.
32 So Mommsen, , Staatsr. III, 748Google Scholar and n. 5; 1214, n. 3; Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege, 195, and n. 3; 217, n. 1; 236, n. 6; Henderson, M. I., ‘Potestas Regia’, JRS 47 (1957), 83;Google Scholar Shackleton Bailey, op. cit. (n. 2) n, 448. Since these provincial claimants could not have been heirs, Mommsen et. al. must have assumed that they had claims on the estate. For such a case cf. QF. I, 2, 10–11: the city of Apollonis was instructed by Q. Cicero not to let the praetor designate, L. Flavius, come into the inheritance left to him in Asia by L. Octavius Naso, before the demands on it were met. But I doubt if this is the case here; see text above.
33 op. cit. (n. 3), 76–7.
34 ‘The Lex Iulia …’ op. cit. (n. 5), 132–3; ‘The Criminal Jurisdiction …’, op. cit. (n. 6), 56–7; Social Status and Legal Privilege 263–4.
35 A. W. Lintott, ‘Provocatio. From the Struggle of the Orders to the Principate’, ANRW 1. 2 (1972), 264–5, and cf. 239, n. 68.
36 II Verr. 3, 135–40. On the procedure ‘sponsione provocare’ see now Crook, J., ‘Sponsione Provocare: Its Place in Roman Litigation’, JRS 66 (1976), 132–8;Google Scholar once the sponsio offered outside the court is accepted, normal legal proceedings take place in court.
37 It is an entirely different matter to speak, as Wlassak and Mommsen do, opp. citt. (n. 12), of the right of the governor to surrender a case to Rome. It should be noted, though, that in Strafrecht, 234, Mommsen states that ‘es mag auch der beklagte Römer unter Umständen die gleiche Befugnis (i.e. to demand a trial in Rome) gehabt haben’. No evidence, however, is brought in support of this statement. Wlassak regards the two cases of ‘reicere Romam’ as one of the proofs that the praetor's jurisdiction extended to the provinces (judikationsbefehl, 85 f.).
38 ‘The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors’, op. cit. (n. 6), 57, concurring with G. I. Luzzatto, Epigrafia Giuridica Greca e Romano (1942), 292 f., 317 f.; cf. L. Wegner, ‘Zum Problem “Reichsrecht und Volksrecht”’, RIDA 3 (Mélanges F. de Visscher 2, 1949), 542 f. for the controversy. de Martino, F., Storia della costituzione romana II 2 (1973), 385,Google Scholar L. Gallet, ‘Essai sur le sénatus-consulte “de Asclepiade sociisque”’, RHDFE 48ér 16 (1937), 287, and Arangio-Ruiz, V., ‘Sul problema della doppia cittadinanza nella repubblica e nell'impero’, Scritti giuridici in onore di F. Canelutti (1950), 68Google Scholar, maintain that Roman citizens in the provinces always enjoyed a choice between local courts and Roman courts.
39 Asclepiades of Clazomenae, Polystratus of Carystus, Meniscus of Miletus and their families received this privilege in 78 B.C.; see S. C. de Asclepiade Sociisque in Sherk, RDGE, No. 22, p. 127, 11. 17–20.
40 See de Visscher, F., ‘Le Statut Juridique des nouveaux citoyens romains et l'inscription de Rhosos II’, L'Antiquité Classique 14 (1945), 44:CrossRefGoogle Scholar ‘dans la mesure où il s'agirait d'obtenir réparation des torts qu'ils auraient subis par suite de leur absence’. A similar view is expressed by A. J. Marshall in ‘Friends of the Roman People’, AJP 89 (1968), 39, who claims against Gallet, op. cit. (n. 38), that die legal privilege of choice of court was not part and parcel of the status of amicus p. R., ibid., 50–1.
41 II Verr. 3, 138.
42 Even in the subsequent letter, Fam. XIII, 28, where a cautio is mentioned, we are still before the litis contestatio stage. See Kaser ZPR (1966), 209, and below, p. 47.
41 The noun reiectio is not attested at all in the Vocabularium Iurisprudentiae Romanae; its ocurrences in Cicero's speeches (1 Verr, 1, 10; 16; 11 Vert., 2, 41; Planc., 36; Sulla, 92; 93; Vatin., 28) and letters (Att. I, 16, 3) invariably refer to the challenging of iudices or recuperatores, never to a transfer of the case from one court to another.
44 cf. also the concrete verbal expression used to convey the idea of remitting a case to a local court: ‘ad leges suas reicere’, 11 Verr. 2, 59; 60; 90.
45 D. Daube, Roman Law: Linguistic, Social and Philosophical Aspects (1969), ch. 1 passim., esp. 37.
46 See n. 35 above.
47 Daube, op. cit. (n. 45), 21 and 56.
48 Riccobono, FIRA 2 I, 177, ll. 17–23: ‘eius rei pequn[iaeve] quo magis privato Romae revocatio sit … ex h(ac) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur)’.
49 Kaser, ZPR, 128, n. 43.
50 FIRA 2 I, 174, ll. 23 f. If not actually a portion of the Lex Rubria, the fragment from Ateste is at least closely related to it. So Frederiksen, M. W., ‘The Lex Rubria: Reconsiderations’, JRS 54 (1964), 129Google Scholar. Bruna, F. J., Lex Rubria (1972), 308–25Google Scholar, puts the fragment earlier, but admits that it is part of the same legislation. See Mommsen, , Staatsr. III, 817–18Google Scholar.
51 Frederiksen, op. cit. (n. 50), 132–3.
52 cf. Pugliese, G., Il processo civile romano 11: Il processo formulare 1 (1963), 156–7,Google Scholar and above, n. 11.
53 cf. Val. Max. VII, 7, 6 (77 B.C.) for consular interference with a praetor's decision. Mommsen, (Staatsr. II 3, 101)Google Scholar allows the consuls an intercessio against the praetor, by virtue of their maior potestas, although he denies that the consuls possessed civil jurisdiction after 366 B.C. But cf. Greenidge, op. cit. (n. 8), 28–9.
54 But since the result of the intercessio was purely cassatory (cf. Greenidge, op. cit. (n. 8), 517–18; Kaser, ZPR, 125–6), it is hard to see how it could have helped Mescinius to transfer his case to Rome.
55 Cicero, II Verr, 2, 30; QF. 1, 1, 22; Greenidge, op. cit. (n. 8), 289.
56 ‘The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors’, op. cit. (n. 6), 57.
57 Fam. V, 5, 1. On the background see Gruen, E. S., ‘The Trial of C. Antonius’, Latomus (1973), 301Google Scholar.
58 Jones, A. H. M., ‘The Imperium of Augustus’, JRS 41 (1951), 113,Google Scholar n. 7. Similarly V. Ehrenberg, who in ‘“Imperium Maius” in the Republic’ AJP 74 (1953), 116, n. 8, describes the consul's letter as the ‘imperium maius” of the consul taking ‘the form of an advice rather than a command’.
59 Shackleton Bailey, op. cit. (n. 2) II, 448 (No. 292).
60 M. I. Henderson, op. cit. (n. 32), 83 f.
61 ‘Die Regierung’ clearly refers to the Senate. See Staatsr. III, 1211 f. for the Senate's supervisory role in the provinces. Moreover the post-Sullan consuls, according to Mommsen, lost all influence over the provinces (Staatsr. II3, 94 f; Röm. Gesch. II9, 354 f.).
62 cf., however, Last, H., ‘Imperium Maius: A Note’, JRS 37 (1947), 157,Google Scholar for a balanced view.
63 See, for example, Fam. XIII, 41; 42; 56, where Cn. Pompeius Magnus' influence is brought to bear, and Fam. XIII, 50, where Cicero reminds the governor, M. Acilius, of the latter's obligation to him: the governor was indebted to Cicero for defending him twice successfully in capital trials, Fam. VII, 30, 3.
64 See Guizzi, F., ‘In tema di origini della cautio de rato’, Labeo 7 (1961), 334–5;Google Scholar F. Casarola, Actio, Petitio, Persecutio (1965), 94 f.
65 For reasons of decorum (see p. 41 above), or because the letter of recommendation does not constitute the only source of information available to the recipient. Here presumably, Mescinius' procurators will supply the governor with information (Fam. XIII, 26, 2; 28, 1). Elsewhere we hear of an oral recommendation which preceded the written one (e.g.: Fam. VI, 8, 3; XIII, 3; 6, 1; 7, 1; 9, 1; 55, 1–2; 72, 1; 75, 1). It is sometimes attested that the letter was delivered by the recommended person's own hand (e.g.: Fam. XIII, 6a; VII, 30, 3; VI, 8, 3); we may safely assume that having been given a proper introduction, the recommended himself will go into further details. See Dig. XLI, I, 65 pr. for the implication that a letter of recommendation becomes the legal property of the interested party.
66 Above, pp. 39, 43.
67 In Cyprus and Sicily it was forbidden to ‘evoke’ provincials from their forum. See Att. v, 21,6, where the prefect Q. Volusius is sent to Cyprus to administer justice to Roman citizens: ‘nam evocari ex insula Cyprios non licet’; II Verr., 3, 38: ‘Iam vero illud non solum contra legem Hieronicam nec solum contra consuetudinem superiorum, sed etiam contra omnia iura Siculorum quae habent a senatu populoque Romano, ne quis extra suum forum vadimonium promittere cogatur’. We cannot take it for granted that the same judicial order prevailed in Achaea, nor that provincials and Roman citizens were treated alike, but these two possibilities cannot be dismissed out of hand. The request to the governor of Asia to force Alabanda and Mylasa to send ecdici to Rome (Fam. XIII, 56,1) does not prove that a different rule held there; both were free cities (see Pliny, NH, v 108) and therefore outside the provincial governor's authority. Legal proceedings in which free cities were involved were presumably to be conducted in Rome. (On judicial rights of free cities see Bernhardt, R., Imperium und Eleutheria (1971). 98 f.Google Scholar).
68 op. cit. (n. 32), 83.
69 In other words, the consul's letter was intended to take care of Sulpicius' concern for his existimatio, on which see above, n. 28. The list of saving clauses quoted and referred to there makes it abundantly clear that the governor's reputation rested entirely on his iustitia, fides, aequitas and preservation of what is ius, honestum and rectum. Cf. also Cicero's exhortation to his brother Quintus when the latter was governor of Asia: ‘Qua re sint haec fundamenta dignitatis tuae: tua primum integritas et continentia’ (Ad Qu. Fratr. I, 1, 18), and a little further: ‘qua re sit summa in ius dicendo severitas, dum modo ea ne varietur gratia sed conservetur aequabilis’ (ibid., 20).
70 So Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (1939), 330Google Scholar.
71 Sherk, RDGE, No. 43 ( = Syll 3 684), 11. 23–7: 
. For the date see Broughton, , MRR II, 644Google Scholar. Lewis-Reinhold, , Roman Civilization I, (1951), No. 127,Google Scholar translate προάγειν as ‘to proceed’; taken as transitive, it is the equivalent of perducatur in Fam. XIII, 28, 2.
72 M. Mindius was a knight (above, n. 2). His wife could have belonged to a senatorial family; cf. Nicolet, op. cit. (n. 2), I, 258. Fam. XIII, 72 provides us with impressive evidence for the influence that a woman of high social standing could have brought to bear on the governor. Caerellia, Cicero's friend, seems to have procured the passage of a S. C. in favour of the heirs to the property of the negotiator C. Vennonius in Asia. Little doubt is left about its purpose: ‘Equidem existimo habere te magnam facultatem … ex eo s. c., quod in heredes C. Vennoni factum est Caerelliae commodandi’ (ibid., 72, 2). It may be noted in passing that the S.C., like the consul's letter, was not intended to force the governor's hand, but rather to stimulate action where a governor might otherwise have been reluctant to use his powers, even those in his discretion.
73 cf. Cicero's emphasis on the freedom enjoyed by the provincial magistrates as compared with those in Rome, Ad Qu.fratr. 1, 1, 22.
74 See above, pp. 44 and 48 and nn. 40 and 67.
75 The ‘quoniam cum senatore res est’ (Fam. XIII, 26, 3) appeals to Sulpicius’ feeling of solidarity, but it does not imply a right possessed by Mescinius to demand a remittal to Rome.