CONCLUSIONS

The Roman courtroom was an arena where parties entered into combat. In nature it was far different from the amphitheater, yet it nonetheless hosted struggles, and ones that could have dire results for many.

The daily lives of Rome's inhabitants were impacted by legal activities to an extent not found in modern western society. Located in so many of Rome's pub­lic spaces, which served multiple other functions as well, legal hearings could not be avoided by anyone attempting to traverse Rome's central locales. The dispensation of justice by the magistrates, the emperor, his delegates, the quaes­tiones perpetuae, the centumviri, as well as those in the position of unus iudex was visible to all in the fora of the city and other locations. Each of these public spaces, by means of its historical significance and decoration, was politicized and we should not underestimate the messages consciously conveyed by hold­ing specific courts within particular spaces. Yet the non-intrusive nature of so many courtrooms (employing temporary platforms and benches), their ability to function within these environments without affecting the physical structure of the space, makes it all the more difficult for us to appreciate how much the courts must have dominated the visual landscape. A citizen attempting to com­plete some business in the middle of the day could happen upon a panel of judges in the Forum of Augustus preparing to deliver their ruling in a murder case, the emperor examining witnesses in an adultery case in the Forum Romanum, or an upper-class citizen rising to present his own case before a single judge for a debt owed to him by his brother-in-law.

This transparency of Rome's legal activities served many purposes. At their most superficial they entertained in a way that required slightly more intellec­tual fortitude on the part of the audience than was required of those in the amphitheater, while, at the same time, the courtroom always contained at least the possibility of some unforeseen, unpredictable excitement that would not be found in a recitation hall. For the city magistrates and, still more impor­tantly, the emperor, court publicity showed them hard at work, fulfilling their duties, advertising not only their abilities but also the appropriateness of their functions. As members of the ruling elite (or as emperor), they were supposed to be resolving disputes and imparting justice on behalf of the state. In this environment non-conformists were punished, conflicts between individuals were resolved in peace, and examples were made of all.

The publicity of courtroom activity served various ends for all the other participants we find within the courts. For the equestrian judges who came from distant lands to serve on the panels, this public role had the potential to advertise the success of a career nearly completed or to mark his elevation to a new playing stratum in which he hoped to make great gains. For single judges chosen by their feuding friends to hear disputes, sitting in judgment in the Forum or their own home induced public acknowledgment of their fairness.

While the advocate was not engaged with a case to the extent of his client, in that he neither suffered penalty from defeat nor directly gained if his client won, he did triumph or lose in his own way. For those advocates of modest means, cases were employment and a source of income. If at all ambitious, these individuals hoped their success in the courtroom would bring other prospective litigants to their doors. For those advocates of the upper classes, the courtroom's publicity made it a perfect vehicle for political advancement. Important cases, whether civil or criminal, attracted large audiences, and such news traveled even beyond the city to the extent that visitors to the city regarded popular advocates in a similar light as our society regards celebrities. Advocates who could harness that popularity stood to achieve much: equally, failure could mean collapse of a man's reputation.

The courts could also serve as instruments to create or strengthen other relationships, such as that between patron and client. Litigants and advocates alike expected, and perhaps demanded, that those tied to them through patronage appear and show support for their patrons as members of the audi­ence. For a litigant these clients could strengthen the weight of his case by either shoring up a weak case or adding still more strength to his onslaught.

In such an environment, the concrete theatrical elements of the courtroom cannot be overlooked and so this study has included an examination of the physical settings found inside some of Rome's courtrooms.

It is within this environment that the actors of the courtroom undertook their respective roles. While Quintilian and others are quick to stress the dif­ferences between the advocate and the actor — and no doubt the title of this book would make Quintilian tear out his hair in despair — the advocate was expected to use every weapon in his arsenal to win his client's argument. While in relatively minor cases this called for a sedate, measured presentation, in significant or critical cases the advocate calculated how every movement, from the rise and fall of an eyebrow to each turn of his foot, would benefit his cause. He adjusted his tone and vocabulary. He arranged for the display of murder weapons, busts, and artistic representations. He called for the family members of his client to cry and moan if appropriate, and for the litigant to be actively engaged through appropriate clothing, gestures, and expressions. There could also be much physical movement within the courtroom: children of the litigant rushing to his side; litigants falling before the feet of a judge; advocates feigning exhaustion and collapsing into the arms of their friends, or hiding amongst the audience in a pretense of terror. While the advocate's ulti­mate goal was to convince the judge(s) of his case's validity, he was certainly aware of how he could also utilize the audience to this end. An audience moved to laughter or tears, whether as a spontaneous result of the advocate's efforts or by collusion with the advocate or litigant, would no doubt have prompted even the most stubborn judge to consider being swayed.

Such talk of the theatrical, entertaining aspects of the courtroom must not, however, detract from the fact that pressures and anxieties were felt by many within the courtroom. The litigant, of course, was most impacted by the case. In a criminal matter, a conviction potentially had very dire conse­quences. For those involved in civil cases, great or small, money could be lost and the litigant might suffer some loss of status. In the surviving sources, we hear even more of the anxiety and pressures felt by advocates, which likely were surpassed in degree only by those felt by litigants. To a certain degree, knowing that a client had entrusted his future wellbeing to his advocate's efforts must have made the advocate all the more nervous. In addition, he was then supposed to remember what to say and how to say it, and to deal with all things unforeseen. It is little wonder that some advocates had night­mares of failure and attempted to discover the case's outcome through soothsayers. The stakes could be high; indeed, victory in an important, well- publicized case had the potential to ignite an advocate's political career. His success could guarantee that his name became known in far-flung corners of Italy, his speeches studied by generations of aspiring youths. For those advo­cates with less lofty goals success would mean a continuous flow of new clients and a stable source of income. With so much possibly riding on the outcome of a case, those close to the advocate shared his anxiety. Indeed, we hear of wives attending their husbands' speeches, fathers worrying over their sons' orations.

Nor were the judges immune to anxiety. To judge a legal hearing with no training, even when specialized knowledge was not expected, could have left a conscientious man feeling a bit out of his depth. The outcome was of impor­tance to both litigants, and single judges in particular surely felt a responsibility to make the best decision; for a judge who heard a case as a member of a panel, perhaps the pressure was alleviated by sharing the task.

* * *

The two greatest challenges to this study have been the unevenness of the evidence for the various types of courts found in Rome and the degree to which social status affected each category of participant. With the available materials, inevitably discussion tends to focus more on the courts that dealt with public cases, or important private cases, and the courts connected with important individuals such as the emperor and thepraefectus urbi. Whenever possible, every effort has been made to include examination of the remain­ing courts, which likely heard the majority of cases, particularly the court of the unus iudex. There seems to have been significant similarity in courts of every kind; however, where differences are apparent, this study has attempted to consider them. Overall, it appears that the court of the unus iudex consisted of “smaller” versions of elements from the large public courtroom: a smaller space was required; a smaller audience was present; the advocate presented his case in a “smaller” way — his gestures were more reserved, his vocabulary less grand, and he may even have been seated. Finally, for all participants the emotional expenditure would have been diminished. The matter was less critical to the litigant, it did not warrant the tears and wailing of his family, and success or failure was less vital to the advocate. It must be stressed that it was in this environment that the bulk of Rome's legal disputes found their resolution.

The second challenge, the impact of status on the examination of those involved in the courts, has engaged many scholars over the years, and cer­tainly is not specific to this topic alone. The upper-class flavoring of so much of the evidence hinders attempts to understand the participation of those of lesser status in the legal system. Almost every aspect of the Roman courtroom was affected to an extent by the impact of status. The more auctoritas and power a litigant had, the better his ability to intimidate a judge to rule in his favor. Better still, such power could keep him from being taken to court in the first place. But status could also work against a litigant. One with a repu­tation for underhanded dealings or for using heavy-handed tactics could frequently have been dragged to court by enemies intent on complicating his life, and could even have found himself before a judge who was already hostile before the facts of the case were presented. The status of the judges must also be of primary consideration. While single judges chosen by the disputing lit­igants could be of any social status, those judges included in the album iudicum represented far fewer social groups since a minimum level of wealth was demanded. And yet, even within this group we find increasing variance during this study's time period. With the opening of the album to those with 200,000 sesterces, and then as well to those from the provinces who met the wealth qualifications, Quintilian and his colleagues found some judges to be lacking in many respects. And yet advocates could not cast too many stones. Quintilian and his fellow advocates surely provide an excellent portrait of the advocate from the upper echelons of Roman society. However, this study has revealed that, during the first two centuries of the imperial period, individu­als with far less elevated backgrounds and far less lofty goals were also coming to advocacy and the courtrooms as a career. And these men, whether from fine old Roman families or newly arrived in the city from the hinterlands of Gaul, would have found themselves before an audience — a group among whom the widest kaleidoscope of statuses could be found. Slaves, running errands for their masters, or accompanying their young wards who were studying rhetoric with Quintilian, could be found listening to the same case as the likes of Maecenas present to provide support for his friend charged with adul­tery. To this amalgam must be added those clients of the litigants or the advocates who felt compelled to attend, and who could also range widely in status. And to complete the recipe, the general public must be acknowledged, some of whom attended merely because the case was entertaining, while oth­ers supplied applause of various forms in return for pay. The courts, in fact, must be acknowledged as yet another environment within Rome in which interaction between those of vastly disparate social classes was possible.

Rome's courts were, in essence, highly diverse. The courtroom itself could range in size from a space large enough to hold only the immediate participants and an audience of one or two, to the Basilica Iulia accommodating one case being heard by all 180 judges together with an audience of over a thousand. The participants of the courts, the litigants, judges, audience, and advocates, approached their roles with their own motives, prejudices, and aspirations. In this space that was the Roman courtroom, amidst all the limitations and imper­fections arising from status, politics, and personal gain, the dramas in the theater of Justice ran their course.