Identity of litigants

We can begin to describe the litigants’ general characteristics by considering some numbers derived from this study’s sources. One hundred and fourteen lit­igants can be identified, involved in 82 cases.

What sort of conclusions concerning litigants can be drawn from this information? It is tempting to say that the evidence we have is representa­tional — we may not have it all, but we have a random enough sampling.

Can we draw any conclusions about the courts or the nature of the cases of which we hear the most? Among the cases involving male litigants, we hear most often of the emperor's court and trials for murder and treason. Cases involving female litigants are also most frequently located in the emperor's court and are dominated by inheritance and murder. This evidence would appear to suggest that the most frequently committed crime in Rome was murder. Again, the impact of recording the unusual and exceptional is apparent. Clearly, murder was not the most frequent crime, but it was far more interesting than the average family squabbles over its father's estate or loans gone bad that likely constituted the bulk of standard litigation.¹⁴ At the same time, the fact that inheritance matters rank so highly among female litigants but do not appear among male litigants is perhaps sugges­tive. However, care again is warranted. The centumviral court, which dealt primarily with inheritance cases, was seen as one of the most prestigious courts of Rome, and we often learn the identity of litigants within this court through Quintilian’s frequent references to famous speeches by advocates such as Asinius Pollio. A woman as a litigant in the centumviral court was perhaps the rarest sight of all and thus warranted mention.

Such issues do not completely negate the value of this information. Among the identified male litigants we find kings such as Archelaus, the ethnarch of Judaea, and Agrippa II dealing with charges of various types, politicians, and governors such as Lustricius Bruttianus, whose assistant charged him with var­ious crimes.¹⁵ Advocates such as Cassius Severus not only argued cases but could find themselves as litigants, as could powerful and well-connected citi­zens of communities, such as Claudius Aristion of Ephesus and Antistius Vetus, who is described by Tacitus as a leading citizen of Macedonia.¹⁶ Among those who are nothing more than a name we find businessmen such as Sulpicius Cinnamus and Publicius Carus from Puteoli, equestrians such as Sempronius Senecio, charged with forgery along with his accomplice Eurythmus, a freedman and procurator of the emperor, and soldiers such as Scutarius who fought in Augustus’ army.¹⁷ Among the identified female liti­gants, we find a queen, Berenice from Judaea, and wives and close family members of Rome’s upper crust such as Urgulania, Numantia, Arrionilla, and Corellia.¹⁸ Among the women known only by name or relationship we find the wife of a military tribune on trial for adultery, Petronia attempting to prove that she was born free, and Spatale trying to retain what she inherited from her young lover.¹⁹ As is apparent, even among such a small sample the status of the litigants ranges widely; royalty, imperial family, senator, equestrian, free and freed, citizen and non-citizen, are all represented. The wealthy appear far more often than those of lower status. Is this again a sign of skewed reporting? On this matter, we are probably safer accepting the evidence as accurately reflect­ing reality. The legal system dealt mainly with disputes between those of at least some wealth; the more downtrodden members of society had less prop­erty to disagree over, and little time to struggle through the system.

We have even less information about litigants from outside Rome, although the amount of litigation sent to Rome from outside, either to be heard in the first instance or on appeal from another court, surely resulted in a constant flow of out-of-town litigants or their representatives. The Campanian wax tablets provide only a glimpse of the vast number of such cases every year. The status of out-of-town litigants varied widely, but it can be assumed that the minimum wealth of a litigant was slightly greater than that of litigants who were inhabi­tants of Rome, since the trip to Rome required some funds. Petronia Iusta, fighting to prove her status as a daughter of a former slave, most likely typifies those of lesser means. At the other end of the spectrum are kings and queens such as Archelaus of Cappadocia and Berenice, the sister of Agrippa II.²⁰

Communities were also litigants. However, many disputes involving com­munities went before the senate, thus falling beyond this study's scope. Some cases involved communities before the court of the emperor but, unfortu­nately, problems arise. When we find a community before the emperor are we dealing with a case per se or administrative embassies petitioning the emperor?²¹ Nero, as a youth, spoke before Claudius on behalf of Bononia, Rhodes, Ilium, and perhaps Apamea as well.²² At first glance, Nero's involve­ment as an advocate supports the conclusion that these were legal hearings. However, considering the matters that were dealt with in each of these cases — a request for aid following a fire, a petition for the restoration of liberties, a petition to be released from public obligations, and a petition for relief from tribute after an earthquake, respectively — the events take on a far more administrative tone.

Some hearings before the emperor that involved communities more likely were actual legal proceedings. In the early imperial period the community of Narbo, in Gaul, laid charges of an unknown type against Votienus Montanus, an orator originating in that community.²⁴ In AD 82—83 two neighboring communities, Falerio and Firmum, placed their dispute over land ownership before Domitian.²⁵ In both instances a clear opponent is identified.

Thus, not only do we have very little evidence of communities undertak­ing litigation in Rome, but what evidence we do have is complicated by the frequent involvement of the emperor's court, thereby clouding an under­standing of the natures of the disputes. Despite this frustration, we must not overlook the fact that every reference concerning a community as a litigant identifies the court of the emperor as the location, if the location is named.²⁶ At the same time, we should not assume from these problematic sources that communities were not often involved in legal disputes. Pliny's relatively casual agreement to undertake a “publicam causam", “public case” on behalf of Firmum suggests that such a case was in no way exceptional.²⁷ It is disap­pointing that Pliny provides no more information on the case — perhaps Domitian's earlier attempt to quell the land disputes had failed and the mat­ter was again coming to Rome.

* * *

Thus far only evidence that gives detailed information about specific individ­ual litigants has been considered, thereby excluding the equally helpful body of sources that comment more generally about litigants and the disputes in which they participated. Seneca the Younger tells us that the most common cause of legal wrangling was money.²⁸ We hear of disputes in which plaintiffs claim debts that the defendants deny owing, teachers sue for their fees, heirs attempt to claim the earnings of a secretary who died a day before being paid, and swindlers are sued.²⁹ Wards taking their guardians to court are spoken of in a way that suggests this was a common occurrence.³⁰ Most likely such dis­putes also involved money, more specifically the guardians’ management, or mismanagement, of funds. Closely linked to money are disputes in which a party is suing over property, whether disputing a boundary, or challenging the validity of a will.³¹ Disputes over the status of one of the parties (free or slave, citizen or non-citizen) and minor assault also appear to have been common.³²

Various general categories of people are mentioned as typical litigants. I have mentioned wards and guardians as common opponents. In addition, we read of freedmen suing their patrons and vice versa, though it appears that Nerva forbade freedmen from bringing such actions.³³ Sons suing their fathers are mentioned quite frequently and must have taken place after the son had been emancipated from the patria potestas of his father.³⁴ From an interesting comment made by Seneca the Elder it would appear that when a son was accusing his father in a public court the son always argued his own case rather than entrusting it to an advocate; unfortunately, no explanation is provided.³⁵ Perhaps undertaking an advocate in such circumstances would have been viewed as the son’s attempt to escape dirtying his own hands. Quintilian mentions sons going to court to seek a curator for their fathers’ property, with a tone that suggests this was a relatively common occurrence.³⁶ We also hear of sons attacking their fathers’ wills, though this was considered distasteful.³⁷ Considered even more objectionable were attacks made by sons against their mothers, yet their very mention suggests they occurred on occa­sion, though under unknown circumstances.³⁸ Women are also mentioned as a generalized group of litigants. Ovid speaks of “spoliatae...puellae”, “robbed women” filling the Forum of Julius Caesar with their cries of “redde meum", “give me back my own”, referring most likely to the dowries they were trying to recover after a divorce. Much the same must have been at stake in a case briefly mentioned by Martial, in which an “infamata virum puella vicit", “a defamed woman defeated her husband”.³⁹ A possible scenario would have involved the woman trying to recover her dowry upon divorce but her hus­band attempting to claim at least a portion of the dowry by charging her with adultery. It is difficult to say how frequent such cases were. Juvenal would have us believe that women were involved in nearly all the cases brought before the courts, either as plaintiffs, accusers, or defendants.⁴⁰ While such an extreme statement may provide insight into the Roman view of women as interfering or overly litigious, it certainly cannot be taken at face value.