The centumviral court

The centumviri, presided over by members of the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis, heard cases concerning inheritances and property affairs of higher values.⁵⁰ While a variety of ancient authors speak of the court, by far the richest sources are the letters of Pliny the Younger.

The centumviri met as either four separate panels of 45 judges or one large panel of 180 judges and can be explicitly placed in the Basilica lulia, probably for at least two centuries. Begun in 54 BC, the Basilica lulia was dedicated, unfinished, in 46 and completed by Augustus.⁵¹ Destroyed by fire, perhaps in 12 BC, it was rebuilt and dedicated in AD 12; consumed again by fire, it was rebuilt by Diocletian in 283.⁵² Archaeological study suggests that Diocletian’s construction altered neither the ground plan nor the overall size of the original structure, with an accessible second floor gallery from which, according to Pliny, one could look down to the ground floor interior.⁵³ On more than one occasion, Caligula reportedly scattered large sums of money from the upper floor of the basilica outside to the public gathered below in the Forum Romanum⁵ Based on one of Pliny’s letters, Giuliani and Verduchi suggest that the second floor stood on top of the ground floor aisles, leaving the central area of the ground floor uncovered except by a third-floor roof, supported by pillars rising above the sec­ond floor. Light would have entered the building through this colonnade.⁵⁵ The ground floor was accessible on the west, north, and east sides.

Richardson suggests that the centumviri did not take up residency in the Basilica lulia until the end of the first century AD.⁵⁶ However, to judge by Pliny’s report of Domitius Afer speaking before the centumviri, and the fact that the story requires the four tribunals to be meeting within a single struc­ture, the Basilica lulia likely was home to this court before 59, the year of Domitius Afer’s death.⁵⁷

With this information from Pliny, it is feasible to reconstruct the interior arrangement of this building while the centumviri were in session.

Limiting the courts to the central nave is sound for three reasons. First, the columns would have greatly reduced visibility from the aisles. If an advocate had stood in the outermost aisle, a person in the central nave would not have been able to see him at all unless he had been directly in front of the speaker; persons within the aisle closest to the nave would only have been able to see if they stood within approximately 50 percent of the actual space available. If a court had been situated within the columned area, the greatest number of people who could have attended without being impeded by a column would have been approximately 20. A larger audience would have been adversely affected by the columns.

The building’s overall design also supports the courts being limited to the central nave. External access to the building was possible on three of its four sides from the Sacra Via, the Nicus Tuscus and the Nicus lugarius. Situating a court of judges, advocates, and audience in the aisles would have very much inhibited the natural flow of traffic. Concentrating the courts within the central area would have allowed for traffic to move around the nave via the aisles.

Pliny’s description of the court during the case involving Attia 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 — which was easy — and to hear — which was difficult.⁶¹ If the court officials and advocates were located in the central nave, this area would have been eas­ily visible from the second floor, but if the court were within the aisles, those on the second floor above would have seen nothing.

* * *

It seems that the various courts, when meeting separately, were invisible to each other, even though their sounds could travel. Domitius Afer, interrupted repeatedly during his speech by noise from another court “exproximo”, “close by” — finally asks who is speaking and is told. Apparently he could not see, yet someone else could tell him.⁶³ How did that person know? A court official might have known what other cases were being heard at that time; or did the organisation of the courts mean that someone in the audience, but near the back perhaps, could turn and see who was speaking in the other court? Further evidence of the restricted visibility comes from Quintilian’s account of Trachalus’ speech. Quintilian reports that Trachalus’ voice was powerful enough to be heard, understood, and applauded by all four courts, although he was speaking before only one.⁶⁴ Significantly, Quintilian does not say that he was seen by the other courts.

How were these four courts arranged within the 75 x 16 m (12,915 ft²) area? The awkwardness of the space (the ratio is one to four-and-one-quarter for the central nave) greatly restricts the possibilities. The central element of each court was the speaking advocate and we must, therefore, first determine where to locate four such individuals, as far from each other as possible. Any arrangement in which two courts abutted each other so that the judges of each court sat back to back would not have functioned at all efficiently since, when the advocates turned to address the judges of their own court, they would have been close enough to interfere with the neighboring advocate and audience members standing at the sides of the court.

The advocates needed to be well separated. One alternative arrangement is to place one tribunal on each of the four sides of the central nave, facing the central open area. However, while the physical space available to each court might thereby be equal, the awkward audience space would allow significant interference from neighboring courts. In addition, the close proximity of the two advocates on the longer walls of the rectangle makes this an unworkable arrangement. See Figure 2.6.

Placing two tribunals on each of the long sides of the nave has greater promise. In this case again, however, the courts are, in fact, only 16 m (52.5 ft) apart. Also, while the space for the audience is better in this arrangement, in that each court is more self-contained, the rectangular shape of the space again means that a greater percentage of the audience would have been farther away from the speaker. See Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.4 Possible orientation of the four tribunals of the centumviral court in the Basilica Iulia

Figure 2.5 Possible orientation # 2

Figure 2.7 Possible orientation # 4

A division of the nave into four equal squares, rather than rectangles, appears to be best. Having the judges in the centre of the square would provide the best accessibility for the largest portion of the audience. All could stand within a practical distance (7.6 m/25 ft) of the central area of activity. However, this arrangement is impossible for two reasons. The main problem is how to arrange the court participants in a circular space. The advocate’s main focus was the panel of 45 judges. Thus, he had to retain at least partial contact with them at all times.

A description from Pliny also discounts this arrangement. Having announced that oratory is not dead, Pliny refers to the physical layout of the court where he spoke:

Proxime cum dicturus apud centumviros essem, adeundi mihi locus a tribunali, nisi per ipsos iudices non fuit; tanta stipatione cetera tenebantur. Ad hoc quidam ornatus adulescens scissis tunicis, ut in frequentia solet fieri, sola velatus toga perstitit et quidem horis septem. Nam tam diu dixi magno cum labore, maiore cum fructu.

When I was on my way the other day to plead before the centumviral court, there was no room left for me to reach my place from the tribunal except through the judges themselves, as the rest of the floor was crowded. And then a distinguished youth who had had his clothing torn, as often happens in a crowd, remained to listen, clad in only

his toga, for seven hours. For this was how long I spoke, with great effort but with a greater reward.⁶⁵

This passage suggests that the route by which Pliny normally reached his seat was blocked with people, and the only clear approach took him through the judges. We can conclude, therefore, that this fourth side, which the tribunal occupied, was not surrounded. Returning to our last considered physical arrangement, we see that it does not accommodate Pliny's description. If the audience were able to surround the tribunal on all four sides, Pliny would not have been able to reach his seat except by passing through the crowd, and the tribunal would, in fact, have been the hardest location of all to reach.

By moving the tribunals from the centre to the long sides of the rectangle, alternating two on each side, we have an arrangement that best meets the var­ious requirements. The advocates are as distant from each other as possible.

While this appears the most promising arrangement of the tribunals, one further factor may warrant a slight alteration. Although alternating the tribunals' orientation logically places maximum distance between the tri­bunals, the building design perhaps makes it more practical to place all four tribunals on the south side of the central area. This would facilitate people entering the building from all three accessible sides and moving directly to the appropriate court, without using the south aisle at all. If the tribunals were alternated, anyone wishing to enter the one court with its tribunal on the north side, and courts on either side of it, once the space had partially filled would have had to pass behind one of the neighboring

Figure 2.9 Possible orientation # 6

courts' tribunals. In comparison with the previous plan, this arrangement differs only in that the tribunals would be a few feet closer to each other.

This type of arrangement would also accommodate a certain amount of audience overflow better than some of the other models considered. In these final two arrangements the far end of the court — that is, the very back of the audience area — could be accessed easily by newcomers and, if need be, con­tinue to expand out of the central nave into the covered aisles. Visibility would be reduced, but spectators could still hear the speakers. See Figure 2.10.

A careful reading of Pliny's passage above may leave the impression that the judges of each court in fact occupied the presiding magistrate's tribunal of each court. Such a conclusion is disproved by additional evidence. In another letter, Pliny comments that a passer-by did not need to enter the court to dis­cover what the cases were about:

Si quando transibis per basilicam et voles scire, quo modo quisque dicat, nihil est quod tribunal ascendas, nihil quod praebeas aurem; facilis divinatio: scito eum pessime dicere, quo laudabitur maxime.

If, when you pass along the basilica, you wish to know who is speaking and how well they are doing, there is no need for you to ascend to the courtroom or perk up your ears; discovery is easy: you will know who speaks the worst, as he will be the one praised the most.⁶⁶

Surely, Pliny is not saying that people actually climbed up on to the presiding magistrate's tribunal, though he uses the word “tribunal”, and specifically asked him about the nature of the case being heard. We could dismiss this as sarcasm on Pliny's part, though that seems more appropriate for Juvenal. Another way to interpret this phrase “tribunal ascendas" is to assume that the ascending must refer to the stairs into the Basilica lulia. Therefore, the term tribunal takes on a far more abstract sense — a reference to the floor of the Basilica lulia, the location of these various courts, as a tribunal. If we then reconsider Pliny's attempt to reach his seat, the judges no longer have to be on the tribunal itself. Pliny could be using the phrase “a tribunali" to mean

Figure 2.10 Possible orientation # 7

that he had to reach his seat from the area occupied by the officials, including the judges, of the court. Pliny's remark suggests that the judges did sit together as a block; since these courts, like the quaestiones perpetuae, involved both a presiding magistrate and a panel of judges, it is no great leap to con­clude that the arrangement of the benches for the judges and the presiding magistrate was the same in the centumviral court as has been proposed for the reconstructed public courtroom.

Having determined the most likely arrangement of the four separate courts within the Basilica Iulia, it remains to identify how the same space was utilised when the centumviri met as one united court.⁶⁷ As mentioned above, the long rectangular shape of the space is very awkward, and really only two possibilities exist: placing the tribunal at the middle of either the short or the long side of the nave. Considering the acoustics of a building sided with mar­ble, and having no focal architectural feature, the most efficient location would be the long south side of the central nave. The speaker could alternate facing one way or the other, while still keeping the judges at his side. This location would demand that he project his voice as far as half the length of the central nave. In addition, the cost of keeping the judges to his side would be that half of the time the advocate would have his back to half of the audience. These would, however, have been workable exigencies. See Figure 2.11.

Pliny supplies us with a detailed description of the Basilica Iulia during a hearing before a united court. Unfortunately, the vocabulary he uses is some­what vague, leaving the reader puzzled:

Sedebant centum et octoginta iudices (tot enim quattuor consiliis colliguntur), ingens utrimque advocatio et numerosa subsellia, praeterea densa circumstantium corona latissimum iudicium multiplici circulo ambibat. Ad hoc stipatum tribunal, atque etiam ex superiore basilicae parte qua feminae qua viri et audiendi (quod difficile) et (quod facile) visendi studio imminebant.

One hundred and eighty judges were sitting (that is the number of the four courts joined together), and both sides had enormous legal representation and many benches.

â–ˇ

Figure 2.11 Possible orientation of the four tribunals of the centumviral court in the Basilica Iulia when hearing a case as a single court

Moreover a dense crowd of bystanders, several rows deep, surrounded, in a semicircular fashion, the broadest court. The tribunal also was crowded, and even from the higher part of the basilica, women as well as men leaned over in their zeal both to hear (which was difficult) and to see (which was easy).⁶⁸

Obviously, both sides had numerous advocates and rows upon rows of benches for their supporters. Here, the trouble begins. To translate the description of the crowd as “a dense crowd of bystanders surrounded the broadest court in a semicircular fashion several rows deep” fits the Latin. “ludicium" has to be interpreted to mean the court participants, i.e. the presiding magistrate, the iudices, the litigants, and their advocates. The use of “latissimum" seems strange. However, it fits with the arrangement of the courtroom suggested above. If the tribunal were located on one side, one assumes the 180 judges would be arranged nearby in two groups on either side of the presiding magistrate, and extending more in width than in depth due to the building’s shape.

One further item of information in this description is Pliny’s comment that the tribunal was crowded. This seems to support the argument that the judges did not occupy the tribunal.⁶⁹ If the judges typically accompanied the magistrate, such a comment would be moot. Sherwin-White suggests that perhaps distinguished visitors were invited on this occasion to mount the tri­bunal of the magistrate.⁷⁰ Pliny’s use of the term “tribunal” in a far more abstract sense in the other passage quoted above, however, suggests that here he is not describing the platform of the presiding magistrate but rather is speaking of the courtroom more generally. This interpretation is further sup­ported by the order in which Pliny describes the scene. He starts with the central element, the judges, then moves to the advocates, sitting before the judges, and the benches close by. Next he describes the audience, then the tri­bunal, and finally he extends his attention to those still farther away on the second floor. His description clearly moves from the centre of the court to its extremities. “Tribunal” is far better interpreted to mean the court as a whole, as Pliny used it when he described how someone might learn what was going on in the courts. Here he is thus making a more generalized comment that the entire courtroom was crowded, so much so that people were overflowing to the second floor.

This usage of tribunal also simplifies the interpretation of Pliny’s comments quoted above, that he could not reach his seat from the tribunal except through the judges. A narrow interpretation of the word to mean “the platform of the presiding magistrate” would mean that Pliny saw the presiding magistrate and the judges as two very separate physical entities, which is difficult to harmonize with the other evidence. If the tribunal is, in fact, the court as a whole, then the judges and the presiding magistrate remain strongly linked and the argument to place them on one side of the courtroom is even stronger.

Having proposed these physical models for the four individual courts and the united court, I suggest some calculations to determine the number of peo­ple they accommodated. First, we must consider those people who were present as parts of the court machinery. At the absolute minimum, there would be two advocates and two litigants per court. To this must be added 45 judges and at least one presiding magistrate.⁷¹ Thus, at least 50 persons would be present. However, we often hear of multiple advocates serving each client in this court, with junior advocates in tow, as well as multiple litigants and numerous close family members and friends.⁷² Thus, just considering the main nucleus we must add a minimum of another 20 people, for a probable total of 70 people per court.

Using standard anthropometric calculations we can determine that, accord­ing to our division of the space, each of the four courts could accommodate up to approximately 450 people: 70 people closely involved and 380 of a general audience.⁷³ Some of the audience would have used benches, while the rest stood behind and around. This calculation allows for 85 percent density. Pliny's description of the hearing at which the youth's clothing was torn suggests an even higher density. If we calculate using 90 percent, we reach 475 persons. Estimating the audience present at Attia Viriola's case before the united court, we arrive at a number that certainly would have made Pliny proud; in the cen­tral nave alone, he might have addressed as many as 2,150 people.