Unus iudex

The qualifications for a unus iudex differ from those for the album. This is likely due to the nature of the selection, in that if the two litigants agreed on an individual, the state saw little reason to interfere.

A prospective single judge could be excused under certain circumstances.⁸³ As was the case for prospective members of the decuries, the single judge would be excused if he had the ius trium liberorum.⁸ Ill health of a more last­ing sort, something that clearly would make any civil duty impossible, was a valid excuse. Those who held certain priesthoods were also excused.⁸⁵

A simple process was used to select a unus iudex. The two litigants pro­posed men until one was found upon whom they could agree. If this agreed-upon man was eligible, the magistrate under whose jurisdiction the case was being heard appointed him judge. This method suggests that the parties knew their selected judge, though this knowledge could be intimate due to a common friendship with the judge or merely general knowledge gleaned about a popular public figure with whom they had had no prior con­tact. If they could not find a person to agree upon, they then turned to the album and the procedure already described.

The amount of litigation generated in Rome with its size and diversity, and the rather minimal qualifications demanded of a prospective single judge, lead to the conclusion that many men must have served as single judges.

Thus, paradoxically, the fact that very few single judges can be identified is perhaps proof of just how ubiquitous such an activity was, so common that to mention one's participation was superfluous. While many men who held magistracies with judicial functions have been identified through both liter­ary and epigraphic sources, rarely do any details of their judicial activities come to light. Even Pliny, never one to miss a chance to mention his more honorable activities, makes only passing comment of his judicial work while he served as the praefectus Aerari Saturni and the curator alvei Tiberis.⁸⁶ On only one occasion do we find a known magistrate in his court dispensing justice. Fronto was called one evening to represent his client before Marcius Turbo — a military general of great renown during Trajan's reign, and subsequently made praefectus praetorio by Hadrian — who was holding court late into the evening.⁸⁷ Even regarding emperors, we have merely some anecdotal accounts of their legal activities in this study's time period, and the absence of details is frustrating.⁸⁸

As for private citizens acting as judges, very few can be identified.⁸⁹ Pliny is the only individual, in fact, whom we can confidently name as having been asked by litigants to judge matters as a unus iudex while a private citizen. Certainly we must view his involvement as representative of other men of similar status and background.

While Pliny is our only example of a private citizen sought out by litigants to be a unus iudex, we hear of other single judges who were appointed by the emperor or magistrates to hear cases. In the imperial period, some magistrates were empowered to delegate their judicial authority to representatives who would hear cases on their behalf by the extra ordinem procedure. The emperor also had this ability. This system greatly increased the amount of legal busi­ness that could be carried on at the same time under one official's jurisdiction.⁹³ Seneca the Younger identifies Maecenas, one of Augustus' main advisors, as a regularly appearing judge.⁹⁴ While he may have been frequently requested by individuals as a unus iudex because of his very public role in soci­ety at the time, it is also possible (though no hard evidence is available) that Maecenas was hearing cases as a delegate of Augustus.

Who was a good unus iudex? Although very few single judges can be iden­tified, some characteristics can be gleaned both from information about the individuals known to have served and from general comments made in the ancient sources on the “good judge”. In the literary texts, a defining feature of what it means to be a “good man” is the ability to judge cases well. Horace sees the good man as one by whose “judgment many important suits are decided”.¹⁰⁰ Juvenal calls on the good man to be a “judge of integrity”, while Quintilian believes the good man will improve the state by his judgments.¹⁰¹ Judicial involvement was certainly seen by Quintilian as merely one aspect of the well-rounded man; however, this inclusion is noteworthy.

Of course, the “good man” cannot be separated from the great politician. Pliny and Ovid provide the typical senatorial and equestrian examples of the single judge. They both had legal experience early in their careers. Following Pliny's political ascendancy, his continued involvement in the courts as an advocate in many celebrated cases guaranteed his reputation as an able legal mind. Ovid, having turned away from the senatorial path, continued to fulfil the duties of an equestrian on the album iudicum. The importance of a legal rep­utation must be stressed. No doubt, both of these men, because of their exposure in various legal positions, were seen by litigants as excellent prospec­tive judges. Those looking through the album iudicum would have paused at Ovid's name if they had heard of his previous involvement as a tresvir, decemvir, or centumvir. Here was someone the litigants could respect, and trust to have at least some understanding of the law. The same holds for Pliny, who had held several legal posts, had prosecuted repetundae cases for the state, and had been consul. As we have seen, his reputation even followed him to his country estates, where litigants also wanted their disputes judged by knowledgeable men. “A good man”, however, is a relative term, and for litigants from the lower classes the opportunity, or even the desire, to have someone of Pliny's or Ovid's status and reputation judge the case may not have existed.