|
Sunday, August 22, 2010 - 7:58 PM
There was profound excitement among those present, and they even
tried to soothe her agitation, but she insisted on an interview with her
son. Then, instead of pleading her innocence, as though she lacked confidence,
or her claims on him by way of reproach, she obtained vengeance on her
accusers and rewards for her friends.
The superintendence of the corn supply was given to Faenius Rufus,
the direction of the games which the emperor was preparing, to Arruntius
Stella, and the province of Egypt to Caius Balbillus. Syria was to be assigned
to Publius Anteius, but he was soon put off by various artifices and finally
detained at Rome. Silana was banished; Calvisius and Iturius exiled for
a time; Atimetus was capitally punished, while Paris was too serviceable
to the emperor's profligacy to allow of his suffering any penalty. Plautus
for the present was silently passed over.
Next Pallas and Burrus were accused of having conspired to raise
Cornelius Sulla to the throne, because of his noble birth and connection
with Claudius, whose son-in-law he was by his marriage with Antonia. The
promoter of the prosecution was one Paetus, who had become notorious by
frequent purchases of property confiscated to the exchequer and was now
convicted clearly of imposture. But the proved innocence of Pallas did
Pallas did not please men so much, as his arrogance offended them. When
his freedmen, his alleged accomplices, were called, he replied that at
home he signified his wishes only by a nod or a gesture, or, if further
explanation was required, he used writing, so as not to degrade his voice
in such company. Burrus, though accused, gave his verdict as one of the
judges. The prosecutor was sentenced to exile, and the account-books in
which he was reviving forgotten claims of the exchequer, were
burnt.
At the end of the year the cohort usually on guard during the games
was withdrawn, that there might be a greater show of freedom, that the
soldiery too might be less demoralised when no longer in contact with the
licence of the theatre, and that it might be proved whether the populace,
in the absence of a guard, would maintain their self-control. The emperor,
on the advice of the augurs, purified Rome by a lustration, as the temples
of Jupiter and Minerva had been struck by lightning.
In the consulship of Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire and Publius Scipio, there
was peace abroad, but a disgusting licentiousness at home on the part of
Nero, who in a slave's disguise, so as to be unrecognized, would wander
through the streets of Rome, to brothels and taverns, with comrades, who
seized on goods exposed for sale and inflicted wounds on any whom they
encountered, some of these last knowing him so little that he even received
blows himself, and showed the marks of them in his face. When it was notorious
that the emperor was the assailant, and the insults on men and women of
distinction were multiplied, other persons too on the strength of a licence
once granted under Nero's name, ventured with impunity on the same practices,
and had gangs of their own, till night presented the scenes of a captured
city. Julius Montanus, a senator, but one who had not yet held any office,
happened to encounter the prince in the darkness, and because he fiercely
repulsed his attack and then on recognizing him begged for mercy, as though
this was a reproach, forced to destroy himself. Nero was for the future
more timid, and surrounded himself with soldiers and a number of gladiators,
who, when a fray began on a small scale and seemed a private affair, were
to let it alone, but, if the injured persons resisted stoutly, they rushed
in with their swords. He also turned the licence of the games and the enthusiasm
for the actors into something like a battle by the impunity he allowed,
and the rewards he offered, and especially by looking on himself, sometimes
concealed, but often in public view, till, with the people at strife and
the fear of a worse commotion, the only remedy which could be devised was
the expulsion of the offending actors from Italy, and the presence once
more of the soldiery in the theatre.
During the same time there was a discussion in the Senate on the
misconduct of the freedmen class, and a strong demand was made that, as
a check on the undeserving, patrons should have the right of revoking freedom.
There were several who supported this. But the consuls did not venture
to put the motion without the emperor's knowledge, though they recorded
the Senate's general opinion, to see whether he would sanction the arrangement,
considering that only a few were opposed to it, while some loudly complained
that the irreverent spirit which freedom had fostered, had broken into
such excess, that freedmen would ask their patrons' advice as to whether
they should treat them with violence, or, as legally, their equals, and
would actually threaten them with blows, at the same time recommending
them not to punish. "What right," it was asked, "was conceded to an injured
patron but that of temporarily banishing the freedman a hundred miles off
to the shores of Campania? In everything else, legal proceedings were equal
and the same for both. Some weapon ought to be given to the patrons which
could not be despised. It would be no grievance for the enfranchised to
have to keep their freedom by the same respectful behaviour which had procured
it for them. But, as for notorious offenders, they deserved to be dragged
back into slavery, that fear might be a restraint where kindness had had
no effect."
It was argued in reply that, though the guilt of a few ought to
be the ruin of the men themselves, there should be no diminution of the
rights of the entire class. "For it was," they contended, "a widely diffused
body; from it, the city tribes, the various public functionaries, the establishments
of the magistrates and priests were for the most part supplied, as well
as the cohorts of the city-guard; very many too of the knights and several
of the senators derived their origin from no other source. If freedmen
were to be a separate class, the paucity of the freeborn would be conspicuously
apparent. Not without good reason had our ancestors, in distinguishing
the position of the different orders, thrown freedom open to all. Again,
two kinds of enfranchisement had been instituted, so as to leave room for
retracting the boon, or for a fresh act of grace. Those whom the patron
had not emancipated with the freedom-giving rod, were still held, as it
were, by the bonds of slavery. Every master should carefully consider the
merits of each case, and be slow to grant what once given could not be
taken away."
This view prevailed, and the emperor replied to the Senate that,
whenever freedmen were accused by their patrons, they were to investigate
each case separately and not to annul any right to their common injury.
Soon afterwards, his aunt Domitia had her freedman Paris taken from her,
avowedly by civil law, much to the emperor's disgrace, by whose direction
a decision that he was freeborn was obtained.
|