Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
STUDIESINROMANGOVERNMENTANDSOCIETY
tioorcognitio).32Amagistratewhodealtwithagivenmatterwas
notobligedtoconsideritwithintheconfinesofcoërcitioandal-
wayscouldreferittoaduequaestioperpetua.33Imposingsanc-
tionswithintheframeworkofcoërcitiowasalwaysbasedonthe
sovereigndecisionofamagistrate,andpronouncingwhateverthe
guiltwasofaconvictnotnecessary(althoughitwasnotoutofthe
questioneither).Inpractice,however,itisoftenadifculttaskto
tellthediferencebetweenbothaspectsofthemagistrature)soper-
ations.34Ontheotherhand,ifthesourcesdatedbacktothelateRe-
publicshouldbebelievedin,thecasesofapplyingcoërcitiotowards
theRomancitizenswererareandoccurredmainlyasaresultof
conflictsbetweentwomagistratesofdiferentranksorbetween
amagistrateandasenator.Suchapicturemightbeanefectof
thefactthatancientauthorschieflyrecalledwatersheds,thusnot
connectedwitheverydaypractice.Terefore,weoughttobecau-
tiouswhileformulatingfar-reachingthesesonthisbasis.Neverthe-
less,onemaygettheimpressionthatRomanofcialsusedcoërcitio
predominantlytoimposetheirwillonotherpeopleofpowerful
elites.35TisiswhathappenedduringtheconflictofconsulL.Mar-
ciusPhilippuswithcensorL.LiciniusCrassusin91B.C.36Coërcitio
wasalsousedinordertoforbidapersonwholackedthenecessary
qualificationstostandforanofce.3,Measuresliketheseserved
alsoforamagistratewhowouldheadthesenateasatooltodisci-
plinesenatorstakingpartinthesittings.Suchwasthemethodof
Caesarin59B.C.whenhethreatenedCatotheYoungerwithimpris-
onment.3;Censorsseemtohaveusedthislawmostoftentowards
32Rampelberg(1995)249;Santalucia(1994)64;(1998)21,29-30.
33Mommsen(1899)40-1.
34Schiller(1949)323;cf.Mommsen(1899)44-5,53-4,151;Bleicken(1959)327=(1998)
348;Kunkel(1962)131;(1972)9;Nippel(1988)12-13.
sen(1887-8)i139-40;Nippel(1984)22;(1988)14-16;(1995)7-8;Leemanetal.(1981-
2008)iv110-11.
3,Val.Max.9.7.1.
10
