[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.qxd 30/10/2007 12:12 Page 144144 Magic in Greek and Roman Lawharvest is fundamentally about the violation of property and the destabi-lizing effects this could have on an agrarian community.46 But the fact that magic (veneficium) is mentioned both in the charge and the defense raisesthe possibility that it is by this means specifically that a harvest wasmagically transferred.The term veneficium (pl.veneficia) has two distinct meanings inLatin.The first is concerned with drugs/poisons venena (sg.venenum47)and means the act of poisoning/poison.The second more generallyrefers to magic and, in addition to that, can mean a philtre or magicalsubstance.One who uses venena is called a veneficus, and the samebifurcated meanings apply: the veneficus is either a poisoner or amagician.Now it is important to stress that the ambivalence observedin the use of venenum poison/magical drug in Latin is roughly equiva-lent to that found in the Greek term pharmakon roughly, because theLatin term does not include the meaning purification as pharmakon doesin Greek medical texts.48 Roman legal scholars or jurists were acutelyaware of the ambivalence of the term venenum and drew parallelswith Greek terminology.As one example, the famous second-centurylaw professor and jurist Gaius, who wrote a treatise on the Twelve Tables,once remarked:49Someone who says drugs (venena) must add whether it is bad or good; formedicaments (medicamenta) are also drugs (venena) since under that nameeverything is contained which when applied to something changes thenature of that to which it is applied.Given that that which we call drug(venenum) is called by the Greeks pharmakon, among them also medicaments(medicamenta) as well as harmful drugs are included in this category.To illustrate his point Gaius next quotes a verse from Homer s Odyssey(4.230), drugs (pharmaka) mixed together, many good and many harmful ,which describes the drugs Helen places into the wine she offers Tele-machus, Odysseus son, and her husband Menelaus.Interestingly, this isan appeal, which is rare enough in the law codes, to Homer s authorityon magic, and it gives clear evidence of the extent to which even later Romanjurists sought Greek precedents to define Latin magical terms.In any case, Gaius remarks thus give us some reason to conclude thatthe veneficium mentioned in the case of Chresimus specifically refers tothe use of drugs (venena), and some scholars have taken this view.50However, the abstract noun veneficium has the same ambiguity as Greekpharmakeia, and can mean both poisoning and magic , and the magichere does not always imply the use of drugs.Both pharmakeia andveneficia can refer to spells or to a generalized notion of magic.51 This is 9781405132381_4_005.qxd 30/10/2007 12:12 Page 145Magic in Greek and Roman Law 145the crucial point: it appears that when Chresimus points to his farmequipment and workers and refers to them as his magic (veneficia), hemeans magic in the general Roman sense of the term, inclusive of but notspecific to having used drugs.Even if we could imagine the use of drugsto destroy a neighbor s crops, the provision of the Twelve Tables refers onlyto the charming or luring away (excantare) of another s crops, which is notthe same thing.On the other hand, the application of drugs to crops some-how to attract them to the field of another is unprecedented.A parallelfor such attraction does exist, however, as we have seen more than once,in the realm of charming and spells, as in the famous Greek example ofusing spells (epDidai) to draw down the moon.Closer to Rome, theMarsi, a central Italic people, were famous for using charms to attractserpents, even while they slept,52 while erotic attraction spells were the veryraisons d être of Theocritus second Idyll and its Roman counterpart,Vergil s eighth Eclogue.It would thus be toward the more general senseof veneficium, rather than a narrow reference to drugs, that the case ofChresimus seems to point.The Lex CorneliaAs to why Vergil has the speaker say in his eighth Eclogue (publishedin 37 bce) that she uses herbs (herbae) and drugs (venena) which she haswitnessed draw sown corn to the field of another (8.99) a statement thatin effect marries two different magical ideas there is one significant expla-nation.Vergil does this because after 81 bce the entire Roman definitionof magic (veneficia) had become bound up with drugs (venena) with thepassage of the most important piece of legislation against poisoners(veneficus) and later, magicians the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficiisor the Cornelian law on assassins and poisoners.This law was henceforththe main statute under which all subsequent cases of magic were prose-cuted, partly because the very name poisoner (veneficus) was the sameas that for magician.The law s original intent could thus be flexiblyinterpreted as later generations of jurists, magistrates, and prosecutorsapplied it in specific cases.In 81 bce the Roman dictator L.Cornelius Sulla passed a legislativeprogramme largely aimed at strengthening the power of the Senate.Inaddition to minor changes, he reorganized the system of standingcourts (quaestiones) and increased their number, commensurate withhis enlargement of the Senate to 600, which was more than double itsprevious count.Cases dealing with poisoners (veneficus) and assassins(sicarius) had existed on an ad hoc basis at least since the fourth century 9781405132381_4_005.qxd 30/10/2007 12:12 Page 146146 Magic in Greek and Roman Lawbce,53 and a standing quaestio inter sicarios had existed prior to Sulla.54But after 81 poisoning and homicide cases were subject to Sulla s new,expanded quaestio and were tried under the Cornelian law on assassinsand poisoners.The importance of this law for the future of Romanjurisprudence on magic cannot be underestimated, because it was to thislaw that all subsequent legislation against magic, in one way or another,related.Owing both to the ambiguity of its original terms and to the cre-ativity of later Roman jurists, the scope of the Cornelian law was gradu-ally extended by the third century ce to include a variety of suspiciousbehaviors that were not originally within its purview.The original intent of the Cornelian law, as best we can reconstruct it,was aimed at trying individuals accused of murder by stealth.The term assassin (sicarius) covered not only murderer but especially murdererswho accomplished their killing through concealment and planning.55 Theterm poisoner (veneficus), as we have mentioned, referred generally toone who used poison (venenum) to murder, but the fundamental ambi-guity of the term venenum left open to question whether such drugs weresimply poisons or magical substances.As in the examples from Greek lawthat we have seen dealing with pharmaka, the definition of venenum wasopen to interpretation depending on the circumstances.But if the mostrecent construction of the Lex Cornelia is correct, intent to kill withvenena, as well as the nature of the venena themselves, were part of thelaw s original scope.56Already in the fourth century bce, centuries before the passage of theCornelian law, a spectacular and memorable case for poisoning had beenheld that hinged on the correct interpretation of venenum.According toLivy (59 bce 17 ce), the first case for poisoning was tried in 331 bce, andit involved a conspiracy by noble Roman matrons to murder theirhusbands.57 That year, numerous prominent noblemen found themselvessuffering from an unknown malady [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl przylepto3.keep.pl
.qxd 30/10/2007 12:12 Page 144144 Magic in Greek and Roman Lawharvest is fundamentally about the violation of property and the destabi-lizing effects this could have on an agrarian community.46 But the fact that magic (veneficium) is mentioned both in the charge and the defense raisesthe possibility that it is by this means specifically that a harvest wasmagically transferred.The term veneficium (pl.veneficia) has two distinct meanings inLatin.The first is concerned with drugs/poisons venena (sg.venenum47)and means the act of poisoning/poison.The second more generallyrefers to magic and, in addition to that, can mean a philtre or magicalsubstance.One who uses venena is called a veneficus, and the samebifurcated meanings apply: the veneficus is either a poisoner or amagician.Now it is important to stress that the ambivalence observedin the use of venenum poison/magical drug in Latin is roughly equiva-lent to that found in the Greek term pharmakon roughly, because theLatin term does not include the meaning purification as pharmakon doesin Greek medical texts.48 Roman legal scholars or jurists were acutelyaware of the ambivalence of the term venenum and drew parallelswith Greek terminology.As one example, the famous second-centurylaw professor and jurist Gaius, who wrote a treatise on the Twelve Tables,once remarked:49Someone who says drugs (venena) must add whether it is bad or good; formedicaments (medicamenta) are also drugs (venena) since under that nameeverything is contained which when applied to something changes thenature of that to which it is applied.Given that that which we call drug(venenum) is called by the Greeks pharmakon, among them also medicaments(medicamenta) as well as harmful drugs are included in this category.To illustrate his point Gaius next quotes a verse from Homer s Odyssey(4.230), drugs (pharmaka) mixed together, many good and many harmful ,which describes the drugs Helen places into the wine she offers Tele-machus, Odysseus son, and her husband Menelaus.Interestingly, this isan appeal, which is rare enough in the law codes, to Homer s authorityon magic, and it gives clear evidence of the extent to which even later Romanjurists sought Greek precedents to define Latin magical terms.In any case, Gaius remarks thus give us some reason to conclude thatthe veneficium mentioned in the case of Chresimus specifically refers tothe use of drugs (venena), and some scholars have taken this view.50However, the abstract noun veneficium has the same ambiguity as Greekpharmakeia, and can mean both poisoning and magic , and the magichere does not always imply the use of drugs.Both pharmakeia andveneficia can refer to spells or to a generalized notion of magic.51 This is 9781405132381_4_005.qxd 30/10/2007 12:12 Page 145Magic in Greek and Roman Law 145the crucial point: it appears that when Chresimus points to his farmequipment and workers and refers to them as his magic (veneficia), hemeans magic in the general Roman sense of the term, inclusive of but notspecific to having used drugs.Even if we could imagine the use of drugsto destroy a neighbor s crops, the provision of the Twelve Tables refers onlyto the charming or luring away (excantare) of another s crops, which is notthe same thing.On the other hand, the application of drugs to crops some-how to attract them to the field of another is unprecedented.A parallelfor such attraction does exist, however, as we have seen more than once,in the realm of charming and spells, as in the famous Greek example ofusing spells (epDidai) to draw down the moon.Closer to Rome, theMarsi, a central Italic people, were famous for using charms to attractserpents, even while they slept,52 while erotic attraction spells were the veryraisons d être of Theocritus second Idyll and its Roman counterpart,Vergil s eighth Eclogue.It would thus be toward the more general senseof veneficium, rather than a narrow reference to drugs, that the case ofChresimus seems to point.The Lex CorneliaAs to why Vergil has the speaker say in his eighth Eclogue (publishedin 37 bce) that she uses herbs (herbae) and drugs (venena) which she haswitnessed draw sown corn to the field of another (8.99) a statement thatin effect marries two different magical ideas there is one significant expla-nation.Vergil does this because after 81 bce the entire Roman definitionof magic (veneficia) had become bound up with drugs (venena) with thepassage of the most important piece of legislation against poisoners(veneficus) and later, magicians the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficiisor the Cornelian law on assassins and poisoners.This law was henceforththe main statute under which all subsequent cases of magic were prose-cuted, partly because the very name poisoner (veneficus) was the sameas that for magician.The law s original intent could thus be flexiblyinterpreted as later generations of jurists, magistrates, and prosecutorsapplied it in specific cases.In 81 bce the Roman dictator L.Cornelius Sulla passed a legislativeprogramme largely aimed at strengthening the power of the Senate.Inaddition to minor changes, he reorganized the system of standingcourts (quaestiones) and increased their number, commensurate withhis enlargement of the Senate to 600, which was more than double itsprevious count.Cases dealing with poisoners (veneficus) and assassins(sicarius) had existed on an ad hoc basis at least since the fourth century 9781405132381_4_005.qxd 30/10/2007 12:12 Page 146146 Magic in Greek and Roman Lawbce,53 and a standing quaestio inter sicarios had existed prior to Sulla.54But after 81 poisoning and homicide cases were subject to Sulla s new,expanded quaestio and were tried under the Cornelian law on assassinsand poisoners.The importance of this law for the future of Romanjurisprudence on magic cannot be underestimated, because it was to thislaw that all subsequent legislation against magic, in one way or another,related.Owing both to the ambiguity of its original terms and to the cre-ativity of later Roman jurists, the scope of the Cornelian law was gradu-ally extended by the third century ce to include a variety of suspiciousbehaviors that were not originally within its purview.The original intent of the Cornelian law, as best we can reconstruct it,was aimed at trying individuals accused of murder by stealth.The term assassin (sicarius) covered not only murderer but especially murdererswho accomplished their killing through concealment and planning.55 Theterm poisoner (veneficus), as we have mentioned, referred generally toone who used poison (venenum) to murder, but the fundamental ambi-guity of the term venenum left open to question whether such drugs weresimply poisons or magical substances.As in the examples from Greek lawthat we have seen dealing with pharmaka, the definition of venenum wasopen to interpretation depending on the circumstances.But if the mostrecent construction of the Lex Cornelia is correct, intent to kill withvenena, as well as the nature of the venena themselves, were part of thelaw s original scope.56Already in the fourth century bce, centuries before the passage of theCornelian law, a spectacular and memorable case for poisoning had beenheld that hinged on the correct interpretation of venenum.According toLivy (59 bce 17 ce), the first case for poisoning was tried in 331 bce, andit involved a conspiracy by noble Roman matrons to murder theirhusbands.57 That year, numerous prominent noblemen found themselvessuffering from an unknown malady [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]