Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

-MAJESTAS. MAJESTAS. 725
by Senatusconsulta and Imperial Constitutions; and the Empire to be the fundamental enactment on
we must not conclude from the title in the Digest, this subject. This Lex Julia is by some attributed' Ad Legem Juliam Majestatis," that all the provi- to C. Julius Caesar, and assigned to the year B. c.
sionsenumerated underthat titlewere comprehended 48, and this may le the Lex referred to in the
in the original Lex Julia. It is stated byMarcianus, Digest; some assume a second Lex Julia, under
as there cited, that it was not Majestas to repair the Augustus. That a Lex de Majestate was passed
statues of the Caesar which were going to decay; in Caesar's time appears from Cicero. (Pldilipp.
and a Rescript of Severus and his son Antoninls i. 9.)
Caracalla declared that if a stone was thrown and Under the Empire the term Majestas was applied
accidentally struck a statue of the Emperor, that to the person of the reigning Caesar, and we find
also was not Majestas; and they also graciously the phrases Majestas Augusta, Imperatoria, and
declared that it was not Majestas to sell the Regia. It was however nothing new to apply the
statues of the Caesar before they were consecrated. term to the Emperor, considered in some of his
I-Here then is an instance uinder the title ad Legema capacities, for it was applied to the magistratus
Juliam Majestatis of the Imperial rescripts de- under the Republic, as to the consul and praetor.
claring what was not Majestas. There is also an (Cic. Plhilipp. xiii. 9, ix Pisosenz, 11.) Horace
extract from Saturninus De Judiciis, who says even addresses Augustus (Ep. ii. ]. 288) in the
that if a person melted down the statues or ieza- terms "' majestas tua," blut this can hardly be
ginzes of the Impcrator which were alread, con- viewed otherwise than as a personal compliment,
secrated, or did any similar act, he was liable to and not as said with reference to aliy of the offices
the penalties of the Lex Julia Majestatis. But -which he held. The extension of the penalties
even this also does not prove that this provision to various new offences against the person of the
was a part of the Julia Lex, as originally passed, for Emperor belongs of course to the Imperial period.
a Lex after being amended by Scnatusconsulta or Augustus availed himself of the Lex for prosecutImperial Constitutions still retained its namle. In ing the authors of famosi libelli (cognitionesmz de
the time of Tiberius it was a matter of charge famnosis libellis, specie leqis ejeus, tractavit, Tacit.
against a man that in selling a garden he had in-.Alnn. i. 72; Dion Cass. lvi. 27; Sueton. Octav.
eluded a statue of Augustus; which Tiberius de- 55): the proper inference from the passage of
clared to be no offence. (Tacit. Anni. i. 73.) Tacitus is that the Leges Majestatis (for they all
The old punishment of Majestas was perpetual seem to be comprised under the term " Legem
Interdiction fronm fire and water; bult naw, sass Majestatis,") did not apply to words or writings,
Paulus (S. R. v. 39), that is, in the later Imperia] l for these were punishable otherwise. The pasperiod, persons of low condition are thrown to sage of Cicero (ad Fawn. iii. 11) is manifestly
wild beasts, or burnt alive; persons of better con- corrupt, and as it stands, inconsistent with the
dition are simply put to death. The property of context; it cannot be taken as evidence that the
the offender was confiscated and his nmemory was Lex M-Iajestatis of Sulla contained any provisions
infamous. as to libellous words, as to which there were
In the early times of the Republic every act of other sufficient provisions. [INJURI.A.] Sigonius
a citizen which was injurious to the State or its has attempted to collect the capita of the Lex
peace was called Perduellio, and the offender (per-;Majestatis of Sulla. Under Tiberius the offence
duellis) was tried before the populus (populi judi- of -Majestas was extended to all acts and words
cio), and, if convicted, put to death. (Liv. ii. 41, which miight appear to be disrespectful to the
vi. 20.) The earliest trial and form of procedure Princeps, as appears front various passages in Ta.
is that which is given by Livy (i. 26); after the citus (Ann. i. 73, 74, ii. 50, iii. 38, 66, 67, &c.).
overthrow of the kingly power the notion of Per- The term Perduellio was still in use under the
dluellio and the process were in some degree Empire, and seems to have been ecyivalent to
changed. Numerous offences against the state Majestas at that period.
were comprehended under Perduellio. For in- An inquiry might be made into an act of Majesstatlce Cn. Fulvius (Liv. xxvi. c. 3.) was charged tas against the Imperator even after the death of
with the offence of perduellio for losing a Roman the offender; a rule which was established (as we
army; but in course of time, and probably after are informed by Paulus) by M. Aurelius in the
the passing of the Lex Porcia, though it does not case of Druncimams or Druncanius, a senator who
appear that this Iex applied to Perduellio, the head taken part in the outbreak of Cassius, and
punishment was aquae et ignis interdictio. Ac- whose property was claimed by the fiscus after his
cording to Gaius " perduellis" originally signified death. (Perhaps the account of Capitdlinus, 14M.' hostis" (Dig. 50. tit. 16. s. 234); (and thus the Alit. Phil. c. 26, and of Vulcatius Gallicanu., Aviold offence of perduellio was equivalent to makinlg discs Cassiuzs, c. 9, is not inconsistent with the statewar on the Roman State. The trial for perduellio ment of Paulus: on the case of Druncianus, see
(perduellionis judicietm) existed to the later times Tillemont, Ilistoire des Enpe-reurs, vol. ii. p. 382.)
of the Republic; but the name seems to have A constitution of S. Severus and Antoninus Caraalmost fallen into disuse, and various leges were calla declared that from the time that an act of
passed for the purpose of determining more accu- Majestas was committed, a man could not alienate
rately what should be T%,ajestas. his property or manumit a slave, to which the
These Leges were a Lex Apuleia, probably great (uaelnus) Antonilmus (probably Caracalla is
passed in the fifth consulship of Marius, the exact still ameant), added that a debtor could not after
contents of which are unknown (Cic. de Or. ii. 25, that time lawfully make a payment to him. In
49), a Lex Varia a. c. 91 (Appian, Bell. Civ. i. the matter of Majestas slaves could also be ex37; Cic. Brett. 89; Valer. Mnaxim. viii. 6. ~ 4), a amined by torture in order to give evidence against
Lex Cornelia passed by L. Cornelius Stlla (Cic. their master: this provision, though comprehended
in Pis. 21, psro luest. 35), and the Lex Julia in the Code under the title Ad Legem Juliam
already mentioned, and which continued under M\lajestatis, was perhaps not containec in the oria
3A 3