Talk:Senatus consultum regarding Appius Claudius Priscus MMDCCLIX (Nova Roma)
From NovaRoma
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==="''Inimicus''"=== | ==="''Inimicus''"=== | ||
| − | As [[Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Ti. Galerius]] indicated in his [[Senate | + | As [[Tiberius Galerius Paulinus (Nova Roma)|Ti. Galerius]] indicated in his [[Senate report MMDCCLIX August 6 (Nova Roma)#ITEM IV: The Senate of Nova Roma recognizes Appius Claudius Priscus as a potential threat to Nova Roma and declares him "inimicus," an enemy of Nova Roma.|speech]] in the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]], there is no Roman precedent for a declaration of an individual as ''inimicus populi Romani''. Indeed the Latin word "''inimicus''" normally signifies a personal rivalry between two individuals; the usual term for an enemy of the republic is "''hostis''", but this was only used of enemies under arms. |
There is no precedent for a declaration of this kind against a Roman citizen who was neither in armed rebellion nor expected to rebel imminently. | There is no precedent for a declaration of this kind against a Roman citizen who was neither in armed rebellion nor expected to rebel imminently. | ||
It is therefore far from clear what legal effect, if any, the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]] intended this designation to have. The most likely interpretation is that no legal effect was intended and the declaration was intended to have purely symbolic value. | It is therefore far from clear what legal effect, if any, the [[Senate (Nova Roma)|Senate]] intended this designation to have. The most likely interpretation is that no legal effect was intended and the declaration was intended to have purely symbolic value. | ||
Latest revision as of 19:47, 19 January 2013
Commentary
"Inimicus"
As Ti. Galerius indicated in his speech in the Senate, there is no Roman precedent for a declaration of an individual as inimicus populi Romani. Indeed the Latin word "inimicus" normally signifies a personal rivalry between two individuals; the usual term for an enemy of the republic is "hostis", but this was only used of enemies under arms.
There is no precedent for a declaration of this kind against a Roman citizen who was neither in armed rebellion nor expected to rebel imminently.
It is therefore far from clear what legal effect, if any, the Senate intended this designation to have. The most likely interpretation is that no legal effect was intended and the declaration was intended to have purely symbolic value.
