Senatorial Pignora

Latin Learning Latin
1

The passage under consideration, from the beginning of De Orat. III. Apologies for the length but I thought it’d be best to have the full context. The basic backdrop: L. Crassus and M. Antonius (and Scaevola in book I) have been discoursing on oratory for the benefit of Catulus, Caesar, Sulpicius and Cotta. Antonius has finished his discourse and this book contains that of Crassus.

Instituenti mihi, Quinte frater, eum sermonem referre et mandare huic tertio libro, quem post Antoni disputationem Crassus habuisset, acerba sane recordatio veterem animi curam molestiamque renovavit. Nam illud immortalitate dignum ingenium, illa humanitas, illa virtus L. Crassi morte exstincta subita est vix diebus decem post eum diem, qui hoc et superiore libro continetur. Vt enim Romam rediit extremo ludorum scaenicorum die, vehementer commotus oratione ea, quae ferebatur habita esse in contione a Philippo, quem dixisse constabat videndum sibi esse aliud consilium; illo senatu se rem publicam gerere non posse, mane Idibus Septembribus et ille et senatus frequens vocatu Drusi in curiam venit; ibi cum Drusus multa de Philippo questus esset, rettulit ad senatum de illo ipso, quod in eum ordinem consul tam graviter in contione esset invectus. Hic, ut saepe inter homines sapientissimos constare vidi, quamquam hoc Crasso, cum aliquid accuratius dixisset, semper fere contigisset, ut numquam dixisse melius putaretur, tamen omnium consensu sic esse tum iudicatum ceteros a Crasso semper omnis, illo autem die etiam ipsum a se superatum. Deploravit enim casum atque orbitatem senatus, cuius ordinis a consule, qui quasi parens bonus aut tutor fidelis esse deberet, tamquam ab aliquo nefario praedone diriperetur patrimonium dignitatis; neque vero esse mirandum, si, cum suis consiliis rem publicam profligasset, consilium senatus a re publica repudiaret. Hic cum homini et vehementi et diserto et in primis forti ad resistendum Philippo quasi quasdam verborum faces admovisset, non tulit ille et graviter exarsit pigneribusque ablatis Crassum instituit coercere. Quo quidem ipso in loco multa a Crasso divinitus dicta esse ferebantur, cum sibi illum consulem esse negaret, cui senator ipse non esset. “An tu, cum omnem auctoritatem universi ordinis pro pignere putaris eamque in conspectu populi Romani concideris, me his existimas pigneribus terreri? Non tibi illa sunt caedenda, si L. Crassum vis coercere: haec tibi est incidenda lingua, qua vel evulsa spiritu ipso libidinem tuam libertas mea refutabit.”

The last few sentences are what I’m having trouble fully grasping. I (think I) understand that the “pignora” were securities the consul could use to ensure payment of a fine for not appearing in the Senate when called, or other serious misbehavior. But here it seems to me that they are actual physical things. What exactly were the “ablatis”? According to an old commentary I found on google books, “non tibi illa sunt caedenda” refers to notches that were made to represent transfer of ownership.

What did Philippus take from Crassus? Or is the whole thing metaphor/technical language? And if there was no physical tablet, token, or notching involved, still what exactly did Philippus do or say? What did it actually mean for a Consul in the Senate to “pignora auferre” or “senatorem coercere”?

2

I can transcribe a note from Wilkins’ De Oratore Libri Tres.

pignoribusque ablatis: Gellius, xiv. 7. 10, says of Varro, ‘praeter haec de pignore quoque capiendo disserit, deque multa dicenda senatori, qui, cum in senatum venire deberet, non adesset.’ We have instances of neglect to attend punished by the pignoris capio in Cic. Phil. i. 5. 12, and Liv. iii. 38. It was also used as a means of enforcing obedience by any magistrate whose commands were slighted, e.g. Liv. xxxvii. 51. 4, xliii. 16. 5. (by censors); Suet. Jul. 17 (by Caesar, when praetor; cp. Plin. Ep. iv. 29). But this seems to be the only instance in which it was employed or threatened for the use of language in debate. Cp. Mommsen [German edition cited]. As a rule the pignora were destroyed (caesa); sometimes they were only held as security for the payment of a fine (multa). Sorof’s notion that the pignora were originally sheep is but a conjecture.

Pro pignore is glossed just below ‘as a seized article, which you may destroy at your pleasure.’

From the context ‘senatorem coercere’ may be : Of discourse, to keep within limits, control, confine, restrain, limit (syn.: contineo, cohibeo): ut (nos) quasi extra ripas diffluentes coërceret;

Morally, to hold some fault, some passion, etc., or the erring or passionate person in check, to curb, restrain, tame, correct, etc. (syn.: contineo, cohibeo, refreno, reprimo, domo):

Pignora auferre: Esp., of the security for the payment of his fine, which was taken by the consul of a senator who failed to attend in the Senate: pignus auferre, Cic. de Or. 3, 1, 4

The definitions are from Lewis & Short online.
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/Reference/lewisandshort.html

You may have to compare the citations to get to the technical heart of your question.

3

Yeah, that’s the nut of the issue. What was taken as security from Crassus and how? I assume Crassus didn’t have sheep under his toga!

From the context ‘senatorem coercere’ may be : Of discourse, to keep within limits, control, confine, restrain, limit (syn.: contineo, cohibeo): ut (nos) quasi extra ripas diffluentes coërceret;

Thanks, that makes perfect sense. Nothing technical or weird about coercere here, just its ordinary meaning.

4

I added to the original post:

“You may have to compare the citations to get to the technical heart of your question.”

It seems unlikely to me (I’m no expert) that anything physical was actually taken anymore in the late Republic. My guess is that this is some sort of liability imposed that may be removed contingent upon ‘good behavior.’

But as I said, perhaps the answer’s in Livy or Suetonius.

5

The Dictionary of Roman Antiquities article on the senate gave me some good citations, besides the passage you provided in Gellius summarizing Varro’s Εἰσαγωγικόν.

Livy III.38:

Patrum haud fere quisquam in foro, in urbe rari erant. Indignitate rerum cesserant in agros, suarumque rerum erant amissa publica, tantum ab iniuria se abesse rati quantum a coetu congressuque impotentium dominorum se amovissent. Postquam citati non conveniebant, dimissi circa domos apparitores simul ad pignera capienda sciscitandumque num consulto detractarent referunt senatum in agris esse. Laetius id decemviris accidit quam si praesentes detractare imperium referrent. Iubent acciri omnes, senatumque in diem posterum edicunt; qui aliquanto spe ipsorum frequentior convenit.

So in the time of the second decemvirate apparitores would go door to door seizing the securities, sheep or whatever they were. It wouldn’t happen in the Senate, of course, as it did to Crassus, because the whole point was to compel absent senators to attend. So the counsul (or decemvir or whatever) would have sent people out to take the pignora.

Cic. De Leg. III.4

Senatori qui nec aderit aut causa aut culpa esto

No new info there.

Cic. 1st Phil. 4

De supplicationibus referebatur, quo in genere senatores deesse non solent. Coguntur enim non pignoribus, sed eorum, de quorum honore agitur, gratia, quod idem fit, cum de triumpho refertur. Ita sine cura consules sunt, ut paene liberum sit senatori non adesse. Qui cum mihi mos notus esset, cumque e via languerem et mihimet displicerem, misi pro amicitia, qui hoc ei diceret. At ille, vobis audientibus, cum fabris se domum meam venturum esse dixit. Nimis iracunde hoc quidem et valde intemperanter. Cuius enim maleficii tanta ista poena est, ut dicere in hoc ordine auderet se publicis operis disturbaturum publice ex senatus sententia aedificatam domum? Quis autem tanto damno senatorem coegit, aut quid est ultra pignus aut multam? Quod si scisset, quam sententiam dicturus essem, remisisset aliquid profecto de severitate cogendi.

I think I have my answer. There were no pignora literally ablata, nothing caesa, in the Senate. Philippus probably simply said that he was going to take the pignora, whether he said what exactly they would be or not. It seems from this passage that it was at the discretion of the Consul what pignus to take. And, from your citation of Wilkins’ commentary, it seems that the pignus had effectively become a multa, being destroyed. So I believe I was seriously overthinking it from the start, confused by the concrete terminology used. At least now I have a somewhat better understanding of this particular point of Roman government.

The Roman constitution and legal system often remind me of Calvinball. I don’t think I’ll ever have the patience to thoroughly understand either of 'em.