Veneficium

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Veneficium.htm l 

Unsigned article on pp1188‑1189 of

William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875.

VENEFI′CIUM, the crime of poisoning, is frequently mentioned in Roman history. Women were most addicted to it; but it seems not improbable that this charge was frequently brought against females without sufficient evidence of their guilt, like that of witchcraft in Europe, in the middle ages. We find females condemned to death for this crime in seasons of pestilence, when the popular mind is always in an excited state and ready to attribute the calamities under which they suffer to the arts of evil-disposed persons. Thus the Athenians, when the pestilence raged in their city during the Peloponnesian war, supposed the wells to have been poisoned by the Peloponnesians (Thucyd. II.48), and similar instances occur in the history of almost all states. Still however the crime of poisoning seems to have been much more frequent in ancient than in modern times; and this circumstance would lead persons to suspect it in cases when there was no real ground for the suspicion. Respecting the crime of poisoning at Athens, see Pharmacon Graphe.

The first instance of its occurrence at Rome in any public way was in the consulship of M. Claudius Marcellus and C. Valerius, B.C. 351, when the city was visited by a pestilence. After many of the leading men of the state had died by the same kind of disease, a slave-girl gave information to the curule aediles that it was owing to poisons prepared by the Roman matrons. Following her information they surprized about twenty matrons, among whom were Cornelia and Sergia, both belonging to Patrician families, in the act of preparing certain drugs over a fire; and being compelled by the magistrates to drink these in the forum, since they asserted that they were not poisonous, they perished by their own wickedness. Upon this further informations were laid, and as many as a hundred and seventy matrons were condemned (Liv. VIII.18; cf. Val. Max. II.5, § 3; August. De Civ. Dei, III.17). We next read of poisoning being carried on upon an extensive scale as one of the consequences of the introduction of the worship of Bacchus (Liv. XXXIX.8). [Dionysia, p413.] In B.C. 184, the praetor, Q. Naevius Matho, was commanded by the senate to investigate such cases (de veneficiis quaerere): he spent four months in the investigation, which was principally carried on in the municipia and conciliabula, and, according to Valerius of Antium, he condemned 2000 persons (Liv. XXXIX.38, 41). We again find mention of a public investigation into cases of poisoning by order of the senate, in B.C. 180, when a pestilence raged at Rome, and many of the magistrates and other persons of high rank had perished. The investigation was conducted in the city and within ten miles of it by the praetor C. Claudius, and beyond the ten miles by the praetor C. Maenius. Hostilia, the widow of the consul C. Calpurnius, who had died in that year, was accused of having poisoned her husband, and condemned on what appears to have been mere suspicion (Liv. XL.37). Cases of what may be called private poisoning, in opposition to those mentioned above, frequently occurred. The speech of Cicero in behalf of Cluentius supplies us with several particulars on this subject. Under the Roman emperors it was carried on to a great extent, and some females, who excelled in the art, were in great request. One of the most celebrated of these was Locusta, who poisoned Claudius at the command of Agrippina, and Britannicus at that of Nero, the latter of whom even placed persons under her to be instructed in the art (Tacit. Annal. XII.66, XIII.15; Suet. Ner. 33; Juv. I.71).

The first legislative enactment especially directed against poisoning was a law of the dictator Sulla — Lex Cornelia de Sicariis et Veneficis — passed in B.C. 82, which continued in force, with some alterations, to the latest times. It contained provisions against all who made, bought, sold, possessed, or gave poison for the purpose of poisoning (Cic. pro Cluent. 54; Marcian, Dig.48 tit. 8 s3; Inst. 4 tit. 18 s5). The punishment fixed by this law was, according to Marcian, the deportatio in insulam and the confiscation of property; but it was more probably the interdictio aquae et ignis, since the deportatio under the emperors took the place of the interdictio, and the expression in the Digest was suited to the time of the writers or compilers. [Lex Cornelia, p687.] By a senatusconsultum passed subsequently, a female, who gave drugs or poison for the purpose of producing conception even without any evil intent, was banished (relegatus),º if the person to whom she administered them died in consequence. By another senatusconsultum all druggists (pigmentarii), who administered poisons carelessly "purgationis causa," were liable to the penalties of this law. In the time of Marcian (that of Alexander Severus) this p1189crime was punished capitally in the case of persons of lower rank (humiliores), who were exposed to wild beasts, but persons of higher rank (altiores) were condemned to the deportatio in insulam (Dig. l.c.).

The word Veneficium was also applied to potions, incantations, &c. (Cic. Brut. 60; Petron. 118); whence we find Veneficus and Venefica used in the sense of a sorcerer and sorceress in general.a

Quaestores parricidii

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Quaestor.html

QUAESTOR is a name which was given to two distinct classes of Roman officers. It is derived from quaero, and Varro (De Ling. Lat. V.81) gives a definition which embraces the principal functions of both classes of officers: "Quaestores a quaerendo, qui conquirerent publicas pecunias et maleficia." The one class therefore had to do with the collecting and keeping of the public revenues, and the others were a kind of public accusers. The former bore the name of quaestores classici, the latter of quaestores parricidii (Dig. 1 tit. 2 s2 § 22, 23).

The quaestores parricidii were, as we have said, public accusers, two in number, who conducted the accusation of persons guilty of murder or any other capital offence, and carried the sentence into execution (Festus, s.v. Parici and Quaestores; Liv. II.41; Dionys. VIII.77). There are many points which might make us inclined to believe that the quaestores parricidii and the duumviri perduellionis were the same officers; but a closer examination shows that the former were a permanent magistracy, while the latter were appointed only on special emergencies. [See Perduellionis Duumviri.] All testimonies agree that these public accusers existed at Rome during the period of the kings, though it is impossible to ascertain by which king they were instituted (Festus, l.c.; Tacit. Annal. XI.22; Dig. 1 tit. 13), as some mention them in the reign of Romulus and others in that of Numa. When Ulpian takes it for certain that they occurred in the time of Tullus Hostilius, he appears to confound them, like other writers, with the duumviri perduellionis, who in this reign acted as judges in the case of Horatius, who had slain his sister. During the kingly period there occurs no instance in which it could be said with any certainty, that the quaestores parricidii took a part. As thus everything is so uncertain, and as late writers are guilty of such manifest confusions, we can say no more than that such public accusers existed, and infer from the analogy of later times that they were appointed by the populus on the presentation of the king. In the early period of the republic the quaestores parricidii appear to have become a standing office, which, like others, was held only for one year (Liv. III.24, 25). They were appointed by the populus or the curies on the presentation of the consuls (Dig. 1 tit. 2 s2 § 23; Tacit. l.c.). When these quaestores discovered that a capital offence had been committed, they had to bring the charge before the comitia for trial (Liv. III.24; Dionys. VIII.75). They convoked the comitia through the person of a trumpeter, who proclaimed the day of meeting from the capitol, at the gates of the city, and at the house of the accused (Varro, de Ling. Lat. VI.90, ed. Müller). When the sentence had been pronounced by the people, the quaestores parricidii executed it; thus they threw Spurius Cassius from the Tarpeian rock (Dionys. VIII.77; Liv. II.41; Cic. de Re Publ. II.35). They were mentioned in the laws of the Twelve Tables, and after the time of the decemvirate they still continued to be appointed, though probably no longer by the curies, but either in the comitia centuriata or tributa, which they therefore must also have had the right to assemble in cases of emergency (Varro, de Ling. Lat. VI.9). This appears to be implied in the statement of Tacitus, that in the year 447 B.C. they were created by the people without any presentation of the consuls. From the year 366 B.C. they are no longer mentioned in Roman history, as their functions were gradually transferred to the triumviri capitales (Val. Max. V.4 §7, Val. Max. VIII.4 §2; Sallust, p981Cat. Triumviri Capitales), and partly to the aediles and tribunes. (Aediles, Tribuni; Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, vol. III p44; Zachariae, Sulla, als Ordner, &c. vol. II p147, &c.). The quaestores parricidii have not only been confounded with the duumviri perduellionis, but also with the quaestores classici (Tacit. l.c.; Zonar. VII.13, &c.), and this probably owing to the fact, that they ceased to be appointed at such an early period, and that the two kinds of quaestors are seldom distinguished in ancient writings by their characteristic epithets (Becker, Handb. der Röm. Alterth. vol. II pt. II p228, &c.).

Lex Corneliaa de Sicariis et Veneficis

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Leges_Corneliae.html

A law of the Twelve Tables contained some provision as to homicide (Plin. H. N. XVIII.3), but this is all that we know. It is generally assumed that the law of Numa Pompilius, quoted by Festus (s.v. Parici Quaestores), "Si quis hominem liberum dolo sciens morti duit paricida esto," was incorporated in the Twelve Tables, and is the law of homicide to which Pliny refers; but this cannot be proved. It is generally supposed that the laws of the Twelve Tables contained provisions against incantations (malum carmen) and poisoning, both of which offences were also included under parricidium: the murderer of a parent was sewed up in a sack (culeus or culleus) and thrown into a river. It was under the provisions of some old law that the senate by a consultum ordered the consuls P. Scipio and D. Brutus (B.C. 138) to inquire into the murder in the Silvia Scantia (Silva Sila, Cic. Brutus, 22). The lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis was passed in the time of the dictator Sulla, B.C. 82. The lex contained provisions as to death or fire caused by dolus malus, and against persons going about armed with the intention of killing or thieving. The law not only provided for cases of poisoning, but contained provisions against those who made, sold, bought, possessed, or gave poison for the purpose of poisoning; also against a magistratus or senator who conspired in order that a person might be condemned in a judicium publicum, &c. (Compare Cic. pro Cluent. c54, with Dig.49 8). To the provisions of this law was subsequently added a senatusconsultum against mala sacrificia, otherwise called impia sacrificia, the agents in which were brought within the provisions of this lex. The punishment inflicted by the law was the interdictio aquae et ignis, according to some modern writers. Marcian (Dig.49 tit. 8 s8) says that the punishment was deportatio in insulam et bonorum ademtio. These statements are reconcilable when we consider that the deportatio under the emperors took the place of the interdictio, and the expression in the Digest was suited to the times of the writers or the compilers. Besides, it appears that the lex was modified by various senatusconsulta and imperial rescripts.

The Lex Pompeia de Parricidiis, passed in the time of Cn. Pompeius, extended the crime of parricide to the killing (dolo malo) of a brother, sister, uncle, aunt, and many other relations enumerated by Marcianus (Dig.49 tit. 9 s1); this enumeration also comprises vitricus, noverca, privignus, privigna, patronus, patrona, and avus who killed a nepos, and a mother who killed a filius or filia; but it did not extend to a father. All privies to the crime were also punished by the law, and attempts at the crime also came within its provisions. The punishment was the same as that affixed by the lex Cornelia de sicariis (Dig. l.c.), by which must be meant the same punishment that the lex Cornelia affixed to crimes of the same kind. He who killed a father or mother, grandfather or grandmother, was punished (more majorum) by being whipped till he bled, sewn up in a sack with a dog, cock, viper, and ape, and thrown into the sea, if the sea was at hand, and if not, by a constitution of Hadrian, he was exposed to wild beasts, or, in the time of Paulus, to be burnt. The ape would appear to be a late addition. The murderers of a father, mother, grandfather, grandmother only were punished in this manner (Modest. Dig.49 tit. 9 s9); other parricides were simply put to death. From this it is clear that the lex Cornelia contained a provision against parricide, if we are rightly informed as to the provisions de sicariis et veneficis, unless there was a separate Cornelia lex de parricidiis. As already observed, the provisions of those two leges were modified in various ways under the emperors.

It appears from the law of Numa, quoted by Festus (s.v. Parici Quaestores), that a parricida was any one who killed another dolo malo. Cicero (pro Rosc. Am. c25) appears to use the word in its limited sense, as he speaks of the punishment of the culleus. In this limited sense there seems no impropriety in Catilina being called parricida, with reference to his country; and the day of the dictator Caesar's death might be called a parricidium, considering the circumstances under which the name was given (Suet. Caes. c88). If the original meaning of parricida be what Festus says, it may be doubted if the etymology of the word (pater and caedo) is correct; for it appears that paricida or parricida meant murderer generally, and afterwards the murderer of certain persons in a near relationship. If the word was originally patricida, the law intended to make all malicious killing as great an offence as parricide, though it would appear that parricide, properly so called, was, from the time of the Twelve Tables at least, specially punished with the culleus, and other murders not. (Dig.49 8, 9; Paulus, Recept. Sentent. V tit. 24; Dirksen, Uebersicht, &c. der Zwölftafelgesetze, Leipzig.)