Around the year 105, during the reign of Emperor Trajan (r. 98-117), a high-profile death investigation rocked the Roman Empire. Afranius Dexter, a Roman consul—the highest Roman government position under the emperor—was found dead in his home. No description of the exact cause of his death has been preserved, but the manner of his demise was evidently committed by a human hand, either his own or that of someone else. Furthermore, there were no apparent signs of struggle. Ultimately, investigators concluded that three causes of death were most probable: 1, that Afranius Dexter took his own life, 2, that his servants assisted him in his own willing death, or 3, that Afranius Dexter was murdered by his servants. The first two options were, by far, the most popular viewpoints. Whatever the case, the consul’s freedmen (freed former slaves) eventually came under scrutiny over the suspicious death, and their fate ultimately rested in the hands of the Roman Senate.
Pliny the Younger (c. 61/62-113), a lawyer, senator and senior statesman, served as a procedural leader in the Senate when the case of Afranius Dexter came before the deliberative body. As an avid letter-writer, Pliny served posterity by describing the court case in a letter that he sent to the law expert, Titius Aristo. Unfortunately, Pliny glossed over the crime, itself, only stating, “The case at issue concerned the freedmen of the Consul Afranius Dexter, who had been found dead; it was not known whether he had killed himself or his servants were responsible, and, if the latter, whether they acted criminally or in obedience to their master” (Pliny the Younger, Letters 8.14). Pliny’s coverage of the subsequent trial, thankfully, was much more in-depth.
When the case was presented to the Senate, the guilt of the freedmen remained uncertain. A sizable number of senators clamored for the freedmen to be executed, but the vast majority of the senators apparently believed that the freedmen were either uninvolved or had been ordered or asked to assist with Afranius Dexter’s death. Despite the clear majority agreeing that the freedmen should not be executed, there was still great debate over whether they should receive some lesser punishment for their potential involvement in the death. In effect, the senators were split into three factions—the largest in favor of acquittal, another supporting banishment, and a third group demanding execution.
Once the Senate started its deliberations, political gamesmanship began and factions started making coalitions. Three proposals were presented to the floor, each representing a faction (that of acquittal, banishment and execution). What happened next was described in vague and confusing terms in the letter by Pliny the Younger, who was a member of the acquittal faction, and it was their proposal that evidently reached the floor first. As the vote was being carried out and senators were taking their seats on one side or another on the issue, Pliny and his political allies became perturbed by a noticeable coalition that formed between the pro-execution camp and the pro-banishment faction.
In a sense, the acquittal vote was over whether the freedmen should be punished or face no repercussions, and on this the banishment faction and the execution camp were in agreement that the freedmen deserved some kind of punishment for Afranius Dexter’s death. Pliny, as a member of the acquittal faction who also happened to be a procedural leader, made the controversial decision to speak up against the rival coalition. Lest the vote continue as a deliberation over acquittal or punishment, he instead reframed the vote as a decision on whether or not the freedmen should be executed or left to live. With this in mind, he pointed out the illogical nature of the execution (pro-death) and banishment (pro-life) factions voting together. Rather than encouraging the banishment party to join his side in a binary yea or nay decision, Pliny the Younger instead insisted that the Senate take up a three-way vote on acquittal, banishment, or execution, which would end the matter in a single decision. Pliny wrote:
“After the proceedings one opinion (whose?—mine, but that is irrelevant) was that they should be acquitted, another that they should be banished to an island, and a third that they should be put to death. Such diversity of sentences meant that they had to be considered singly; for what have death and banishment in common? Obviously no more than banishment and acquittal, though a vote for acquittal is nearer banishment than a vote for death, for the first two leave a man his life while death removes it. Meanwhile those who voted for the death penalty and banishment respectfully were sitting together and shelving their differences by a temporary show of unity. I asked for the three sentences to be reckoned as three, and that two should not join forces under a momentary truce. Therefore I insisted that the supporters of the death penalty should move away from the proposers of banishment, and that the two parties should not combine to oppose those asking for acquittal when they would afterwards disagree amongst themselves” (Pliny the Younger, Letters 8.14).
Pliny’s request was approved, and the senators were directed to sit in one of three zones designated for acquittal, banishment, or execution. Then, like now, political parties thrived on knowing how many votes their camp has, and the three factions knew that the acquittal supporters had an advantage in a straight three-way vote. Pro-execution senators, so as to not let the acquittal party be victorious, formally rescinded their own proposal and joined the banishment camp. On this Pliny, stated, “I carried my point…The proposer of the death sentence was convinced by the justice of my request (whether or not it was legal), dropped his own proposal, and supported that of banishment. He was afraid, no doubt, that if the sentences were taken separately (which seemed likely if he did not act) the acquittal would have a majority, for there were many more people in favour of this than of either of the other two proposals” (Pliny the Younger, Letters 8.14). Pliny, despite his political maneuvering, could not triumph in his efforts to acquit the freedmen of Afranius Dexter. Yet, the silver lining of the situation was that he was able to take the possibility of execution off the table, leaving the middle ground of exile to win the day in the Senate.
Written by C. Keith Hansley
Picture Attribution: (Death of Cato, attributed to Berardino Gentile (1727–1813), [Public Domain] via the MET).
Sources:
- The Letters of Pliny the Younger, translated by Betty Radice. New York: Penguin Classics, 1963, 1969.
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedman
- https://www.thecollector.com/pliny-the-younger-vote-roman-senate/
- https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/2401.3
- https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pliny-the-Younger
