Trajan (Valkhofmuseum,
Nijmegen)
|
Dio
Cocceianus of Prusa (c.40 - after 112) was a
Greek politician and philosopher, and one of the first representatives
of the Second
Sophistic. In 111, he was accused of
lèse-majesté. As it happens, the governor
who preseded this trial was Pliny the Younger,
who wrote a letter about this incident to the emperor Trajan,
whose reply also survives. The correspondence is presented here in the
translation by William Melmoth and Fredericq Bosanquet.
Pliny to Trajan (Pliny, Letter 10.81)
While
I was despatching some public affairs, Sir, at my apartments in
Prusa, at the foot of Olympus, with the intention of leaving that city
the same day, the magistrate Asclepiades informed me that Eumolpus had
appealed to me from a motion which Cocceianus
Dio made in their
senate.
Dion, it seems, having been appointed supervisor of a public
building, desired that it might be assigned to the city in form.
Eumolpus, who was counsel for Flavius Archippus, insisted that Dio
should first be required to deliver in his accounts relating to this
work, before it was assigned to the corporation, suggesting that he had
not acted in the manner he ought. He
added, at the same time, that in
this building, in which your statue is erected, the bodies of
Dion’s wife and son are entombed, and urged me to
hear this
cause in the public court of judicature.
Upon
my at once assenting to
his request, and deferring my journey for that purpose, he desired a
longer day in order to prepare matters for hearing, and that I would
try this cause in some other city. I appointed the city of Nicaea; where,
when I had taken my seat, the same Eumolpus, pretending not to
be yet sufficiently instructed, moved that the trial might be again put
off: Dio, on the contrary, insisted it should be heard. They debated
this point very fully on both sides, and entered a little into the
merits of the cause.
When,
being of opinion that it was reasonable it
should be adjourned, and thinking it proper to consult with you in an
affair which was of consequence in point of precedent, I directed them
to exhibit the articles of their respective allegations in writing; for
I was desirous you should judge from their own representations of the
state of the question between them. Dio
promised to comply with this
direction, and Eumolpus also assured me he would draw up a memorial of
what he had to allege on the part of the community. But he added that,
being only concerned as advocate on behalf of Archippus, whose
instructions he had laid before me, he had no charge to bring with
respect to the sepulchres. Archippus, however, for whom Eumolpus was
counsel here, as at Prusa, assured me he would himself present a charge
in form upon this head. But neither Eumolpus nor Archippus (though I
have waited several days for that purpose) have yet performed their
engagement: Dio indeed has; and I have annexed his memorial to this
letter.
I
have inspected the buildings in question, where I find your
statue is placed in a library; and as to the edifice in which the
bodies of Dio's wife and son are said to be deposited, it
stands in the middle of a court, which is enclosed with a colonnade. Deign,
therefore, I entreat you, Sir, to direct my judgment in the
determination of this cause above all others, as it is a point to which
the public is greatly attentive, and necessarily so, since the fact is
not only acknowledged, but countenanced by many precedents.
Trajan to Pliny (Pliny, Letter 10.82)
You
well know, my dearest Secundus, that it is my standing maxim not to
create an awe of my person by severe and rigorous measures, and by
construing every slight offence into an act of treason; you had no
reason, therefore, to hesitate a moment upon the point concerning which
you thought proper to consult me. Without
entering, therefore, into the
merits of that question (to which I would by no means give any
attention, though there were ever so many instances of the same kind),
I recommend to your care the examination of Dio's accounts
relating to the public works which he has finished; as it is a case in
which the interest of the city is concerned, and as Dio neither ought
nor, it seems, does refuse to submit to the examination.
|
©
Jona Lendering for
Livius.Org,
2007
Revision: 25 Dec. 2007 |