Proscription
This article focuses only on one specialized aspect of the subject.(April 2015) |
Proscription (
Its usage has been significantly widened to describe governmental and political sanctions of varying severity on individuals and classes of people who have fallen into disfavor, from the en masse suppression of adherents of unorthodox ideologies to the suppression of political rivals or personal enemies. In addition to its recurrences during the various phases of the Roman Republic, it has become a standard term to label:
- The suppression of Royalists after Oliver Cromwell's decisive defeat of Charles II at the Battle of Worcester in 1651 (see image)[citation needed]
- The curbing of Western religion in early 18th-century China[2]
- The banning of Highland dress following the Jacobite rising of 1745 in Scotland
- Atrocities that occurred during the Reign of Terror (1793-1794) phase of the French Revolution[3]
- The mass deportations of British and French workers from Russia in the mid-19th century, with the onset of the Crimean War[4]
- In the 20th century, such things as the efforts of the blacklisting propagandizing persons and organisations[5]
- The broad prohibitions of Jewish cultural institutions and activities in the Soviet Union after the birth of the state of Israel in 1948 and the onset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War[6]
- The banning of organisations considered terrorist—including the membership of and support for—in Ireland, particularly the
Ancient Rome
This section needs additional citations for verification. (January 2017) |
Origin
Proscriptions (Latin proscriptio, plural proscriptiones) initially meant public advertisements or notices signifying property or goods for sale.
During the dictatorial reign of
Treason
There were multiple reasons why the ancient Roman government may have desired to proscribe or attribute multiple other forms of pain. One of the most prevalent reasons for punishment are treason crimes, also known as lex maiestatis. Treason crimes consisted of a very broad and large number of regulations, and such crimes had a negative effect on the government. This list includes, but is not limited to: assisting an enemy in any way, Crimen Laesae Majestasis, acts of subversion and usurpation, offense against the peace of the state, offenses against the administration of justice, and violating absolute duties. Overall, crimes in which the state, emperor, the state's tranquility, or offenses against the good of the people would be considered treason, and, therefore, would constitute proscription. Some of these regulations are understandable and comparable to safety laws today. Others, like violating absolute duties, could very easily be accidents or circumstantial crises that would deserve punishment regardless.
Punishments for treason were quite harsh and were meant to highlight the seriousness and shamefulness of the treason crimes committed. There were a variety of punishments for capital crimes, including death, loss of a freedman's status, loss of citizenship with a loss of family rights, and a loss of family rights only. Death was a very common punishment and was referred to as summum supplicium, or the "extreme penalty". The death sentence was often the punishment for all but the mildest forms of treason. Julius Caesar was an influential framer of the law on treason. The Interdiction from Water and Fire was a civil excommunication resulting in ultimate exile, which included forfeiture of citizenship and forfeiture of property. Those who were condemned would be deported to an island. Emperor Augustus frequently utilized this method of exile, as he desired to keep banished men from banding together in large groups. Such punishment was given for only the mildest forms of treason, in comparison to the death penalty, which served for most other treason crimes. Augustus also created the prefect, whose powers included the ability to banish, deport, or send to the mines. The prefect also heard appeals.
Sulla's dictatorship
An early instance of mass proscription took place in 82 BC, when
Sulla used proscription to restore the depleted
Sulla's proscription was bureaucratically overseen, and the names of informers and those who profited from killing proscribed men were entered into the public record. Because Roman law could criminalise acts ex post facto, many informers and profiteers were later prosecuted.
The proscription of 82 BC was overseen by Sulla's freedman steward Lucius Cornelius Chrysogonus, and was rife with corruption.
The proscription lists created by Sulla led to mass terror in Rome. During this time, "the cities of Italy became theaters of execution." Citizens were terrified to find their names on the lists. Those whose names were listed were ultimately sentenced to death. The executions were brutal and consisted of beheading. Often, the heads were then put on display for the city to see. The bodies of the condemned were often mutilated and dragged before being thrown into the Tiber River. Additionally, those who were condemned lost rights even after their brutal death. Those killed were denied the right to a funeral, and all of their possessions were auctioned off, often to the ones who killed them. Negative consequences arose for anyone that chose to assist those on the list, despite not being listed on the proscribed lists themselves. Anyone who was found guilty of assisting the condemned was capitally punished.
Families were also punished as a result of being related to one of the proscribed. It was forbidden to mourn the death of a proscribed person. According to Plutarch, the greatest injustice of all the consequences was stripping the rights of their children and grandchildren. While those proscribed and their loved ones faced harsh consequences, the people who assisted the government by killing any person on the proscription list were actually rewarded.
Second Triumvirate
The proscription of 43 BC was the second major proscription. It began with an agreement in November 43 between the
Contemporary Roman historians provide conflicting reports as to which triumvir was most responsible for the proscriptions and killing. They agree that enacting the proscriptions was a means by all three factions to eliminate political enemies.
This claim was rejected by Appian, who maintained that Octavian shared an equal interest with Lepidus and Antony in eradicating his enemies.[11] Suetonius said that Octavian was reluctant to proscribe officials, but did pursue his enemies with more vigor than the other triumvirs.[9] Plutarch described the proscriptions as a ruthless and cutthroat swapping of friends and family among Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian. For example, Octavian allowed the proscription of his ally Cicero, Antony the proscription of his maternal uncle Lucius Julius Caesar, and Lepidus his brother, although only Cicero would ultimately be killed as a result of these concessions.[10]
See also
- Attainder
- Damnatio memoriae
- Enemy of the people
- Homo sacer
- Hostis humani generis
- Ostracism
- Outlaw
- Purge
- Targeted killing
References
- ISBN 978-1-135-45740-2. Retrieved 9 July 2013.
- ISBN 0295984309, accessed 18 April 2015
- ^
For example:
ISBN 9781108025386. Retrieved 2016-01-09.
St Just [...] demanded the execution of victims in the same manner as the supply of armies. Proscription like victories were essential to the furtherance of his principles.
- ^ Edward Henry Nolan, 1856, The history of the war against Russia, Vol. 5 (Illustr.), London: Virtue, p. 62, see books.google.com, accessed 18 April 2015.
- ^
Darren G. Lilleker, 2004, Against the Cold War: The History and Political Traditions of Pro-Sovietism in the British Labour Party, 1945-1989 (Vol. 1 of International Library of Political Studies), London, U.K.: I.B.Tauris, pp. 20f, 45f, 176f, and passim, ISBN 1850434719, accessed 18 April 2015.
- ^ Yaacov Ro'i, 2010, "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: Culture," in The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe (online), archived from the original on July 24, 2017
- ^ Dawson, Joanna (7 March 2021). "Proscribed Terrorist Organisations".
- ISBN 9780674990913. Retrieved 18 April 2015.
- ^ a b Scott 1933, pp. 19–20.
- ^ a b Scott 1933, p. 19.
- ^ Scott 1933, p. 20.
Further reading
- Michnik, Adam, and Elzbieta Matynia. "The Ultras of Moral Revolution." Daedalus 136, no. 1 (2007): 67–83. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20028090
- Mousourakis, George. A Legal History of Rome. London: Routledge, 2007.
- Plutarch, The Life of Sulla.
- Ridley, Ronald T. "The Dictator's Mistake: Caesar's Escape from Sulla." Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte Bd. 49, H. 2 (2nd Qtr., 2000), pp. 211–229
- Robinson, O.F. Penal Practice and Penal Policy in Ancient Rome. Routledge, 2007.