This paper examines what Seneca, Controuersiae 9.2 can contribute to understanding of the maiestas laws under Augustus and Tiberius. In this period, two distinct judicial spaces are known to have hosted cases tried under these laws: the traditional Republican standing court and the new senatorial court, which supplanted its predecessor at the latest from the years immediately following the accession of Tiberius. Yet in the same period a third judicial space acquired new prominence: the schoolrooms of the declaimers, in which teachers of rhetoric, their pupils and sundry adult performers gathered to participate in the fictional trial fοr maiestas laesa of L. Quinctius Flamininus. Moving between these spaces and considering the interrelationship of the different statutes that they employed, this paper shows how the superficially escapist practice of trying Flamininus could also offer a vehicle for reflection on the drastic legal and political changes taking place in the world outside. Building on close analysis of the contribution of Votienus Montanus, the paper seeks to reconstruct key provisions of the hypothetical late Augustan lex Iulia maiestatis. It finally details how many of those quoted in the exercise risked or actually underwent prosecution for maiestas or themselves launched such prosecutions.

This note adduces three passages in Seneca the Elder to reinforce a demonstration in CQ 69 (2019), 793–8001 that the text of Plin. HN 7.117 has suffered corruption in one of its clauses and requires emendation to restore Pliny's intent. This additional evidence concerns a trope employed by declaimers which could have predisposed a scribe to alter Pliny's text to state that Cicero proscribed Mark Antony. Such a statement has no place in a list of achievements that otherwise all belong to Cicero's consulship twenty years earlier in 63 b.c.