Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Cicero as EvidenceA Historian's Companion$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Andrew Lintott

Print publication date: 2008

Print ISBN-13: 9780199216444

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2008

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199216444.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 20 June 2018

The Defence of Good Men (2): Treason and Other Crimes against the Roman People

The Defence of Good Men (2): Treason and Other Crimes against the Roman People

Chapter:
(p.111) IX The Defence of Good Men (2): Treason and Other Crimes against the Roman People
Source:
Cicero as Evidence
Author(s):

Andrew Lintott (Contributor Webpage)

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199216444.003.0009

Cicero's method when defending in the repetundae court was to discount testimony rather than to examine evidence. He sought to portray his client as a good man defending Rome's empire against hostile foreigners. This chapter considers cases that required a different approach. The facts were often well known, at least in general terms, and the prosecution was supported by Roman witnesses whose character could not be casually denigrated. On the other hand, there was more scope for arguing about the interpretation of the law and of the defendants' actions in relation to the law. The difference between rhetorical strategies in different public courts has been well characterized. It was not just a question of variation in the quantity and quality of evidence for different charges: it depended on the nature of the offence. In cases where the political element was stronger, the definition of the offence had been left vague, even ambiguous, by the legislator — probably deliberately, because the judgement was expected to be political, rather than purely criminal. Here, there was more opportunity for defending counsel to argue, not merely that his client was a ‘good man’, but that the actions of his that were being prosecuted were justifiable.

Keywords:   defence speeches, Ciceronian speeches, law, repetundae, rhetorical strategies

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .