« PreviousContinue »
The study of this speech and of the interesting questions connected therewith will be especially useful to students concerned with the history of the iudicia publica, to understand which some knowledge of the earlier iudicia populi is required. And addressing myself as I do to elder students I have throughout assumed that nobody will read the book who has not a fair acquaintance with the outlines of Roman history and constitutional antiquities. I have therefore made free use of technical language, which is necessary if one is to discuss intricate and obscure questions within a reasonable compass.
The merits of the speech are plain to any that will consider the position of affairs at the time of its delivery. Party hatred, fostered by desperate men, was ready to break out into violence at any moment; and the impeachment and defence of Rabirius were ominous of the coming storm. I have in my notes on the speech striven to call attention to the clever audacity of the speaker, of which there are many notable instances.
In the endeavour to make my meaning clearer I have used an elaborate system of grouping, by which I hope the questions treated in the Introduction and appendices may be kept from mutually obscuring and interfering with one another. I have made a practice of giving either by way of reference or in full quotation the authorities for the statements upon
conclusions are based. This is a very tedious business; and many a time have I wished that I could afford to say with Madvig überhaupt habe ich alles weggelassen, was nur zum Prunk der Gelehrsamkeit gehört. But of course I could not do this, and can only hope that I have not overloaded the book with irrelevant matter.
To Mr J S Reid of Gonville and Caius College I owe and hereby render my heartiest thanks. He read the whole book through in proof and sent me most valuable notes and suggestions, of which I have made free use. To him I owe many improvements in the notes and in the readings and orthography of the text, which I have in some instances acknowledged by name. Several portions of the Introduction have been recast or amended in accordance with his suggestions. I cannot enter into further details where the debt is so great.
The text is in the main that of Baiter and Kayser's edition (Leipsic 1862), but I have not accepted all the emendations admitted by Kayser. In all cases of importance I have given my reasons in a note.
From the numerous works consulted I select a few for particular mention
Lange, Römische Alterthümer, vol i ed 3 (1876), vol 11
ed 2 (1867), vol i ed 2 (1876). Zumpt, das Criminalrecht der Römischen Republik, vol 1
parts 1 and 2 (1865), vol 11 part 1 (1868) part 2 (1869). Zumpt, der Criminalprocess der Römischen Republik (1871),
[used in appendix C].
appendix ii on the trial of Rabirius. Becker [and Marquardt), Handbuch der Römischen Alter
thümer, part II (1844) part 111 (1851).
Staates, vol 1 (1881) vol 11 (1882).
(1874). The above are generally cited by name only in the Introduction and appendix. In the notes to the speech Madvig' denotes his grammar (Eng trans ed 4), and "Mommsen' his history (Eng trans, library ed in 4 vols). Except in names of books I have been sparing in the use of abbreviations : indeed sctum = senatusconsultum is the only one worth mentioning
F. Abstract of the speech, with Huschke's remarks.
I begin by quoting a number of passages of ancient
(a) Cicero pro Milone $ 36 (of Clodius) diem mihi, credo,
(B) Cicero de domo sua SS 45–6 nam cum tam moderata iudicia populi sint a maioribus constituta, primum ut ne poena capitis cum pecunia coniungatur, deinde ne improdicta die quis accusetur, ut ter ante magistratus accuset intermissa die
quam multam irroget aut iudicet, quarta sit accusatio trinum nundinum prodicta die, quo die iudicium sit futurum, tum multa etiam ad placandum atque ad misericordiam reis concessa sint, deinde exorabilis populus, facilis suffragatio pro salute, denique etiam si qua res illum diem aut auspiciis aut excusatione sustulit, tota causa iudiciumque sublatum sit:haec cum ita sint in re ubi crimen est ubi accusator ubi testes, quid indignius quam qui neque adesse sit iussus neque citatus neque accusatus, de eius capite liberis fortunis omnibus conductos et sicarios et egentis et perditos suffragium ferre et eam legem putare?
(y) Cicero de legibus III $ 36 uno in genere relinqui videbatur vocis suffragium, quod ipse Cassius exceperat, perduellionis: dedit huic quoque iudicio C Caelius tabellam doluitque quoad vixit se, ut opprimeret C Popilium, nocuisse rei publicae.
(8) Livy I 26 SS 5-9 atrox visum id facinus patribus plebique, sed recens meritum facto obstabat. tamen raptus in ius ad regem.. rex, ne ipse tam tristis ingratique ad vulgus iudicii ac secundum iudicium supplicii auctor esset, concilio populi advocato duumviros, inquit, qui Horatio perduellionem iudicent secundum legem facio. lex horrendi carminis erat: duumviri perduellionem iudicent; si a duumviris provocarit, provocatione certato ; si vincent, caput obnubito; infelici arbori reste suspendito; verberato vel intra pomerium vel extra pomerium. hac lege duumviri creati, qui se absolvere non rebantur ea lege ne innoxium quidem posse, cum condemnassent, tum alter ex eis, Publi Horati, tibi perduellionem iudico, inquit. lictor, conliga manus. rat lictor iniciebatque laqueum. tum Horatius auctore Tullo, clemente legis interprete, provoco, inquit. ita de provocatione certatum ad populum est. moti homines sunt in eo iudicio maxime P Horatio patre proclamante se filiam iure caesam Madvig (adversaria ii p 217) re- in reo ubi crimen est.
To reus is opmarks that this should have been in ea posed qui neque...etc. He also reads re ubi crimen sit. He therefore emends putari for putare below.