« PreviousContinue »
§ 66. sententiam sententia alia. sententia alia. H.
§ 67. qui lege punierim. quod lege punierim. H. candidatis. candidatus. H.
si iudicat. H. tum est. H.
si factum sit. sin fac
id indicare. id vindicare. H. § 70. necessarios candidatos adsectentur. gratia. ipsi denique. gratia ipsi. adsequebantur. adsequi. H.
necessarios adsectentur. H. denique. H.
a multitudine in tuam tua nimia diligentia, Servi, conlecta nimiam diligentiam, Servi, coniecta
§ 86. squalore et sordibus ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ in squalore et sordibus ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ H.
§ 87. hac eum re. hac eum cum re. H.
vos L. Murena. H.
demissioni animi. H.
ita vos si Murena. ita fuit, sit...... fuit, ut sit...... H.
A. On the spirit of Roman trials.
Prof. Ramsay well remarks, 'the moral feeling which prevailed in a Roman court of justice was entirely at variance with the principles which rule our own.' It may be well to draw out shortly some of the main differences.
I. There was no class of professional advocates, taking fees and living by their profession. Any citizen could come forward to accuse or defend any other: and, as a high reputation for able pleading helped a man in rising to official distinction, many did so (pro Mur. §§ 8, 24). It was also a great advantage to have the power of addressing assemblies with effect (pro Mur. § 24). This naturally led to the introduction of irrelevant matter into speeches in court (see the partitio § II, where the irrelevance of two of the heads is manifest), particularly allusions to the situation of affairs at the moment, and the probable effect on them of the condemination or acquittal of the accused (see Intr. C).
2. It not unfrequently happened that a corrupt collusion existed between the accuser and accused. For a sum of money or some other consideration the former would play into the hands of the latter, suppressing evidence and making only a feeble attack upon him. This was called praevaricatio (pro Cluent. $$ 58, 87, div. in Caecil. § 58, etc.), and was properly applied only to the accuser in a public—that is, a criminal-trial. Hence the chief security for an honest prosecution lay in the personal hostility of the accusator to the reus. Numberless allusions shew this. In div. in Caecil. § 12 G. Verres, cui te inimicum esse simulas (said to the would-be praevaricator Caecilius), pro Cluent. § 29 auditis non ab inimico opposed to audiebant ab accusatoribus, § 42 erat huic inimicus Oppianicus: erat: sed tamen erat vitricus (sc. he would have shewn mercy even to an inimicus, on the ground of family connexion); and generally the relations of counsel to clients rested on grounds of personal feeling, div. in Caecil. § 23 magnus ille defensor et
prudentia, 28, 30
pudor, 30, 87, 90
puncta suffragia, 72
putatum est, 36
Pyrrhus rex, 31
qua de re agitur, 28
quaestiones perpetuae, 42 quaestores, 18
quamquam (with ellipsis), 83 quamquam with subj. (?), 20 quando te in iure conspicio, 26 quasi vero, 35
que with last member of a series, I qui adversative, II quis adjectival, 46 quid? 59
quid tandem? 76 quidam apologetic, 63 quidem, 12, 23, 66 quippe, 74, App. C. quod nesciat, 63