Abstract
The purpose of the Roman iudicia publica (as described by legal, rhetorical, and philosophical texts and even the name of the institution) was to determine whether or not defendants had violated the various “criminal” statutes which established them. Cicero’s reports of the outcome of real cases suggest a popular expectation that jurors ordinarily attempted to carry out this task. The proliferation of distinct formal charges over time and the existence of jokes about orators fooling jurors confirm this suggestion. We are thus discouraged from imagining collusion between parties and jurors in which the formal charge is understood by all to be a pretext for a competition of oratorical skill or social standing. Roman jurors wanted to believe in their verdicts. Advocates, of course, did not simply tell the truth. Rather, they responded to popular expectations by going out of their way to emphasize the (purported) truth of their speeches.
- Journal
- Rhetorica
- Published
- 1997-06-01
- DOI
- 10.1353/rht.1997.0007
- CompPile
- Search in CompPile ↗
- Open Access
- Closed
- Topics
- Export
- BibTeX RIS
Citation Context
Cited by in this index (0)
No articles in this index cite this work.
Cites in this index (0)
No references match articles in this index.
Related Articles
-
Res Rhetorica Apr 2026Arkadiusz Sokolnicki
-
Journal of Technical Writing and Communication Mar 2026Miriam F. Williams
-
Poroi Feb 2026Using Stasis Theory as a Heuristic for Examining Epistemological Dilemmas in a Post-Truth Landscape ↗Bruce Bowles
-
Res Rhetorica Jan 2026Ethos – between <i>vir bonus</i> and VIA: Virtue ethics in contemporary rhetorical education ↗Agnieszka Budzyńska-Daca
-
Rhetorica Jan 2026The Daimonion of Isocrates: Anti-Socratic Polemics and the Power of Politikoi Logoi in the Philippos ↗Tobias Hirsch