This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
inimicitias nullas esse: Cicero admits that no personal enmity prompted Erucius to accuse Sex. Roscius. Cf. Lysias, Eratosth. § 2: τοὐναντίον δέ μοι δοκοῦμεν πείσεσθαι ἢ ἐν τῷ πρὸ τοῦ χρόνῳ. πρότερον μὲν γὰρ ἔδει τὴν ἔχθραν τοὺς κατηγοροῦντας ἐπιδεῖξαι, ἥτις εἴη πρὸς τοὺς φεύγοντας: νυνὶ δὲ κ.τ.λ. i.e. formerly it was taken for granted that an accuser was prompted by personal enmity against the accused, and he was even required to state the grounds of it; but now the case is different, etc. huiusce pecunia: cf. § 30. Quid ergo est: cf. § 2, note. ita, in a limiting sense, as in verum tamen hoc ita est utile, below; tamen, i.e. even allowing that to be a proper motive, yet, etc. Your wish for gain ought to be compatible with a feeling that these men's opinion, and the lex Remmia, should have some weight. Cf. § 4, note. horum existimationem, the opinion the jurors will form about you. legem Remmiam, "qua qui calumniabatur damnabatur, si crimen adprobare non poterat." It is not known by whom or when the law was passed. An accused person could apply for a calumniae iudicium against his accuser before his trial ended; if he was acquitted, the same jury which had tried him decided the case of the accuser, who, if found to have knowingly urged a false charge (calumniari), was probably branded on the forehead with the letter K (kalumniator), and lost the right of acting again as accuser.
Scanned printed text.
Purchase a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.