[11]
For these reasons there are some who disapprove of
the partition adopted by Cicero in the pro Cluentio,1
where he premises that he is going to show, first,
“that no man was ever arraigned for greater crimes
or on stronger evidence than Oppianicus,” secondly,
“that previous judgments had been passed by those
very judges by whom he was condemned,” and
finally, “that Cluentius made no attempt to bribe
the jury, but that his opponent did.” They argue
that if the third point can be proved, there is no
need to have urged the two preceding.
1 iv. 9. Oppianicus had been indicted by Cluentius for an attempt upon his life and condemned. The “previous judgments” referred to were condemnations of his accomplices, which made Oppianicus' condemnation inevitable. Oppianicus was condemned, and it was alleged that this was due to bribery by Cluentius. Cluentius was now on his trial for the alleged murder of various persons.
Quintilian. With An English Translation. Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1921.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
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.