Abstract: The purpose of the Roman indicia 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.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
August 1997
Research Article|
August 01 1997
Did the Romans Believe in Their Verdicts?
Andrew M. Riggsby
Andrew M. Riggsby
Department of Classics, Waggener Hall, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
Search for other works by this author on:
Rhetorica (1997) 15 (3): 235–251.
Citation
Andrew M. Riggsby; Did the Romans Believe in Their Verdicts?. Rhetorica 1 August 1997; 15 (3): 235–251. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1997.15.3.235
Download citation file:
Sign in
Don't already have an account? Register
Client Account
You could not be signed in. Please check your email address / username and password and try again.
Could not validate captcha. Please try again.