previous next
[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.

Creative Commons License
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.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: