lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Classics Notes - Debra Nousek
Crime and Punishment in Ancient Greece and Rome (The University of Western
Ontario)
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Classics Notes
Week 2: Greek Background/ Historical Context: (first lecture)
3000 BCE
Bronze Age
753 BCE
Regal Period
1 system
(not inclusive)
More inclusive
dating system
1100 BCE
Dark Age
504 BCE
Republican
Period
GREEK:
750 BCE
480 BCE
Archaic
Classical
Period
Period
323BCE
Hellenistic
Period
ROMAN:
27 BCE
Year “0”
Imperial Period
284CE
476CE
Later Roman Empire
30BCE
Terms:
- BC= Before Christ
- AD= Anno Domini (in year of lord)
- BCE= Before Common Era
- CE= Common Era
o 323 BCE= before 322 BCE
o No year 0, so 1 BCE then 1 CE
o 4th century= 323 BCE
o BCE,CE,BC all go after year but AD= before (2012CE vs AD 2012)
Greek History Periods:
6500-3000 BCE= Neolithic Period
3000- 1100BCE= Bronze Age
1100- 750BCE= Dark Age
750-480 BCE= Archaic Period
480-323 BCE= Classical Period
323-30 BCE= Hellenistic Period
Roman History Periods:
753-509 BCE= Regal Period
509-27 BCE= Republican
27BCE- 284 CE= Imperial
284-476 CE= Later Roman Empire
GREEK:
Earliest Habitation:
Franchthi Cave in Peloponnesus= continuously inhabited form 20 000- 3000 BCE
- 1st evidence of agriculture and domesticating animals (~6000 BCE)
=before mainland had agriculture
Bronze Age:
Minoan Civilization:
- Named after king Minos of Crete
- Earliest civilization
- Had non-Greek language and gods
- Linear A writing system (hasn’t been translated so we don’t understand it)
- Highly advanced cities
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
20 000 BCE= widespread destruction in Greek mainland with new culture immerging (maybe Indo-Eurasian
invasion?)
 Mycenean Civilization:
- On mainland
- Spoke early Greek language
- Their gods = early form of Greek gods (begin myth development)
15th century (1400 BCE)= Minoan centers destroyed by fires and when rebuilt  language changed
- Linear A  Linear B (same characteristics but new language (early form of Greek)
Trojan War:
- During Mycenean dominance
- Troy 7 @ Hissarlik Site= that of the trojan war
o Proved by archeologist Blegen
Widespread
o 9 levels of troy (every time people settle/ take over= build on top of old land so 7 th once I
destruction in
region
o
believed to be destroyed by invasion ~1100 BCE and therefore site of trojan war)
Around the time Mycenean civilization collapsed (reason unknown, but cities destroyed
1 by 1 in fire)
Dark Age: 1100-750 BCE
“Dark” because limited written record (all oral tradition)
- Communities’ = small and simple until 900 BCE ( bigger/ more complex)
- Legend of Trojan War starts to develop (oral tradition)
Archaic Period: 750-480 BCE
=see many changes
- 1st Olympic games (~776 BCE)
- Writing re-immerges (in Greek alphabet)
- Homer’s epics written down
- Polis immerges (city states)
o
o
o
Ex. Athens, Sparta
Run by males of aristocratic families
Sent out colonies to expand (~700 BCE) spread Greek (Hellenic) culture in the
Mediterranean and black sea)
Hoplite Phalanx: institutionalized style of warfare
=everyone had same shield and spear so anyone who could afford it could fight
 equality and middle class involved and eventually= governing class of policies
Note: tyrant is a person who seized power of the polis (overthrew aristocrats), not always bad person
(594 BCE) Solon the Athenian:
=reformed Athenian Government via:
- Removed Debt Slavery= if debt too big would be sold into slavery to person you owe till you
worked it off but working it off= nearly impossible
- Political Representation changed to be more based on $> aristocracy
- Brings in early forms of democracy
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
(508 BCE) Kleisthenes:
=reformed government further  more democratic
6th century= see beginnings of Greek philosophy, science (scholars like Pythagoras)
(499 BCE) Persian War:
=Greek cities In Ionia rebel Persian rule, but= defeated
- 490 King Darius was angry at Greeks and invaded, but defeated at marathon
o
Persian War phase 2= renewed by Xerxes (battles @ Thermopylae, Artemisia and Salamis
(480), then Plataea (479) = Tiny Greek nation defeats mighty Persian empire
Classical Period: 480-323 BCE
Height of Greek civilization (5th century)
- Playwriters (Aeschylus, Sophocles)
- Historians (Herodotus, Sophocles)
- Sculptor Phidias (created Parthenon Athena and frieze “Zeus of Olympia” in Parthenon)
Time of brutal Warfare:
- Subjects treated cruelly
- When city defeated, people enslaved and used for labor (i.e. built the Parthenon)
(431-404 BCE) Peloponnesian War: Athens loses to Sparta but Athens continues to dominate Greece
4th Century- Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes:
=spoke out about Phillip 2, King of Macedonia who was conquering Greece
(dominating Polises)
o Phillip 2 died in 336
 Alexander the Great= next and expands across Asia and
middle east
 Died in 323= empire splits apart
Hellenistic Period: 323-30 BCE
-
Hellenistic = “Greek like” because Alexander the great spread Greek culture to conquered places
Time of learning:
o Philosophical Schools
o Library of Alexandria founded (with mission to collect and catalog all knowledge)
o Euhumerus said gods aren’t figures but just exaggerations of important historical figures
o Apollonius wrote about Jason and the argonauts
o Rosetta Stone written in Egypt in 3 languages= allowed us to understand hieroglyphics via
Greek translation and therefore to understand Egyptian culture
146 BCE See Roman intervention in Greek affairs:  Rome unchallenged in Mediterranean
ROMAN:
Regal Period: 753-509 BCE
Rome founded in 753 BCE
- Early roman rule via elected kings (hence “regal”) till 6 th century where aristocracy
overthrows monarchy = ending regal period
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Republican Period: 509-27 BCE
-
272 BCE:
-
South Italy with Greek colonies therefore influenced roman gods  many similarities
Expansion wars
280 BCE Greek King Pyrrhus goes to help colony fighting romans and full defeated in 272= now
romans in full control of Italy (Sicily= exception)
Punic Wars:
- Other main Mediterranean power= Carthage (north Africa and West Mediterranean)
- 3 Punic Wars:
o 2nd: 218-201BCE= Hannibal crosses alps invading Italy= huge war but loses
o 149-146BCE= Carthage fully destroyed
Mid 2nd century (100’s)
= Rome DOMINANT (but need government changes because 6th century government designed for small city state
and not an international superpower)
End of 2nd Century:
- Slave revolt in Sicily
- Many military defeats
- Allied cities rebelling
=very chaotic
therefore a lot of
evidence from
this period
Marius and Sulla help resolve these then fight
in civil war  81 BCE Sulla= dictator
1st century BCE: (100-1)
Many people competing for power
- Cicero, Cato= republicans
- Generals in the war= monarchs
- Senators= rich and looking for self interest
- Caesar, Pompey= want sole power (spend a lot of money to win people over)
= Mostly hear voices of these elite (theirs survived history)
Imperial Period:
End of republic
- Last major roman civil war battle @ Actium (31 BCE)
o 27 BCE= Octavian defeats Antony and Cleopatra
 1st Roman emperor at start of imperial period (Octavian changes name to Augustus)
Age of Augustus:
- Period of stability
- Age of Latin literature
Sources of roman
o Virgil’s “Aeneid”
myth
o Ovid’s “Metamorphoses”
Prosperity
- Legal reform (open court up to lower classes)
- Some tyrannical emperors but still peaceful for most part
- Expansion of empire
- 212 CE extension of roman citizenship to all people inhabiting the empire ( Egypt, North
Africa= all roman citizens)
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
3rd Century CE= HUGE CRISIS
- Political Instability (many wars)
o Stability brought back by Constantine (312CE-337) who converted to Christianity pre
death  slow Christianization of Rome
-
East Rome= continued expanding until 600CE
West Rome= non-existent after 476 CE (Western emperor killed)
Week 3: Greek Law:
=Focus on Athens in 4th/ 5th century (400-300 BCE) because most evidence of Court cases come from this
polis
Iliad: 700-500 BC:
=Achilles’ shield= image of early court case= shows crime of homicide, man offers compensation but victims family refuses, go
to arbitrator because can’t agree and have council of elders or jury with crowd watching (and heralds for crowd control) and
gold given to elder who gives most just opinion with decision based on social convention (no written law yet)
1. Greek Law in Archaic Period:
Zaleucus (mid 7th century) = 1st written laws (for Locri, South Italy)
And most extensive/ important early legal inscription= from Gortyn on Crete
Written Laws Legal procedure= MANDATORY (promotes equality, decrease magistrate power, give polis authority)
Used to settle class competition via bring neutral party or outsider to write laws (laws delt with
powerful men (head of household))
Nomos/ Nomoi (pl)= LAW/Customs (based on experience with best practice)
Thesmos/ Thesmoi= early word for law (based on written law)
Draco:
621 BCE= 1st Law giver in Athens
- Harsh laws (get term draconian (harsh) from him)
- Allowed lethal self-help (seek vengeance separate from law)
- Famous homicide laws:
o Procedural (trial, pardon, protect killer form retaliation)
o Laws  less revenge killing and more mandatory procedures
Solon:
594 BCE= abolished all but Draco’s homicide laws
- Wrote out and posted laws (but few people were literate and had free time to go to court (many
working in field)
Laws carry over to classical period:
- His laws favor elite (makes easier to take advantage of courts)
Before Solon:
- Areopagus: (council of aristocrats) ruled polis
o Made up of Kyrios (head) of each oikos (household)
By Solon:
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
-
Magistrates
9 Archons + Areopagus (all former archons)
o 6th century= elected archons
o 5th century= elect short list then voted off list
Archon Duties:
o Basileus: king, in charge of religious matters
o Polemarchus: war leader
o Eponymous Archon: year named after him
o 6 Thesmothetai: judicial officers
Legal/Political Structure:
Before Solon= Magistrates (Archon) decide legal cases
After Solon:
- Set up Heliaia: when Ekklesia convened for judicial purposes
 =all Athenian citizen men 18+ years old
 equality, involved all people
-
Dikastes: 6000 volunteer jurors (5th century/ 400 BCE)
o Form smaller juries for individual cases, full Dikastes for important cases
o Qualifications: citizen, male 30+ years old
o Pericles instituted payment per day for jury services (2 obols) in 420 BCE  stereotype that
jurors are old and lazy (because 2 obols= less payment than a day of doing labor)
o
o
Classical Period jury= 500 people
 415 CE Graphe paranomon vs Speusippas used full 6000= shows how important
case was
Lottery system for jury selection per case= AVOID BRIBERY
Archon (Magistrate) Court Jurisdictions:
- Basileus: religious matters and homicide (with ephetai jury)
- Polemarchus: cases involving non-Athenians
- Eponymous Archon: family/ inheritance cases
- 6 Thesmothetai: other cases (all others)
Other Officials:
- The Eleven: in charge of prisons, executions and trying major theft cases
- Agoronomoi: disputes in Agora (marketplace)
- Eisagogeis: involving loans/ banking
- Epimeletai tou emporieu: grain in port (the Piraeus)
- The Forty: tribe judges who heard private cases
o
+ Delian alliance  more cases with people not from Athens
 Nautodikai: involving sailors (nauto= nautical dikai= judges)
 Xenodikai: involving foreigners (xeno= xenophobia, dikai= judges)
Political History and Judicial Systems:
- Draco (621BCE)
- Solon (594 BCE)
- Kleisthenes (509 BCE)  DEMOCRACY
o Boule (council of 500)
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
=citizens propose new laws to them who screen it and decide if sent to Ekklesia
 Who Vote on psephisma
(new decree and suggested
punishment)
 Assembly can’t pass laws, but
can pass decree which affects
laws application (law= nomos)
410 BCE= Laws inscribed in stone (Solon and Draco’s)
- Background:
o Pre 403 BCE= found contradictions in laws and were resolved by boule (council) and by Ekklesia
o
o
(Assembly)
404 BCE= Lose Peloponnesian War to Sparta
 Sparta imposes board of 30 men on Athens (“30 tyrants”)
 Thrasybulus overthrows it  democracy restored in 403 in Athens
403= Reorganize post war= democracy restored with laws now official nomoi (laws)
 Athens said no laws is valid unless reinscribed In 410-402
 Said no prosecution of actions before this time
 Fresh start because some people complies with the 30
Nomothetai:
=Approve laws after Ekklesia votes
- Yearly review of laws to resolve contradictions and went over approved Ekklesia law proposals in
their 1st meeting of year
- Inscribed new laws
- Could amend (change) but not remove laws
-
Graphe Paranomon: “prosecute illegalities”
o Charge person who proposes law that contradicts already established laws
o =serious charge, wanted to keep laws the same, could even get death penalty
2. Greek Law in Classical Period (400’s):
A) Private Cases:
=dispute between individuals
=Very common
=anyone could arbitrate, but = civic duty of 59+ year old’s to serve as public arbitrator
Steps:
- Bring dispute to 4 judges of your tribe
o
-
If disputed amount worth > 10 drachmas= referred to public arbitrator
Public Arbitrator gives decision, if not happy with it can appeal
Jury Trials (when appealing arbitrator decision)
Note:
- Dike/ dike idia= PRIVATE case
- Graphe/ dike demosia= PUBLIC case
Procedure Initiation:
- Private= only via aggrieved party (or in homicide cases= victims’ relatives)
- Public= can be prosecuted by anyone (lets of citizens look out for public interest)
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
B) Public Cases:
Magistrate= Archon
Prosecutor= concerned citizen who notices the wrong
Procedural:
-
Apagoge: prosecutor arrest defendant and bring them to magistrate
Ephegesis: Prosecutor brings magistrate to defendant
Endeixis: Prosecutor get permission from magistrate to arrest defendant
Apographe: prosecutor writes list of state property defendant has wrongfully
Eisangelia: prosecutor calls defendant out in front of large body (ex. Ekklesia, Boule, Archon and= tried
immediately)
Probole: Prosecutor calls out defendant in front of Ekklesia who decide if refer case to jury
Vs
-
Dike: only individual wronged therefore PRIV
 Can get confusing because can be theft, apagoge, graphe or dike
o + Dokimasia: Thesmothetai examine candidate for office (running for __)
o Euthynai: Performance review of person who was in public office, by board of 10 people
(from Synegroi) appointed by the Boule
Problems with System:
- Sycophany: get financial reward (% of fine) for volunteer prosecutor if they win
o Discourage this via:
 If fail to get 20% of juror votes or abandon case after it opens = 1000 drachma fine
or more severe punishment
 Punishment= atimia (disenfranchisement) goods confiscated
Special Cases:
- Synegroi:
o 10 randomly chosen to preside magistrate performance review (the Euthynai)
o When Ekklesia refer case to jury can appoint special prosecutors to represent state interest in
case
o Defend current laws against changes proposed in front of Nomothetai
**Athens vs modern: public officials representing state don’t work on criminal cases
Sample Trial:
Can be:
- Private cases referred by public arbitrator
- Private appeal to public arbitrator decision
- Public Case
Steps:
1. Plaintiff file complaint and pay filing fee (if plaintiff wins, defendant reimburses them this fee)
2. Inform defendant of trial date, magistrate presiding and charge (Proskelsis)
3. Preliminary Hearing:
- Defendants admit/ deny charge: if theft then need to give justification (i.e., I was stealing it back)
- Diamartyria: witness account
o Challenge verifiable facts
 Ex. in front of wrong archon (in front of Polemarchus even tho= an Athenian citizen)
 Ex. Challenge venue
o Need witness to back it up (i.e. confirm they’re Athenian)
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Paragraphe:
 Challenge that plaintiff bringing up case in non-legal way (i.e. case been tried
before)

Paragraphai: trial to deal with challenges
o Can be for:
 Statute of limitations (claim past time to be brought up)
 Statute for frauds (contract not written and must be written to
o
be valid in certain cases)
If plaintiff not successful at paragraphe= must pay 1/6th of money
disputed in fines
4. Trial Day:
- Plaintiff and Defendant speak (water clock limiting speaking time)
o = very efficient trail occurs in less than a day
-
Lawyers:
o In Athens, parties spoke for themselves, but they (litigants) could hire a logographer (legal
speech writer who was skilled in rhetoric (persuasion) and had law knowledge to write it
-
Speeches:
o No opening/ closing statement or cross examination
o Speech includes all witnesses and evidence (must present relevant laws and produce
evidence themselves)
-
Witnesses:
o 5th century/ 400 BCE= Verbal testimony
o 375 BCE= law required written testimony (usually= enough but could be called to testify on
top of this)
 Litigant, women, children and disenfranchised couldn’t testify (expect in homicide)
 Slave can only testify if procured via torture
 Hearsay (I heard… / gossip) not admissible
-
Jury:
o
o
-
Vote immediately (no deliberation)
No summary given by magistrate (they are only there to oversee)
Voting:
o
o
5th century: put pebble on plaintiff or defendant’s urn
4th century: place bronze disks on urn

Solid symbol on it= innocence vote

Hole symbol on it= guilty vote
o
Win= MAJORITY, Tie= defendant wins
5. Verdict:
Some laws had written penalties
- In any cases both parties give speeches suggesting penalties and jury votes:
o
Ex. Fine, property confiscation, atimia (disenfranchisement)= goods confiscated, and 1/3 proceeds
given to accuser, confinement to stocks, exile or death
o
Note: prisons only held people pre-execution:
 Death usually immediate unless on hold because religious holiday
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
6. Appeal:
=could nullify/ cancel verdict if:
- Defendant didn’t show up so given default conviction and retrial in 2 months
- Sue witness for false testimony
- Trail outcome usually stood
Special Cases:
1. Homicide:
=special procedure because believed to be religious matter
-
With Ephetai jury (jury of 51 Areopagus members)
Procedure= declare defendant cannot enter temples, Agora, Law court, Ekklesia because homicide 
miasma (pollution to soul that could spread from killer to community)
Note: it is still a dike so only victims’ relatives can prosecute
2. Theft:
- With the 11 (in charge of prison, execution and kakourgoi (serious theft (ex. At night form gymnasium)
- If couldn’t come up with justification for theft  on the spot/ summary execution
o
o
o
Simple theft= return object and pay victim 2 x the value
Serious (kakourgoi)= theft from temple, of 50+ drachmas or 10+ drachmas form harbor)
Theft by force= victim and state compensated

See theft= dike (private) but could include state
3. Sexual Conduct:
- Kyrios could kill/ torture seducer if caught in act
- Prostitution= restricted:
o Citizens can’t be prostitutes
o Can’t have sex with married woman bc= crime vs Kyrios
o Can’t serve as pimp
o Citizen men can have sex with enslaved woman or F/M prostitutes
o Rape= illegal (bc crime vs Kyrios)
4. Other Crimes:
- Trauma ek pronoias:
o =” wounding with intent” to kill
o =battery (assault) and battery with weapon
o Brought in front of Areopagus but = a dike
-
Hubris:
o Abusive/ humiliating behavior
o Ex. Arrogance, taunting, insulting someone, sexual oppression, degradation)
-
Asebeia:
o “impiety”
o Ex. Wrong person performs sacrifice, misbehave in temple, mutilating statues, performing
magic
-
Eisangelia:
o Prosecuting things that= wrong but no law against it
 Covers things missed in law because recognizes law mostly written by 1 person (Solon)
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
o
-
Or prosecute trying to subvert (overthrow) democracy, betrayal, and misleading people
Torts:
o
o
In modern times= civil wrongs that don’t fall into the criminal system
Didn’t have tort category in Athens but had punishments
 Assault/ Battery (dike aikeias): when fight starts one who throws first punch is charged
 False imprisonment (dike heirgmou):
 Defamation/ Slander (dike kakegorias):
 Ex. Speak ill of dead or anyone while in: temple, court at trail, or in public office
 Ex. Falsely accuse someone of beating or killing their mom or dad

Property Damage/ Contract breach (dike blables):
 Ex. Someone interferes with your property  harm to you
 Ex. Someone fails to act  harm to you
Week 4: Greek Tragedy and Crime:
The Oresteia:
Backstory:
1. TANTALUS (rich guy, gods come to his house for dinner often)
- Feed them PELOPS (his son) to see if they could tell, and Demeter (god) eats bite of his shoulder
before realizing
o Gods put him back together and PELOPS goes to marry princess HIPPODAMIA (must
beat king in chariot race to win her hand, basically just he “wins” if the king cant chase
him down)
 PELOPS bribes charioteer to loosen lynch pin in king’s chariot  can’t chase
Common theme of
them down
feeding sons
 King curses PELOPS curse of Atreus on entire family
2. Feud with ATREUS and THYESTES
- ATREUS kills THYESTES son and feeds him to him because THYESTES slept with his wife
- AGAMEMNON is King of Argos in Aeschylus
TANTALUS
PELOPS
THYESTES
AEGISTHUS
(+ Clytemnestra)
ATREUS
MENELAUS
(+Helen)
AGAMEMNON
(+ Clytaemnestra)
IPHIGENIA
ORESTES
ELECTRA (daughter)
3. Trojan War:
- PARIS runs off with HELEN, so MENELAUS and AGAMEMNON sail off to get her back
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
o
Winds to Troy= bad for sailing so AGAMEMNON has to sacrifice IPHIGENIA (his and
CLYTEMNESTRA’s daughter) and they go fight in troy for 10 years = victorious
 CLYTAEMNESTRA= upset over IPHIGENIA’s death
 + has an affair with AEGISTHUS (he moves in with her)
 + worried about ORESTES so sends him off to be raised in small village
3 Plays Summary:
A) The Agamemnon
= AGAMEMNON coming home with captured slave princess CASSANDRA, AEGISTHUS and
CLYTEMNESTRA kill AGAMEMNON  serving justice for death of IPHIGENIA
B) The Libation Bearers
=adult ORESTES comes back to town with friends PHYLADES and sister ELECTRA (who prayed
someone would avenge AG’s death.) No one recognizes ORESTES so he pretends to be a messenger
and announces ORESTES is dead  gets close enough to CLYT and AEG and kills them (justice for his
father’s death and AEG suffers “seducer’s punishment”.) The FURIEs show up and start chasing him
(only he sees them) – starts freaking out
C) The Eumenides
=ORESTES running and takes refuge in temple of APOLLO at Delphi who purifies him of the murder
and says it is done. FURIES refuse to accept this and go to Athens with ATHENA who they ask to
decide if he’s guilty or not. She sets up jury to vote and jury ends up in tie. ATHENA casts deciding
vote in ORESTES favor and re-names FURIES to the EUMENIDES (the kindly ones) and gives them job
of protecting Athens and enforcing civil peace – make sure Athenians get along w each other
Main purpose of play:
=show development of private vengeance into public justice system (oikos (household)  public
sphere (polis))
= distinguish crime (Negative & within community) vs war (positive & against outgroup/outsiders)
o Orestes trial = democratic state takes over the responsibility for crime and
punishment  vengeance to punishment
5 Things to know about the play:
-
Title
Author
Publication Date
Location
Original Language
(underline and italicize
title)
Title:
Trilogy: Aeschylus’ Oresteia or the Oresteia (not Aeschylus’ the Oresteia)
(not capitalized “the” (bc
not part of title))
Individual Plays:
- Agamemnon
- The Libation Bearers
- The Eumenides
Exception: if title named
after chorus
Summary: underline/ italicize title, capitalize “The” if named after Greek chorus (group of performers)
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Author:
Aeschylus or Aiskhylos (more direct translation from Greek alphabet)
Date:
=when it= 1st performed
=458 BCE (1st produced play)= close to Persian war and can see relation to important events
Location:
First presented it in Athens (he lived in Athens)
Language:
Attic Greek (the Greek used in classical Athens)
Greek Theatre:
Staged at Theatre of Dionysus in Athens (often festival of Dionysus in March) – 120,000 people
excluding enslaved people
- Tyrants often patrons of the arts – compete for prizes
- 509 BCE, Clysthenes
- Festival:
o 10 choruses compete
o 5 comedians compete
o 3 chosen to compete and write tetralogy
 =biggest competition


3 tragedies (long/serious) and 1 satyr play (comedy with
drunk satyrs + sex)
Tetralogies not always thematically related
Aeschylus Background:
-
Born in 525/ 524 BCE
Fought in Persian Battles @ Marathon (490 BCE) and Salamis
Established tragedian (only wrote tragedies in same way comedians only wrote comedies – 2 separate
origins)
484 BCE= WON his first festival  won 13 times in total
458 presented the Oresteia before a trip to Sicily where he died (455BCE)
Oldest of 3 great Athenian tragedians (Sophocles, Euripides)
Greek Theater Continued:
-
Tragedy:
=rose form choral lyric via individual actor added to interact with CHORUS  tragedy born
-
Set:
=originally a raised platform w chorus and 1 actor
o Aeschylus introduced 2nd Actor
o By time of Oresteia=
 3rd actor and façade
 Everything happens in front of façade and when go behind it they come back
and talk about what happened
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
-
 Ex. In the Agamemnon the palace of Argos= façade
Chorus purpose to comment as if they’re the audience
The Agamemnon:
L. 146-159
=Chorus “for the terror returns like sickness to lurk in the house; secret anger remembers the
child that shall be avenged”
o Shows domestic violence (Ag killing Iph) and predicts Clyt revenge
o Halts the cycle of private revenge  all acts of revenge for acts of violence
Hospitality= very
important to the Greeks
(some soldiers refused to
fight because their
grandpas were guests in
each other’s homes @
once point (strong ties)
L. 369-383
=Chorus “who trampled down the delicacy of things inviolable (hospitality) that man was
wicked… There is not only armor in riches against perdition (punishment) for him who spurns
the high altar of justice down to darkness”
o Paris violated Menelaus’ hospitality by taking Helen (provoked Trojan War) in his
visit at his house and divine justice will interfere (curse of Pelops kidnapping
Hippodamia will repeat self in history)
o Only coming of political justice and Apollo and Athena that ends the cycle

Stereotype that
Asiatics/Orientals =
feminine/ frivolous
and a lot of HUBRIS
Cassandra has gift of
prophecy but curse
on no one believe her
(predicts her own
death and Orestes
revenge)
Modern day divine justice: household violence carries across generations like this
curse and takes a lot of intervention to stop
L.914- 929
=Ag to Clyt who put an expensive tapestry on the ground: “do not try in woman’s ways to make
me delicate, nor as if I were some Asiatic…I cannot trample upon these tinted splendors without
fear thrown in my path. I tell you as a man, not a god reverence (admire) me.”
o  Clyt traps him in tapestries/ robes and kills him
o “you’re trying to make me weak, will not do it I am a man not a God but oh is it
tempting”
o Ag didn’t resist feeling of power and walks on robes = gives into luxury and Asiatic
feminine/ weak/ hubris and he’s punished for his hubris and killing Iphigenia
L. 1275-1285
= Cassandra (Ag’s Trojan sex slave) “for there shall come one to avenge us also, born to slay his
mother and to wreak the death for his father’s blood… outlaw and wanderer, driven from his
own land, for this is a strong oath and sworn by the high gods”
o Gifted with prophecy but no one believes = see sons avenging previous generation
o According to divine law Orestes has right to kill Clyt because she killed his dad vs
human law makes Orestes and outlaw for killing Clyt (Aeg and Clyt make the laws)
L. 1372-1387
=Clyt “spread deadly abundance of rich robes and caught him fast. I struck him twice..”
o She’s admitting she murdered Ag and that it was planned because she was fighting
fire with fire “but pondered deep in time… arming hate against hateful men” 
contemplating how to do it for all 10 years
o She is proud of killing Ag and thinks it was necessary – had to fight fire w fire
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
L. 1401-1406
=Clyt: “you try me out as if I were a woman and vain... he’s dead; the work of this right hand that struck in
strength and righteousness”
o She’s saying she= righteous and acted in manly fashion vs Agamemnon was feminine + vain
o Either welcome him back home or kill him, no other way to get justice at this point
L. 1506-1566
*role of chorus is to speak what might be in the minds of those watching
=Chorus: “he killed; he has paid… he who has done shall suffer; that is law
o LAW OF VENGEANCE
o Lethal self-help


=Aeschylus (Author)  justifying the evolution form vengeance in Law to
democracy via myth (because when play was presented in 458 BCE no longer had
vengeance within law)
Women in Athens had the rights but not responsibilities of systems – use courts but
not participate before them
L. 1654-1661
=Clyt “Let us not be bloody now. Honored gentlemen of Argos go to you homes now and give way to the
stress of fate and season”
o Cly telling Aeg not to fight chorus and saying this is all done (end of violence) – Ag has paid
the price and violence is over (or so she thinks)
The Libation Bearers:
L. 117-122
=Chorus and Electra (surviving daughter):
-
Electra leads chorus of libation bearers to the grave of Ag to pour libations (sacrificial offering of liquid
= wine) to play-cate his vengeful spirit… instead pray for vengeance
Appease spirit that cannot rest since killed by violence (his wife)
“C: say someone “one to kill them for the life they took”
E: I can ask this and not be wrong in the god’s eyes
C: of course, to hurt your enemy when he struck 1 st “
o =saying can hurt enemy if it= vengeance
o (praying for Agamemnon to be avenged)
Eye for an eye
L. 400-404
Chorus: “it is law that when red drops have been spilled upon the grand they only allude for
fresh blood”
-
Chorus is advocating an eye for an eye
+
L.466-475
Chorus: “here in the house resides the cure for this, not to be brought from outside, never from
others but in themselves, through raw brutal bloodshed”
o =vengeance mode only involved ppl of the oikos (household) – cure for house
resides within the house
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
o
Aeschylus connecting on how Athenian court could stop cycle of private vengeance
via punishment and saying state must intervene to resolve  without modern public
prosecutors or police to maintain order, still element of private vengeance w State
The Oresteia is a trilogy about the invention of a criminal justice system
- When someone does something wrong, must punish them yourself (Agamemnon killed by
Clyt)  cycle of violence continues across generations
- Private revenge = only way to end cycle (can’t be dealt with in family)
L. 668-672
- ORESTES come back in disguise and will sneak into house and get revenge on Clyt
Clyt: “we have all comforts that go with a house like ours, hot baths and beds to charm away
your weariness. But if you have some higher business, more a matter of state that is the men’s
concern”
o Clyt performs hospitality well and back to being womanly (gender roles) +
sympathetic character… killing of Ag was justifiable, not so evil
L. 913- 923
Orestes and Clyt:
“O: I was born a free father. You sold me.
C: So? Where is this price I received you for?..
C: I think, child, that you mean to kill your mother
O: No. It will be you who kill yourself. It will not be I”
o Clyt explains that she did not send him away but to a life of privilege in the town of
focus  Orestes also angry and resentful that his mom put him up for adoption
o Shows Orestes motives aren’t purely revenge (thinks she sent him away so she could
cheat on Ag but she says Ag cheated too (double standard)
o Says she force his hand (and killed by her own actions)
o Woman’s work goes unnoticed - expose and criticize the injustice
L. 924-930
Orestes and Clyt:
“C: your mothers curse, like dogs will drag you down
O: How shall I escape my father’s curse if I fail here…
C: you ate the snake I gave birth to, and gave the breast…
O: You killed, and it was wrong. Now suffer wrong”
o Clyt realizes someone close to her= the snake and Orestes explains cycle of
vengeance  wrong meets wrong “seemed to be necessary” but just deepest impulses
(childhood abandonment)
= KILLS CLYT
L. 980-990
Orestes: “the hands entanglement, the hobbles his feet (Clyt trapped) …, be a witness for me in
my day of trial. How it was in all right that I achieved this death, my mothers. For Aegisthus
death I take no count; he has his seducers punishment, no more than law”
o Orestes wants to prove his righteousness to audience as though it was the jury –
motions of a jury trial, he is gathering evidence
o Has ALSO killed Aegisthus  Draco’s homicide law (can kill seducer if catch in the
act) therefore saying he is a seducer and deserved to die = not illegal
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
L. 1025- 1032:
Orestes: “I killed my mother not without some right. My father’s murder stained her and the
gods’ disgust. As for the spells that charmed me to such daring, I cite above all the seer of
Pythos, Loxias (Apollo)”
o =saying Apollo justified the matricide (killing mom)
o (vengeance shits to justice if involves godly intervention) – new gods Athena and
Apollo who work justice through the court of the Areopagus in Athens
The Eumenides:
Furies arguing that Orestes did wrong by killing Clyt - it is worse to kill blood relative > spouse (killed Ag)
L. 213-224:
Apollo: “for married heart between man and woman is bigger than oaths guarded by right of
nature. If when such kill each other you relent so as not to take vengeance nor eye them in
wrath, then I deny you manhunt of Orestes goes with right” – Cypris = Aphrodite
o =saying to furies murder is murder and can’t pick and choose which is more right –
justice must be even and both must be prosecuted
o Marriage is just as deep a bond as blood
L. 261-272
Furies disagree: “You must give back for her blood from the living man red blood of your body to
suck.”
o Saying what brings you to hell is violence against the gods, guests and parents and =
punished (don’t list husband/ wife because furies don’t value it as the same)
o Argue that violence that Orestes committed can’t be undone  calls for jury trial
Set up is like
council of the
Areopagus
L. 470-484:
Athena “the matter is too big for only mortal man who think he can judge it… I shall select judges
of manslaughter and swear them in, establish a court into all time to come”
o Athena is acting as magistrate and established a jury (magistrates could judge case on
own or bring to jury)  too ambiguous for her to make a summary judgement (not clear
enough so jury must decide)
L. 485-489:
Athena “Litigants call your witnesses, have ready your proofs as evidence under bond to keep
this case secure”
o Trial language – jury swearing to make a just judgement
Jury is tied so Athena casts deciding vote
L. 734- 743:
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Athena: “there is no mother anywhere who gave me birth... so, in case where wife killed
husband. I shall not value her death more highly than his… Orestes is the winner”
o Justifying her verdict/ choice by fact that she doesn’t have a mother – men are right
o Move from feminine to masculine (Athena who is more masculine is right to support
the male)
o Jurors not fully impartial
Furies= angry with verdict
o Athena changes the name of the furies to Eumenides (the kindly ones) and gives
them job to protect Athens form outsiders (war enemies)
o Channels their anger in a productive fashion – they will from now on protect Athens
from violence (war crimes instead of families)
L. 858- 866:
Athena: “let our wars rage outwards- may they range full fierce and terrible. No true fighter I call
the bird that fights @ home”
o Violence @ war= good (external enemies)
Vs
o Violence @ home = wrong  insider violence (against members of the community)
is CRIMINAL
 But who is an insider insider/outsider and how is it determined?
 Aeschylus makes no distinction
L. 976-986:
Eumenides (Furies) “civil war fattening on men’s skin shall not thunder in our city... let them hate
with single heart. Much wrong in the world is thereby healed”
o Why is hate a positive value? Only if outward
o Furies announcing Athenian hatred outward @ foreign enemies – kindly ones TO the
Athenians
o Express their hopes for the future of Athens
Note:
-
Aeschylus was a War Veteran therefore wrote plays between Persian wars (wins that  more
Athenian power)
-
Play distinguishes warfare (collective/ outward) vs crime (individual/ negative/ inwards)
In the end, all violence that takes place within the polis is criminal  courts take what used to be an
internal matter in the family and declare it to be PUBLIC = invent concept of the criminal
Week 6: Modern Criminology and Ancient Crime
Both modern and antiquity look @:
-
What is crime?
How to prevent crime
What causes crime
What to do once crime is committed
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Focus on:
1. Approaches to aspects of criminological inquiry
2. Development of crim as a field of study + scientists responsible
CH 1) What is Criminology - Walklate:
5 Approaches:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Legal
Moral
Social
Humanistic
Social Constructionist
1. Legal- Crime= “law breaking behavior”
o
o
o
Necessary approach because need the law as a concept in criminology… but culturally and
historically specific
 gives foundation for studying culturally specific world of Athens but not law change over
time
Advantage of this approach: can see what Draco’s law allowed @ time to understand
cultural/ historical context in the specific place and time
Limitations:

Can’t find broader commonality between ancient and modern ideas of criminology

I.e., leaves out category of crimes and nature of criminals independent of
common laws - can’t get bigger picture

Laws vary over time (culturally and historically specific)
2. Moral- Crime= “morally wrong which may or may not be against specific law”
Crime even if no
o
o
law against it
Ex. J walking= criminal in 1. But not in 2. Because not morally wrong
Ex. Some companies profit off opioid crisis which isn’t technically illegal in 1. But in 2. Is
because its morally wrong
o
Define criminals as being immoral people
3. Social- Crime= “violates social norms which may/ may not be against specific law”
Emphasizes the socially specific nature of the category of crime
o
= going against what society deems normal/ acceptable is a crime in 3.

Nomos= Law and custom

Linguistically ancient Greeks can’t distinguish between criminal behavior as law
breaking behavior OR simply violating norms

Ex. Early Greek Law (Versteeg) – On shield of Achilles shows judges making decision
based on CUSTOMS…what is good/ right to society and not by laws
4. Humanistic- Crime “violation of basic human rights whether or not law exists against it”
o
o
Advantage= its universal – defines in the same way for all humanity
 Defines criminal same for all of humanity (because based on 5 basic humans rights
Equality, Freedom from discrimination, Right to Life, Liberty, Security, Freedom from
slavery, and from torture, …)
 Violations of human rights are a crime whether
Dilemma:
 In ancient Athens= normal to have slaves which is a violation of human rights but
didn’t violate law/ social customs at the time. So is it fair to judge them by our
modern laws or should we judge the, via their laws/ grounds?
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302

Not in a legal sense or social sense, but may have been morally wrong… are they
criminals if we can apply our own standard of judgement to the ancient Athenians?
 cannot excuse slavery… they knew what they were doing
5. Social Constructionist- “crime”= “created by society as a whole” (they define what is
criminal)
-
Other 1-4 approaches suggest universal approach to crime but here, there is NOTHING universal or
natural or essential about the idea of crime
 crime is part of the social fabric of communities, created by those who run the society – people in
charge get to define what is criminal and make it seem universal since people believe them!
o
Can make anything seem universal, but doesn’t mean it is

Didn’t exist as identity in
ancient Athens (because
grouped differently) but
now we have it as natural/
unchangeable, showing
things can change over
time
o
Homosexuality




o
o
Criminality about community
Criminality about individual
Ex. Women being stay at home moms seemed normal in 50’s-60’s
Ancient times: sorted by penetrated or penetrator (grouped in categories)
Modern times: based on identity of person
As an idea, homosexuality did not really exist fundamentally in Athens!!!
Note: Identity didn’t exist for ancient Greeks – powerful concept in modern times
Michel Foucault: says crime = socially constructed idea (society that runs things builds social/
moral norms and legal parameters)
Is it the act done, or is it about one’s identity??
 Ex. Argues using Punishment:


Ancient times: punishment by exile was to fix community and not the individual
criminal
Modern: we have “correctional facility” to fix individual
Just like sexuality, criminality is a part of one’s identity – crime therefore isn’t just a criminal act but
signifies a criminal PERSON
- Criminals may see themselves as good people that made a mistake, some think they are bad person
…Social constructs define what ACTS are criminal and what PEOPLE are criminals!!
-
Criminology As a Field of Study 19th and 20th century:
Positivism= using
characteristics to define
criminal
-
Biological Positivism (Lombroso)
Sociological Positivism (the Chicago School)
Psychological Positivism
1. Lombroso – Biological Positivist:
= key figure in development of the idea of modern criminology – key for Walklate (modern criminologist)
and Foucault (modern philosopher)
- Was a prison psychiatrist in Italy
- Looked at biological differences/ abnormalities to distinguish criminals – crime from a scientific
standpoint
o Ex. Distance between eyes, receding chin, excessively long arms
o No we see this via racial profiling/ in media
 remains of this still in modern time… considerable racism in depictions of crime and
media representation
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Extra: look at Darwin’s law of biogenetics (says every organism revisits all stages
of development of their species but not all organisms get to final/ predicted
stage  abnormalities (atavism)
 said atavism is visible and explains criminals
2. The Chicago School – Sociological Positivism:
3.
 something called Sociological Positivism which refocuses scientific lens from biology onto SOCIAL
characteristics of criminals – aspects of relationship between individual and their society
Early in Chicago school 20th century = looked at social characteristics of criminal to distinguish them
o Zone of transition: now we call it “inner city: and that crim is more common with inner city youths (=
o
externally defining features like 1. That they say defines criminality)
Physical or social characteristic… nearly as absurd now as measuring between eyes like Lombroso
o
Social disorganization (people adapting to changing environment)
4. Psychological Positivism:
= looked at not physical but psychological characteristics to define criminality
- Data driven scientific approach like the others – focus on internal, the CRIMINAL rather than the crime
itself
 some people are criminals and have criminal minds
Ancient times – thought similar things:
 In Iliad Achilles and Ag arguing over distribution of war captives and Achilles wants it
to draw his sword, but goddess Athena shows up and says use words rather than
violence = aspect of his psychology (only heard by Achilles)
 not external force but internal, goddess of practical wisdom and external
representation of Achilles’ practical wisdom in Iliad, preventing him from killing
Agamemnon
*like modern criminology, Iliad looks for causes and ways to prevent violence in the
psychology of people – here through the gods
Gods= vessel/ image of
person’s psych
o
Psychology in Greek Tragedy:
 Oresteia: furies chasing Orestes (only he sees them) can be seen as his guilt –
external representation of Orestes’ feelings of guilt
 Oresteia = form of ancient criminology, series of plays that look for causes and
solutions for crime – driving force of Greek myth was the gods
 Oresteia is a psychological inquiry into crime and punishment
But… modern psych is more scientific and direct – as a discipline it is a modern phenomenon
and defined by psychology is traced not to ancient Greece and Rome but movement to
positivism in 19th century
“criminological other”
Positivism: essentially association personal characteristics to criminals – privileges some crimes and criminals
over others
- Who is most likely to suffer criminal designation? Positivists focus on the nature of criminal PERSON =
conditions the way we think about crime
More or less visible
types of criminals
o
Biological, social, psychological aspects which  our stereotypical view of criminals
o
Its dynamic and changing:
 Ancient Classical Athens:
 No focus on “inner city”
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302



-
Law and focus of criminological thought associated with powerful, wealthy, white
men (historical evidence may be incomplete for women, children etc.)
Ex. The Oresteia= rich/ruling family committing crimes (Ag, Clyt – presented as
masculine and Ag was presented as feminine for victimization)
Modern:
 Crime associated with poor, minorities, POC – visible criminals here
Positivist criminology associates personal characteristics with criminology – conditions society’s view
on crimes…
 focus on nature of criminal PERSON
CH 4) Explaining Crime:
= Walklate explains “criminological other” (people who don’t fit into our view/ expectation of criminal)
= Explain why people might commit crime
1.
2.
3.
4.
Rational Choice Theory
Social Control Theory
Relative Deprivation
Hegemonic Masculinity
1. Rational Choice Theory
committing crime= rational decision they make by weighing potential risks and benefits
o
o
In general is solid
explanation
Views criminal as ordinary people who commit crime based on opportunity
Gaps in explanation:



Many criminals aren’t rational and definition or rational can vary
Doesn’t address why people are in a position to consider crime
Ex. Orestes debating killing Clyt and Aegisthus

Weighing out rational decision - act of killing them (cost + attacked by furies) and
avenging dad (benefit + become king of Argos)

Reason after reason why he NEEDS to kill her… is a rational choice
2. Social Control Theory
Like rational choice theory, focus less on internal characteristic and instead on act of crime itself 
societal factors around individual that lead to crime (things in ones life that prevent criminal
behavior)
(1 + 2 are not incompatible but diff approaches) – page 89-90
4 Main Factors in keeping people from committing crimes: Hirschi’s Theory
- Attachment: relationships person has to group (more connected to others  less likely to commit crime)
- Commitment: higher investment in said relationships  preventing crimes
- Involvement: being involved in non-criminal activities+ society (hard to do crime if busy)
- Belief: how much a person believes (thanks to upbringing) that crime= something people shouldn’t do
= Non-rational factors
Goes both ways
Ex. Oresteia:
o Orestes cut off from family and exiled from Argos  less attachment, commitment and
involvement (not doing much w his life)
o Apollo gives him permission to kill Clyt  less belief that crime is bad – although hesitation
that furies will come drive him mad proves he has at least a little belief
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302

But less attachment to birth family made him less likely to follow criminal beliefs
and habits of family tree (all the way to Tantalus) = allow him to be voted innocent
and avoid curse of house of Atreus?
3. Relative Deprivation
People commit crime because feel others are better off and that they are deprived (anyone can feel
deprived – get even and commit crime)
o
o
Product of social circumstances/ perception (i.e., level of disconnect)
Ex.Oresteia
Orestes= rich, white male but maybe felt deprived of right to be ruler of Argos – Clyt took
what was rightfully his

Cly= deprived of child (Iphigenia) and then Ag brings sex slave (Cassandra) home 
deprived of rightful place as wife  seeking vengeance to get back what she thinks she is
owed
o Not just about money, but what is rightfully yours
= Adds another non-rational factor to decision making process

4. Hegemonic Masculinity
As man have more social pressure and more to gain from crime
+ need to assert dominance
- Why is it Orestes rather than Electra that kills Clyt? As a woman is expected to accept her
circumstances
 Orestes as a man has more to gain and more social pressure to kill Clyt
Ex. Clyt killing Ag= she is seen as masculine and as overcoming social pressure of being woman and being expected to
just take it – fought back but violated gender roles
Modern: men much more likely to be involved in crime as perpetrators or victims of crime – supposed to be violent…
expectation leads men to become more involved in violent crime
Ex. Electra doesn’t kill Clyt, Orestes does
4 theories don’t provide full picture of why people commit crimes, but do help – range of ideas…
Keep them in mind as we read more ancient sources
Ancient authors ALSO have similar explanations for crimes committed
CH 5) Thinking About the Victim of Crime:
Positivists: victims of crime (like perpetrators) have physical, social, or psychological characteristics that
make them more likely to be a victim
Hegemonic Masculinity and its Role in Victimization…
Victimology: Positivistic Victimology looks at factors that make some people more prone to being victims
(personal characteristics)
Statistically more likely
Not more statistically, but
more visible/ noticed
when they are victims
-
Most likely victims:
o Young, poor man who is ethnic/ racial minority or lives alone
-
Most visible Victims
o People perceived as more vulnerable (i.e. old lady)
o Hear about more crimes against old ladies (visible) > young/ poor/ minority man
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302

-
Why? – because we associate criminality and victimization to certain people
Victimological other: heterosexual white male
Ex. Oresteia:
Clyt masculinized through her crime and Ag feminized and Orientalized as she is about to make him her
victim, most masculine right as she is committing her crime
Vs
o Cly in 2nd play is feminized saying I’m your mother don’t kill me to Orestes
Vs
Pattern = violence doers are the most masculine and the victims are the most feminine
o Real life: Men are more likely to commit and be victims of crime, but societal gender expectations
hide this
o
From Readings:
Other Factors:
o Convenience of victim, shared demographic characteristics with offender, time spent at night in public
place, ethnic> white, M by M, W by M in their home, young= more likely to be robbed/ abused/ killed,
more robberies in poorer areas
-
Primary Victimization: direct impact on victim (i.e., injury, $ loss)
Secondary Victimization= impact of way criminal justice system response to victims
o Ex. Unsympathetic treatment, let them down, not keeping them informed about their case
Week 7: Athens and Draco’s Homicide Law:
5 Things to know about the play:
- Author: Lysias
 Background info:

o
Born in mid 400’s BCE in Athens, not an Athenian citizen because father= metic
(non-citizen resident/ resident alien)
o When dad dies, Lysias and Polemarchus (brother) leave for Thurii, Italy to
study rhetoric
 While there= Peloponnesian war (Athens vs Sparta) that starts
in 431 BCE and in 415 Athens invades Sicily= trouble for Lysias
and Polemarchus
 They’re pulled back into Athens as “Athenian
sympathizers”
o 404 Athens surrenders to Sparta  30
tyrants (cruel aristocrats) imposed in
government (they execute Polemarchus)
Lysias joins democratic resistance (Sept 403) who overthrow the 30  reestablishing democracy in
Athens
 Lysias given citizenship then it is revoked  still metic
 Metic means no voting or jury serving but can write speeches for law courts
(logographer)
o Writes many speeches (34 survived and know of 130 others by title)
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
-
Title: Lysias 1/ “on the murder of Eratosthenes”
Both titles are correct
Speeches given #’s
-
Date: 403- 380 BCE
Know he was an active writer after 403 and he died in 380 so wrote speech sometime in
early 4th century
-
Location: Athens
Language: Attic Greek
o
o
Dialect of classical Athens, named after “Attica” surrounding area of Athens
He wrote in attic style (straight forward and simple) and was a model for future writers
Lysias 1:
=written for Euphiletos (family of Eratosthenes accuse him of murder)
In speech:
-
Prosecution: says they had an argument and he pulled Erato off street an into his home and killed
him
Defense: Erato seduced Euph wife so arranged for slave to tell him next time Erato was there so he
could catch the in the act and tied him up and killed him
o Saying it is legal under Draco’s homicide Law
Draco’s Homicide Law:
=oldest and only law Solon didn’t repeal (from Classical Athens)
-
Demosthenes (writing speech quoting law directly)
o “if a man kill another unintentionally in an athletic contest, or overcoming him in fight on the
highway, or unwittingly in battle, or in intercourse with wife/ mother/Sister/ daughter or
concubine for procreating legitimate children, he shall not go into exile as a manslayer on
that account”
-
Lysias twists the law:
o Could have said he caught them in act to justify the murder but…
o He says the law demands adulterers caught in the act be executed on the spot (summary
execution)

(like the 11 could do in theft cases if the defendant couldn’t give a reason for the theft (death
Saying homicide is
justified via heat of the
moment (highly
emotionally charged)

-
on the spot))
Ex. Also seen in “the Libation Bearers”

“for Aegisthus death I take no count for he has his seducers punishment, no more
than law”
Law says nothing about summary execution for seduces
o
Real seducer punishment is to pay a fine (“pay damages for harmed property”)
 Lysias puts spin on Eratosthenes to paint him as a criminal and paint Euphiletos as
innocent victim
Speech Results:
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
We’re not sure of results but its likely that he won the case because Lysias was good/ successful lawyer and
wouldn’t have written a bad argument
In Speech:
1. Opening
o
“judge me as you would yourselves, were you in the same shoes. Would be furious in what
happened. In fact, all of you would consider the penalties light for those who practice such
things:
 Creating group of right thinking (community violence= bad/ outside violence= good)
 Defining Eratosthenes as criminal to make his (Euphiletos) actions seem heroic (“he
killed a harmful outsider”)
o
“no one sees the matter as so frivolous that he supports those guilty of such acts should be
pardoned or deserve lighter punishment”
 Painting Eratosthenes as criminal
2. The “crime: (seduction)
o
“What I have demonstrated in this is that Erato seduced my wife and corrupted her, that he
brought shame onto me and my children and insulted me by entering my house, no cause for
enmity besides this and I did not commit this deed for money, only out of revenge as the law
allows
 Seducers confuse heritability (= DEEPLY INGRAINED FEAR IN ALL ATHENIANS)
 When dividing assets= want to pass onto legitimate heir
o  idea of keeping close eye on wife
o
Because hard to prove who the father is so can easily trick him, but can’t
trick mother into thinking she birthed a child that she didn’t
3. Serial seduction
o
o
“old woman came up to me saying she was sent by other individual with whom Erato having
affair. woman angry he no longer visited her”
“she said Euphiletos don’t suppose I desire to interfere with you you but if you catch your
slave and torture her, you will find everything out.. It is Eratosthenes from the deme of Oea
who is responsible. He has not only Seduced you wife, but many other women too. It is his
specialty”
 Emphasizing Erato’s bad character to justify Euph actions (saying he’s punishing a
criminal)
4. Graphe/ Protecting community
o
o
o
Euph explains murder took torches form inn and with neighbors barged in on Erato
sleeping with his wife in his (Euphiletos’) bed. Tied him up
“begged me not to kill him and to agree to a financial settlement”:
“I said to him “your executioner is not I but the law of the city whose violation you thought
less important than your pleasures. Your choice to commit offence> obey laws and behave
properly”
 Saying Erato= harming whole community so Euphiletos= empowered as it if it a
graphe

= a classic strategy in ancient legal cases= argue it like it’s a graphe and create a
sense of community with jurors
5. Twisting the law:
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
o
“He was ready to pay money to recompense. I considered the law of the city as greater
authority and I exacted that penalty you consider the most just”
 Jurors= 500 non-law expert citizens so rely on what they’re told in court to make
decision

If Ephetai would still sympathize with Euphiletos because of cultural values and fear around
heritability
6. Emphasize Seducer
o
o
o
1. Twists Draco’s Law that mentions mistresses and how female chastity and heritability/
inheritance= important  less jury sympathy for Eratosthenes
2. “if anyone rapes man or free child= owes double damages. If rapes woman, in cases that
carry death penalty he is liable at some rate. Thus, rapists are thought to deserve lighter
punishment than seducers who are given death, because rapists is just 2 x the damage
 Punishing that seducer= even worse than rapist (even though seducers by law don’t
actually pay with life)
o
“seducers corrupt souls of victims so that woman is more intimate with them than own
husband and it becomes unclear who= father of children. Because of this lawmaker assigned
death penalty
 Boldly lying about laws and pushing fears around inheritance that were deeply
ingrained in society (to make self seem heroic)
7. Conclusion: maintaining social order
o
“I expect you to come to same conclusion otherwise you will create safe haven for seducers
that you’ll find thieves entering homes and justifying it via seduction, so no one lays finger on
them”
 Saying “if say I’m guilty will  social disorder and laws becoming meaningless

Applying rational choice theory saying will help them get more benefits therefore
will commit more crime
Relevance of this text:
-
Deals with Draco Law
Shows impact of identity. Action to criminality in ancient Athens
Shows cultural norms can override law technicalities
Shows how more worried about inheritance and sexuality  capital punishment (LOTS OF
FEAR)
Week 8: Greek Philosophy of Crime (last Greek lecture)
Rhetoric: to convince people of something
Modern rhetoric:
o
o
o
Marketing
Product placement and associating it with people
Fake news  originates from the idea that everyone, even experts are trying to sell you
something (no objective truth)
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Plato’s Gorgias:
Main character: Socrates
-
Athenian
469-399 BCE
Fought in Peloponnesian War (Sparta vs Athens)
Married Xanthippe and had 2 sons
Best known as philosopher but had big impact in history @ trial of the generals
Trial at generals battle of Arginusae
Background info:
-
Athenian assembly needed people to conduct daily business so 50 men chosen as presidents (Prytaneis)
and served for 1/10 of year in charge of assembly
Daily draw rods for a court (epistates)
Socrates drew rod to be head of epistates for Arginusae (region of island in Greece trial)
By chance on day of assembly dealing with generals who led fleet at Arginusae, Socrates drew to be
epistates (running case)
Socrates
stood up vs
them trying
to break law
(en bloc
trial= illegal)
-
-
Emotional case
406 BCR Arginusae had naval fleet war, Athenian won but storm prevent rescuing survivors who were
thrown off boats and people on sinking ships  generals unable to save people in war  high loss of
manpower
When generals returned accused of not doing their duty to survivors
Public vs generals , wanted to charge them with capital punishment (death)
Athenians willing to put aside normal legal rule that could only try individuals, bc they wanted to charge
them as a group
Socrates stood up and said this is illegal Athenians have right to individual trial
o Prytaneis overruled him, saying were trying them as a group and vote to execute generals
Sources say public opinion shifted later and regret not having listened to Socrates and have executed
generals
=Shows Socrates standing up for moral principles (wants to give them their legal right to individual
trial)
Other Ex:
404 BCE 30 tyrants in power at end of Peloponnesian war
- they order Socrates to arrest citizen without sufficient cause and he refuses
- = shows he is a man who defies social custom
Overall, he was:
=Wealthy, upstanding citizen, good politician
=made fun of in comedies (like making fun of politicians in last week tonight type thing)
= he was not a sophist (teacher of rhetoric who charged students money, he never charged people $)
Rhetoric Importance:
In Athens, most powerful men were the most persuasive once, therefore crucial skill
- Sophist = teacher of rhetoric and would say they could teach you to convince people of anything 
danger to Athenian society because assembly were regular people without this training  how can
assembly make just decisions
- Socrates said truth made him persuasive, but he just had similar argument to sophists
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
-
Rhetoric gives
power to persuade
 juries not
experts  power
of juries
He didn’t run school, but has “friends” who were like students  led to legal difficulties for him and
to his eventual demise
o 399 BCE charge of introducing new gods and corrupting young men
(religious offences likely used by his political enemies to get rid of him) bc there was amnesty
after 30 tyrants being in charge and likely made enemies during that time, but they couldn’t
charge him for anything at that time so probably used this as an excuse
 Major part of trial = proposing penalties
 Prosecution proposed execution
 Socrates spoke for himself and was supposed to propose lesser penalty (i.e.
should have proposed exile as most people would)
 1st proposal was to get free meals at state expense as if he’d won Olympic
games
 Proposed fine
 Jury chose death penalty (drink hemlock)
 Religious festival so kept him in prison till after, when they could execute
him (Socrates waiting in prison, friends try to rescue him but he refuses)
Plato’s apology (apologia = defense speech)
=version of Socrates defense speech (not transcript but pretty close to what he said):
-
When he was over assembly: “only office which I’ve ever head in city is serving on council (boule). When
you were attempting to try general en bloc (all together) which is illegal, I was the only executive member
who opposed this unconstitutional behavior and voted against the proposal. Although public speakers
were ready to arrest me and you were urging him on, I thought it was my duty to face it out on the side
of law and justice through fear of prison or death in your wrong decision
=HE WAS GOOD CITIZEN, RESISTING CROWD
-
Talking about resisting unjust power of 30 tyrants: “The thirty-commission summoned me and 4 others to
the round chamber. They instructed me to fetch Leon of Salmaus from his home for execution. Again, by
my actions I showed the attention I pay to avoid doing anything unjust or unholy. That powerful
government did not scare me into doing a wrong action.
-BRINGS UP SOCRATES CONCERN W JUSTICE, and justice is not purely a legal matter to him (what he did
was illegal via refusing the government) but he says it’s wrong to obey and unjust order (what they order
you to do is against morality)
-
-
Socrates takes moral > legal view of crime (so even government who make the law can be
criminals)
5 things:
Author: Plato
Title: the Gorgias
Date: 399-347
Location: Athens
Language: Attic
The 5 things:
Author: Plato
-
Lived 429-347 BCE
Follower of Socrates
He wrote dialogues about Socrates (Socratic dialogue= people hang out around Socrates and talk
about philosophy)
Founded the academy- had it in the gymnasium (sacred to hero Academes- so we call school academic
matters
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
-
Don’t know how historic/accurate his dialogues are because differs from other historic ones (so
=bones of story are likely true (events, people) but discussion would be more what Plato wanted to
explore in discussion context)
Title: “the Gorgias”
-
Usually named after one of main discussers (we call them interlocutors)
Gorgias was sophist from Leontini (485-380 BCE)
o Came into Athens as ambassador 427 and introduced Sicilian style into Athenian rhetoric
Date: sometimes between 399-347 BCE
-
-
We can assume time via how right/correct Socrates is in his dialogues (i..e how much he talks)
o Earlier dialogues Socrates is main character leading people around
o Middle is Socrates and people debating
o Later writings: Socrates appears very little and is mostly about people
So can assume this was from closer to 399
Location: Athens
-
Plato lived in Athens and did most of his work there
Language: wrote in Attic Greek
Excerpts from the Gorgias:
=identified by stephanus pages (447d-448a) refers to stephanus pages and subsections with letters)
1. 447d-448a:
Chaerephon “can you tell me whether Callicles is telling truth when he says you claim to be able to
answer any question
Gorgias “he is, that exactly what I was doing a short while ago, in fact ill add that for years now I’ve
never been faced with a question I hadn’t met before”
Rhetoric used
in mass
meetings like
law courts
2. 454b: He asks him what rhetoric is,
Gorgias: its effect is to persuade kinds of mass meeting which happen in law courts and so on; and I
think its province is right and wrong” – shows role of rhetoric and its use in logography later on
3. 455a:
Socrates: saying difference between teaching people what’s right/wrong and convincing people that
your opinion is the right one “a rhetorician then isn’t concerned with educating the people in law
courts, all he wants to do is persuade them. I shouldn’t think its possible for him to get so many to
understand in so little time
Court room not good Gorgias: no that’s right
=ACKNOWLEDGE court room not good place for teaching people about law/ justice because speakers
place to teach abt
are biased in favor of their version of case (so court room speaker out to win case not out to get
law/justice (goal of
justice)
rhetoric) here
 court verdict determines who is more persuasive not the actual truth behind who is right (justice
Rhetoric used to
persuade/ push your wise and innocent)
Side note: this is why Socrates dies > escape from prison, abides by jury’s’ verdict because he
side
believes its greater injustice to fail to recognize court authority
=all Athenians generally knew Athenian system is flawed but it was the best they had
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
4. 469d-e
They’re agreeing in law courts its used to convince people…
Polus shows up and thinks rhetoric is great because it gives you power over people
Socrates: “well Polus here are some thoughts of mine for you to criticize, I’m in the Agora and I have
a knife hidden giving me a lot of power and if I decide one of them has to die, he’s dead. Can you tell
me what’s wrong with this sort of power?
Polus: wrong because anyone who does what you’re saying is bound to be punished “
Socrates: Shouldn’t
do crim bc its
morally wrong not
bc its illegal
-Polus saying people don’t commit crime because they don’t want to be caught (risks outweigh
benefits)
-Socrates saying its still wrong even if there’s no law against it or punishment for it (you should not
stab someone so you don’t get caught but shouldn’t do it because its morally wrong  you’re
immoral  immoral people can’t be happy
5. 471a-b:
Polus: “so Archelaus is unhappy then”
Socrates” Yes if he does wrong:
Polus: of course, he does, he has no right to throne (tyrant) and his mother was a slave so by rights
he should be a slave too, but he would only be happy as a slave according to you “
-Archelaus born slave, but killed his uncle and cousin to take over throne
-Polus sarcastically saying oh well if he was born a slave, he should stay a slave doesn’t realize
-Socrates is saying the assassination was what was wrong.
- Polus thinks if people can get away with a power grab then why not do it
6. 472d-e
Socrates: “You think its possible for someone to be happy in spite of doing wrong and being immoral.
You site Archelaus who in your opinion is immoral but happy”
Polus” Yes”
Socrates says
Socrates” Well I claim this is possible. This happy criminal will he be happy if he pays the penalty for
criminals in bad
his actions and is punished”
state till they’re
punished (crime
Polus” the punishment will make him unhappy”
=moral)
Socrates” so it’s your view that a criminal is happy as long as he doesn’t get punished. My view is a
criminal is in a wretched state, but he’s worse off if he doesn’t pay the penalty and continues to do
Polus says they’re
wrong without getting punished than if he does pay the penalty and has punishment meted out to
happy till punished
him by gods and men”
(crime = law)
Saying there is a higher law that you just can’t erase, and that can’t have only legal approach to crime
(be happy because not caught)
-Moral approach- criminal is someone who engages in unjust behavior and saying criminal is
someone engaging in irreligious behavior
o S saying criminality is moral but P saying it’s all by law
7. 476a
Socrates: “you claim nothing is worse for criminal than paying penalty for his crimes, where I claim
he’s worse off is he doesn’t pay penalty. Would you agree no difference between a criminal paying
punishment for his crimes and being justly punished for them. “
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
We think prisons are meant to reform people (correctional institutions) and we want to rehabilitate them
with punishment
8. 478e-479b
Socrates: “criminals’ achievement in avoiding punishment then is not so different than someone in
the grip of an extremely severe illness, to avoid medical treatment because afraid of surgery “
Polus: yes I agree
Socrates: “he’s afraid because doesn’t understand health and good physical state. So criminal can see
punishment as painful, but have a blind spot to how beneficial it is and fail to appreciate that life with
an unhealthy mind- an immoral mind is infinitely worse than life with an unhealthy body
Punishment=
rehab, good
for soul
Socrates says punishment is good for the soul
-Rhetoricians who can persuade juries to avoid their own punishment are like sick people who avoid
punishment out of fear
-Saying if they really knew right/ wrong they would welcome punishment to heal themselves
-PUNISHMENT PURPOSE= REHABILITATION
9. Another one of Gorgias’ student show up: 482e-483a
Callicles: you pretend truth is your goal Socrates, but you steer discussions to ethical ideas, which
depends on convention (nomos), not nature (physis). You know they are opposites, and someone is
bound to contradict themselves
o He says Socrates just goes along with convention
Callicles: morality
is social invention
of weak people to
keep strong down
10. 483b-c
Callicles: in my opinion the weaklings make the majority of rules. Making these rules they look out
for their own interest and try to stop powerful capable people from getting an increased share of
things
There are strong and weak people and stuff they all share. Strong people have more ability to take stuff.
More # weak than strong people, so weak make rules to bind strong people and morality = invention of
weak people scared that strong people will steal their stuff
Morality is a social construct to keep strong few from taking over
11. 491e-492
Callicles” only authentic way of life is to do nothing to hinder the expansion of one’s desires until they
can grow no larger, at which point one should be capable of harnessing their courage cleverness to
satisfy their every whim… Now I don’t think most people can do this so they condemn those who
can/ Saying self-indulgence is punishable and is a way of enslaving those who can naturally:
o
o
Says people praise self-discipline and justice because they don’t have power to take what
they want
Strong take from the weak and if you don’t like it get stronger
12. 507c
Socrates explaining why self-discipline is important:
“that’s my position, it looks as though anyone who wants to be happy but seek out self-discipline.
The best course would be for him to never have to be restrained, but if someone close to him ever
needs it then he must let justice and restraint be imposed, or else forfeit happiness. We should
devote our energy towards ensuring justice and self-discipline and so guarantee happiness. We
shouldn’t refuse to restrain our desires because that condemns us to a life of endlessly trying to
S: you can always
want more
Restraint  happier
+ consider other
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
satisfy them. And this is the life of a predatory outlaw, living as though they’ll never be on good terms
with anyone.
Focus on justice/self-discipline and if always try to get more will be doomed to be eternally
unsatisfied (like tantalus never able to satisfy his hunger and food)
You can always want more (as soon as you get what you want, you’ll want more)
o being happy is restraining/ controlling desires or you’ll = always unhappy, wanting more
o restraining own desires/ considering other peoples desires = on good terms with people
 we = happier
13. 508d
Socrates: “I deny that being wrongly smashed in face stabbed is the most contemptible thing that can
happen to person. Its worst to hit and cut me without just cause is worse. Not only worse for
wrongdoer than me, but is also more contemptible
Punishment = washes
crimes away  create
cohesive community
Better to be victim than being the criminal
Hurting people does more harm (bc criminal alienates themselves from community in doing so)
Punishment washed people’s crimes away allowed them to live in harmony
Saying goal of justice is making a cohesive community
14. 523a-b
Socrates: talking about divine punishment
“During Cronus’ reign, a law the gods sanction to this day is as follows: any human being who lived
moral, god fearing life shall on his death depart to isles of the blessed and live there trouble free, in
happiness, however those who lived immoral and godless life shall be in Tartarus, a place of
retribution and justice. Says gods determine who goes where, whereas our system of passing
judgement can send people to wrong places (we might miss punishing someone in this life, but they
will be punished in the afterlife)
Calicles says justice run by weak people to keep the strong in check
Socrates says justice is run by the gods so people who aren’t afraid of punishment in life will get
what’s coming in the afterlife
Punishment:
-Benefits person
-scares people
from doing bad
15. 525b-c
Socrates: As long as person inflicting punishment is justifies in doing so, then every instance of
punishment should either help the recipient become a better person or should act as an example in
sense that terrifying sight of victims suffering helps to improve. Punishment, both here and with Hades
take the pain and torment away to produce benefit since punishment is the only way to remove injury.
Those that punishment doesn’t benefit and are incurable, can benefit others via their only purpose is to
hang there in the prison of Hades as visible deterrents for every new criminal who arrives.
Some people benefit from punishment
Those who are incurable don’t benefit from punishment, but their punishment is just because it acts
as a deterrent to keep other people from committing terrible crimes
16. 526d-e
Socrates: If what Polus says is true, then Archelaus will become one of these deterrents. I think most
of those who act as examples are drawn from the ranks dictators, kinds, and politicians because
they’re the ones who can and do commit the most terrible and immoral crimes. Homer testify sot
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
this via those destined to be punished for ever in Hades like Tantalus. However no poet portrays
Thersites (or anyone who may have been bad but who wasn’t involved in public life) as incurable and
I imagine its because he didn’t use same scope of wrongdoing. Now Callicles, its power that leads
men to plumb the depths of depravity
Power  worse crimes
o In modern world see criminal as low SES
o Ancient times focuses on people in power as criminals
o Thersites= ugliest and most cowardly soldier in whole Greek army. One day Agamemnon,
commander, is going to tell troops its times to go home and were going to give up on sacking
troy (thinks everyone will object, using reverse psychology)
 Plan backfires and everyone wants to go home
 Odysseus tries to convince people to stay
 Thersites is most vocal about going home and Odysseus beats him with big stick
 Here Thersites is a common soldier vs aristocrat
 Socrates saying his crime is nothing compared to crime of kings because
kings have more power and can hurt more people
17. 526e-527
Concluding argument:
Socrates: it’s not that justice is good in the end, but the idea that if you escape justice in real world
you won’t in after life
If human justice
“ I do all I can to recommend following path of truth and being the best person that I can in my
doesn’t get you,
lifetime. I think it’s a flaw in you that you will not be able to defend yourself in this final assessment
divine justice will
of Hades. The chances are that someone there will smash your face in as if you are no one
More power
 worse
crimes
-Socrates threatening Callicles living life in after life with no power ad status because right now he sides with
people of status and power
-Saying although he has power and status now if be abuses it, he’ll lose it in after life and go to a bad place
-Acknowledging human justice system isn’t perfect but the divine one is and he will be punished
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Week 9: Intro to Roman Law
Roman Civil Law was basis of modern European law
- Most influences from civil law (private law in Athens) = disputes between individuals
- Field of roman law focuses on civil > criminal (public)
3 Roman Periods:
2 ways to divide
First:
o
o
o
Preclassical (up till 1st century BCE)
Classical (through 3rd century CE)
Post classical (from start of 4th century CE)
Second Version:
o
o
o
o
Early republic (ending in 3rd century BCE)
Late republic (ending in 31 BCE)
Classical Period (31 BCE to mid 3rd century CE)
Later Empire/ Post classical (mid 3rd century CE and onwards)
Distinction between 2 schemas is not significant, but helps us recognize that roman law, like history wasn’t always the same
=shows how it changed over time
Roman Political and Legal History:
Origin Story:
-
Rome founded in 753 BCE
Rome was ruled by kings elected for life
1st King= Romulus
-
2nd King= Numa Pompilius
o Credited with creation of many roman laws
-
7 Kings in total (were probably invented, not actual people and just made good origin story)
System of patrons and clients (clientela or patronage)
-
Said this dated back to Romulus
Applied to business, public life and was precursor to formal legal system
How it works:
o
2 Groups: patricians and plebians based on birth family

Patricians (born into it)
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302

Plebians= everyone else (the not patricians)

Said Romulus set it up so every plebian needed to find roman patrician patron and if had conflict could go to lethal
self-help or go to your patron for help

Like an arbitrator hearing your case
Associated with the poor, but not really true

Regal Period:
Law done by custom
According to roman legend, kings created laws to deal with:
o
Family affairs

o
Religious Matters




-
Inheritance and property laws
=Romans had close connection between religion and law
priests= pontificates

they controlled written laws and could change it with need be
Romans saw their religion as contract between them and their gods
Many early laws delt with religious regulations
Very murky period (not many historical records)
Republic Period:
- In 509BCE they kick last king out
- Institute 2 yearly elected consuls as chief magistrates
o 2 of them so meant no one individual ruled without a check on their power existing
 collegiality- had colleague to balance out
 Consuls held imperium (power to command- armies, religious rights and responsibilities, some
legal powers)

Held power to intercessio (can stop actions of other consul)
=Vito power to stop things they see as against community
=check on decisions


-
In Early 5th century BCE:
o Plebs (plebians) were bulk of the soldiers and population
o
Succession of the plebs:



they went on strike and created own government with own elected representatives
=way for them to declare they wanted to have a say in government now
=started the struggle of the orders
Century long class struggle mostly over political rights and some legal rights

o
State’s response:

Most of plebs are soldiers so need them


They created plebian assembly that could pass laws binding to whole community
They elected own representative called tribune of the plebs

Had right of intercessio
o Could Vito something the consuls (other patricians did) to protect interests of
plebs
Law of Twelve Tables
 introduction of written laws permanently on display= called the twelve tables (tablets)
-
Published in 450 BCE
Established customary laws collected and formed written, publicly posted “law code”
-
Roman legal system = “started” with the 12 tables
o
Now not just priests could see them
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
-
12 tables stayed into effect for centuries
o
o
1st superseded (changed) by Justinian time 528-534 CE
Around for 1000 years
Provocatio:
-
=could appeal any judgment of magistrate to assembly of Roman people
-
Implicit in 12 tables and explicit by 4th century BCE
Rome Expanding and need more officials:
In 367 BCE Create
-
Praetor
o Held imperium (power to command)
o Slightly less power than consuls
o
 Couldn’t stop actions of consul or tribune of plebs
Largely responsible for justice system in Rome, appoints judges per individual cases
In 242 BCE:
Dealing with more cases involving foreigners
- Add second praetor
o
Praetor Urbanus (dealing with city affairs)
o
Praetor Peregrinus (deals with non-roman citizens)
After Second Punic War (ends 201):
=Rome governing a lot of land and need more officials
-
Expanding at praetorship level
o
Establish regular office order:
o
Cursus Honorum established

“Ladder of offices”

It said:


Magistrates with imperium (consuls and praetors) have unlimited power outside
the city (militia)
When in Rome, limited by provocatio (right to appeal decision in front of assembly)
and intercessio (Vito power)

Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Censor: counted population to assign them property classes and where to
vote and to be in army
Dictator: appointed in time of
emergency
-
-
Ex. Both consuls off in military
conflict and 3rd enemy appears
Term limited
Imperium level higher than
consuls
Elected 2 every 5 years
Term of office about 1.5 years
Assigned contracts for state business (taxes, building bridges)
Consuls: only 2 per year
-
Year named after their name
General of army
Guide roman politics
-
TOP DOGS
Praetor: most important for judicial affairs:
-
Propraetor’s= people with status of praetor when needed more than 8
Aediles: deal with festivals, archives, growth of city
Quaestors: accountants/ financial officials:
1st entry point into cursus honorum

o
Cursus Honorum: awarded best- and best-connected roman politicians

only very best made it to consul
Praetors:
-
served as judges
-
Announced edict at start of their term:
=Said how they’d carry the duties of their office
o Edict not law but had the same force as of legislation:
 Called ius honorarium to distinguish law based on edict vs formal legislative
law
 Laws of the praetorship
o Edicts changed very little over time (next guy comes in and says I’ll be doing the same thing
o By 2nd century CE edicts are static (no changing at all- same for edicts of aediles)
Lawyers in Rome:
-
Anyone to do with laws were priests at first (pontifices)
End of 4th century BCE (after 12 tables published)
o Laws are no longer a secret avail only to pontiffs
-
Lawyer was a very honorable job:
o
o
-
Their Main Jobs:
o
o
o
-
Could climb up in political office
Called “advocates”
Ad respondendum (giving legal advice to praetor- they might’ve been a military man with little legal background)
Ad agendum (preparing court cases- build it, gather evidence, talk to witnesses)
Ad cavendum (drafting documents)
By middle of 2nd century CE:
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
o
Jurists had more prestige than lawyers (advocates)

o
A step up from average lawyer
Some of them given special right under Augustus (1 st emperor)

Ius respondendi ex autoritate principis


says their opinions were just as binding as if the emperor had said it
“yeah what he said”
Roman Jurists and Law Codes:
The Empire: 1st century CE
Idea of formal legal training took off
- Classical period of roman law
- Jurists influenced legal system
o Professionalization of jurist as a job

1st great jurist: Marcus Antistius Labeo



Didn’t just teach law but wrote books on it too
He was source of “Proculian school” named after jurist Proculus
Masurius Sabinus

Wrote book about civil law ius civile


Was more about case law > Labeo about theory
His student Gaius Cassus Longinus founded schola Cassiana (Sabinian school)
o
Distinguished it from ius honorarium and public law
2nd century CE
Emperor Hadrian
-
Makes ius respondendi legally binding
o
o
=1st step to making jurists a legally binding career
Now being lawyer in Roman empire was good paying career

For “equestrians” rather than freedmen

 wealthy romans of good families studied law

 more demand for school and teachers
Gaius= important roman law teacher:
- 1861 Verona have his lecture notes:
o Discovered a palimpsest (script) of his Institutes
o From 160-161 CE
Other important jurists:
- Aemilius Papinianus (194-212)
-
Domitius Ulpianus (202-223)
Iulius Paulus (1st half of 3rd century)
Herennius Modestinus (1st half of 3rd century)
=put together many laws and taught people how to be lawyers
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
5th century CE
Emperor Theodosius II:
-
Big impact on roman law
He formalized law school
o
Appointed law professors
-
426 CE enacted Law of Citations:
o Made written opinions of Papinianus, Ulpianus, Paulus, Modestinus, and Gaius binding on all
magistrates
 What those jurists had written was law
 =IMPORTANCE:
 Writings of dead jurists was just teaching tools up until then
 Now magistrates have to decide cases by principles in those writings
-
Appointed commission to complete a complete, official law code:
o
`1st since 12 tables (which was just collection of laws not completed)
o
o
Called Codex Theodosianus
Published in 438 in East and soon after in West
Emperor Justinian: in 528
-
Ordered a more complete job
Commissioned Tribonianus to oversee creating the Corpus Iuris Civilis:
-
CORPUS IURIS CIVILIS:
o
4 parts:
 Codex Iustiniani
 Novellae (additions and adjustments)
 Institutiones (2nd edition)
 the Digest (MOST IMFLUENTIAL later in law)
 Digest:
o
o
~2000 fragments and quotations of over 39 different jurists going as far back
as 1st century BCE
Half Ulpian half Paulus
=Most complete and most important source for studying Roman Law
=Most complete Greek or Roman law code up until that point
Sources of Roman Law:
How they made laws, processes, who
Corpus Iuris Civilis most important source for roman law (for us to study it)
-
But what did the romans see as law?
Roman Constitution:
-
SPQR- Senatus Populusque Romanus
o
Senate and people of Rome
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
o
o
Represents roman state
Both equally involved in law:
 Senate:
=advisory council of elders (former magistrates that were reviewed by the censors)




After questor etc. get enrolled in senate
Could get kicked out when censors reviewed it (i.e., if were shady)
Not technically have any legal power just give advice
o Issued Senatus consulta (advise for Roman magistrates)
o Magistrates would follow because it was tradition
People of Rome:
=had different voting assemblies to make sure voting populations voices heard in government
 Divided by 3 types of assemblies: centuriate assembly (Comitia centuriata),
tribal assembly (comitia tributa), and the plebian assembly (concilium plebis)
o Comitia= “assembly”
o Centuriata= looks like century
o Tributa= looks like tribal

Divided into centuriate and tribal via censors (cursus honorum position)
The 3 Assemblies:
1. Centuriate Assembly:
o
Most important one
 Made most important decision
Favors rich > poor vote
Based on recruiting armies (earliest form of recruiting people)

o
o
Organized by wealth (wealthy centuries are smaller and vote 1st)
193 centuries, each gets 1 vote in assembly


o
o
Because divided who did what in army before (wealthy had better equipment vs
poor were foot soldiers)
Wealthy and smaller so rich people’s votes counted more
All vote and majority of that century gives their century decision
Assembly elects’ consuls, praetors, censors, votes on declaring war, hears
citizen appeals in capital cases
For voting only (debating and discussion happens in contiones (sing. Contio))
2. Tribal Assembly:
o Organized by where you live (geographical)
o 31 rural and 4 urban tribes (as of 241 BCE)
Organized by geography
 Voting determined by the lot (draw numbers out of hat)
 makes less important decisions
 Random voting order
Random voting order (more equal)
o Elects crule, aediles and quaestors, votes on leges (laws) (sing. Lex), and judge
trials

Elected more minor people of Cursus Honorum
3. Plebian Assembly
o Organized by tribe
Plebs only
Organized by tribe
o Made up of plebs only and presided over tribune of the plebs
Passed plebiscites =binding on all of Rome
 Patricians excluded from this assembly
o Elects’ tribunes of the plebs and plebian aediles, vote on plebiscites, and judge
o
trials
Didn’t vote on leges (laws) but did vote on plebiscite (sing. Plebiscitum) which via
Lex Hortensia (287 BCE) were legally binding to all of Rome

Could propose law the plebs would like, and it would pass and bind all of Rome
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Other Jobs:
Not all people were lawyers
Senators were forbidden to engage in business/ trade
-
Equites (wealthy men who chose business > politics) or “the equestrian order” or “knights”
o
o
o
They belonged to wealthiest in early Rome
Had best equipment at war (could afford horses)
=wealthy businesspeople (in affairs central to Roman state, nothing to do with politics officially)
BUT would bid on contracts with senate or magistrates to carry out public business (i.e., collect taxes)
 These equities called publicani
Ran on ground corporations that would collect taxes and bring $ to Roman treasury
Was main way to finance Rome
Were politicians but had a lot to say about policy



-
Priests (members of senatorial elite elected for life by special tribe assembly)
o
Different colleges of priesthood

Pontifices in charge of sacrifices and festivals

But controlled laws in early republic

Augurs in charge of auspices (right to test will of gods by dealing with birds) and augury
(could delay and stop public business)
Took the auspices (read omens before any public event to see if the gods would favor it)
Ex. Claudius and the sacred chickens (made sure they were hungry to say it was favorable)
Could lie and say omens were bad to influence if something didn’t happen



Roman Empire:
27 BCE Augustus “restored the republican government” but still held final authority over decisions
-
This was his claim/ assertion (‘restored republic”)
But Government slowly became hierarchical and developed bureaucracy (decisions made by state officials > elected
officials)
By 2nd Century CE:
-
Assemblies no longer vote on laws
No elections
Emperor appoints everyone
o
His staff draft legislation and send to senate for approval
=lost many democratic elements
-
Sources of Roman Law:
o
IMPORTANT DISTINCTION
Republic: 12 Tables, Edicts of praetors, leges, plebiscite and somewhat senatus consulta
(statements issued by senate)

o
=multiple means of making law, involves people and voting
By 5th Century CE (in empire): only source is writing of the jurists
 =everything from writings of legal jurists
Legal Civil Procedure in Rome:
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Legis actiones (actions of law)
Earliest civil procedure:
Needed to use specific wording:
o
o
o
Plaintiffs bring defendant in front of praetor via in ius vocation (formal summons) = initiating the in iure
phase (under judicial discussion)
Plaintiff quotes legal procedure and praetor interviews those involved

If praetor thinks law they quoted applies, they appoint a judge (iudex or pl. iudices) for the apud
iudicem phase (case before a judge)
Judge heard arguments, issues decision and calls a sententia (and case closed)
In 2nd century BCE:
See developments like the lex Aebutia (creates formulary procedure)
=same structure as legis actiones system but more flexible
o Now:
 In ion iure phase didn’t need to give strict wording of established procedure, used interview to
write a formula which defined case and issued instructions to iudex (judge)- “per formulem”

Formula Had:
o Iudicis nominatio names the judge (or 3–5-person panel of recuperatores)
o
Intentio (plaintiff claim)
o
Condemnatio (defines circumstances needed for defendant to be found liable)


If defendant found liable and failed to pay… plaintiff could initiate actio iudicati (where
magistrate authorizes plaintiff to use force to get payment)
No appeal beyond paying up
Under Augustus onwards:
Possibility of extraordinary procedure (cognitio extraordinaria) w Augusts (late republican period)
o Became usual procedure by 2nd century CE
o =emperor, magistrate or delegated official would hear it all:
 Combined in iure and apud iudicem phases (judicial discussion and presenting before judge phases)
 Over time could appeal decision by going to the next highest official
Legal Criminal Procedure in Rome:
Began from imperium of magistrates:
At start republic magistrates had imperium
(unlimited jurisdiction so imperium could do anything to people- beat, imprison, fine them)
o
Only recourse to this is provocatio (right to appeal to an assembly)


Women, children and slaves couldn’t appeal actions of magistrate
Paterfamilias (head of family) held patria potestas (fatherly power)

Was power of life and death over family members

They were ultimate authority concerning people in that family
o
o
o
in divorce they got custody
had power over their adult sons even if they lived separate lives (he still controlled their
money)

was legally the case but in actuality let them live their lives.
Could sell children into slavery

o
But law of 12 tables said if child sold into slavery 3 times, was no longer subject to
patria potestas
When woman got married could stay in her patria potestas or transfer into her
husband’s family’s

More common to transfer it
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302

But women could be independent of patria potestas (speak for self in court)
Republic
-
Procedure didn’t happen often:
o
o
o
o
o
Would draw attention of someone w imperium (magistrate) to action of someone that is harming/ might
harm state of Rome
Magistrate would decide to investigate or not
Would punish offender or not
If citizen, offender could appeal to assembly
But very few people had imperium (consuls, praetors = 4 people)


Few people to punish criminals
Mostly done via lethal self-help while Rome was small
Magistrates only really interested in prosecuting crimes directly involving state
 Criminal proceedings usually involved wealthy men and senators
 I.e., For cases like treason or electoral bribery
 So homicide, theft were more matters of civil law
As Rome Expanded: 2nd century BCE
Under Republic
Magistrates could set up quaestio (panel to investigate criminal matter for him):


Would appoint a consilium of advisors (council) who gave legal advice/ help
He would act as judge and reach verdict
149 BCE- lex Calpurnia:
o
Established 1st quaestio perpetua (permanent court)
 This specific one was quaestio de repetundiis  for hearing cases of repetundae (extortion) by a


governor
How it worked:
o
o
o
o
Normal for provincial governor to go to their province and make money
But could take it too far (i.e. took too much, treat people harshly, took bribes)
Could be prosecuted by any Roman citizen who wanted to take case on
Used jury to make decision, replacing trial before the assembly
This started to expand:
 Made standing courts to deal with specific cases:
 A quaestio to deal with maiestas (treason)
 One for veneficia et sicarii (poisoning and murder/ assassination)
 One for ambitus (electoral bribery)
 One for vis (political violence)
=all political crimes (crimes that directly harm state)

Sulla (dictator) in 82 and 81 BCE:
=Expanding court system
 Adding more permanent courts up till reign of Augustus
o Augusts adds one for adultery
 Overall effect of quaestiones perpetuae expansion  more state involvement in criminal
law
o
Though still restricted mainly to rich men in politics (in republic)
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302

Quaestio de sicariis et veneficis: about assassins and poisoners
o Established criminal court for murder for 1st time
o Criminalized weapon carrying in public
 expanded from political to all kinds of murder in 81 BCE
(but only small % of killings in Rome were actually prosecuted)
The Procedure:

Any citizen could initiate procedure at a quaestiones perpetuae by making
request to magistrate in charge

Trial beings with nominis delatio (denouncing the name) with prosecutor and
defendant and president of court writes inscriptio
o

With inscriptio signed, prosecutor can’t withdraw from case without being
penalized
After about 10 days (depending on trial complexity) trial takes place:
o
o
o
Prosecution speaks 1st
Then Defense
Then formal presentation of evidence and witness statements

Women could be witnesses but normally not people under 20 years old in

criminal cases
Slaves could be witnesses if tortured
Juries:
o
o
149BCE and time of Lex Calpurnia- senators made up juries
Different laws passed and superseded to find makeup of court that was not
susceptible to bribery and avoids revenge convictions

o
o
Ex. When jury of senator trying a senator would avoid convicting them unless
really bad
Juries started including equestrians and senators:
 Juror number varied by court:
 Ex. Quaestio de repetundiis had 75 jurors vs Quaestio de vi
had 51
MAJORITY DECIDED WINNER, TIE= ACQUITTAL (defendant innocent)
Appeals:
No appeal of quaestio (permanent court) decision
o With Augustus became possible to appeal quaestio perpetua to the
emperor
Penalties:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Infamia (disenfranchisement)
Relegatio (exile but stay citizen)
Multa (fine)
Death by burning, crucifixion, being thrown off Tarpeian Rock,
drowning in a sac
Damnatio in metalla (condemned to mines)
Damnatio in opus publicum (community service)
Damnatio in ludos (condemned to the schools (i.e., the gladiatorial arena))
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
After Augustus: 3rd century CE
Quaestiones perpetuae finally become obsolete (outdated)
=Replaced with cognitio extraordinaria: took over having same procedure for civil and criminal courts
o By the roman empire, emperor and senator heard most political cases
With Extending criminal law to lower classes…
 changing how society is made up

It brought about importance of class:

Honestiores were treated better and given less severe punishment

Humiliores not treated as well, harsher punishment
Don’t know exact makeup of the groups, varied over time
Augustus enjoyed policing people’s behavior:


He thought he needed to control sexual and marital behavior
Established moral legislation:
 Ex. Question perpetua de adulteriis
o
o
o
o
=criminalized adultery and making divorce after adultery MANDATORY
Adultery defined as: having sex with a married woman
Men could have sex with anyone who is not a free man, woman or child in a citizen
family
Wives could initiate divorce (say it 3 times with public witnesses, then move out and its done)
Tort Law:
Roman delicts fall between modern crimes and torts:
o
o
Public harm but not criminal
Some characteristics of both:
 followed civil law procedures, and prosecuted by aggrieved parties
 but punishment more like criminal law c
Jurists (Justinian and Gaius) recognized 4 types of delict:
-
Furtum (theft)
Rapina (robbery or theft by force)
Damnum Iniuria datum (property damage)
Iniuria (personal injury)
+ And quasi delicts- small, very specific actions including causing damage by pouring or
dropping something off building, hanging something from building that can cause damage,
rendering incorrect decision as judge, damage to property kept in ship, inn or stable
Week 10: Criminals and Enemy Combat
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Setting the scene:
63 BCE
Cataline= was architect of an assassination
Cicero= famous orator, politician, philosopher, marked out for assassination because was magistrate
Conspirators were executed  Raising Q of can you execute terrorists
o Catch phrases from this situation still exist to this day:
 “Quo usque tandem abutere, _____ patientia nostra’ – Cicero 63 BCE
5 Things:
Author: Gaius Sallustius Crispus or Sallust
- Lived from 86-35 BCE
- Successful general
- Retired form politics and started writing history from 54 BCE
Title: original title unknown
- From early on known as Bellum Catilinae (Cataline’s War)
Date: 44-40 BCE
-
1st work he wrote
Location: Rome
Language: Latin
Historical and Political Background:
-
In 60’s BCE (late republic) was political turmoil over many issues
o 2 main factions in senate:
 Optimates (conservatives and thought resolving problems via give senators and rich people even

more power)
Populares (radical and wanted to appeal to masses)
=both made up of politically active, rich, men
=both “the 1%”
Note:


not political parties, they’re just attitudes/ beliefs of people who called
themselves one or the other
Differ by approach tactics:
o
o
Populares didn’t like going through senate, didn’t get senate pre-approval for
political action
Optimates wanted to keep senate as focal point of any political action
Ex. Debt crisis at time
o Optimates said there should be no debt relief and everyone needs to figure
o
out way to pay

Ex. Marcus Porcius Cato, Marcus Tullius Cicero
Populares said debt should be restructured and in some instances should be
cancelled
 Ex. Gaius Julius Caesar, Lucius Sergius Catalina
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
-
Lucius Sergius Catalina:
o Was noble patrician (from old aristocratic family) and a popularis
o
o
o
o
-

Focus on working around senate instead of through
Good general
Radical proponent of debt reform (because he had debt too)
Advocated for abolishing all debt
63 BCE= BEST YEAR OF EVIDENCE IN ANCIENT ROMAN HISTORY
 =VERY UNUSUAL (have decades of history of bad sources vs here have hour by hour accounts)
Elections were in summer and would start consular term next January
In 64 BCE Cataline unsuccessfully ran for consulship,
o Cicero and Gaius Antonius won that year
o Cataline was super determined ran again in 63 for consulship of 62


Platform designed to appeal to masses
Called for land re-distribution to be more equitable (give people living in the slums of Rome some
land) and cancel all debt

=VERY RADICAL

=threatened core of senate

63 according to Sallust, Cataline had threatened to assassinate Cicero and stage
a coup to take over Rome
o
o
= likely not historically accurate
Likely that Cataline had legit hopes of winning and solving his own debt
problems
o
Cicero was Cataline’s biggest opponent

Cicero accused him of trying to assassinate him before election of
63 BCE

Cicero showed up to consular election wearing breastplate


Modern equivalent of this = going to polls wearing Kevlar
shouting look I’m under attack, he wants to kill me
Cataline loses election

So he turns to revolution
Now Cataline has lost election twice:
 Expensive to run for consul  debt piling up
 =GETTING DESPERATE
Taking a step back:
In 80’s BCE:
2 most important political and military figures in Rome were Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla
o Fought in series of civil wars ending in 82BCE when Sulla became dictator
o Had armies loyal to them called client armies
 Like with patronage system developed under Romulus in Regal period
 Generals= patrons, soldiers= clients
 Made sense they had client armies because soldiers only got rewarded if their general secured
power in Rome
o
82 and 81 BCE Sulla becomes dictator
 Gave soldiers good land in Rome via evicting people who were already there
 In Etruria, modern Tuscany
 Process  difficulties
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302


1. Evicted farmers angry and nowhere to go
2. Veteran soldiers from Sulla on land weren’t great at farming  whole region got
dissatisfied
In 60’s:
When Cataline was losing elections and conspiring vs government:
o Situation in this area (Etruria) was bad
o Cataline didn’t have client army but did have clients scattered around Italy
 Gaius Manlius was one of his clients who was in Etruria at the time:

Soldiers and farmers unhappy and solders still had their weapons
o
o
Were looking for radical solutions to their problems
Meanwhile back in Rome:

Saw Cicero w breastplate and Cataline loses that election

After election Cicero accuses Cataline of ANOTHER assassination plot:

Oct 20th powerful senators gave Cicero anonymous letter revealing conspiracy

Oct 21st senate passes senatus consultum ultimum:
This basically asked consuls to
take over and deal w Cataline



o
o
o
Or “SCU”
Senatus consulta= decision of senate
Ultimum= ultimate/ emergency decision like martial law
o
This one advised senate to take extraordinary measures to ensure security of
the state:

Senate granting emergency power to consuls

Note: senate is only advisory, HAS NO OFFICIAL LEGAL STANDING

So consul responsibility on their actions= their own

Senate can only advise them
Week later, on Oct 27th Manlius starts riot and revolts in Etruria
Nov 7th was supposed to be Cataline assassinating Cicero, set fire to Rome, incite riots
and start slave revolt in Italy
 Cicero tipped off and managed to prevent assassination and arson
 Cataline charged with vis
Nov 8th Cicero meets with senate and delivered scathing speech about Cataline, (senator
who was present at meeting)




Cataline calls the accusations LIES
Senate sides with Cicero
Cataline flees to join Manlius in Etruria
o W Cataline gone, Cicero continues to attack him in public forums,
getting him declared a hostis or “enemy combatant” / public enemy of
state
Dec 3rd:
 Captured members of the Allobroges, tribe of Gaul’s, produced written
evidence of the conspiracy and 5 conspirators:
o Including: Publius Cornelius Lentulus Sura, Gaius Cornelius Cethegus



=2 highest status men captured among conspirators
Gaul’s were in Rome and conspirators approach them, Gaul’s had
trouble but send someone to tell Cicero about it instead
Cicero sets up trap:

o
Allobroges tell conspirator contact to put it in writing and sign it
and they’ll “take it back to their leaders in Gaul and let them
know”
They = arrested
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302

Dec 5th:
 With hard evidence senate votes to execute conspirators
 Senate could ONLY ADVISE CONSULS:
o Had been no trial
o Conspirators still had provocatio right to appeal
o So still Cicero responsible for giving order
 Senate sends other consul (Gaius Antonius Hybrida) to fight Cataline’s army in Etruria
o January 62 BCE Cataline dies in combat and his army= destroyed
Cataline’s War: Direct Quotes:
“L. Cataline, born of a noble line, had great strength of both mind and body, but wicked and crooked disposition. From
adolescence, internal wars, slaughter slaughter seizures and civil disharmony were welcome to him and there he spent his
young manhood. His body was tolerant of hunger, cold, wakefulness beyond the point which anyone finds credible; his mind
was daring, cunning and versatile, capable of any simulation and dissimulation acquisitive of another’s property, prodigal with
his own; burning in desires; his eloquence was adequate, scant his wisdom. The enormity of his mind always desired the
unrestrained the incredible, the heights beyond reach
o
Sallust describing Cataline:
 Many opposites: capable of vast achievements, but achievements are thought to
be nothing good
 Depicts him as always a bad guy “even from adolescence he wanted civil war and

slaughter”
 Criminology focusing on characteristics > act
 True of positivist criminology
Cicero wanted someone to write about this and about him, even though focuses on
Cataline, writing him as superhero with super human qualities and was just corrupt
 “what he could have been” had his environment been different
“After the dominion of L. Sulla, he had been assailed by his greatest urge to capture the Commonwealth; and he
attached no weight to the method by which he might achieve it, provided he acquired kingship for himself. His defiant spirit was
exercised increasingly each day by his lack of private assets and a consciousness of his crimes, both of which he had augmented
by the qualities which I recalled above. He was incited, too, by the community’s corrupt morals, which were afflicted by
the worst and mutual different mutually different maladies ,luxury and avarice.
o
Sallust explaining why Cataline went bad:
 Cataline was inspired by Sulla, his debt from campaigns drove him, and the
community corrupted him
=importance of community and environment (more sociological positivism)
“Finally, he was captivated by love for Aurelia Orestilla (whom no good man ever praised anything but her
appearance), but because she hesitated to marry him through fear of a stepson of adult years, it is believed for certain that he
killed his son thereby, ensuring an empty house for the criminal marriage. It is this affair above all which seems to me (Sallust) to
have been his reason for speeding up the deed: for his vile spirit- hostile to gods and men- could not be calmed by wakefulness
or repose: to such an extent was his conscience praying upon his unquiet mind. Hence his bloodless complexion, and
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
ugly eyes ,and his walk alternating between fast and slow; in short, there was derangement in his demeanour and
face”
o
Cataline had guilt over killing his son


o
NOT TRUE (no evidence of this) even though Sallust says its for certain
Psychological explanation of crime
Sallust tries to explain why man with so many good qualities, birth advantages turn to crimes he
committed:
 Says he was always rotten, evil
 Gives sociological reason (corrupt by his environment)
 Now says psychological element (guilt from 1st major crime, killing his son)
“You already heard before, separately, what I have pondered in my mind. Yet my spirit kindled more and more each
day when I reflect what the conditions of life will be if we do not assert our freedom ourselves. For ever since the Common
wealth passed to the jurisdiction of a powerful few it has always been to them that the dues of kings and tetrarchs
go, that the taxes of peoples and nations are paid; the rest of us- all the committed and the good, noble and ignoble - have
simply been “the masses” denied favor, denied influence, beholden to those to whom, if the Commonwealth thrived, we
would be a source of fear. Hence all favor, power, honor and riches rest with them or are where they want them; to
us they have left the dangers, rejections, lawsuits and destitution.
o
Sallust quoting Cataline:


Feels there are powerful few, taking from masses
Feels relative deprivation and will do whatever it takes to reconcile
“He therefore referred the matter, already discussed beforehand in rumors amongst the public, to the senate. And so,
as often happens in the case of some frightening business, the senate decreed that the consuls should do their utmost
‘to prevent the commonwealth from suffering any damage”. That is the greatest power allowed to magistracy by the
senate according to Roman custom; to prepare an army, to wage war, to coerce allies and citizens by every means, and to wield
the highest command and jurisdiction at home and on campaign. (otherwise, a consul has the right to none of these without an
order from the people)
o
Shows how Rome delt with conspiracy:
 Explaining senatus consulta ultimium (SCU)
 Normally limited by provocatio, but now can coerce citizens, can wield
imperium in city walls
 In 58 when Cicero was trying to justify executing conspirators without a
trail said SCU empowered him to take these actions
o Counter argument: SCU= only advisory bc from senate which=
advisory and responsibility still goes to consul who did it

Timeline issue:


Oct 63 senate passes SCU
Cataline was still present and at meeting
o
If Cataline had thought SCU had power over him he wouldn’t have
gone to the meeting
“But when he had sat down, Cataline, prepared as he was to dissemble everything, with face downcast and supplicant
voice began to demand of the fathers that they should not believe rashly anything concerning him: he was sprung from such a
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
family, and he has regulated his life from adolescence in such a way that he had good prospects in every respect; they should
not reckon that, as a patrician whose own and whose ancestors’ benefits to the Roman plebs were very numerous, he needed
the destruction of the commonwealth- when it was being safeguarded by Marcus Tullius, an immigrant citizen of the City of
Rome. “ -Cataline
o
Cataline’s strategy is to say he’s from good, noble roman family so couldn’t possibly be
evil
 He says Cicero was a novus homo “new man” (someone with no ancestors who has
reached consulship)

Saying Cicero is an outsider and that he, Cataline, is in group
 Used this argument for his earlier crimes
 Because in group families try to protect their own
“Nevertheless, he himself (Cataline) delayed for a few days at the House of C. Flaminius in the territory of Arretium,
while he furnished arms to a neighborhood which was already galvanized; then, with the fasces and other insignia of command,
he marched to Manlius in his camp. When this was found out at Rome the Senate pronounced Cataline and Manlius
enemies and appointed a day before which the rest of their crowd (apart from those condemned on capital charges) could put
down their arms with impunity. Apart from that, it decreed that the consuls should hold a levy, that Antonius (other consul)
with an army should speedily pursue Catiline, and that Cicero should act as defender of the city.
o
Shows difference between criminals and enemy combatant:


Citizens who commit crimes have provocatio (right to trial)
Hostis or enemy combatants have no rights (can be killed, this is an act of war and not a
punishment)
o
=Cataline and Manlius were Roman citizens so not outsiders, just criminals
 Latin title translation= Cataline’s War


War has an enemy
vs
Conspiracy: involved criminals
“Such was the violence of the disease and the kind of rottenness which had attacked many of the citizen spirits. And
not only was there the mental derangement of those who were accessories to the conspiracy, but the entire plebs ,in its
enthusiasm for revolution, approved completely of Catiline’s projects. That, indeed, it seemed to do from its own
particular habit. For it is always those in a community who have no resources who resent the good and extol the wicked, who
hate what is old and crave what is new, who in their hatred of their own circumstances are enthusiastic for everything to be
changed, and who thrive on disruption and sedition with no concern, since destitution is a possession easily held without loss.
But, in the case of the city plebs, there were many reasons for its headlong plight.
o
Points out plebs supported Cataline because people who have little so are always in favor of revolution

“since destitution is a possession easily held without loss” if don’t have anything then have nothing to lose

Relative deprivation theory and some rational choice theory
o
Main idea: even though Cataline is enemy via senate, he still had broad support from
Roman people:
  when is enemy not an enemy, but a HERO

When are they freedom fighter vs revolutionary?
“But, when Tarquinius named Crassus, a noble man of the greatest riches and the utmost power,
everyone cried that the informant was false and demanded a motion concerning the matter - some deeming the
matter incredible, others because, though they reckoned it true, it seemed that at such a moment so strong a man should be
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
mollified rather than provoked, while very many of them were beholden to Crassus through personal business. And so a
crowded senate, when consulted by Cicero, decreed that Tarquinius’ information seemed false and he should be kept in
chains and given no further opportunity of informing except concerning the people whose scheme it had been that he
should lie about so great a matter”
o
Crassus is untouchable (too powerful)

Senators don’t believe its true because of his Crassus’ power, or those who believe it are beholden
(owe him) so won’t act on it

They put blame on Tarquinius, say he’s lying because Crassus is so important it must be
a lie
“The Lacedaemonians (Spartan’s) imposed on the defeated Athenians 30 men to handle their Commonwealth. At first
they began to execute, without trial, all the worst individuals and those resented by all: the people were delighted and said it
was deserved. But after, when their license had gradually increased, they killed good and bad indifferently at whim and
terrified the rest with dread. So a community which had been oppressed by slavery pai a heavy penalty for its foolish delight. “
-Julius Caesar
o
Julius Caesar speaking:

Using example of 30 tyrants in classical Athens:
 They executed people without trial who were clearly bad but then it got out of
control

Slippery slope argument: started with worst people but where does it end
“Yet at the very same time, in imitation of Greek custom, they chastised citizens with lashes and exacted the ultimate
reprisal form the condemned. But, after the commonwealth had matured and the number of citizens led to thriving factions and
the innocent began to be entrapped and other things of this type to take place, then the Porcian Law and other laws were
provided laws by while exile was permitted to the condemned. This I think is, an especially good reason, conscript fathers, for
our not adopting a new counsel. Naturally those who created so great an empire from small resources had better prowess and
wisdom than there is in us, who scarcely retain what has been so well acquired. “ -Julius Caesar
o
Julius Caesar speaking:

Earlier romans abused the system, so stopped executions to stop the corrupt practice


Now had exile
The romans who made that decision made the empire great so they must’ve been wise
vs we can barely hold onto what we have and should probably just listen to them
“Should they therefore be discharged and Cataline’s army be increased? Not at all. But I do propose as follows:
that their money should be confiscated and they themselves held in chains in the municipalities which have the
most effective resources; that no one afterward should bring a motion before the senate concerning them nor discuss them
in front of the people; and that the senate thinks whoever acts otherwise shall be acting against the commonwealth and the
welfare of all” – Julius Caesar
o
Julius Caesar speaking:

Says they should be held outside of city in chains

Ancient world had no long-term imprisonment system:

He suggests this is something they could do

Radical at the time

But everyone agreed with him for a while till another speaker changed their mind
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
“Far different is my inclination, conscript fathers, when I contemplate the circumstances of our dangers and when I
think over to myself the opinions of several of the members. They seem to me to have spoken about the punishment of men
who prepared war against their own fatherland, parents, altars and hearts; but circumstances suggest that we should be wary of
those men rather than that we should be deliberating what decision to take against them. Other misdeeds you pursue only
when they have already been done but, unless you see to it that this one does not befall us, you will invoke the
courts in vain when it has happened: when a city has been captured, the defeated have nothing left.”
o
Cato Speaking:

Saying Caesar is treating them as regular criminals but their crime cant just be
punished, has to be prevented



Says conspirators bring war vs Rome
Threaten the state
If overthrow Rome then could just declare selves innocent
“For the reason, when you decided about P. Lentulus and the others, be assured that at the same time you are issuing
a decree about Cataline’s army and about all the conspirators. The more attentively you conduct these matters, the weaker the
spirit in those quarters will be; but if they see you wilt only a very little, all of them will soon make their defiant presence felt. “
-Cato
o
Cato continues:


Says what they do here will impact entire army and conspirators
Deterrent argument:

If are harsh with the captured, will weaken their allies
“Citizens of the greatest nobility have conspired to burn their fatherland; they summon the Gaul’s, a people most
hostile to the name of Rome, the enemy leader and his army are poised over our heads do you then still hesitate and doubt
what to do with the enemies caught inside the walls. I propose that you take pity on them mere young men who would wrong,
through ambition, and discharge them still armed do not let your mercy and pity make you pitiable yourselves should they take
to arms Oh well certainly this issue itself is harsh you say but you do not fear it … Yet you do, and very greatly; but through
idleness and softheartedness you hesitate, one waiting for another, evidently entrusting in the immortal gods, who have often
saved this commonwealth in its greatest dangers. Yet it is not by prayers and womanly supplications that the help of
the gods is acquired; it is by watchfulness, action and good deliberation that everything ends successfully. When
you submit to lethargy and apathy, you invoked the gods in vain: they are angry and hostile
o
Cato:


Using gender stereotypes
Presents conspirators as enemies even though they haven’t been declared enemy
combatants

Trying to convince them this is war, so DON’T NEED TRIAL

Senate votes in favor and advise Cicero to execute and advise Antonius to chase
Cataline down

Cataline is now an enemy combatant and senate ordered him to BE EXECUTED
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
“Meanwhile Catiline was active in the front line with his unencumbered troops: he helped the flagging, summoned
the fit to take over form injured made every provision, fought hard himself, and often struck enemy: he performed
simultaneously the duties of committed soldier and good commander”
o
Showing Cataline was a good commander and solder
 Acting like a hero
“When Petreius, contrary to what he had expected, saw the great strength of Catiline’s exertions, he led his praetorian
cohort into the enemy’s center and, having caused great confusion there, killed them as well as others who resisted in various
other places; then, from the flanks n both sides, he attacked the rest. Manlius and the Fasesulan fell fighting amongst the
foremost; as for Catiline, after he saw his forces routed and himself with only a few left, mindful of his lineage and his own
old-time status, he rushed into the thickest of the enemy and there, fighting, was stabbed”
o
At end of life, Cataline remembers his ancestry and dies bravely
o
Petreius commanding Roman army, but senate had sent Antonius

Antonius had gout that day and stayed in his tent
Vs

Cataline endured hunger cold, pain, fight alongside soldiers
=SHOWS his bravery, heroism
(almost showing that the worst criminals are those who could have been the best people)
“Yet neither had the army of the Roman people achieved a delightful or bloodless victory: all the most
committed had either fallen in battle or retired seriously wounded. As for the many who had emerged from the camp for the
purpose of viewing or plundering and were turning over the enemy corpses, some discovered a friend, others a guest or
relative; likewise, there were those who recognized their own personal antagonists. Thus, throughout the entire army, delight,
sorrow, grief and hoy were variously experienced”
o
o
Ancient romans, like we still do, struggled with when to treat people as criminal’s vs
enemy combatants
When is acting against established order makes you a criminal vs war enemy
Week 11: Character and Ciceronian Crime:
The 5 Things:
Author: Marcus Tullius Cicero or Cicero
o
o
o
o
Lived from 106-43 BCE
He was an optimate (very conservative, valued the senate)
He was a novus homo (“new man”- no senatorial ancestors)
Greatest orator and lawyer in Rome at time  speeches preserved
Title: Pro Cealio (Latin- on behalf of/ defense of) or In defense of Marcus Caelius
Date: 56 BCE
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
o
o
Less than 10 years after Cataline conspiracy
In 52 BCE Caelius and Sallust were tribunes of plebs together, involved in shady politics
Location: Rome
o
Court case outdoors in city
Language: Latin
Historical Case Background:
Case Overview
o 56 BCE:
o
Prosecution:
o
Lucius Sempronius Atratinus
 Son of Lucius Calpurnius Bestia
 Caelius had prosecuted his dad on electoral corruption the previous year  bad blood?
 Publius Clodius Pulcher
 Cicero’s arch enemy after Cataline conspiracy
Charge= vis (political violence)
Defendant:
 Caelius
 Co Council: Marcus Licinius Crassus (guy “there was no way” was involved in Cataline
conspiracy) and Marcus Tullius Cicero (we are reading his speech)

o
Caelius Background:
o Caelius:



Born early 80’s BCE (so in mid 20’s in trial)
Associated with Cataline as young man
 Though Cicero says Caelius wasn’t involved in Cataline conspiracy
Off to the start of a successful political career in 59
 He successfully prosecuted Gaius Antonius Hybrida for repetundae
(financial malfeasance in provinces against inhabitants- taking brides, extortion)
o
o
Hybrida=Cicero’s co-consul
Hybrida was sent off to fight Cataline’s army, got gout and stayed in
tent
Trial Background:
o
Rome more and more involved with Egyptians in politics

o
Commercial interest- Egypt supplied them with imported grain to feed Romans
King at the time= Ptolemy XII or 12th

Cleopatras Father

He had difficulties in 58 BCE
 Was ousted from throne by people of Alexandria because he was friend and
ally of romans
o
Romans came to his aid
o
Restoration of Ptolemy 12th
 Everyone was involved because whoever did would get a lot
of glory

55 BCE he was restored but before this:
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302

Alexandrians sent Dio, man from embassy to get

romans not to restore Ptolemy
Anyone on diplomatic mission should have diplomatic
immunity (cant be harmed, should be treated with respect)

Case Summary
Was KILLED on way to Rome
Caelius and his ex-girlfriend Clodia somehow get
mixed up in all of this
o At trial prosecution argues they cooked up
this plot- charge with vis
o Caelius acquitted
 Goes on to have successful career
 Supported Caesar in civil war
Future Outcome:
o In 48 BCE mid civil war between Caesar and
Pompey:
 He= magistrate known as praetor
peregrinus
 During office proposed radical
debt relief  expelled from office
 Raises an insurrection and was
killed fighting
 =SIMILAR TO CATALINE
The Case:
Cicero speaking throughout, all from his speech
Members of the jury: “if somebody were here who knew nothing about our laws, our courts, and our
customs, he would certainly wonder what crime could be so vicious that on a holiday when public games are taking
place, when all civic business is at a halt, this one court should be in session. He would have no doubt that the
defendant is charged with so massive a crime that to leave it unattended would result in the collapse of the state.”
o
Day of Trail was festival of Megalensia

o
Famous for having feasts spectacles, everything was closed down including other court cases
Charge of vis was so serious, not even an important holiday could delay it
 But Cicero is mocking the charge here
 Saying law on vis is meant for massive riots, insurrection, when state is in danger, HUGE
CRISIS and that that merits keeping up still trying someone
+


Makes Caelius sound like charming young man, he could never do something as dangerous as vis

Does it in 48BCE when raises own insurrection, but no one could have predicted the future
Cicero presents trial as if it were a roman play

Plays have “the young man who gets into trouble” who in the end turns out to be a good guy after
all

He presents Caelius as young man like in the stock roman comedies
o Cicero makes case less about the acts and their criminality and more about
the person being charged (that he’s the dashing young hero)
Who was ever, at one time, more amiable to men if distinction, or who was more tightly bound to men of
low vices? What citizen was ever a more staunch conservative at times, who was a more unspeakable enemy to
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
this state? Who enjoyed nastier pleasures, who enjoyed toil better? Who was greedier for plunder, who was more
generous with gifts? He had, members of the jury, remarkable characteristics: he embraced many men in
friendship, he was respectful and polite, he shared what he had with everyone, in time of need he assisted his
friends with cash, influence, physical labor, criminal behaviour if necessary, and daring; and he could alter his
character and direct it for the occasion, twisting and bending it in all directions. He behaved austerely with serious
people, pleasantly with relaxed ones; he was solemn with old men, and affable with young; daring with criminals,
loose with the lecherous
o
Cicero talking about Cataline:


All his remarkable paradoxical character traits
He has always argued against Cataline, so looks bad that Caelius has associated with Cataline

Arguing:


o
Caelius not Cicero’s typical client


o
Says lots of young men were his follower
Cataline “wasn’t as bad” at the time
Typical had made a name for himself, high up and had minor charge
Caelius is snotty playboy, who parties, spends family money, lives carelessly
Caelius began to make name for himself by prosecuting Hybrida

Hybrida was Cicero’s co consul and Cicero has defended him, and lost
=Even though Caelius wasn’t part of Cataline conspiracy, has a lot working against him
defending Caelius
But to you, Balbus, I’ll answer with your approval, if I may, if its right for me to defend someone who never
turned a party, who has been in pleasure gardens, who has used unguents who has been to Baiae. I’ve seen and
heard many people in this nation myself who not only tasted a small sample of this life and touched it, but even
surrendered their entire adolescence to pleasure; they came out of it sooner or later and returned, to good
harvest and became serious men of consequence
o
o
Baiae was beach resort town
Cicero recognizes that Caelius is playboy and not his typical client
 Says he’s young, young men are wild and will settle down when he’s older
 Makes him seem like the young man in roman plays who get into trouble because of their
hormones but all turns out in the end
=Making case about Caelius as a person
Why:
o
o
He’s 3rd defense speaker so first 2 delt with actual charges
Wants to close it off on memorable character portrayal
There are two charges. One involves gold, the other poison; in both of them one and the same person is
concerned. The gold borrowed from Clodia; the poison was sought to give to Clodia. All the rest are not charges
but slanders; they belong to a violent quarrel rather than a public court. “Adulterer, degenerate, graft-giver” That's
brawling, not prosecution. There's no foundation for these charges, no basis. They're fighting words thrown out hit
or miss by an angry prosecutor with no evidence.
o
o
Cicero saying the gold and poison matters don’t have anything to do with Dio’s death
Cicero accuses prosecution of ignoring facts of case and accusing his client character
o
Introduces Clodia as the villain:

Saying they are redirecting it to character, not him
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302


She was a famous socialite
Has many scandals, partied a lot
Catullus at Lesbia’s
Clodia made famous through poetry like of Catullus (picture in red robe)
o Catullus wrote scandalous and serious poems about his love affair with “Lesbia” who was actually Clodia
And Note:
Clodia related to a prosecutor in the case
Clodias is Caelius’ ex-girlfriend
=CICERO uses that Clodia (woman) was promiscuous, shameless character, just a slut vs Caelius is just sowing his wild oats
=USES DOUBLE STANDARD
“But if, once that woman is removed, there’s no charge and no backing remaining for their attack on
Caelius, what else am I supposed to do as an advocate, except to fight off the attackers? And I would do it more
vigorously, if I didn’t have previous enmities with that woman’s husband- I mean her brother; I keep making that
mistake”
o
Talking about Clodia, attacking her character

Brings up Clodius her brother and the rumor going around Rome about their incest
If there’s anyone who thinks hookers should be forbidden to young men, he’s really severe- there’s no
denying it- but he’s completely at odds not only with the lax standards of the present generation but even with the
customary allowances made by our ancestors. When was this not common, when was it criticized, when was it
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
forbidden? When, in short, was it true that what is now permitted wasn't permitted. Here I’m only defining the
issue, and I’m not naming any particular woman. That much, I will leave unsaid.
o
Cicero saying normal part of Caelius and his generation is sleeping with prostitutes

Says prostitutes aren’t citizens

So citizens can’t be payed for sex

Saying Clodia is essentially a hooker as a sexually available woman
o
o
Clodia and Cicero had a relationship
But he says if any money changed hands, it was her giving him money
=Using her openness/ availability and gender stereotypes making
Caelius as good guy and her as hooker
If an unmarried woman opens her house to everyone's desire and openly sets herself up as a whore and
decides to enjoy parties with men with whom she has absolutely no connection, if she does this in Rome, in her
gardens, in the crowds of Baiae, if in short she behaves loosely not just in the way she walks but in what she wears
and who her friends are, it's not just her flashing eyes and loose language but her hugs, her kisses, her beach
parties, her boat trips, her carousels that make her seem not only a whore but a whore who solicits men
shamelessly…. If some young man hooked up with her, does he seem to you, Herennius, an adulterer or a lover;
does he seem to have wanted to assault her modesty or just to relieve an itch?
o
Using gender norms and emphasizing character of Caelius and Clodia

Cicero is putting on show for the jury

Making Caelius seem like just doing what all guys do
Saying Clodia is the real villain

In the charge there resides no suspicion, in the case there is no logical argument, in the action that’s
supposed to have taken place there isn’t a trace of the conversation, of the place, of the time; no witness is named,
no accomplice; the whole charge is brought forth form a hostile, disgraced, cruel, criminal, sex-crazed home… The
house said to have been assaulted in this crime is filled with honesty, dignity, duty, and conscience; that's the
house from which the testimony under oath that was recited to you comes, leaving to be decided something about
which there is no doubt, whether it seems more likely that a rash, pushy, angry woman invented the charge, or a
serious, wise, and balanced man gave his evidence scrupulously.”
o
Bringing up their families:

Sociological positivism focusing on families “the house” of both:

Clodias family is a criminal one
o
 she’s just invented the charge because family raised her to be like
that

Says Caelius’ family is not
Great Indeed is the power of truth! It can defend itself easily and on its own against the wits and
cleverness and wiles of men, against everyone’s invented ambushes! This whole tale, for instance, belongs to an
aging lady poet who has written a lot of comedies- but it has no plot and no ending
o
o
Saying prosecution is like they’re in the theatre right now, inventing a story
Cicero presenting Caelius as typical comedic hero and Clodia as villain and now saying
prosecution directing case with theatrics
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Members of the jury, my case is said and done. And now you understand how important the judgment is
for which you are responsible, what a serious matter has been entrusted to you. You're sitting as a court dealing
with crimes of violence. That law applies to the empire, to its dignity, to the condition of our country, to the wellbeing of us all. The law was passed on the proposal of Quintus Catalus during an armed revolt of citizens, when
commonwealth seemed on its deathbed…it is the law that after the fire during my consulship had been brought
under control, put out the last smoking remains of the conspiracy. This is the law under which this young man
Caelius is being prosecuted not to exact punishment on behalf of the Commonwealth but on behalf of the sexual
perversions of this woman.
o
Cicero points out charge is vis:
 Quintus Catulus created this law fighting Lepidus who assembled an army to march on
Rome


 =law meant for actual threats
Says this law is for very urgent matters and prosecution can take place on holidays
Caelius’ case is NOT threatening state
Cicero makes case about character > fact and CASE IS SUCESSFUL
-
Like positive criminologists
Crime and Community in Ciceronian Rome:
Modern book by Andrew Riggsby
Cicero pointed out that the performance in the court had taken the place (for the jurors) of a theatrical performance. He went on to draw
parallels between figures and actions in the case and certain characters and plots of drama (especially comedy) . By establishing these
homologies Cicero invites the jurors to view themselves as a comic not a judicial audience. As such they would naturally
support the young hero (Caelius) in preference to the prosecutors …He in essence asked the jurors to use a general theatrical
metaphor to govern their behavior in the court once he is done this cicero's view of specific issues such as the proper
outcome of the case seems to flow naturally a modern parallel might be the use of the quote war on quote metaphor by politicians
speaking to a citizenry generally suspicious of increases in state power or expenditure. If, however the public can be made to feel that “war” (on
drugs on poverty and cancer) is being waged then unspoken consequences follow naturally. Of course, then cost should not be counted
carefully; of course then, situation demands unusual obedience to central authority. The trick here lies in trying to replace an entire
metaphorical system
o
Saying metaphors get us to think in different ways


Cicero uses metaphors to get jury to think differently
Jury= comedy and Caelius is comic hero  they fall into supporting the “hero” so they
focus on ways he matches being a good man who got caught in a bind
The crime of vis has two defining characteristics. The first is the actual act of violence. The second is an adverse effect on society
as a whole. Perhaps by statute, and certainly in fact, is it is vis contra rem publicam that is criminal. Comparison of treatment of
violence in criminal law vs civil law in revealing in literary and philosophical texts. Rome had a long tradition of reliance on
popular justice, usually in symbolic forms but even to the point of violence. This does not indicate “permissive” attitude to
violence as diffuse authority to use it. Texts from middle to first century indicated their attitudes were still geld and that
violence in pursuit of legit foals was legit itself if not as a first resort.
o
o
Draco’s laws weren’t harsh because they required violence, but more so because
allowed it
Law of vis shows us that Romans started limiting authority to use violence
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Defined “state” as political institution which claims legitimate use of violence. The rise of the Roman principate involves
creating a Roman state in roughly this definition. Or perhaps we should say two phenomena (rise of particular government of
and the underlying “state”) are different aspects of same political process of centralizing authority we can also see that those
changes had started to take place in our period.
o
Key element of modern thinking of crime and punishment is that the state uses authorized
violence, but ordinary citizens can’t


o
We give state ability to police society with violence
Now we see racialized situations where police abuses authority
In ancient Greece and Rome, citizens could use violence justifiably

Questionable application of vis and charging him shows the state trying to restrict others
authority to use violence (i.e., wouldn’t want him killing Dio)

=non state authorized violence here is seen as political violence against the state
Cicero focuses his argument on the:

person > actions
 criminals > crime
 Links it to pop culture
Course conclusion:
o Modern and ancient seem far apart
o Crime and criminality connected to community
 Violence within community is violence, but outside its warfare
 Outlaws are people who don’t behave along with rules of society
o Crime theories developed or modern times but draw many parallels to ancients
o Pop culture aspects of ancient show its closer to modern times than we may think
Quiz Questions:
Quiz 1:
- What was the charge in the trial of Publius Claudius Pulcher, in 249 BCE? Treason
- What was the language of classical Athens? Attic Greek
- After he was acquitted in criminal court, O.J. Simpson was brought to trial in
a civil court.
- In the dating systems discussed in lecture, the abbreviation CE stands for Common
Era .
- The Classical Period spans from 480-323 BCE. True
- Which of the following was the earliest? Regal Period
Hissarlik was the historical site discovered by Frank Calvert, Heinrich Schliemann,
-
and Wilhelm Dörpfeld.
Early Rome was ruled by elected kings
What is the Greek term for 'city-state'? Polis
The Trojan War occurred near the end of the Bronze Age .
Quiz 2:
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
-
The Archon Basileus was the official who was responsible for hearing cases regarding
religion, homicide, and acts of deliberate wounding.
-
What was the major difference between a public case and a private case in
Classical Athens? D. A public case could be prosecuted by a third party,
while a private case could only be prosecuted by the aggrieved party
The Archon Polemarchus presided over cases involving non-citizens in Classical
-
Athens.
-
-
-
-
One of our most extensive early inscriptions of a Greek law code is from Gortyn.
Where is Gortyn? Crete
Of the following choices, which is the argument I used in my lecture that murder
was not a crime in classical Athens? Murder was prosecuted as a dike rather
than a graphe (PRIVATE> PUBLIC)
Agamemnon is killed in the first play of the Oresteia. Cassandra is also killed in
this same play. True
The elders of Argos make up the chorus in the Agamemnon. True
The ‘outlaw and wanderer’ in the following passage is Orestes “For there shall
come one to avenge us also, born to slay his mother, and to wreak death for his
father’s blood. Outlaw and wanderer, driven far from his own land, he will come
back to cope these stones of inward hate. For this is a strong oath and sworn by
the high gods, that he shall cast men headlong for his father felled.”
The action of The Libation Bearers ends with Athena acquitting Orestes of
murder. False
Who of the following does NOT appear as a character in the Oresteia? Tantalus
Quiz 3:
-
-
Choose the answer that best completes the following: Clytaemestra acts in a
masculine manner and feminizes Agamemnon before killing him. This fits well
with Walklate’s explanation of criminology because… A. people often assume
that men are more likely to be criminals and women have the
characteristics of victims.
Which of the following is NOT one of the explanations or theories of crime
Walklate discusses? Differential Intelligence Theory
The way that societies think about homosexuality and identity was used as an
example of which approach to crime and criminals? Social Constructionist
In the Oresteia, people are most masculine when they are doing violence, and
most feminine when they are victims of violence. True
The criminological idea of Social Control Theory asserts that the causes of crime
are in the individual rather than the community. False
-
The scene in the Iliad where Athena appears behind Achilles and urges him not to attack
Agamemnon is an example of psychological positivism.
-
The idea of 'involvement' in Social Control Theory suggests that if your schedule
is filled with other activities, you are just too busy to commit crimes. True
The idea that "men are supposed to be violent, and women are not, and this
leads men to be more involved in violent crime" illustrates the Hegemonic
Masculinity approach to crime. True
The idea that a criminal conducts a cost/benefit analysis before acting belongs
to: Rational Choice Theory
Lombroso is credited with the development of biological positivism as an explanation for
-
-
criminal behaviour.
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
Quiz 4:
-
-
The legal action against Euphiletos is a dike. True
If Lysias 1 was a real speech, Euphiletos spoke it at the trial. True
The "he" in the following passage is Eratosthenes :
He did not argue, gentlemen, but confessed that he was in the wrong; he begged and
pleaded not to be killed, and was ready to pay money in recompense.
Which of the readings is the following passage most relevant for?
If a man kill another unintentionally in an athletic contest, or overcoming him in a
fight on the highway, or unwittingly in battle, or in intercourse with his wife, or
mother, or sister, or daughter, or concubine kept for procreation of legitimate
children, he shall not go into exile as a manslayer on that account. Lysias 1
-
-
Which of the following is NOT an exemption to a charge of homicide, according to
Draco? Killing a thief
Powerful people, according to Socrates in the Gorgias, are most likely to have the
most terrible punishment in the afterlife. True
Who is the speaker of the following passage?
In my opinion it's the weaklings who constitute the majority of the human race
who make the rules. In making these rules, they look after themselves and their
own interest, and that's also the criterion they use when they dispense praise
and criticism. They try to cow the stronger ones—which is to say, the ones who
are capable of increasing their share of things and to stop them getting an
increased share. Callicles
-
Who of the following is NOT an interlocutor in the Gorgias? Cephalus
Which of the following statements is true? In the Gorgias, Socrates says
some criminals are beyond help
What was the charge that led to Socrates' execution? Asebeia
Quiz 5:
-
Flagrante delicto signifies being caught in the act. True
Which of the following was never a matter for a quaestio perpetua in Rome?
Rebellion by Slaves
Which of the following was NOT a Roman assembly (i.e. voting body)?
Centuriate, Tribal and Plebian Assemblies
The lex Aquilia formalized the cognitio extraordinaria. False
When was the cognitio procedure incorporated into Roman law? Late
republican period
Struggle of the Orders is the name given to the class conflict that arose in Rome between
patricians and plebeians.
-
-
Which of the following was NOT a Roman legal procedure? Eisangelia (per
formulen, legis actio, cognitio extra ordinem ARE)
The Law of Citations made the written opinions of some jurists binding. Which of
the following jurists was NOT included in the list? Sabinius (Ulpianus, Paulus,
Gaius, Papinianus ARE)
What is meant by legis actiones? The early form of civil procedure in Roman
Law
Who of the following lived second? Gaius (out of Justinian, Theodosius 2,
Augustus Ulpianus)
-
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8753302
-
Downloaded by Nithil Charles (nithilcharles@gmail.com)