Academic literature on the topic 'Indictments (Roman law)'

<p>This article aims to answer the question whether such a participant who can be described as the suspect was known in the Roman criminal procedure. The analysed procedure, especially of bringing a charge in the proceedings before <em>quaestiones</em>, as well as the examples of criminal cases settled within the framework of <em>cognitio</em>, quoted in this paper,<em> </em>confirm that<em> </em>the Romans distinguished between the accused and the suspect, even though they did not develop separate terms and definitions to identify these two different procedural roles. An important moment that distinguished the status of the accused person in the Roman criminal procedure was entering his name in the register of the accused (<em>inscriptio inter reos</em>), which took place when the indictment was brought against him. From then on, the accused became <em>reus</em>, that is a rightful party to the proceedings who was able to use his procedural rights fully.</p>

Abstract Several scholars (many of whom belong to the approach commonly labelled ‘Paul within Judaism’) have argued that in Romans 2:17 Paul does not address a Jew but a Gentile who believes he can ‘call’ himself ‘a Jew’ because he has been circumcised and adopted customs from the Mosaic Law. These scholars claim that identifying the addressee as a Gentile dramatically affects the interpretation of Romans by shifting a purported Pauline critique of ‘legalism,’ Jewish ‘ethnocentrism’, or ‘Judaism’ to the more accurate critique of gentile transgression and Judaizing. These scholars have rightly noted that the identification of the addressee as a Jew in 2:17 has often been assumed rather than argued. This article responds to common arguments made for a Gentile addressee, provides a positive case that the figure is Jewish, and argues that a Jewish addressee can be accommodated within an interpretation of Rom. 2–4 that does not interpret Paul’s indictment in terms of ‘legalism,’ Jewish ‘ethnocentrism’, or ‘Judaism’, but as an address to a Jewish kinsman of the sinful generation of ‘the last days’ that precedes the national restoration.

Abstract Paramount in the Political Tactics Of Octavian in 32 B.C. was the conversion of the de facto civil conflict with Antony and his adherents into a helium external with Cleopatra as queen of Egypt. The surviving sources dramatize the manoeuvre by featuring antithetically the datum that declaration of war, at the end of October 32, was issued against Cleopatra, not Antony.1 They do not, however, specify the formal charges against Cleopatra detailed in justification of a custom pique helium in accordance with Roman public law. The savage propaganda campaign unleashed against Cleopatra poured out a flood of extravagant indictments and recriminations (lust, whoring, incest, use of magic and drugs, drunkenness, animal worship, rampant luxury) that have echoed down through the ages in history, literature, and the popular image of her.2 A formal declaration of war, however, required a diplomatically formulated bill of particulars.