Law, Fact and Narratives in Ancient Rhetoric: The Case of the causa Curiana



The present article examines the role of narratives in rhetoric and jurisprudence, trying to understand the ancient system of ‘issues’ (staseis), an essential part of the rhetorical curriculum in antiquity, with the help of some basic notions of legal semiotics. After a brief reconstruction of the doctrine, I argue that narratives are essential to classical rhetoric, that the basic types of issues correspond to particular stories in and of the trial, and finally that the system of ancient rhetorical theory is capable of giving an account of the narrativisation of the pragmatics of the trial. Then I turn to a cause célèbre of Roman law, the causa Curiana, trying to show that not only the trial itself but also subsequent (ancient and modern) debates concerning the case were shaped by some grand narratives, and that stories about the trial are likely to return to the court, where they may become part of the story of the trial.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Martin, Josef. 1974. Antike Rhetorik. Technik und Methode. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Striller, Friedrich. 1887. De Stoicorum studiis rhetoricis [Breslauer philologische Abhandlungen 1], Breslau.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maróth, Miklós. 1992. Die Araber und die antike Wissenschaftstheorie. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Matthes, Dieter. 1958. Hermagoras von Temnos 1904–1955. Lustrum 3: 158–214.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calboli Montefusco, Lucia. 1986. La dottrina degli “status” nella retorica greca e romana. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braet, Antoine. 1984. De klassieke statusleer in modern perspectief: een historisch-systematische bijdrage tot de argumentatieleer. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halm, Carolus. 1863. Rhetores Latini Minores. Lipsiae: Teubner.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jackson, Bernard. 1988. Law, fact and narrative coherence. Roby, Merseyside: Deborah Charles Publications.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Braet, Antoine. 1987. The classical doctrine of status and the rhetorical theory of argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 20: 79–93.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horak, Franz. 1972. Die rhetorische Statuslehre und der moderne Aufbau des Verbrechensbegriffs. In Festgabe für Arnold Herdlitzcka, ed. Franz Horak and Wolfgang Waldstein, 121–141. München: Fink.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bennett, W. Lance, and Feldman, Martha S., 1981. Reconstructing reality in the courtroom: Justice and judgment in American culture. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shapiro, Barbara J. 2001. Classical rhetoric and the English law of evidence. In Rhetoric and law in early modern Europe, ed. Victoria Kahn and Lorna Hutson, 54–72. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stroux, Johannes. (1949). Summum ius summa iniuria. In Römische Rechtswissenschaft und Rhetorik, 7–66. Potsdam: Ed. Stichnote.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vaughn, John William. 1985. Law and rhetoric in the causa Curiana. Classical Antiquity 4: 208–222.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vonglis, Bernard. 1968. La lettre et l’esprit de la loi dans la jurisprudence classique et la rhétorique. Paris: Sirey.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jackson, Bernard. 2000. Literal meaning: Semantics and narrative in biblical law and modern jurisprudence. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 13: 433–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schittko, M.P. 2003. Analogien als Anrgumentationstyp. Vom Paradeigma zur Similitudo. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Winterbottom, Michael. 1982. Schoolroom and courtroom. In Rhetoric revalued, ed. Brian Vickers, 59–70. Binghamton (NY): CMERS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawPázmány Péter Catholic UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations