Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article applies an intersectional approach to Roman invective (and praise) to elucidate how those at the centre of Roman power exploited discriminatory and laudatory ideologies relating to intersections of identity to sway a Roman jury. Analysing the depiction of an unnamed woman in the Pro Scauro shows how Cicero plays upon normalized prejudices to bias the jury against ista Sarda. These internalized prejudices could also be utilized to discredit women with privileged intersectional identities, as demonstrated by Cicero's portrayal of Clodia and Sassia in the Pro Caelio and the Pro Cluentio, a process that helps reify the marginalization of certain identities.

Although Clara Wieland tells us of her brother's admiration for Cicero, throughout the entirety of Charles Brockden Brown's Wieland, only one work by Cicero is identified by name. Early in the novel, Pleyel and Wieland are debating the merits of the Oration for Cluentius, a Ciceronian defense for a man accused of poisoning his murderous stepfather, in which Cicero defends sophistry and moral relativism. He argues that a lawyer cannot be held accountable for what he has said in another case. The sophistic arguments Cicero makes in this oration exemplify what bothered Brown most about the legal system. The oration, connected to the novel both thematically and rhetorically, is a key to understanding Wieland. Clara, a \"double-tongued\" narrator, because she is modeling her own \"eloquence\" on that of Cicero, recounts a \"mazy\" story of family violence in which it is impossible to ascertain motive, guilt, or truth. By writing a novel in which sensory evidence cannot be relied upon and truth is obscured by a quest for motive, Brown was able to criticize legal practices that sanctioned sophistry and moral relativity by demonstrating how easily the average reader-juror could be manipulated and confused by an eloquent and unreliable speaker.

Stories about brothers were central to Romans' public and poetic myth making, to their experience of family life, and to their ideas about intimacy among men. Through the analysis of literary and legal representations of brothers, Cynthia Bannon attempts to re-create the context and contradictions that shaped Roman ideas about brothers. She draws together expressions of brotherly love and rivalry around an idealized notion of fraternity: fraternalpietas--the traditional Roman virtue that combined affection and duty in kinship. Romans believed that the relationship between brothers was especially close since their natural kinship made them nearly alter egos. Because of this special status, the fraternal relationship became a model for Romans of relationships between friends, lovers, and soldiers. The fraternal relationship first took shape at home, where inheritance laws and practices fostered cooperation among brothers in managing family property and caring for relatives. Appeals to fraternalpietasin political rhetoric drew a large audience in the forum, because brothers' devotion symbolized themos maiorum, the traditional morality that grounded Roman politics and celebrated brothers fighting together on the battlefield. Fraternalpietasand fratricide became powerful metaphors for Romans as they grappled with the experience of recurrent civil war in the late Republic and with the changes brought by empire. Mythological figures like Romulus and Remus epitomized the fraternal symbolism that pervaded Roman society and culture. InThe Brothers of Romulus, Bannon combines literary criticism with historical legal analysis for a better understanding of Roman conceptions of brotherhood.