From Cicero’s Brutus (Section 131), we learn that Lucius Sabellius was a Roman defendant prosecuted in his old age by the plebeian accuser Lucius Caesulenus under the Lex Aquilia. [1, 2]

Below is the linguistic breakdown and the historical context of the passage.

Latin Text & English Translation

• Latin (Splash Latino):

  "Atque eodem tempore accusator de plebe L. Caesulenus fuit, quem ego audivi iam senem, cum ab L. Sabellio multam lege Aquilia de iustitia petivisset."

  [1]
• English (Attalus / E. Jones Translation):

  "At the same time lived L. Caesulenus, a man of plebeian rank, and a professed accuser, like the former: I myself heard him in his old age, when he endeavoured, by the Aquilian law, to subject L. Sabellius to a fine, for a breach of justice."

  [1]

What We Learn About L. Sabellius

• Legal Target: Sabellius was targeted by a professional plebeian prosecutor (accusator de plebe) named Lucius Caesulenus. [1, 2]
• The Charge: He faced financial penalties (multam petivisset) brought under the Lex Aquilia, a Roman law traditionally regulating property damage, loss, or wrongful behavior. [1, 2]
• Cicero's Observation: Cicero notes that Caesulenus was incredibly skilled at making Sabellius look guilty, using highly "suspicious and incriminating" language to exaggerate the claims against him. [1]

The Context of the Passage

• The Literary Work: The Brutus is a dialogue written by Cicero in 46 BC that acts as a comprehensive historical survey of Roman orators and public eloquence. [1]
• The Chronological Placement: In Section 131, Cicero is reviewing the minor and less reputable orators from the late 2nd century BC (the era of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus). Sabellius is not mentioned because he was an orator, but rather to provide a historical example of the prosecutorial style of Caesulenus. [1, 2, 3]
• Textual Nuance: It is worth noting that in classical scholarship (such as the Loeb Classical Library edition), the name "Sabellius" is widely considered a manuscript corruption. Historians and editors frequently emend the name to Lucius Saufeius, a well-known contemporary and friend of Atticus. [1]

(Note: This classical Roman legal figure is completely unrelated to the famous 3rd-century Christian heretic Sabellius, who founded the theological doctrine of Sabellianism/Modalism). [1, 2, 3]

If you are tracking this down for a paper or translation, would you like me to analyze the legal mechanics of the Lex Aquilia in this specific context, or provide more information on the emendation to Lucius Saufeius?[1]

L'AI può commettere errori, quindi verifica le risposte 

can you expand on the Latin for the case by the prosecutor — his words against Sab?

In Cicero’s Brutus (131), Cicero does not quote the exact verbatim speech that Lucius Caesulenus used against Sabellius. Instead, he uses highly precise Latin rhetorical terms to describe the manipulative linguistic style of the prosecutor's words. [1]

The second half of Section 131 provides the vital expansion of how Caesulenus spoke: [1]

"...non fecissem hominis paene infimi mentionem, nisi iudicarem qui suspiciosius aut criminosius diceret audivisse me neminem." [1]

Translation: "...I should not have mentioned a man of nearly the lowest rank, if it were not my judgment that I have never heard anyone speak in a more suspicious or incriminating manner."

Analysis of the Prosecutor's Style

Cicero highlights two specific Latin adverbs that define how Caesulenus built his case: [1]

• Suspiciosius (More Suspiciously): This indicates that Caesulenus's words were designed to plant doubt and twist ordinary actions into looking highly conspiratorial. He didn't just state facts; he framed every detail to make Sabellius look shifty and deceitful.
• Criminosius (More Accusatorially / In a More Incriminating Manner): This means his speech was hyper-aggressive, reproachful, and tailor-made to manufacture guilt. He chose emotionally charged vocabulary that automatically implied criminal intent, even where evidence was thin.

The Mechanics of the Lex Aquilia Claim

The nature of the words is closely tied to the specific legal phrase used earlier in the section: [1]

• "multam lege Aquilia damni iniuria petivisset" (or de iustitia in some older manuscripts). [1, 2]

Under Roman civil law, the Lex Aquilia primarily dealt with damnum iniuria datum—financial compensation for property damage or loss caused unlawfully. Because this was a civil suit focused on damages rather than a major criminal trial, a standard prosecutor might have given a dry, technical breakdown of property values.[1]

Instead, Cicero points out that Caesulenus treated it like a massive criminal conspiracy. He was an accusator de plebe (a low-ranking public mudslinger) who relied on weaponizing sinister innuendos (suspiciosius) to blow a property dispute way out of proportion and secure a heavy fine against Sabellius. [1]

Would you like to explore how Cicero contrasts this aggressive plebeian style with the refined orators he mentions immediately after, or look into other examples of Roman prosecutors using criminosius language?