<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:F.falcula_c_fidiculanius_1</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:F.falcula_c_fidiculanius_1</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:base="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><body xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><div type="textpart" subtype="alphabetic_letter" n="F"><div type="textpart" subtype="entry" xml:id="falcula-c-fidiculanius-bio-1" n="falcula_c_fidiculanius_1"><head><label><persName xml:lang="la"><addName full="yes">Fa'lcula</addName>, <forename full="yes">C.</forename><surname full="yes">Fidicula'nius</surname></persName></label></head><p>a Roman senator, was one of the judices at the trial of Statius Albius Oppianicus, who in
       <date when-custom="-74">B. C. 74</date> was accused of attempting to poison his step-son, A.
      Cluentius. The history of this remarkable trial is given elsewhere [<hi rend="smallcaps">CLUENTIUS</hi>]. Falcula was involved in the general indignation that attended the
      conviction of Oppianicus. The majority of jadices who condemned Oppianicus was very small.
      Falcula was accused by the tribune, L. Quintius, of having been illegally balloted into the
      concilium by C. Verres, at that time city praetor, for the express purpose of convicting
      Oppianicus, of voting out of his proper decuria, of giving sentence without hearing the
      evidence, of omitting to apply for an adjournment of the proceedings, and of receiving 40,000
      sesterces as a bribe from the prosecutor, A. Cluentius.</p><p>He was, however, acquitted, since his trial did not take place until after the excitement
      that followed the Judicium Albianum had in some measure subsided. But eight years later, <date when-custom="-66">B. C. 66</date>, Falcula was again brought to public notice by Cicero, in his
      defence of Cluentius. After recapitulating the circumstances of the Judicium Albianum, Cicero
      asks, if Falcula were innocent, who in the concilium at Oppianicus's trial could be guilty ?
      an equivocal plea that inferred without asserting the guilt of Falcula, in <date when-custom="-74">B. C. 74</date>. In his defence of A. Caecina, in <date when-custom="-69">B. C. 69</date>, Cicero
      ushers in the name of Falcula, a witness against the accused, with ironical pomp, and proceeds
      to point out gross inconsistencies in Falcula's evidence. Great uncertainty is thrown over the
      history of Falcula by the circumstance that it suited Cicero, from whose speeches alone we
      know any thing of him, to represent at different times, in different lights, the Judicium
      Albianum. When Cicero was pleading against C. Verres, Oppianicus was unjustly condemned, and
      Falcula was an illegal corrupt judge; when he defended Cluentius, it was necessary to soften
      the details of the Albianum Judicium ; when he spoke for Caecina, it was his interest to
      direct public feeling against Falcula. (<bibl n="Cic. Clu. 37">Cic. Clu. 37</bibl>, <bibl n="Cic. Clu. 41">41</bibl>, <hi rend="ital">pro Caecin.</hi> 10; Pseudo-Ascon. <hi rend="ital">in Act. I. Verr.</hi> p. 146; Schol. Gronov. <hi rend="ital">in Act. I. in
       Verr.</hi> p. 396. ed. Orelli.) </p><byline>[<ref target="author.W.B.D">W.B.D</ref>]</byline></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>