Przyczyny karania i uniewinnienia w Noctes Atticae Aulusa Gelliusa
Reasons for punishment and acquittal in the Noctes Atticae by Aulus Gellius

Summary/Abstract: In his Noctes Atticae, Aulus Gellius introduced his reflections not only on the use of termsto describe modes of punishment, but also on the question of whether one can be punished for anact not committed. In the fourteenth chapter of the seventh book, he described three reasons forpunishing crimes, as his teacher L. Calvenus Taurus had written about in his commentary on Plato’sGorgias, which explained that punishment was used to rebuke and correct a criminal ‒ i.e. as specialprevention; when punishment had a justice function; and when punishment was necessary as anexample, so that others would not commit crimes, i.e. as general prevention. Plato himself, however,as Gellius points out, listed two reasons for punishment, one for the sake of improvement and theother for the fear of punishment.The problem, however, of whether one can be punished for an act intended but not committedis presented by Gellius in the third title of the sixth book on the occasion of his polemic againstTullius Tiron’s criticism of Marcus Cato’s pro Rhodiensibus speech. Tiron accused Cato of adoptingthe wrong strategy and making dishonest use of cunning sophistic tricks. According to Gellius, Catomay have defended the Rhodians in a more structured form, but certainly not with greater energy andcommitment. It was therefore unfair on Tiron’s part, according to Gellius, to select from Cato’s richand pertinent speech only a certain passage of speech to criticize him as if it was not worthy of Catoto assert that one should not be punished for the mere intention to commit a crime if it had not beencommitted.

• Details
• Contents