← Latin for Lawyers, Judges and Notaries Public
###
“Cui bonō fuerit?” — To whose benefit was it?
The interrogative pronoun stands at the heart of all legal reasoning. From the Roman jurist Cassius Longinus came the foundational forensic principle cui bonō — “to whose benefit?” — which Cicero immortalized in his defense of Milo. Every legal investigation, every cross-examination, every judicial inquiry begins with the simple question: quis? (who?) or quid? (what?).
In Latin legal discourse, the interrogative pronoun quis/quid serves as the essential instrument of forensic inquiry. The substantive forms quis (who?) and quid (what?) introduce direct questions of fact, while the adjective forms quī, quae, quod (which? what kind of?) modify nouns in questions of classification and identity. For lawyers, judges, and notaries, mastery of these forms enables precise legal questioning, proper drafting of interrogatories, and elegant citation of maxims that have shaped Western jurisprudence for two millennia.
The distinction between quid factī (what of the fact?) and quid iūris (what of the law?) structures the fundamental dichotomy of legal analysis — the separation of factual determination from legal interpretation that remains central to jurisprudence today.
Course Index: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What does quis/quid mean in Legal Latin?
The Latin interrogative pronoun quis (who?) and quid (what?) forms the basis of legal inquiry and forensic questioning. In Roman law and its modern descendants, these pronouns appear in fundamental maxims: cui bonō (to whose benefit?), quid prō quō (something for something), and quō warrantō (by what authority?). Mastering the declension and usage of quis/quid enables precise legal drafting and eloquent forensic rhetoric.
Key Takeaways
✦ The substantive interrogative quis (who?) asks about persons; quid (what?) asks about things — essential for witness examination and factual inquiry
✦ The dative cui appears in the famous forensic principle cui bonō (to whose benefit?) — the cornerstone of motive analysis in criminal law
✦ Quid prō quō (something for something) denotes consideration in contract law and reciprocal exchange in legal obligations
✦ The genitive cuius enables questions of ownership and attribution fundamental to property law and evidentiary inquiry
✦ The ablative quō forms quō warrantō (by what authority?) — the writ challenging unlawful exercise of public office
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Singular Forms
Nominative: quis (who?), quid (what?) Genitive: cuius (of whom? whose?) Dative: cui (to/for whom?) Accusative: quem (whom?), quid (what?) Ablative: quō (by/with/from whom/what?)
Plural Forms (identical to relative pronoun)
Nominative: quī (m.), quae (f.), quae (n.) Genitive: quōrum (m./n.), quārum (f.) Dative: quibus Accusative: quōs (m.), quās (f.), quae (n.) Ablative: quibus
Adjective Interrogative: quī, quae, quod (which? what kind of?) — declined identically to the relative pronoun throughout.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
27.1a Quis hoc fēcit?
27.1b Quis (kʷɪs) who-NOM.INTERROG hoc (hɔk) this-ACC.N fēcit (ˈfeːkɪt) did-PERF.3SG
27.2a Quid lex dīcit?
27.2b Quid (kʷɪd) what-NOM.INTERROG lex (leks) law-NOM.F dīcit (ˈdiːkɪt) says-PRES.3SG
27.3a Cui bonō est?
27.3b Cui (kʊ.iː) to-whom-DAT.INTERROG bonō (ˈbɔ.noː) for-benefit-DAT.N est (ɛst) is-PRES.3SG
27.4a Cuius testāmentum valet?
27.4b Cuius (ˈkʊ.jʊs) whose-GEN.INTERROG testāmentum (tɛs.taːˈmɛn.tʊm) will-NOM.N valet (ˈwa.lɛt) is-valid-PRES.3SG
27.5a Quem accūsās?
27.5b Quem (kʷɛm) whom-ACC.INTERROG accūsās (ak.ˈkuː.saːs) accuse-PRES.2SG
27.6a Quō iūre agis contrā reum?
27.6b Quō (kʷoː) by-what-ABL.INTERROG iūre (ˈjuː.rɛ) right-ABL.N agis (ˈa.gɪs) proceed-PRES.2SG contrā (ˈkɔn.traː) against-PREP.ACC reum (ˈrɛ.ʊm) defendant-ACC.M
27.7a Quid prō quō datur in hōc contractū?
27.7b Quid (kʷɪd) what-NOM.INTERROG prō (proː) for-PREP.ABL quō (kʷoː) what-ABL.INTERROG datur (ˈda.tʊr) is-given-PASS.PRES.3SG in (ɪn) in-PREP.ABL hōc (hoːk) this-ABL.M contractū (kɔn.ˈtrak.tuː) contract-ABL.M
27.8a Quae causa mortis fuit?
27.8b Quae (kʷae̯) what-NOM.F.INTERROG causa (ˈkau̯.sa) cause-NOM.F mortis (ˈmɔr.tɪs) of-death-GEN.F fuit (ˈfʊ.ɪt) was-PERF.3SG
27.9a Quis testis vēritātem novit?
27.9b Quis (kʷɪs) who-NOM.INTERROG testis (ˈtɛs.tɪs) witness-NOM.M vēritātem (weː.rɪˈtaː.tɛm) truth-ACC.F novit (ˈnɔ.wɪt) knows-PERF.3SG
27.10a Quod factum crīmen constituit?
27.10b Quod (kʷɔd) what-NOM.N.INTERROG.ADJ factum (ˈfak.tʊm) deed-NOM.N crīmen (ˈkriː.mɛn) crime-ACC.N constituit (kɔn.stɪˈtu.ɪt) constitutes-PRES.3SG
27.11a Quibus probātiōnibus innocentiam dēmōnstrābis?
27.11b Quibus (ˈkʷɪ.bʊs) by-what-ABL.PL.INTERROG probātiōnibus (prɔ.baː.tiˈoː.nɪ.bʊs) proofs-ABL.PL.F innocentiam (ɪn.nɔˈkɛn.ti.am) innocence-ACC.F dēmōnstrābis (deː.moːn.ˈstraː.bɪs) will-demonstrate-FUT.2SG
27.12a Cuius auctōritāte hoc īnstrūmentum signātum est?
27.12b Cuius (ˈkʊ.jʊs) whose-GEN.INTERROG auctōritāte (au̯k.toː.rɪˈtaː.tɛ) authority-ABL.F hoc (hɔk) this-NOM.N īnstrūmentum (iːn.struːˈmɛn.tʊm) document-NOM.N signātum est (sɪgˈnaː.tʊm ɛst) was-sealed-PERF.PASS.3SG
27.13a Quid factī et quid iūris in hāc causā?
27.13b Quid (kʷɪd) what-NOM.INTERROG factī (ˈfak.tiː) of-fact-GEN.N et (ɛt) and-CONJ quid (kʷɪd) what-NOM.INTERROG iūris (ˈjuː.rɪs) of-law-GEN.N in (ɪn) in-PREP.ABL hāc (haːk) this-ABL.F causā (ˈkau̯.saː) case-ABL.F
27.14a Quō warrantō hic magistrātus officium exercet?
27.14b Quō (kʷoː) by-what-ABL.INTERROG warrantō (war.ˈran.toː) warrant-ABL.M hic (hɪk) this-NOM.M magistrātus (ma.gɪsˈtraː.tʊs) magistrate-NOM.M officium (ɔfˈfɪ.ki.ʊm) office-ACC.N exercet (ɛkˈsɛr.kɛt) exercises-PRES.3SG
27.15a Quōrum testimōniīs causa iūdicābitur?
27.15b Quōrum (ˈkʷoː.rʊm) whose-GEN.PL.INTERROG testimōniīs (tɛs.tɪˈmoː.ni.iːs) testimonies-ABL.PL.N causa (ˈkau̯.sa) case-NOM.F iūdicābitur (juː.dɪˈkaː.bɪ.tʊr) will-be-judged-FUT.PASS.3SG
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
27.1 Quis hoc fēcit? “Who did this?”
27.2 Quid lex dīcit? “What does the law say?”
27.3 Cui bonō est? “To whose benefit is it?” / “Who profits from this?”
27.4 Cuius testāmentum valet? “Whose will is valid?”
27.5 Quem accūsās? “Whom do you accuse?”
27.6 Quō iūre agis contrā reum? “By what right do you proceed against the defendant?”
27.7 Quid prō quō datur in hōc contractū? “What is given for what in this contract?” / “What consideration is exchanged?”
27.8 Quae causa mortis fuit? “What was the cause of death?”
27.9 Quis testis vēritātem novit? “Which witness knows the truth?”
27.10 Quod factum crīmen constituit? “What deed constitutes the crime?”
27.11 Quibus probātiōnibus innocentiam dēmōnstrābis? “By what proofs will you demonstrate innocence?”
27.12 Cuius auctōritāte hoc īnstrūmentum signātum est? “By whose authority was this document sealed?”
27.13 Quid factī et quid iūris in hāc causā? “What of the fact and what of the law in this case?”
27.14 Quō warrantō hic magistrātus officium exercet? “By what warrant does this magistrate exercise office?”
27.15 Quōrum testimōniīs causa iūdicābitur? “By whose testimonies will the case be judged?”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
27.1 Quis hoc fēcit?
27.2 Quid lex dīcit?
27.3 Cui bonō est?
27.4 Cuius testāmentum valet?
27.5 Quem accūsās?
27.6 Quō iūre agis contrā reum?
27.7 Quid prō quō datur in hōc contractū?
27.8 Quae causa mortis fuit?
27.9 Quis testis vēritātem novit?
27.10 Quod factum crīmen constituit?
27.11 Quibus probātiōnibus innocentiam dēmōnstrābis?
27.12 Cuius auctōritāte hoc īnstrūmentum signātum est?
27.13 Quid factī et quid iūris in hāc causā?
27.14 Quō warrantō hic magistrātus officium exercet?
27.15 Quōrum testimōniīs causa iūdicābitur?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“These are the grammar rules for quis/quid in Legal Latin:”
The Substantive vs. Adjective Distinction
The interrogative pronoun has two principal forms. The substantive form quis/quid stands alone as the subject or object of a question: Quis fēcit? (Who did it?). The adjective form quī, quae, quod modifies a noun: Quī homō fēcit? (What man did it? / Which man did it?). In legal drafting, this distinction affects the precision of interrogatories and judicial questions.
The Five Cases in Legal Inquiry
Nominative (quis/quid): Identifies the subject of legal inquiry — Quis reus est? (Who is the defendant?)
Genitive (cuius): Establishes ownership, attribution, or partitive relationship — Cuius bona sunt? (Whose goods are they?) This form is essential in property disputes and inheritance law.
Dative (cui): Indicates the recipient, beneficiary, or person affected — Cui bonō? (To whose benefit?) This is the foundation of the famous Cassianum principle in criminal investigation.
Accusative (quem/quid): Marks the direct object of legal action — Quem accūsās? (Whom do you accuse?) Essential for formal charges and indictments.
Ablative (quō): Expresses instrument, means, or authority — Quō iūre? (By what right?) Quō warrantō? (By what warrant?) Fundamental to challenges of jurisdiction and authority.
Key Legal Formulae
Cui bonō (fuerit)? — “To whose benefit (was it)?” The foundational forensic question for establishing motive, attributed to the jurist Lucius Cassius Longinus and famously employed by Cicero in Pro Milone. When investigating a crime, ask first who benefits from the outcome.
Quid prō quō — “Something for something.” In contract law, this phrase denotes the essential element of consideration — each party must give something of value for the agreement to be binding.
Quō warrantō — “By what warrant?” A prerogative writ commanding a person to show by what authority they exercise a public office. Still used in modern common law jurisdictions.
Quid factī? Quid iūris? — “What of the fact? What of the law?” This pair structures legal analysis: first establish the facts, then apply the law. The dichotomy remains fundamental to jurisprudence.
The Adjective Interrogative in Legal Contexts
When precision requires specifying a category, use the adjective form: Quod crīmen? (What crime?), Quae lex? (Which law?), Quī testēs? (Which witnesses?). The adjective must agree with its noun in gender, number, and case.
Common Mistakes
Using quid when asking about a person (use quis): Quis hoc dīxit? not Quid hoc dīxit?
Forgetting that cuius is genitive singular for all genders: Cuius fīlia? (Whose daughter?), Cuius fīlius? (Whose son?), Cuius testāmentum? (Whose will?)
Confusing the interrogative with the relative pronoun — they share many forms but serve different syntactic functions. The interrogative introduces questions; the relative connects clauses.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Cassianum Principle: Cui Bonō
Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla, consul in 127 BCE and renowned for his severity as a judge, established the principle that forensic inquiry should first ask cui bonō fuerit — “to whose benefit was it?” When Cicero defended Titus Annius Milo on charges of murdering Publius Clodius Pulcher in 52 BCE, he invoked this Cassianum principle to argue that Clodius, not Milo, had motive for the violence. The phrase has endured as the cornerstone of criminal investigation in the Western legal tradition.
Quid Prō Quō in Contract Law
Roman law required that contracts be supported by reciprocal obligation — each party must provide something of value. This principle of quid prō quō evolved into the common law doctrine of consideration. In modern usage, the phrase also denotes any exchange of value, whether in diplomacy, commerce, or (less favorably) corrupt arrangements.
Quō Warrantō and the Challenge to Authority
The writ of quō warrantō emerged in medieval English law as a means of challenging persons who exercised public office without proper authority. By demanding quō warrantō — “by what warrant?” — the Crown could require demonstration of legitimate title to franchises and offices. The procedure remains available in many common law jurisdictions.
The Structure of Legal Reasoning: Quid Factī, Quid Iūris
Roman jurisprudence distinguished sharply between questions of fact (quaestiōnēs factī) and questions of law (quaestiōnēs iūris). This dichotomy, expressed in the formula quid factī et quid iūris, structures legal analysis to this day. The judge or jury determines the facts; the court applies the law.
Notarial Practice
For notaries public, the interrogative pronoun appears in authentication formulae: Cuius auctōritāte? (By whose authority?), Quō diē? (On what day?), Quibus testibus? (In the presence of which witnesses?). Proper use of these forms ensures precision in legal instruments.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
F-A: Interlinear Construed Text
Quōnam (kʷoːˈnam) by-what-ABL.INTERROG.EMPHATIC igitur (ˈɪ.gɪ.tʊr) therefore-CONJ pactō (ˈpak.toː) means-ABL.N probārī (prɔˈbaː.riː) to-be-proved-PASS.INF potest (ˈpɔ.tɛst) can-PRES.3SG īnsidiās (iːn.sɪˈdi.aːs) ambush-ACC.PL.F Milōnī (mɪˈloː.niː) to-Milo-DAT.M fēcisse (feːˈkɪs.sɛ) to-have-made-PERF.INF Clōdium (ˈkloː.di.ʊm) Clodius-ACC.M
Satis (ˈsa.tɪs) enough-ADV est (ɛst) is-PRES.3SG in (ɪn) in-PREP.ABL illā (ˈɪl.laː) that-ABL.F quidem (ˈkʷɪ.dɛm) indeed-PARTICLE tam (tam) so-ADV audācī (au̯ˈdaː.kiː) bold-ABL.F tam (tam) so-ADV nefāriā (nɛˈfaː.ri.aː) wicked-ABL.F beluā (ˈbɛ.lu.aː) beast-ABL.F docēre (dɔˈkeː.rɛ) to-show-PRES.INF
magnam (ˈmag.nam) great-ACC.F eī (ˈeɪ) to-him-DAT.M causam (ˈkau̯.sam) reason-ACC.F magnam (ˈmag.nam) great-ACC.F spem (spɛm) hope-ACC.F in (ɪn) in-PREP.ABL Milōnis (mɪˈloː.nɪs) Milo’s-GEN.M morte (ˈmɔr.tɛ) death-ABL.F propositam (prɔˈpɔ.sɪ.tam) set-forth-ACC.F magnās (ˈmag.naːs) great-ACC.PL.F ūtilitātēs (uː.tɪ.lɪˈtaː.teːs) advantages-ACC.PL.F fuisse (ˈfʊ.ɪs.sɛ) to-have-been-PERF.INF
Itaque (ˈɪ.ta.kʷɛ) and-so-CONJ illud (ˈɪl.lʊd) that-NOM.N Cassiānum (kas.siˈaː.nʊm) Cassian-NOM.N “cui (kʊ.iː) to-whom-DAT.INTERROG bonō (ˈbɔ.noː) for-benefit-DAT.N fuerit” (ˈfʊ.ɛ.rɪt) was-PERF.SUBJ.3SG in (ɪn) in-PREP.ABL hīs (hiːs) these-ABL.PL persōnīs (pɛrˈsoː.niːs) persons-ABL.PL.F valeat (ˈwa.lɛ.at) let-it-be-valid-PRES.SUBJ.3SG
F-B: Full Text with Translation
Quōnam igitur pactō probārī potest īnsidiās Milōnī fēcisse Clōdium? Satis est in illā quidem tam audācī, tam nefāriā beluā docēre, magnam eī causam, magnam spem in Milōnis morte propositam, magnās ūtilitātēs fuisse. Itaque illud Cassiānum “cui bonō fuerit” in hīs persōnīs valeat.
“By what means, then, can it be proven that Clodius laid an ambush for Milo? It is enough, concerning that beast so bold and so wicked, to show that he had great reason, great hope placed in Milo’s death, and great advantages to gain. And so let that famous Cassian principle — ‘to whose benefit was it?’ — carry weight regarding these persons.”
— Cicero, Prō Milōne §32 (52 BCE)
F-C: Latin Text Only
Quōnam igitur pactō probārī potest īnsidiās Milōnī fēcisse Clōdium? Satis est in illā quidem tam audācī, tam nefāriā beluā docēre, magnam eī causam, magnam spem in Milōnis morte propositam, magnās ūtilitātēs fuisse. Itaque illud Cassiānum “cui bonō fuerit” in hīs persōnīs valeat.
F-D: Vocabulary and Grammar Notes
quōnam — emphatic interrogative ablative, “by what (in the world)?” The suffix -nam adds rhetorical force.
īnsidiās facere (+ dat.) — “to lay an ambush for someone” — a legal term for premeditated attack.
beluā — “beast” — Cicero’s contemptuous characterization of Clodius, typical of forensic invective.
Cassiānum — adjective derived from Cassius (Longinus), the jurist who established the cui bonō principle.
valeat — present subjunctive of valeō, expressing a jussive: “let it carry weight,” “let it be valid.”
F-E: Commentary on Legal Rhetoric
This passage exemplifies the art of probātiō (proof) in Roman forensic oratory. Cicero does not merely argue that Milo acted in self-defense; he reverses the burden of suspicion by invoking the Cassianum principle. By asking cui bonō fuerit — “to whose benefit was it?” — he directs the judges to consider motive. Clodius, seeking the praetorship without Milo as consul to restrain him, had everything to gain from Milo’s death; Milo had nothing to gain from Clodius’s. The interrogative cui becomes the pivot of the entire defense strategy.
The passage also demonstrates the use of accumulated interrogatives (quōnam pactō?) to build rhetorical pressure, and the technique of adiectīvī accumulātiō (”tam audācī, tam nefāriā”) to characterize the opponent before the jury.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The following examples present a sustained forensic dialogue, illustrating how the interrogative pronoun functions in courtroom examination. The scene depicts a prosecutor questioning witnesses and challenging the defense in a Roman quaestiō (criminal court).
PART A: Interlinear Construed Text
27.16a Quis virum illā nocte vīdit?
27.16b Quis (kʷɪs) who-NOM.INTERROG virum (ˈwɪ.rʊm) man-ACC.M illā (ˈɪl.laː) that-ABL.F nocte (ˈnɔk.tɛ) night-ABL.F vīdit (ˈwiː.dɪt) saw-PERF.3SG
27.17a Quid in manū tenēbat cum accessit?
27.17b Quid (kʷɪd) what-ACC.INTERROG in (ɪn) in-PREP.ABL manū (ˈma.nuː) hand-ABL.F tenēbat (tɛˈneː.bat) was-holding-IMPERF.3SG cum (kʊm) when-CONJ accessit (akˈkɛs.sɪt) approached-PERF.3SG
27.18a Cui gladium dederat ante caedēm?
27.18b Cui (kʊ.iː) to-whom-DAT.INTERROG gladium (ˈgla.di.ʊm) sword-ACC.M dederat (ˈdɛ.dɛ.rat) had-given-PLUPERF.3SG ante (ˈan.tɛ) before-PREP.ACC caedēm (ˈkae̯.dɛm) killing-ACC.F
27.19a Cuius servī corpus invēnērunt?
27.19b Cuius (ˈkʊ.jʊs) whose-GEN.INTERROG servī (ˈsɛr.wiː) slaves-NOM.PL.M corpus (ˈkɔr.pʊs) body-ACC.N invēnērunt (ɪn.weːˈneː.rʊnt) found-PERF.3PL
27.20a Quōs testēs prōdūcere potēs?
27.20b Quōs (kʷoːs) which-ACC.PL.M.INTERROG testēs (ˈtɛs.teːs) witnesses-ACC.PL.M prōdūcere (proː.duːˈkɛ.rɛ) to-produce-PRES.INF potēs (ˈpɔ.teːs) are-able-PRES.2SG
27.21a Quō locō caedēs facta est?
27.21b Quō (kʷoː) in-what-ABL.INTERROG locō (ˈlɔ.koː) place-ABL.M caedēs (ˈkae̯.deːs) killing-NOM.F facta est (ˈfak.ta ɛst) was-done-PERF.PASS.3SG
27.22a Quid reus respondeat ad haec crīmina?
27.22b Quid (kʷɪd) what-ACC.INTERROG reus (ˈrɛ.ʊs) defendant-NOM.M respondeat (rɛs.pɔnˈdɛ.at) let-answer-PRES.SUBJ.3SG ad (ad) to-PREP.ACC haec (hae̯k) these-ACC.N.PL crīmina (ˈkriː.mɪ.na) charges-ACC.PL.N
27.23a Quae probātiōnēs innocentiam dēmōnstrant?
27.23b Quae (kʷae̯) what-NOM.PL.F.INTERROG probātiōnēs (prɔ.baː.tiˈoː.neːs) proofs-NOM.PL.F innocentiam (ɪn.nɔˈkɛn.ti.am) innocence-ACC.F dēmōnstrant (deː.ˈmoːn.strant) demonstrate-PRES.3PL
27.24a Quibus argūmentīs accūsātor nītitur?
27.24b Quibus (ˈkʷɪ.bʊs) on-what-ABL.PL.INTERROG argūmentīs (ar.guː.ˈmɛn.tiːs) arguments-ABL.PL.N accūsātor (ak.kuː.ˈsaː.tɔr) prosecutor-NOM.M nītitur (ˈniː.tɪ.tʊr) relies-PRES.3SG.DEP
27.25a Quem interfēcisse dīcitur reus?
27.25b Quem (kʷɛm) whom-ACC.INTERROG interfēcisse (ɪn.tɛr.feːˈkɪs.sɛ) to-have-killed-PERF.INF dīcitur (ˈdiː.kɪ.tʊr) is-said-PASS.PRES.3SG reus (ˈrɛ.ʊs) defendant-NOM.M
27.26a Quid aliud praeter mortem acciderit?
27.26b Quid (kʷɪd) what-NOM.INTERROG aliud (ˈa.li.ʊd) else-NOM.N praeter (ˈprae̯.tɛr) besides-PREP.ACC mortem (ˈmɔr.tɛm) death-ACC.F acciderit (ak.ˈkɪ.dɛ.rɪt) happened-PERF.SUBJ.3SG
27.27a Cuius testimōniō fidēs adhibenda est?
27.27b Cuius (ˈkʊ.jʊs) whose-GEN.INTERROG testimōniō (tɛs.tɪˈmoː.ni.oː) testimony-DAT.N fidēs (ˈfɪ.deːs) trust-NOM.F adhibenda est (ad.hɪˈbɛn.da ɛst) must-be-given-GERUNDIVE.NOM.F
27.28a Quā ratiōne dēfēnsor causam agit?
27.28b Quā (kʷaː) by-what-ABL.F.INTERROG ratiōne (ra.tiˈoː.nɛ) method-ABL.F dēfēnsor (deː.ˈfeːn.sɔr) defense-counsel-NOM.M causam (ˈkau̯.sam) case-ACC.F agit (ˈa.gɪt) pleads-PRES.3SG
27.29a Quōrum sententiīs reus condemnābitur vel absolvētur?
27.29b Quōrum (ˈkʷoː.rʊm) whose-GEN.PL.INTERROG sententiīs (sɛn.tɛnˈti.iːs) votes-ABL.PL.F reus (ˈrɛ.ʊs) defendant-NOM.M condemnābitur (kɔn.dɛm.ˈnaː.bɪ.tʊr) will-be-condemned-FUT.PASS.3SG vel (wɛl) or-CONJ absolvētur (ab.sɔl.ˈweː.tʊr) will-be-acquitted-FUT.PASS.3SG
27.30a Quid tandem dē hōc scelere statuētis, iūdicēs?
27.30b Quid (kʷɪd) what-ACC.INTERROG tandem (ˈtan.dɛm) finally-ADV dē (deː) about-PREP.ABL hōc (hoːk) this-ABL.N scelere (ˈskɛ.lɛ.rɛ) crime-ABL.N statuētis (sta.tuˈeː.tɪs) will-decide-FUT.2PL iūdicēs (juːˈdɪ.keːs) judges-VOC.PL.M
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
PART B: Natural Sentences
27.16 Quis virum illā nocte vīdit? “Who saw the man that night?”
27.17 Quid in manū tenēbat cum accessit? “What was he holding in his hand when he approached?”
27.18 Cui gladium dederat ante caedēm? “To whom had he given the sword before the killing?”
27.19 Cuius servī corpus invēnērunt? “Whose slaves found the body?”
27.20 Quōs testēs prōdūcere potēs? “Which witnesses can you produce?”
27.21 Quō locō caedēs facta est? “In what place was the killing committed?”
27.22 Quid reus respondeat ad haec crīmina? “What should the defendant answer to these charges?”
27.23 Quae probātiōnēs innocentiam dēmōnstrant? “What proofs demonstrate innocence?”
27.24 Quibus argūmentīs accūsātor nītitur? “On what arguments does the prosecutor rely?”
27.25 Quem interfēcisse dīcitur reus? “Whom is the defendant said to have killed?”
27.26 Quid aliud praeter mortem acciderit? “What else may have happened besides the death?”
27.27 Cuius testimōniō fidēs adhibenda est? “Whose testimony should be trusted?”
27.28 Quā ratiōne dēfēnsor causam agit? “By what method does the defense counsel plead the case?”
27.29 Quōrum sententiīs reus condemnābitur vel absolvētur? “By whose votes will the defendant be condemned or acquitted?”
27.30 Quid tandem dē hōc scelere statuētis, iūdicēs? “What, finally, will you decide about this crime, judges?”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
PART C: Latin Text Only
27.16 Quis virum illā nocte vīdit?
27.17 Quid in manū tenēbat cum accessit?
27.18 Cui gladium dederat ante caedēm?
27.19 Cuius servī corpus invēnērunt?
27.20 Quōs testēs prōdūcere potēs?
27.21 Quō locō caedēs facta est?
27.22 Quid reus respondeat ad haec crīmina?
27.23 Quae probātiōnēs innocentiam dēmōnstrant?
27.24 Quibus argūmentīs accūsātor nītitur?
27.25 Quem interfēcisse dīcitur reus?
27.26 Quid aliud praeter mortem acciderit?
27.27 Cuius testimōniō fidēs adhibenda est?
27.28 Quā ratiōne dēfēnsor causam agit?
27.29 Quōrum sententiīs reus condemnābitur vel absolvētur?
27.30 Quid tandem dē hōc scelere statuētis, iūdicēs?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
PART D: Grammar Notes for Genre Section
Subjunctive in Indirect Questions
Several examples (27.22, 27.26) employ the subjunctive mood in indirect or deliberative questions: Quid reus respondeat? (”What should the defendant answer?” or “What is the defendant to answer?”). In legal contexts, this construction expresses deliberation, uncertainty, or pending decision.
The Passive Periphrastic (Gerundive of Obligation)
Example 27.27 demonstrates the gerundīvum necessitātis: fidēs adhibenda est — “trust must be given” / “trust is to be applied.” This construction, combining the gerundive with esse, expresses necessity or obligation and appears frequently in judicial pronouncements.
Forensic Vocabulary
accūsātor — prosecutor; dēfēnsor — defense counsel; reus — defendant; testis — witness; caedēs — killing, slaughter; crīmen — charge, accusation; scelus — crime, wickedness; sententia — judicial vote, opinion; condemnāre — to condemn; absolvere — to acquit.
The Vocative in Judicial Address
Example 27.30 concludes with iūdicēs (judges!) in the vocative case — the standard form for direct address to the jury or bench. Roman orators routinely addressed the iūdicēs directly to engage their attention and appeal to their sense of duty.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of Latin for Lawyers, Judges and Notaries Public, a specialized course in Legal Latin following the Latinum Institute methodology. The curriculum builds vocabulary systematically using frequency-based word lists derived from the Dickinson College Core Latin Vocabulary, ensuring that students master the most common and essential terms of classical Latin while focusing on legal applications.
The Latinum Institute has been creating Latin learning materials since 2006, serving autodidact students worldwide. Our methodology emphasizes the ōrdō nātūrālis — learning Latin through construed, interlinear texts that reveal grammatical structure while building reading fluency.
Course Index: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Trustpilot Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
For lawyers, judges, notaries public, and legal scholars, mastery of Latin unlocks two millennia of jurisprudence — from the Corpus Iūris Cīvilis of Justinian to the maxims still cited in modern courts. The interrogative pronoun quis/quid, as this lesson demonstrates, remains the foundation of legal inquiry: every investigation begins with Quis? Quid? Cui bonō?
The progressive vocabulary system employed in this course ensures that each lesson builds upon previous knowledge while introducing new terms in context. By completing the 1000-word curriculum, students will possess the essential vocabulary for reading legal Latin texts and understanding the Latin maxims that pervade Western jurisprudence.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
✓ Lesson 27 Latin for Lawyers, Judges and Notaries Public complete
Cui bonō fuerit? — Let this question guide your legal inquiry.
---