Abstract
One of Cicero’s earliest defence speeches, the Oratio pro Sex. Roscio Amerino, gives an excellent example of how the orator can manage to his advantage a complex case which is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and heavily influenced by the political contingencies of the time. In the speech Cicero is defending Sex. Roscius from Ameria against the charge of killing his father, a wealthy landowner, in order to inherit his large estates. The first inventive technique Cicero uses allows him to change the focus of the case right at the beginning of the speech and reveals an intricate plot, involving the relatives of the murdered man and a powerful ex-slave, the purpose of which was to get rid of the defendant and obtain his father’s vast estates. This move changes the direction of the entire speech and allows Cicero to argue about probabilities which he finds most advantageous for his client. Cicero uses two other strategies in order to avoid evidence which could damage his case. He represents the young Roscius as simple farmer, an embodiment of traditional Roman virtues, to show the impossibility of him committing the crime of which he is accused. He also creates a very simplified, distorted, yet forceful account of the plot against Roscius to prove that in all likelihood the enemies of the defendant carried out the murder.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Chap. 2.4 pp. 30–31.
- 2.
The most important studies commemoratione digna on the speech are: Berry (2004, pp. 80–87), Gruen (1968, pp. 265–271), Heinze (1960, pp. 87–140), Kinsey (1966, pp. 270–271, 1981, pp. 149–150, 1985, pp. 188–196), Landgraf (1914, pp. 59–141), Stroh (1975, pp. 55–79), Alexander (2002, pp. 149–172), Dyck (2003, pp. 235–246).
- 3.
For that traditional view see: Solmsen (1938, pp. 542–556).
- 4.
- 5.
Two people are actually mentioned who actively supported the defendant, Caecilia Metella three times (27, 147, 149), and a certain Messala, whose identity cannot be decided with absolute certainty (see Landgraf 20 ad loc., and Münzer ‘Valerius’, no. 266, RE 28:163., Alexander (2002, p. 157).
- 6.
The iniquitas temporum seems to be a deliberately vague expression, which cannot simply imply, as Cicero professes in 5–6, that the patrons fear the presence of Chrysogonus. It may cover up more important reservations on behalf of the nobility about defending Roscius personally.
- 7.
The communis opinio is best exemplified by Stroh (1975, p. 72): ‘Hier (sc. 40–73) bewegt sich Cicero frei auf rasch gewonnenem Terrain, und die üppigen Exkurse über loci communes – ‘Bauerntum hat Rom groß gemacht’, ‘die Macht des bösen Gewissens’ etc. – dienen sicherlich nicht dazu, Schwächen der Beweisführung zu vertuschen, sondern einem Publikum zu schmeicheln, das offenbar noch in dieser Zeit an solcherlei Dingen Freude hatte.’ See also Tac. Dial. 22.3.
- 8.
39 ‘qui homo? adulescentulus corruptus …vetus videlicet sicarius, homo audax et saepe in caede versatus; luxuries igitur hominem nimirum et aeris alieni magnitude et indomitae animi cupiditates ad hoc scelus impulerunt.’
- 9.
Note for example the character defence in 74, which replies to Erucius’ probabile e vita arguments with the somewhat oversimplified, but lofty and expressive argument: ‘…in rusticis moribus, in victu arido, in hac horrida incultaque vita istiusmodi maleficia gigni non solere.’
- 10.
40 ‘nam et illud incredibile est, mortem oblatam esse patri a filio sine plurimis et maximis causis, sic veri simile non est odio fuisse parenti filium sine causis multis et magnis et necessariis.’
- 11.
Landgraf, following Heinze and Lincke, supposes at this point (97 ad loc.) that a possible reason for the deteriorating relationship was the father’s and the son’s different lifestyle. Again, such a supposition reintroduces the urban/rural dichotomy in a slightly different disguise. However idealistic the opposition sounds, the prosecution might have used it as a powerful weapon. Cf. Schol. Gron. 39.
- 12.
According to Cicero, Erucius claimed the relegatio as novum, odio factum, supplicii causa (sc. factum).
- 13.
Unfortunately, no further details are revealed about the exact status of the son in the farms, e.g. whether he only managed the estates or had also possessions in them. Although Cicero here (44) refers to general practice again, that remark only interprets the charge without effectively disproving it.
- 14.
On the strategy of reversal as general form of argument see Riggsby (1995, pp. 245–256).
- 15.
The scholiast (ad loc.) understands the argument in a similar way, and as strongly ironical. If Erucius was not so fortunate as to experience parental love, he should at least have had to inform himself about it from other sources, comedy for example. Cicero, however, could not play with irony a lot, as too much literary education was seen as suspicious in Roman courts, and also because he might have been younger than Erucius.
- 16.
The only thing we know from Cicero about the relationship is what we read earlier in 18 ‘…cum hic filius assiduus in praediis esset, cumque se voluntate patris rei familiri vitaeque rusticae dedisset…’ But we cannot be sure whether the voluntas patris refers to an existing practice of the son or whether Sex. Roscius the elder sent his son out to the farm. What remains important is that the narrative tells hardly anything about the activities of the young Roscius, which fact itself remains suspicious.
- 17.
Other names that could have been mentioned by Cicero are L. Quincius Cincinnatus, M.’ Curius Dentatus, and C. Fabricius. See Landgraf (1914, pp. 114–115).
- 18.
68 ‘haec magnitudo maleficii facit ut, nisi paene manifestum parricidium proferatur, credibile non sit…’
- 19.
We might ask here whether the oral version of that passage had the same impact on the listeners as the written one, which could have seemed too copious in front of a jury that had already heard and seen Erucius.
- 20.
82 ‘Eruci criminatio tota ut arbitror dissoluta est.’ It does not matter here whether this claim is warranted by the sheer length of the so-called confirmatio, or the belief in its logical validity.
- 21.
Cicero pretends that he attacked Chrysogonus and the two Roscii only to submit himself to his sense of duty and obligation to protect his client. However, that high-minded claim may conceal the fact that it is argumentative necessity that compelled him not to stop at the refutation of Erucius. If he alluded to some intriguing in 6, he could not have left this line unfinished.
- 22.
It would, of course, have been decisive to reveal his exact sources, especially on Mallius Glaucia and Magnus. Without that, we can suppose that these were not so creditable as to introduce them personally.
- 23.
We call the two claims proof, yet Cicero does not in any place indicate their exact nature or seem to be willing to support them with evidence. As it is, we can hardly say that such a crucial piece of information can be held valid. The question is whether the Roman jury had the same view, as well.
- 24.
88 ‘Restat, iudices, ut hoc dubitemus, uter potius Sex. Roscium occiderit, is ad quem morte eius divitiae venerint, an is ad quem mendicitas, is qui antea tenuis fuerit, an is qui postea factus sit egentissimus … postremo, iudices, id quod ad rem mea sententia maxime pertinet, utrum mimicus potius an filius.’
- 25.
No one should be deceived by 98–99, where Cicero comes closest to suggesting the conspiracy of Magnus and Capito to murder Sex. Roscius senior. It is a hypothetical reconstruction of the murder set in a series of questions, the purpose of which is to stop temporarily the comparison of probabilities between the defendant and Magnus.
- 26.
He carries on with the comparison, but also wants to give the impression of a knowledgeable defence advocate.
- 27.
The role of Capito seems to be even more insignificant in the whole process. All that we can suppose is that he was enticed by Chrysogonus and Magnus to deceive the deputation of Amerians and he got a reward for that. But that has more to do with how the estates were expropriated illegally than with the murder itself.
- 28.
The slaves are said to have been with the elder Sex. Roscius while he was murdered. 120 ‘Cum occiditur Sex. Roscius ibidem fuerunt.’
- 29.
That is, accepting Cicero’s argument at its face value and not going into crucial details of his reasoning, which most probably was the case with the majority of the jurors. Cf. Cicero’s admonition in 123 ‘Quae praeteriri nullo modo poterant, ea leviter, iudices, attigi, quae posita sunt in suspicionibus … ea vestris ingeniis coniecturaeque committo.’
- 30.
The question is whether the likelihood of a conspiracy to get hold of the estates of Sex. Roscius senior would substantiate to a considerable degree the likelihood of a plot to murder him. Cicero gives the facta post rem undue weight (probabile ex consequentiis), which means that according to him the case is really so.
- 31.
We may believe Cicero, when he says in 143 that Roscius does not want to reclaim his property. It is, nevertheless, difficult to prove that the inquiry into the legality of the sale in 124–149 was presented to support Roscius’ demand for restitution. The question of legality could be connected with the argument on the staged prosecution.
References
Alexander, M.C. The Case for the Prosecution in the Ciceronian Era. Ann Arbor, 2002.
Berry, D.H. 2004. The publication of Cicero’s Pro Roscio Amerino. Mnemosyne 57: 80–87.
Dyck, A.R. 2003. ‘Evidence and rhetoric in Cicero’s Pro Roscio Amerino: The case against sex. Roscius’ Classical Quarterly 53: 235–246.
Gruen, E.S. Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149–78 B.C. Cambridge, MA, 1968, 265–271.
Heinze, R. ‘Cicero’s Politische Anfänge.’ In Vom Geist des Römertums, edited by E. Burck, 87–140. Darmstadt, 1960.
Kinsey, T.E. 1966. A dilemma in the Pro Roscio Amerino. Mnemosyne 19: 270–271.
Kinsey, T.E. 1982. The political insignificance of Cicero’s Pro Roscio. Liverpool Classical Monthly 7: 39–40.
Landgraf, G. Kommentar zu Ciceros Rede pro Sex. Roscio Amerino. Leipzig, 1914.
Riggsby, A.M. 1995. Appropriation and reversal as a basis for oratorical proof. Classical Philology 90: 245–256.
Seager, R. 1982. The political significance of Cicero’s Pro Roscio. Liverpool Classical Monthly 7: 10–12.
Solmsen, F. 1938. Cicero’s first speeches: A rhetorical analysis. TAPhA 69: 542–556.
Stroh, W. Taxis und Taktik: Die advokatische Dispositionskunst in Ciceros Gerichtsreden. Stuttgart, 1975.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tahin, G. (2014). Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino. In: Heuristic Strategies in the Speeches of Cicero. Argumentation Library, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01799-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01799-0_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01798-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01799-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)