1F'nce S'peec/Ies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OXFORD WORLD’S CLASSICS OXFORD WORLD’S CLASSICS For almost ioo years Oxford World’s Classics have brought readers closer to the world’s great literature. Now with over 700 to the titles—from the 4,000-year-old myths ofMesopotamia CICERO twentieth century’s greatest novels—the series makes available lesser—known as well as celebrated writing. The pocket-sized hardbacks ofthe early years contained 1f’nce S’peec/ies introductions by Virginia Wooif T S. Eliot, Graham Greene, and other literaryfigures which enriched the experience ofreading. Today the series is recognizedfor itsfine scholarship and reliability in texts that span world literature, drama and poetry, Translated with Introductions and Notes by religion, philosophy and politics. Each edition includes perceptive D H BERRY commentary and essential background information to meet the changing needs ofreaders. Lk.\V- .1: OXIORD UNIVERSITY PRESS PRO ROSCIO AMERINO (‘FOR ROSCIUS OF AMERIA’) DATE: 8o uc DEFENDANT: Sextus Roscius LAW: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (Cornelian law concerning murderers and poisoners) CHARGE: murder of Sextus Roscius (defendant’s father) PROSECUTORS: Gaius Erucius, Titus Roscius Magnus DEFENCE ADVOCATE: Marcus Tullius Cicero PRESIDING MAGISTRATE: Marcus Fannius VERDICT: acquittal Pro Roscio Amerino (‘For Roscius of Ameria’, so called to distinguish it from the speech for a different Roscius, Pro Roscio comoedo, ‘For Roscius the comic actor’) was Cicero’s first speech inacriminal court ( 59), given when he was j26 years old. In it he bravely spoke out against some of the more unsavoury aspects of the Sullan regime (although taking care to absolve Sulla himself from blame), and, winning his ease, made a name for himself which brought him a flood of commissions. The speech shows him in a better light than almost any other speech, with the orator placing himself in some degree of da (just how much is disputed) in order to n i oc cLby hiLeJ1emie flltdf U% father Pro Roscio is also important for being closer than any of Cicero’s other speeches to the artificial, florid, and often flabby ‘Asianist’ style which was then in fashion; soon afterwards he toned down his manner of speaking and developed the more restrained and economical style in which the great majority of his speeches are written. The trial of Sextus Roscius took place against the bacround ofbç Sullan regime. In 82 BC Sulla recaptured R iefIm the Marians, who had held it illegally since 87, and had himself appointed dictator ‘to write laws and reconstitute the state’. The laws he went on to pass were designed to restore to th eanthoñya4pycrs ihci posscsscd, in the years before the Gracchan reforms ncarll halfacentury earlier. The criminal justice system was reorganized seven permanent courts were set c —J up to try the major crimes, and jurie were to cinisist exclusively of senators. Sulla also set about the punishment of his enemies. Lists were posted in the forum of men to be killed, and bounties were offered to the killers. The property of men ‘proscribed’ in this way was confiscated by the state and then sold off cheaply at auction to those prepared to bid for Pro Roscio Amerina: Introduction 4 Pro Roscio Arnerino: Introduction 5 Sulla. Roscius was, however, given it The sons and grandsons of the proscribed, besides losing their inherit— which could be seen as hostile to ance, were debarred from ever holding magisterial office. Worst of all, the material assistance by Caecilia Metella third cousin of the Caecilia oscriptions came to be used not just to remove opponents of the new Metella who had been Sulla’s wife), and Cicero in his speech makes the order, but as a means of paying off old scores and satisfying private greed. most of this indication of Metellan goodwill. Even so, Roscius must have Sulla’s supporters were able to amass vast fortunes at the expense of those been severely disappointed at the failure of his patrons to offer him more who werc r could be represented as being, Sulla’ eaepies. conspicuous support. The proscriptions were officially ended on i jue8)( iz8). Some The lack of a prominent advocate threw Roscius back on the 26-year- months later the elder Sextus Roscius, the father of Cicero’s client (father old Cicero, a man of no influence and, as yet, no oratorical reputation. For and son shared the same name) murdered in Rome while returning Cicero, the case presented a great opportunity for himto pje a name for from dinner. He was a rich man, the wner of thiiti fariis at Ameria, a himself Many murders h.l been committed in the recent past, but this hill-town in the south of Umbria, about north of Rome. Men was the first murder trial to be held for priod of time like him the leaders of Italian communities, were cultivated by the Roman ( ii, z8), iiid the first tiialto take place in Sulla’s new murder court. n bdity. the great families relied on such men to deliver them the votes of Public interest in the case was therefore intcnse—and mny people were their communities whenever a member of the family was standing for looking fOr a conviction. The trial also had a political dimension—Cicero ffice In return, the Italians could expect favours such as letters of would need to comment on injustices committed in Sulla’s name—and rcammcndation or support in the courts, and also presents and invita this too would bring him public attention. There was cernly e1ernint tions to dinner. Roscius spent most of his time in the city courting his of risk involved: as we have seen, the defence could not count absolutely patrons, and Ciro tells us that they were smof the most prominent on the support of the Metelli (like Cicero, some scholars have exaggerated families in Rome: the Metelli, Servilii, and Scipiones ( is). His son, the degree of support Roscius received from the nobility). But provided meanwhile, preferred to stay in Ameria, where he looked after the family he took care to dissociate Sulla from Chrysogonus’ wrongdoing, Cicero farms. I)uring the civil war between the Marians and Sulla (83—82 BC), might hope to escape reprisals. He doubtless also found it congenial to Roscius supported the winning side, that of Sulla and the nobility. This defend an Italian like himself; and of course he had the great advantage of was natural in view of the very close links that his patrons, the Metelli, having right on his side. had with Sulla. Caecilia Metella, who died in 8i, was Sulla’s wife, and her Roscius’. enemies, then, found a prosecutor, Gaius Erucius and brought usin, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius, was consul with Sulla in 8o, the a charge of parricide. Parricide (which originally meant the murder of any year of the younger Roscius’ trial. free man, but was later restricted to the murder of close relations, particu Soon after his father’s death, Roscius’ inheritance was taken from him larly parents) was regarded by the Romans as an especially monstrous b two of his relations ( 87, 88), Titus Roscius Magnus and Titus crime. Their ancestors had therefore devised an appropriately gruesome Roscius Capito. This was done by enlisting the help of Chrysogonus; a punishment for convicted parricides: they were to be stripped, scourged, Greek freedman of Sulla’s and, according to Cicero, a man fonsiderable sewn up in a sack together with dog, a cock, a viper, and a monkey, and nfluence After the murder, Magnus and Capito went to see Chrysogonus, then thrown into a river or the sea to drown (see § 30 (with note), 70). It is md what Cicero calls a ‘partnership’ was formed. Chrysogonus had the extremely unlikely, however, that Roscius, if found guilty, would actually dead man’s name posthumously entered into the list of the proscribed; his have had to undergo this punishment, since it seems only to have applied property was then confiscated and put up for sale; ymus bought it to parricides who confessed their guilt (cf Suetonius, Augustus 33), for a token price; and Capito was given three of the farms, while Magnus Instead, he would merely have faced the normal punishment which took possession of the rest on Chrysogonus’ behalf When1oungRoscius obtained in the criminal courts, officially death, but in practice ‘voluntary’ attempted to recover his property and clear his father’s name, his enemies exile in a federate (thus technically non-Roman) state, followed by inter:. sought to remove him 1y the ingenious means ofcusing hirn of diction (debarment from water and fire, in other words outlawry), to father’s murder. He therefore went for help to theji, Judging from prevent him returning to Italy. their failure to speak for him at his trial, they refused to help him, at least The prosecution’s case against Roscius was (as far as we can judge) puhl1cI) Possibly (as some scholars have suggested) the case was beneath extremely weak. They alleged that he did not get on with his father, and their notice; more likely, they did not wish to be associated with a case had murdered him because he was afraid of being disinherited by him 6 Pro Roscio Amerino: Introduction Pro Roscio Amerino: introduction 7 younger Roscius had not prosecuted ( ça). But they do not seem to have been able to offer any evidence in unlikely, however, given that the support of their allegation. Moreover, they would not allow the dead them for it. the man’s slaves, who had been with him when he was murdered, to be interro— Cicero’s sensational revelation of the background to the case had gated since these were now the property of Chrysogonus.