Pro Roscio Amerino is a defence speech given by Marcus Tullius Cicero on behalf of Sextus Roscius, a Roman citizen from the municipality of Amelia accused of murdering his father. Delivered in 80 BC, it was Cicero's first major public case. It is also his second-earliest surviving speech (after the Pro Quinctio).
Background Cicero's narrative, outlining the 'pact' (societas) centred around Chrysogonus, is the basis for our understanding of the events leading up to the trial. It is worth remembering, however, that we only have Cicero's version, and some scholars have questioned the truthfulness of his account.References in Dyck, Cicero: pro Sexto Roscio, pp. 4–12, 17–19 For example, in his authoritative commentary on the speech, Andrew Dyck believes that Roscius Capito's involvement in the 'pact' was minimal: all Cicero can say with certainty is that Capito was the first person at Ameria to hear about the murder, which allegedly makes him a suspect in the case.Dyck, Cicero: pro Sexto Roscio, pp. 8–9, 18 Summarising his views on Cicero's case, Dyck writes:Dyck, Cicero: pro Sexto Roscio, p. 17 C. [= Cicero] criticizes the prosecutor, Gaius Erucius, for presenting a weak case ... In fact, C. himself did not have much material; the only evidence he adduces is a decree passed by the decurions of Ameria declaring that the elder Roscius was wrongly proscribed and the son should receive his property back. He holds no witnesses in prospect, merely trying to intimidate a prospective prosecution witness ... In fact, C.'s lengthy speech in defense of his client is mostly the product of his imagination, deployed to derive maximum advantage from scanty materials.
Murder of Sex. Roscius senior The elder Sextus Roscius was a wealthy landowner and distinguished citizen of Ameria, a municipium in southern Umbria. He had influential connections in Rome, most notably with the prestigious Caecilii Metelli, and, according to Cicero, he had supported the cause of Sulla during the civil wars of the 80s.Freese, Cicero's Speeches, p. 113
In 82 BC, Sulla successfully became dictator, and initiated a series of state-sanctioned murders known as the proscriptions. The consequences of being proscribed included the death sentence, and the public auction of all property belonging to the proscribed.Plutarch, Sulla 33.2 Sulla set the end-date for the proscriptions as 1 June 81 BC, after which time no more names could be added to the list.Cicero, pro Roscio Amerino 128
A few months after 1 June 81 BC, the elder Sextus Roscius was murdered near the Pallacine Baths in Rome while returning from a party. His son, Sextus Roscius the younger, was in Ameria at the time: however, a certain relative from Ameria, Titus Roscius Magnus, was present at Rome. Before the murder, Magnus and another relative, Titus Roscius Capito, had been engaged in a property dispute with the elder Sextus Roscius.Cicero, pro Roscio Amerino 87 Immediately upon hearing of the murder, Magnus sent his freedman, Mallius Glaucia, to Ameria in order to inform Capito of the news.Cicero, pro Roscio Amerino 19, 96–9 According to Cicero, Capito then sent word to Lucius Cornelius Chrysogonus, a powerful freedman of the dictator Sulla, who was at his camp besieging the rebel town of Volaterrae.Dyck, Cicero: Pro Sexto Roscio, pp. 4–10
Proscription and sale of property After hearing of the murder, Chrysogonus entered the elder Sextus Roscius onto the list of the proscribed, even though the official terminus of 1 June had passed. Chrysogonus then proceeded to auction Sextus' thirteen estates, reportedly worth around 6 million sesterces.Cicero, pro Roscio Amerino 6 According to Cicero, no one dared bid against the powerful Chrysogonus: as a result, Chrysogonus himself purchased the entire property for a mere 2000 sesterces.Cicero, pro Roscio Amerino 6
Crucially, Chrysogonus now named Magnus as his agent (procurator) in the purchase, meaning he took over ten of the estates on Chrysogonus' behalf.Cicero, pro Roscio Amerino 21, 23 Magnus proceeded to evict the younger Sextus Roscius from his father's property. According to Cicero, all these events took place within a span of only nine days after the murder.Cicero, pro Roscio Amerino 23
Embassy, flight, and trial Outraged at the eviction of the younger Sextus Roscius, the decuriones of Ameria sent an embassy of ten prominent men (decem primi) to Sulla's camp at Volaterrae. However, Capito was included among the ten: and, according to Cicero, he secretly convinced Chrysogonus to grant him the remaining three of Sextus Roscius' estates.Cicero, pro Roscio Amerino 17, 21, 108, 115 In return for this, Capito allegedly derailed the embassy by granting them false assurances that Chrysogonus would restore Sextus Roscius' property. As a result, the embassy left without ever meeting Sulla.Cicero, pro Roscio Amerino 26Dyck, Cicero: Pro Sexto Roscio, p. 9
Fearful that the 'conspirators' would murder him too, the younger Sextus Roscius now fled to Rome. He sheltered in the house of Caecilia Metella, the wife of Appius Claudius Pulcher.Dyck, Cicero: Pro Sexto Roscio, p. 202 In addition, Sextus enlisted the aid of several young nobles, including Marcus Valerius Messalla Niger, a Marcus Caecilius Metellus, and Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica (the father of Metellus Scipio).Cicero, pro Roscio Amerino 4, 77, 149
It was at this point, in 80 BC, that the three 'conspirators' decided to prosecute the younger Sextus Roscius, accusing him of murdering his father. They hired Gaius Erucius, a well-known professional prosecutor (accusator), and allegedly also bribed some witnesses to attest against Sextus. In addition, Roscius Magnus – who was now in charge of all of Sextus Roscius' property on behalf of Chrysogonus, including his slaves – refused to allow two slaves who had witnessed the murder to give evidence (under torture, as was the custom for testifying slaves).Freese, Cicero: the Speeches, p. 116 Sextus Roscius hired Cicero, who was aged only 26.Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 15.28.3 Although Cicero had represented several clients in private civil cases, he had never undertaken a public case before: and his own explanation was that Sextus was unable to find anyone else to represent him, as everyone was terrified of Chrysogonus and his connections with Sulla.Cicero, pro Roscio Amerino 1–5
Trial The charge was patricide (parricidium), and was heard in Sulla's recently established court for poisoning and murder (quaestio de veneficiis et sicariis). The ancient punishment for patricide was infamous: the parricida was stripped, beaten, and sewn into a leather sack, allegedly containing a dog, a cock, a monkey, and a snake;Justin, Institutiones 4.18.6 the sack was then thrown into the River Tiber or the sea.Cicero, pro Roscio Amerino 71Freese, Cicero: the Speeches, pp. 120–121
It seems the prosecution based their argument upon the cui bono principle: namely, since Sextus Roscius had the most to gain from murdering his father, he was the most likely candidate.
Cicero's argument After giving his own narrative (narratio) of events (¶15–29), Cicero splits his counter-argument into three main sections:Sedgwick, Cicero's Conduct of the Case Pro Roscio
1.) Erucius' accusation of patricide is baseless (¶35–82); the younger Sextus Roscius had no motive to kill his father, with whom he was on good terms; in particular, the father never planned to disinherit his son. Sextus never had the opportunity to murder him, given that he was in Ameria at the time, and he lacked the connections or wherewithal to hire an assassin (sicarius). Sextus is a virtuous and distinguished young man, making him an implausible murderer. patricide is a serious allegation, and Erucius has failed to provide enough evidence to support it.
2.) in fact, the murder was certainly arranged by the two Titii Roscii, Magnus and Capito (¶83–121); they had plenty of motivation for the murder. they had the opportunity to arrange it, given that Magnus was in Rome at the time. their conduct was very suspicious after the murder: for example, Magnus sent Mallius Glaucia straight to Capito instead of the younger Sextus; Capito deliberately sabotaged the embassy to prevent justice; and Magnus refused to allow two slaves to testify (under torture) as witnesses.
3.) Chrysogonus is the mastermind behind the prosecution (¶122–142); although he had no part in the murder, Chrysogonus was quickly brought into the conspiracy. Chrysogonus illegally proscribed Sextus Roscius after the terminal date of 1 June 81 BC, and then bought the estates himself for a minuscule amount. Chrysogonus ordered the prosecution of the younger Sextus Roscius, in order to remove the only potential competitor for the estates. such treacherous conduct fits Chrysogonus' personality, since he lives a debauched, extravagant lifestyle.
Treatment of Sulla At the end of the speech (peroratio), Cicero dramatically appeals to the jury of senators, calling on them to make an example of Chrysogonus: by rejecting him and his false accusations, they can enhance the cause of the nobility, and help end the lawlessness and corruption of the present times.Cicero, pro Roscio Amerino 136–142
Although this involves explicit criticism of the proscriptions and the Sullan regime, Cicero is very careful to absolve Sulla himself of any blame.E.g. Cicero, pro Roscio Amerino 6, 21–22, 131 He calls Sulla a 'most illustrious and valiant citizen' (viro clarissimo et fortissimo),Cicero, pro Roscio Amerino 6 and even compares Sulla to the all-powerful father of the gods, JupiterCicero, pro Roscio Amerino 131 – though some scholars have seen this latter passage as 'ironic', 'insincere' or 'double-edged'.Dyck, Cicero: Pro Sexto Roscio, p. 186
Outcome and aftermath Cicero was successful, and Sextus Roscius was acquitted. However, since Cicero was only defending Sextus from the specific charge of patricide, it is not known if Sextus ever recovered his father's land.Lintott, Cicero as Evidence, p. 427
According to Cicero himself, the victory brought him great fame, and he was instantly considered one of the foremost advocates in Rome.Cicero, Brutus 312 Nevertheless, Cicero soon left the city to tour Greece and Asia Minor. Plutarch claims this journey was motivated by fear of Sulla,Plutarch, Life of Cicero 3.2–5 given that Cicero had challenged Chrysogonus and criticised the Sullan regime. However, Cicero himself states that the trip was to hone his skills as an orator and improve his weak physical fitness, and makes no reference to fear of Sulla.Cicero, Brutus 313–314
Looking back after nearly forty years, Cicero later felt embarrassed by the immature style and florid language he had used.Cicero, Orator 107 Nonetheless, he remained fond of the speech, and was particularly proud that he alone had been brave enough to challenge Chrysogonus contra L. Sullae dominantis opes ('in the face of the influence of Lucius Sulla the despot').Cicero, de Officiis 2.51
Scholarly observations of the speech
The legal dilemma
"The Dilemma" of the speech as seen by W. B. Sedgwick is as follows:
If Roscius I (the father) was proscribed, Roscius II (the son) could not be prosecuted for his murder; if he was not proscribed, the property was illegally sold.