One of the noteworthy individuals of the ancient Roman republic was Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC). He contributed in writing and played a significant role in the majority of the important political events. He was also a lawyer, orator, philosopher, and statesman. In the years 83–81 BC, he started practicing law. In one significant case, he successfully defended Sextus Roscius against accusations of murder in 80 BC. (Dyck ed. 2010, p. 1). Because homicide was a despicable crime, he showed his skill and bravery by taking on the case. Additionally, Sulla (the Roman ruler) was a close ally of those who Cicero accused of the patricide, including Chrysogonous. (Tahin 2014, p. 20). The strength of the defence speech enabled the acquittal of Roscius Sextus and become an indirect challenge to the rulers.
Sextus Roscius faced murder charges for killing his own father. He was accused to have played a role in the assassination of Sextus Roscius Major. Cicero acted as a representative or advocate for younger Sextus Roscius who was a country boy. Surprisingly, although he was blamed and charged with the killing of Sextus Roscius Major, he was not in the country at the moment of his father’s demise. Based on the accusations, his properties were confiscated and sold out at an auction by the authority (Ahn 2013, p.15). The prosecutors suggested that he committed the act by hiring another person to perform the deeds on his behalf. However, they did not name or produce the assassin who committed the act. In Roscius defence, Cicero used his legal skills by blaming Sulla of assassinating Roscius Major for political reasons (Dyck 2003, p. 15). In addition, he claimed that individuals who chose to support Chrysogonous in the conviction that they were supporting the aristocracy were misguided to do so, because his dishonesty was a problem on the Roman Republic (Dyck ed. 2010, p. 6). His defence speeches argued that the cause could be made more impressive by opposing worthless people. The worthless supporter of Chrysogonous, who thought that their causes were the same, had destroyed and alienated him or herself from such magnificence (Roscius 2003, p. 13).
The process of Cicero’s defence was categorized into three stages. The first part explained exactly how the prosecutor (Ericius) brought up the charges. He described how a countryside son of a farmer, who exist off the desires of his own piece of land, would have acquired anything from murdering his father since he would have ultimately become heir to the land of his father anyway (Ahn 2013, p.7). Secondly, he demonstrated the greed and boldness of Capito and Magnus who were the accusers. Cicero asked the judges that the accusers were more the more probable culprits of murder since both were greedy. In addition, he argued that both were colluding against their fellow companion. He alleged that Magnus was unapologetic and unashamed for coming to court to accuse others falsely (Husband 1915). Thirdly, he highlighted that Chrysogonous possessed huge political power hence the allegation was effective done because of that authority. Although the character of Chrysogonus may not have been reflected from Cicero’s speech, via rhetoric, he effectively created an image of a foreign freed person who was deceitful enough to benefit from the outcome of the civil war and to flourish (Dyck ed. 2010, p. 13). Cicero deduced that it demonstrated the type of a man he was and hence he was capable of doing assassination.
Cicero went ahead to use each of these parts, starting with a defence of Roscius on the accusations. At the beginning of his defence, he proclaims that is obligatory upon a prosecutor who would substantiate the guilty of murder of man to illustrate that the defendant had the abandoned behaviours to commit such astounding and heinous crime (Roscius 2003, p. 13). For this reason, he calls the potential murder a person of incomparable boldness, having a violent disposition and vicious character, which produces a life that leads to crime and vice (Berry 2000, p.38). In defence of Roscius, he asks the question on whether he was used to committing assassinations (Tahin 2014, p. 20). Secondly, he tried to find out whether his client was a pleasure seeker who had been overcome by debts. Fortunately, he established that Roscius had not previously involved in murder charges and had no debts. In this regard, he noted that Roscius owed somebody money and was not a pleasure seeker (Dyck ed. 2010, p. 15). Moreover, Cicero affirmed that Sextus Roscius rarely ever went out to parties. The prosecutor also admitted that Roscius was not engaging in such activities. Precisely, Cicero questioned how unrestrained behaviours (cupiditates) occur in an individual who spend most of his time in the countryside participating in his land cultivation (Tahin 2014, p.39). He also claimed that rural lie is normally segregated from pleasures and united to dutifulness.
Cicero also criticized the prosecutor’s assertion that his client (Roscius) was a murderer. He uses his rebuttal to emphasize on the innocence of Roscius by utilizing the arguments based on "probabile ex vita". In addition, he asks Erucius to illustrate that Roscius was the type of individual having the capacity to commit murder (Dyck ed. 2010, p. 7). On the other hand, he declares that he will demonstrate that the life’s habits, moral character and background of Roscius made his charges inconceivable. Ironically, it seems that the precise approach Cicero followed here had been provided partly by the prosecutor himself. Erucius had claimed that Sextus Roscius Younger had killed his father since the Roscius Major was planning to disinherit or disown his son (Ahn 2013, p.15). For this reason, he tried to formulate a motive for a planned change in the will of older Roscius. In addition, he fabricated a proof of the father’s hatred for his own son.
Apparently, Erucius made several claims that the defendant was boorish and savage.in addition, he highlighted to the people that Roscius Major (father) had “demoted” his son to Ameria in a family estates instead of permitting him to stay with him at the city of Rome. However, it was established that these were ill-conceived statements by Erucius – the prosecutor, in order to fix Roscius (Husband 1915, p. 31). Fortunately, it provided a perfect opportunity for Cicero to point out the false allegations in defence of his client. Firstly, he agreed with the prosecutor’s description of Roscius as a countryside boy. Therefore, he persuaded the jury and the audience that Roscius was unable of committing murder of his own father as he was accused (Tahin 2014, p.40).
More importantly, Cicero uses the Roman farmers in his defence of his client. Precisely, he developed a spirited and extended defence against the assertion that people living in rural areas have no values. He starts by reminding the jury and other audience of the opinions of patres familias particularly people of Roscius’ class from the city centres in the country (Vasaly 1985, p. 7). According to him, these men were willing to allow their sons to manage their estates in the same way Roscius Major had done for his son. Therefore, he advised that Roscius Major had not sent his son to America as a punishment. In fact, such actions illustrate a father’s affection and respect for his own son (Ahn 2013, p.13). In addition, Cicero argued that the old-fashioned people in the countryside sent their sons to supervise their estates in the cities because they lacked linkages with the urban dwellers. In particular, their sons had the ability to connect with the urban dwellers more easily (Dyck 2003, p. 17).
Furthermore, he asserted that the senators in the country were connected to such men as friends and clients in the countryside especially when they needed their votes during crucial points in decision making in Rome (Husband 1915, p. 38). Moreover, some of the senators on the bench lived in the houses of these men when they visited such men’s homes at the countryside. Similarly, Cicero noted that the bench he was addressing was consisted of landed elite who in most instances could trace their origin to the same urban aristocracy (Dyck ed. 2010, p. 19). Furthermore, he established that they were registered in the rural instead of urban classes was not an illustration of early gerrymandering (Ahn 2013, p.10). In fact, it demonstrated that the origin of Roman senatorial class was founded in the countryside as opposed to the city. Although such people certainly despised the job at their farms, and used slave overseers to manage their estates, they nonetheless adhered persistently to the image of them being countryside men. Therefore, they would be unwilling to condemn the theoretical opinions of these urban landowners (Husband 1915, p. 31). Cicero concludes by asserting that by demonstrating disrespect for rural life, the prosecutor had talked contrary to the common beliefs, the normal behaviours of persons, and natural order of items.
Cicero’s speech also claimed that since it had been prosecutor’s lot to have indefinite background, he could barely understand the behaviours and feelings of fathers towards their sons. Additionally, the lawyer submitted that a man like Erucius had to understand such details from literature as opposed from experience. He cites the Caercilius play where the father allowed one of his sons in the city, Chaerestratus while the other Eutychus lived in the rural area (Vasaly 1985, p. 17). The play was similar to the case he was dealing where elder Roscius allowed his son to live in the city. In addition, he questions the prosecutor if he thought that this imaginary father cherished his son in the country less than he did to the one living in the city (Dyck ed. 2010, p. 19). Through his reference to the play, it leads to deduction that the stereotypically moral deeds of a countryside son were played against the naughty behaviours of an urban son.
Cicero also alluded to Caecilians play aiming to reinforce his argument of rural life. He expected to enhance the jury to see young Roscius as having the character of a typical countryside boy just like Eutychus in the play. On the other hand, Erucius had hoped to create an image that rustic people are tenacious, stern, and harsh to the jury (Husband 1915, p. 35). In addition, he was intended to deliver an image of a character who was unable to cope with challenges of the urban environment and who was completely out of touch in the city. However, the young countryside boy had completely diverse character since he is hardworking, straightforward, intelligent and slow to anger (Ahn 2013, p.10). Therefore, Cicero compared young Roscius to Eutychus – the countryside boy in the play of Caecilius, which helped to convince the jury and audience that he had sympathetic and attractive characters (Berry 2000, p.39). The defence counsel is much helped in this work by the idea that the case was centred on the relationship between younger Roscius (son) and elder Roscius (his father). The jury was therefore, persuaded to view younger Roscius just like Eutychus and his work in the rural areas (Roscius 2003, p. 19). In addition, Cicero’s speeches provide an opportunity to ascribe humility and positive stereotype of young men living in rural areas.
Moreover, Cicero used the Roman history in defence of Roscius. He summoned the cases of ancient roman heroes such as Atilius who successfully worked in their farms. Such people were credited of initiating a major transformation in Rome from a struggling and small area to a huge and powerful city. They committed themselves to land cultivation. Therefore, Roscius should be embraced for being rural (Dyck ed. 2010, p. 21). Therefore, he was committed to hard work, hardships and thrift in the rural areas. Therefore, he demonstrates the scarcity of evidence, which ascertain the accusation against Roscius (Vasaly 1985, p. 21). He alleges that there was a plot by Chrysogonus, Magnus and Capito to eliminate Roscius. He claimed that the participation in crime of these people was inevitable and attributes the three urban vices to the three persons (Tahin 2014, p.40).
The image of Chrysogonous concentrates on his luxuries. The advocate suggested that Chrysogonous intended to spend his luxurious materials what he had acquired through crime. In his speech, Cicero also mentioned the extravagance of Chrysogonous explaining his many possessions and amusements (Ahn 2013, p.11). This part is followed by a prolonged account of the surplus that characterizes the life of Chrysogonous. For instance, he possesses numerous houses, which are lavishly furnished, and has large amounts of statues, paintings, tapestries and silver.
The character ascribed to Chrysogonous thus creates a contrast to that of Roscius since the freedman’s evils are the reflection of young Roscius merits. For instance, Chrysogonous is known for his lavish spending in feasts as compared to Roscius who does not go to dinner parties (Husband 1915, p. 37). In addition, Chrysogonous has many slaves to work for his and meet his possible desires as compared to Roscius who has no servants. Through his speeches, he depicts Chrysogonous to be a man devoted to the excess and luxury of the city relative to Roscius who thrive in hard work in the rural areas (Dyck ed. 2010, p. 37).
Similarly, Magnus and Capito are portrayed as villains of a related sort. After associating Chrysogonous with immoralities such as luxuries, the advocate repetitively uses to these two other evils where the city produces and they include audacia and avaritia. He also claimed that Magnus and Capito exhibit audacious or boldness. In several moments, he calls them as greedy and audacious. He requests the judges to pay close attention on who would be a more likely culprit of assassination (Roscius 2003, p. 27). Both men were more likely to be the offenders since they were bold and greedy (audax and avarus). He had ascertained the greedy of Magnus by the fact that he had a plan to eliminate his fellow relative and townsman. In addition, his boldness can be demonstrated due to the idea that he was unapologetic to appear in court to provide false information and witness against Roscius (Tahin 2014, p.44).
Additionally, he refers Magnus as a person burning with self-indulgence or greed. He is also referred to the audacious of brokers. Based on Cicero’s argument, the reason the criminality of both witnesses has been easily recognized is that they had been characterized by boldness, and greedy desires (Ahn 2013, p.12). He also asks the jury that in a bid to get the person responsible for the murder of elder Roscius, they should be guided by the persona such as treachery, depravity, boldness, and greed. Based on these characteristics, Capito and Magnus were the most probable murderers of elder Roscius. Finally, young Roscius was acquitted after it became clear that he was not responsible of his father’s death (Berry 2000, p.40).
Conclusion
The case involving the murder of elder Roscius provide an opportunity for Cicero to exhibit his defence skills. He represented younger Roscius in a case where he was charged for assassinating his own father. However, he successfully argued that the boy was incapable of engaging in such activities but instead blamed the assassination on powerful individual in Rome (Dyck 2003, p. 15). He was able to prove that powerful persons in the country such as Chrysogonous, Magnus and Capito were responsible for the death of elder Roscius for political reasons. In his defence, he demonstrated the characters of these people. For instance, he illustrated how these people are guided by dishonesty and greed (Ahn 2013, p.12). Chrysogonous was also associated to Sulla, who was a Roman dictator. The speech also helps to win the case after charges against younger Roscius is withdrawn. He suggested that Capito and Magnus were attempting to use the case to deny the son justice in inheritance of his father’s properties.
References
Ahn, J., 2013. Cicero’s humanitas in forensic Speech: focusing on Pro Roscio Amerino. Classica-Revista Brasileira de Estudos Clássicos, 22(2), pp.216-228.
Berry, D.H., 2000. Cicero: Defence Speeches.
Dyck, A.R. ed., 2010. Cicero:'Pro Sexto Roscio'. Cambridge University Press.
Dyck, A.R., 2003. Evidence and rhetoric in Cicero’s Pro Roscio Amerino: the case against Sex. Roscius. The Classical Quarterly (New Series), 53(01), pp.235-246.
Husband, R.W., 1915. The Prosecution of Sextus Roscius: A Case of Parricide, with a Plea of Alibi and Non-Motive. The Classical Weekly, 8(12), pp.90-93.
Roscius, S., 2003. Evidence And Rhetoric In Cicero’s Pro Roscio Amerino: The Case Against. Classical Quarterly, 53, pp.235-246.
Tahin, G., 2014. Heuristic strategies in the speeches of Cicero. Springer.
Tahin, G., 2014. Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino. In Heuristic Strategies in the Speeches of Cicero (pp. 113-126). Springer International Publishing.
Vasaly, A., 1985. The Masks of Rhetoric: Cicero’s Pro Roscio Amerino. Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 3(1), pp.1-20.
