743. Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino by Cicero. This speech is divided into four parts. In the first part Cicero defends Roscius on the charge that he murdered his father. In the second part he claims that the real murderers were two fellows from Ameria, Titus Roscius Capito and Magnus. In the third part Cicero attacks Chrysogonus as the real power manipulating events leading to the trial, in the fourth part he lays on the judges the necessity of ending the reign of terror instituted by using the courts.
Background. This is only a simple version, further study is required to have much better understanding. The Social War (91-88 BC) produced severe unrest and turmoil in the Republic. The Senate appointed Sulla to command the army against Mithridates. This command was removed and given to Marius by an assembly of the people. Sulla marched on Rome. He defeated his opponents. He had his enemies declared outlaws. Sulla has his command reinstated and goes off to defeat Mithridates. November 1, 82 BC, Sulla, after returning to Italy, defeats those opposed to him. The famous Lex Valeria/Lex Cornelia setting up the proscriptions brought about the deaths of thousands and the confiscation of their property. It was murder and plunder on a large scale. The law was set to expire June 1, 80 BC.
The point of the above is to demonstrate that society was in turmoil and the rule of law was seriously threatened.
Then in August of July of 81 BC, Sextus Roscius, father, was returning home from Rome after a party. He is murdered. Within hours his death was reported not to his son but to Amerinans hostile to the father. These bring in Chrysogonus, freedman of Sulla who had control of the records. Chrysogonus has the name of the father placed on the proscription list. His property is confiscated and Chrysogonus bought it for the incredibly low sum of 2,000 sesterci (a few hundred dollars). When the government body of Ameria learned of this, they sent a delegation to Sulla to explain what had happened. (It is fair to say that Sextus Roscius, the son, must have found support in the local government body.) But Titus Roscius Capito managed to get his name on the list of delegates and sabotaged the delegation. They never met with Sulla. Chrysogonus, informed by Capito, convinced them that he would take care of everything. At this point the partnership of Chrysogonus/Capito/Magnus decided that Roscius, the son, had to go. So they brought accusation before the court to try him for the murder of his father.
Cicero decides to take the case. He puts his own life in danger. Why? Because Sulla is Dictator and Consul and it is he who instituted the Proscription and was in a very powerful position.
 |
| From this portrait of Cicero others have been identified. |
The case:
Many are surprised when Cicero, instead of other leading figures, stands up to speak. He points out that a trial of this nature indicates that there is something wrong in the republic.
tametsi non modo ignoscendi ratio, verum etiam cognoscendi consuetudo iam de civitate sublata est.
Not only the ability to pardon but also the customary right of inquiry has been removed from the state.
The property of the father, Sextus Roscius, was purchased by Lucius Cornelius Chrysogonus, a freedman of Sulla. However, Sextus, the son, stands in the way of luxurious life style. It is clear that Chrysogonus wants the judges to be assistants in his crime.
If you think that Chrysogonus’s request is fair that he claims the property of Sextus, the son, I have another idea- resist bold people, remove Sextus from danger, a danger which hangs over all of us. Do not let these wicked people do to Sextus via the courts which they they have been used to doing via the sword.
(There was a huge attendance at the trial.)
If we do not get a handle on this, crimes will soon take place here in the forum in front of all of us.
To make things clear, Cicero begins at the beginning:
Sextus Roscius, the father, stood by the nobility through the Civil War. The Proscriptions took place. He was pleased that the nobles had won. He felt secure. There were old hostilities with fellow people of Ameria: Titus Roscius Capito and Magnus. It may be of interest to the court later on that both men were trained by professional gladiators. Sextus, the son, was on his farm and Magnus was in Rome when Sextus, the father, near the baths of Pallacina, was murdered. The murder was committed in the early night. By morning a messenger delivered the news of the death of Sextus, the father, not to the son but to Capito who was in Ameria. This is a distance of 56 miles. Someone clearly was in a hurry to relay the news.
Four days later this murder was reported to Chrysogonus who was with Sulla at Volaterrae. Chrysogonus was informed of the thirteen farms owned by Sextus, the father. All of these were ideally located along the Tiber River. Magnus and Capito make it clear that Sextus, the son, the legal heir to the property, could be taken care of.
Although the Proscriptions were over as of June 1, 81 BC, and now it was late summer, the name of Sextus, the father, was placed on the list. Soon three farms were turned over to Capito, the rest Magnus held as manager for Chrysogonus.
So what was Sulla doing during all of this? He was busy settling the state after the upheaval of almost a decade of war. He was putting the state on firm ground.
What Capito does not possess, the rest was disposed of somehow.
At this point the local government of Ameria, sends a delegation to Sulla to expose what they knew of what has been going on. But Chrysogonus is informed of the delegation. He convinces certain nobles to meet the delegation and explain that everything will be handled and all property will be returned to the rightful owner.
Someone may wonder how the delegation was derailed. Capito, a member of the delegation, made sure that the plan failed.
It was at this point that the syndicate decided that Sextus, the son, had to go. So they charged him with the crime of killing his own father. The son, very concerned, met with his friends and they urged him to seek safety in Rome. So he went to Caecilia, a friend of his father.
But the syndicate was not worried about this. They could not imagine that anyone would come forward to defend the son. Why? Chrysogonus would make sure that no one would. After the brutality of the Civil War who would dare stir Sulla’s anger?
They had tried to kill the son, this failed; consequently judges, they hope that you will do the job for them.
Then Cicero seems to divert but, if one thinks about it, he does not. He recalls the lawlessness of the state at the time when Scaevola was butchered ( during the massive upheavals of the late eighties). This Cicero deftly compares to the lawlessness which now faces the son.
So what is opposed to Sextus, the son? The charge of murder, boldness and shear power. The prosecution alleges that the father hated the son. But there is a problem here. There is no proof. Their proof is that the father put him in charge of the farms. Does this make any sense?
Then the prosecution makes a big deal that Sextus, the son, loved farming. Cicero shreds this by talking of the qualities of farming and that the solid hard work improves a person.
The prosecution claimed that the father wanted to disinherit the son. But offers no proof what so ever.
The only reason this accusation exists at all is because Chrysogonus was sure that no one would take the case.
As if often the case, Cicero realized that there was a need for relief in a trail which was so serious and dangerous. So he presents a humorous description of the prosecutor, Erucius.
He wandered around while speaking. Sometimes he sat down. One time he called a slave over. At this point Cicero suggests that he did so to order dinner. When he finished, he sat down and while Cicero began his defense, he smiled, talked to those with him on the bench, joked and ignored Cicero until Cicero mentioned the name, Chrysogonus. Erucius, the prosecutor, jumped up, Cicero said the name, Chrysogonus again and then again. At that point messengers ran to and fro to announce to Chrysogonus that apparently there was someone with guts enough to make a real defense for Sextus, the son.
(The passage is well worth reading to get an idea of how forceful and clever Cicero could be.)
There is no evidence for parricide.
Again Cicero excuses as too busy to know every detail of what everyone was doing.
(But if one thinks about it, a large part of this whole speech is an attack on Sulla, indirectly, but an attack nevertheless.)
At this point Cicero accuses Capito and Magnus of committing the murder. Magnus was at Rome when the father was murdered. He had associates known to be involved in assassinations. The murder was announced to Capito at Ameria by Mallius Glaucia. Did he travel by night the long distance by chance? Yes, and in a hurry. Was it a long journey? 56 miles. Was there a need for numerous carriage changes? You bet. Did he inform Capito or the son? He informed Capito. Clearly there was haste to inform Capito. Weird, huh?
(It is essential to imagine that Cicero must have hired detectives to gather so much information spread out over several months and in different places.)
There were clearly high emotions before the trial. Capito waved his intended testimony in the son’s face at the trial. But Cicero quickly picks up on this as odd. He holds this testimony of Capito up as evidence of the sorry state of legal inquiry. There is a law that a person can not give testimony in a case that concerns them. So Cicero says that it was a mistake to sit at the bench of the prosecution.
A mere four days later the death of Sextus, the father, was announced to Chrysogonus. Who sent the message? Why was Chrysogonus eager to sell a person’s property whom he did not even know? How can the triangle of Magnus/Capito/Chrysogonus be a fiction? Clearly Capito sabotaged the delegation by working with Chrysogonus behind the scenes. But here again Capito blundered. He was part of a delegation to give honest report to Sulla of what had happened. He betrayed that trust and trust is very important. This man betrays trust and yet Sextus, the son is on trial. Fides, trust is the bond that holds everything together. Break that and there is only the law of the jungle. Capito did not betray the trust of one person but nine others as the delegation consisted of ten people.
The slaves of Sextus, the father, were present at the murder. But these, Capito, refuses to allow to be interrogated. This is suspicious; they surely know something. Enough of this but there is something fishy here.
Now Cicero turns to Chrysogonus. Cicero suggests hesitation, as the man is powerful. He bought the properties. By what law could the property of the father be sold? The Proscription Law (Lex Valeria/Cornelia) states:
ut aut eorum bona veneant, qui proscripti sunt; aut eorum qui in adversariorum praesidiis occisi sunt…
that either the property of those may be sold who were proscribed; or of those who in the opposition forces were killed…
There is a big problem here. Sextus was never proscribed. He was on Sulla’s side.
So Chrysogonus lied, made up the story that the father was a bad citizen, that the father was killed along with those who opposed Sulla and prevented the delegation from seeing Sulla.
Remember too that the proscription edict expired June 1, 81 BC. The murder of the father and subsequent events took place at the end of the summer. So of course it was impossible that the name was on the list. So Chrysogonus is playing a game, here.
Judges may wonder where Cicero is going with this, but he asks for time.
This case pertains not just to Sextus but to all of us. Every person in this state. Chrysogonus is the one behind all of this and Sulla is not being attacked as the prosecution would like everyone to believe. Sulla was busy and everyone misses things.
There is a lost section of the speech at this point. But enough evidence survives that Cicero argued that the property was not sold but has been dispersed in such a way to conceal ownership.
Cicero proceeds to describe Chrysogonus’ belongings. Where did he get the money for all of this? The war has given great power to a person like Chrysogonus and at this point takes the opportunity to warn the nobles that if they should rest on their laurels (after putting the state back into their hands) they may lose what they hold so dear.
This domination of Chrysogonus is making plans to control your loyalty, your allegiance and even court verdicts.
The following displays Cicero’s utter diamay at what has been happening:
hicne etiam sese putat aliquid posse Chrysogonus?
first word by word: here indeed himself thinks some power possesses Chrysogonus?
The word order shows how dismayed and angry Cicero is.
Chrysogonus thinks that Even here in this court room he possesses influence and power?
Cleary, Cicero is making the case that people had better set things right.
This passage is designed to drive a wedge between decent people and even tepidly decent people and Chrysogonus.
Then Cicero assumes the part of the son (called prosopopoeia).
You have everything I own, let me live in peace.
This is used to show the immense power of Chrysogonus and how he has called all of the shots. The attack on the son has no other purpose than the display of naked power.
You judges have the chance to do the right thing. Grasp it. If Chrysogonus is not content to be taking whatever he wants. then the last refuge for not only Sextus but the entire Republic is the mercy and integrity of the courts.
Then Cicero has an awesome metaphor:
Good generals set an ambush for those of the enemy who might escape. This is exactly what Chrysogonus and his crew have done- they are using you, the court, to set an ambush for those who have escaped.
How weird that this state, famous for its mercy toward the enemy, today deals with cruelty toward its own citizens.
signed,
Obstinate Classicist
No comments:
Post a Comment