Reviews for Cicero: Pro Sexto Roscio

The average rating for Cicero: Pro Sexto Roscio based on 2 reviews is 4.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2016-02-22 00:00:00 Editha Quirino Cicero's First Trial 25 February 2016 I must admit, I love a good murder trial. Okay, this is only one of four that are in the book that I'm reading (Murder Trials) but I feel that it is probably worth reviewing all on its own (in fact I'll be reviewing each of the four trials individually and then looking at the book at a whole once I've finished it - which does break it up a bit). Mind you, this is only the defence spech, as written by one of Rome's greatest orator's, Marcus Cicero, so unfortunately we can only work out what the opposing argument was based upon what Cicero says, however since it was his first (actually second, but since his first was a contractual dispute that didn't end in bloodshed it sort of doesn't count) trial and he was victorious, and managed to avoid getting executed by Sulla, I guess I would be with the majority to say that I was convinced by his argument. Anyway, poor Sextus Roscius Junior (whom I will refer to as Junior from now on) was having a bit of a rough time. First of all his father, Sextus Roscius Senior (whom I will refer to as, you guessed it, Senior) was fraudulently put on the proscription list, a list of people that the then dictator Sulla had decreed as enemies of the state and thus could be murdered with impunity. So, when Senior was murdered all of his property was confiscated and sold to the highest bidder, that happened to be the guy that originally put his name on the list (sounds like there was a bit of corruption going on here). So, poor Junior is left penniless, but Chrysogonus (the villain of the piece) is not content to let Junior live the life of a beggar, but instead accuses him of murdering his father, which was considered to be an incredibly heinous crime in Ancient Rome. Anyway, the whole case was incredibly toxic - not only was Senior one of the proscribed, but Junior was a parricide (father killer), so not surprisingly nobody wanted to touch it, with the exception of one young barrister, Marcus Cicero, who was starting to make his name in Roman society. It was obvious to anybody with half a brain that Junior was not a murder, and this was simply an act by Chrysogonus to clean up a few loose ends, but the problem was to get on to the wrong side of Chrysogous was to dance with death. The fact that Ciciero did, and lived to tell the tale, goes to show how cunning he actually was. The argument is intriguing because Cicero goes to prove that since parricide is such a heinous crime, only the most depraved and violent of individuals could even consider doing such a thing. Okay, we see it happen these days, and in fact there was a recently case in Adelaide when the son of the coach of one of the football teams murdered the coach. Sure, people were horrified, but not so much because his son had committed the deed, but rather because of the status of the person that was murdered. However there were suggestions that drugs were involved in that particular instance. Family ties were much stronger back in those days than they are today, however even then a rebellious child would still be disinherited and cut off from the family. These days I sometimes wonder if our family ties are anywhere near as great. I suspect it had something to do with Rome being a patriarchal society, and while divorce was common, due to the nature of society back then the male tended to retain the right to the property while the woman would be out on her own (there was no alimony in Ancient Rome). These days the male isn't necessarily the one who retains the right to the property, which means that he does not necessarily remain the master of the household. In the Roman era, because the father was the head of the household, murdering him would be akin to murdering a king. The other interesting thing that Cicero does (and I'm not sure if defence counsel's do it today) is that he then goes to prove that while Junior does not fit the character of a person who could murder his father, Chrysogonus was the type of person to murder Senior. However the catch is (and Cicero is clear on this in his speech), is that it doesn't matter whether Chrysogonus is guilty or not, Senior had been proscripted, and as such if it is the case that Chrysogonus is guilty, he acted within the bounds of the law. In the end all Cicero was doing was saving Junior's neck.

Review # 2 was written on 2012-06-26 00:00:00 Roy Young I read this work to see how well it comports with Cicero's system of attributes in his texts on rhetoric. This approach allowed him the flexibility of portraying persons, places, and things in the best light possible to support his given case. He would ascribe very harsh attributes to the object(s) he wished debunked, and reserve the application of good and noble attributes to that object he was defending. In Cicero's Pro Sexto we can easily see his system of attributes being used to great effect. On one hand, Cicero ascribes good and noble characteristics to his client Roscius person, deeds and manner. On the other, he viciously attacks Chrysogonus and his cronies by using attributes that are both derogatory and demeaning. At one point, Cicero even attacks Chrysogonus sexuality. He does this to cast a dark light on the man he considers guilty of generating the charges his client must defend himself against. It is important to consider that this speech was Cicero's first in a major legal case. At this point in his illustrious career he was a relative "novus homo", who had yet to develope a great deal of ethos. He used the defence of Roscius as as much of a weapon against the ills that were plaguing Rome as he did to acquit his client. In this cause, he pilloried Chrysogonus as a man who represented all that was evil and dishonorable in Rome. This analysis will be divided up into three sections. The first will address Cicero's system of attributes that are used to describe an act. The second will address the personal attributes he applies to Chrysogonus while the third will discuss those attributes that combine the act with the person. I will provide a number of examples for each subcategory, but not in every case for the sake of brevity. ATTRIBUTES OF THE ACT The attributes of action are divided into five categories in Cicero's system. These are place, time, occasion, manner, and facilities. These are all used to determine various aspects of the actions that resulted in the current litigation. By presenting these attributes in the desired "color", or slant, arguments are generated that act as proof for the speaker's contentions. It is common to find these elements placed in the narrative section of forensic speeches. Cicero follows this tact in ascribing the various attributes of the act involving Chrysogonus and his cohorts. While many of these rhetorical allusions are found in the narrative, this is not always the case. Please note the overlap many of these attributes can have. In the examples below, some of the quotes can be used for a number of categories other than the one their included under. I will present a quote from the text and a brief analysis for each attribute. PLACE: "Four days after these events, the affair was reported to Chrysogonus in Sulla's camp at Volaterrae…. a partnership was formed." Page 87 This describes where Chrysogonus met with Capito and conspired to usurp Roscius's fortune. The implication being, there was an opportunity in the stipulated place to form a partnership. After showing that Chrysogonus and Capito were in the same place at the same time, Cicero then makes the leap to his suspicion of a partnership. This proof, in itself, can be debated, but as more and more attributes are piled onto one another, the appearance of impropriety assumes a greater likelihood to the judge and jury. This example can also be used to describe the attribute of time. ***** TIME: "After Sextus Roscius had been killed, the news was first brought to Ameria by one Malilius Glaucia,…, a client and intimate of this Titus Roscius, and brought, not to the son, but to his fathers enemy, Titus Capito. During the night, in ten hours, with relays of light vehicles, he rapidly covered 56 miles, not only to be the first to bring the longed message to the enemy, but also to show him the still reeking blood of his enemy, and the dagger just pulled out of the body." Page 87, Paragraph 1. This passage demonstrates not only the involvement of careful timing in Sextus murder, but the likely complicity of Glaucia, Titus Roscius and Capito. Not only did Glaucia have to travel all night to get the news to Capito first, but he also needed relays to do so. This in itself, shows a degree of careful planing that can only be described as a conspiracy. The fact that Glaucia brought the dagger with him, and had very little time between when the actual murder was committed and when he left for Amerino, further implicates him in the conspiracy with Capito leading to Sextus murder. By using the attribute of time Cicero has strongly implied, immediately after Sextus was killed, Glaucia was waiting in the wings to do his part. Please note that this passage can also be used to describe place, in that Glaucia was in the right place, and there at the right time, to have been involved in the murder of Sextus. ***** OCCASION: "Now, while my client was at Ameria, and that Titus Roscius Magnus at Rome, while the son was always engaged upon his farms,…, whereas Magnus was constantly at Rome, the father, while returning one evening from supper, was killed near the baths of Pallacina. I hope what I have stated leaves no doubt on whom suspicion of having committed the crime falls,…" Page 86, Paragraph 3 Here Cicero points out that Sextus was on the farm (56 miles from Rome) and had no occasion to strike a blow at his father. On the other hand, Magnus was in Rome, and had ample opportunity to preform the actual murder himself. He had earlier presented Magnus as a "gladiator", which must have helped make the implication complete. ***** MANNER: "… Titus Roscius, the agent of Chrysogonus, comes to Ameria; he seizes my client's farms, and before the unhappy man, overwhelmed with grief, had rendered all the last token of respect to his father, strips and throws him out of his house, and drives him headlong from the hearth and home of his fathers and household gods, while he himself becomes the owner of an ample property." Page 89, Paragraph 2 This passage vividly describes the utterly deplorable manner in which Titus impounded Roscius ancestral home. He did so before Roscius even had time to grieve for his murdered father. Titus even took Roscius cloths, and threw him, naked, into the streets. He then assumed ownership of the unfortunate man's house. I felt indignation when I read this passage. Here's a man, who's father has just been murdered. In comes a greedy conspirator who was an accomplice to those who murdered his father. He throws poor Roscius out, takes over his home, and even confiscates the clothes he's wearing. We have here greed, insensitivity, cruelty, and viciousness all piled together in one passage. Titus manner will be remembered for all of time thanks to Cicero. Another lesser example is: "He openly carried much to his own house, secretly removed more, distributed much with a liberal and lavish hand amongst those who had helped him, and sold by auction what was left." Page 89, Paragraph 2 This describes the manner in which Titus split up his ill-begotten booty and shared it with his co-conspirators. He paid his accomplices well for their services, but Titus made sure he got the lions share. All and all, Cicero is painting a picture of a man who's manner (dealings) is predominated by greed and dishonesty. There are several other examples but for brevity's sake these will not be listed. ***** FACILITY: "… owing to the influence of Chrysogonus my client would find none to defend him." pg 91 Chrysogonus had the power to prevent Roscius from being represented by a council of repute. He was an important man in his own right, and not one many people wanted to cross. Chrysogonus used his power to facilitate the conviction of Roscius by making it known he'd disapprove of anyone representing him. Cicero ended up being the only one who would take the case. ATTRIBUTES OF THE PERSON These attributes describe various traits that are prevalent in a persons character. Cicero divides these up into eleven categories. These are name, nature, manner of life, fortune, habit, feelings, interest, purpose, and achievements, accidents and speech. By coloring these attributes Cicero can present any individual in the light he wishes them to be seen in. In the case of Chrysogonus, Cicero had to dance on the head of a pin. On one hand, he had to debunk Chrysogonus character, but on the other, he had to isolate him from Sulla. To have not done so, would have allowed his opponents to claim Cicero was out to attack the Emperor by attacking his friends. This would have made for a very brief career. It is interesting to note how harshly Cicero attacks each attribute of Chrysogonus's character. No punches were pulled what-so-ever. Before any of the major assaults were launched Cicero would always exonerate Sulla in any number of ways. These references make interesting reading in themselves, but they will not be included here. I will address each attribute but will only supply one or two examples of each for brevity's sake. ***** NAME: "I come now to that golden name of Chrysogonus." pg 134 Cicero points out that Chrysogonus's name is derived from terms that mean golden mouthed. He uses this to illustrate the importance of gold to Chrysogonus very being. It is an allusion to greed. ***** NATURE: "… after the usual manner of worthless and wicked freedmen…" pg 137 A direct reference to Chrysogonus's past, and thus, his character. At one time Chrysogonus had been a slave. Slaves were not looked upon with high regard in ancient Rome. They were thought of as untrustworthy, and worse, by many people of means. A freedman was just one step up the social ladder from the bottom rung for many Roman aristocrats. They were the "niggers" or "daigos" of Roman society. Another good example is, "I assert that all this is the work of Chrysogonus - that he lied, that he pretended Sextus Roscius was a bad citizen." pg 136 This statement relates to Sextus being placed on the proscribed list by Chrysogonus. It implies that he lies and plans intrigues, that transcend the law, to gain an objective. ***** MANNER OF LIFE: "… the whole neighborhood rings daily with the sound of vocal music, stringed instruments, and flutes, and with the noise of banquets at night." pg 139 This describes Chrysogonus's life style in no uncertain terms. He lives in luxury and is very hedonistic. A life style that is very expensive for your average freedman. ***** FORTUNE: "Add to this that, although he is "fortunate," as he really is, no one can be so fortunate as to not have some dishonest slave or freeman in a large household." Page 88, Paragraph 1, con't on page 89 In this passage Cicero implies that even Sulla himself can not be so fortunate as to not have one rotten apple in his barrel. That rotten apple being Chrysogonus. This tact had to be followed delicately or else Cicero might have had to face some grim music himself. Another example is: "…; let them cease from making common cause with Chrysogonus; let them cease from thinking that, if he is injured, they themselves have suffered any lose;…" pg 142 paragraph 1 Here, Cicero attempts to separate the fortune of Chrysogonus from that of the nobles. In light of Chrysogonus growing influence, Cicero knows that many nobles will feel that their fates are intertwined with this wealthy mans. Cicero tells the nobles that their fates are best not linked with Chrysogonus. He goes on to portray the dire consequence such an alignment of fortune might have on the nobility. ***** HABIT: "… with hair carefully arranged and reeking with perfume, he struts about all over the forum…. " pg 139 This passage can also be said to describe Chrysogonus's nature as well as habit. One can easily be derived from the other. The overlap is readily apparent. The subtle enthymeme being, since Chrysogonus is in the habit of strutting about he is arrogant. There is also an allusion to his lack of masculinity in that he uses perfume. Rather this is habitual is unclear. It certainly would have been insulting to many Romans, due to their negative views on homosexuality. ***** FEELINGS: "… you should therefore remove all uneasiness from his mind and put an end to his apprehension." pg 81 Cicero tries to imply Chrysogonus is worried about Sextus remaining alive, and thus, threatening to his gain. He would rather have this unfortunate man die, than face the prospect of losing his ill gotten gain. This implies a grotesque use of the state to sanction the avarice and greed of Chrysogonus. This is an example of ruthlessness and expediency combined. Another good example is, "… see what contempt he has for everyone. How he considers no one a human being when compared to himself…" pg 139 There is no doubt Cicero is working hard to portray Chrysogonus's feelings as being primarily concerned with himself and nothing else. The only word that can properly fit is greed. Pure, unadulterated greed. ***** INTERESTS: "… among them a self-cooker, which he recently bought at so high a price that passers-by… thought an estate was being sold." pg 139 A direct assault on Chrysogonus's love of luxury items and his collecting them. ***** PURPOSE: "… he hopes to dissipate in luxury and extravagance what he has obtained by crime." pg 81 Cicero does not beat around the bush when describing Chrysogonus's motive. He merely states how Chrysogonus lives and how he gets the money to support this lavish life style. ***** ACHIEVEMENTS: "…, that a young man, at the present time perhaps the most powerful in the State, claims to have bought the same for 2,000 sesterces - I mean Lucius Cornelius Chrysogonus." Page 81 Paragraph 1 The property Chrysogonus bought for 2,000 sesterces was worth 6,000,000 sesterces. This is what Chrysogonus achieved, but he did so illegally. Cicero goes on to lay out how this was accomplished, and ties it in with the prosecution of his client in the same passage. He points out the dishonor and chicanery involved in how this wealth was garnered. ***** ACCIDENTS: "Did the nobility… recover the government… only in order that freemen and the worthless slaves of the nobles might be able to attack our property and fortune?" pg 142 Cicero alludes to the fact that Chrysogonus has garnered a great deal of power. In point of fact, Chrysogonus had garnered enough power to be as much a threat to the nobility as the opponents they had just fought to suppress. The nobility probably did not intend this aberration as it threatens their wealth and well being. It is thus, an unplanned accident. Indeed, Cicero alludes to the fact Chrysogonus is now powerful enough to attack the property and fortune of other nobles besides Sextus. ***** SPEECH: "… judged other men's character by their own, and when Chrysogonus assured them he would remove Roscius's name from the proscription list…, they believed these assurances…." pg 90 Cicero points out how Chrysogonus spoke nothing but lies to the ten delegates from Amerino. He told them one thing and did another. Chrysogonus thus showed himself to be dishonest by the spoken word. ACT & PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES Attributes of the act and person tie the case together. The target subjects attributes of character and action have already been presented in detail in the narrative. The background information is then combined in powerful statements that drive home any given point home. In many cases, the attributes of the act and the person are usually presented during the summation of any given case. This is not always so, but some of Cicero's best are in his summation. He appears to use this tactic to tie together a very complicated case and make the judges feel a sense of indignation. Cicero uses some devastating attributes as he describes Chrysogonus's involvement in the case of Roscius. Some of these are, "… if he has handed over to you everything except the breath in his body… what is the meaning of this monstrous cruelty, this savage inhumanity of character? Was ever robber so criminal, was ever pirate so barbarous, as to prefer to strip off spoils dripping with blood when he could have the entire booty without bloodshed?" pg 145 This is one of the most powerful passages I have ever read. It ties together all the attributes Cicero has portrayed throughout his speech. This passage obliterates any shard of ethos Chrysogonus may have had left. Another lesser example is, "… if he does not consider it enough to glut his avarice with money, unless blood be provided to assuage his brutality." pg 147 Here, Cicero attacks far more than Chrysogonus greed. He also shows how barbaric the desire to do in Roscius is. Overall, Cicero has me convinced that his system of attributes is still a viable tool for contemporary use. SUMMERY After two thousand years Cicero's system of attributes is still a very powerful tool. Chrysogonus, and his cohorts, will have to endure an eternity of rhetoric students examining their dubious characters. We think of these men as evil and malicious even to this present day. I used Cicero's system of attributes in a recent civil litigation. My case was so weak no lawyer would take it, and I was forced to proceed pro se. I wrote letters describing the events that transpired using Cicero's system. In the end, my opponents offered a $10,000 out of court settlement, which I took. Who says rhetoric is just empty words?