quae existimatio P. Quintium usque ad senectutem perduxit, eadem usque ad rogum prosequatur.

is no variation in the MSS. Ferre' sometimes means to get,' 'to obtain,' as 'suffragia tulisse' (Pro Cn. Plancio, c. 22). The nominative to 'ferat' then is 'Naevius;' and the meaning is, 'that Naevius may not get

such a judgment from you as will prevent the good name, which has accompanied P. Quintius to his old age, from following him even to the funeral pile.'

PRO SEX. ROSCIO AMERINO

ORATIO.

INTRODUCTION.

THE facts of this case are stated clearly in the oration. It is a speech of Cicero, his first in a Publica Caussa, in defence of Sex. Roscius Amerinus, who was tried for the murder of his father. It does not appear from this speech what the evidence was against S. Roscius, the son, or that there was any evidence; for Cicero does not argue against any evidence. He says in one passage that the evidence had not been heard. But it is a defence, and a reply to Erucius, who was the accusator of S. Roscius, at the instigation of Chrysogonus, as we are told. Erucius then had opened the case with a statement of the charge against Roscius, and some matters, we must suppose, that he would try to prove in support of the charge.

Plutarch's story is (Cicero, c. 3) that Chrysogonus laid an information about the property of S. Roscius, the father, as being one of the proscribed, and that the property being accordingly sold, he bought it for a small sum. He adds: "Roscius, the son and heir of the dead man, complained of this, and showed that the property was of the value of two hundred and fifty talents, on which Sulla being convicted, was angry, and with the assistance of Chrysogonus instituted a prosecution against Roscius for parricide." This is not exactly Cicero's story, but it may contain some truth. Cicero could not venture to affirm that Sulla was privy to all the villainy of which he speaks. Plutarch says that Roscius was acquitted; which we might infer from a passage of Cicero (Brutus c. 90); and in another passage he distinctly affirms it (De Off. ii. 14). He has himself in his Orator (c. 30) passed a judgment on this juvenile production. It appears that Cicero left it as he wrote it, though it was his fashion to work up and improve his speeches. He was still a young man when he made this speech, fresh from the rhetorical schools, and twenty-seven years of age, as Gellius shows (xv. 28),

for this oration was delivered in the consulship of L. Sulla Felix and Q. Metellus Pius, B. c. 80, and in the year after the oration Pro P. Quintio.

After being engaged two years as an orator, Cicero visited Athens and Asia (Brutus c. 90). It appears then that he left Rome after delivering this speech, for the purpose of his health and improvement, as he says; but, as Plutarch found somewhere (Cicero c. 3), for fear of Sulla.

Among the numerous Leges enacted during the power of L. Cornelius Sulla, was a Lex Cornelia De Sicariis et Veneficis (Dig. 48. Tit. 8). There is no evidence that a Lex de Parricidiis was enacted during Sulla's time. The Title of the Digest which treats of this crime, is Lex Pompeia de Parricidiis (Dig. 48. Tit. 9). The Lex Pompeia, which was enacted B.c. 55, declared that the murderer of a father, mother, and so forth, should be liable to the penalties of the Lex Cornelia De Sicariis (Marcianus, Dig. 48. 9. 1); and in another excerpt under this Title (1.9) it is said that the punishment of Parricidium (more majorum) was the culleus or sack. This punishment existed under the empire. It was an old punishment, and not enacted by the Lex Pompeia, for it is stated that the penalty of Parricidium, as defined by the Lex Pompeia, was that which was fixed by the Lex Cornelia De Sicariis. Now this is ambiguous. We might infer that the punishment of assassins and poisoners by the Lex Cornelia was the sack; but we know that the punishment was different (Dig. 48. 8. 3. § 5: "Legis Corneliae de sicariis et veneficis poena insulae deportatio est, et omnium bonorum ademptio"). The best solution of the difficulty seems to be the assumption that there was a chapter (caput) in the Lex Cornelia de Sicariis, which treated of Parricidium, and that the Lex Pompeia only defined Parricidium more exactly. Or, as Schrader expresses it in one of the notes in his learned edition of the Institutes of Justinian (Inst. iv. 18. § 5, 6. p. 768): "Lex Cornelia de sicariis, quae homicidis solum vertere permisit, parricidas manifestos ita excepit, ut more majorum culleo insuerentur. Lex Pompeia eam confirmans, multorum propinquorum caedem parricidio aequiparavit." Other explanations, which however are worth nothing, are mentioned by Rein (Das Criminal-recht der Römer p. 455, note). Schrader has collected in his notes all the learning about the sack; and more than most people would care to know.

The trial of Roscius was a Judicium Publicum, the nature of which has been explained (Vol. I. Judicia, Excursus); and he was probably tried under the Lex Cornelia De Sicariis.

M. TULLII CICERONIS

PRO

SEX. ROSCIO AMERINO ORATIO.

I. Credo ego vos, judices, mirari quid sit quod, quum tot summi oratores hominesque nobilissimi sedeant, ego potissimum surrexerim, qui neque aetate neque ingenio neque auctoritate sim cum his qui sedeant comparandus. Omnes enim hi, quos videtis adesse in hac caussa, injuriam novo scelere conflatam putant oportere defendi; defendere ipsi propter iniquitatem temporum non audent. Ita fit ut adsint propterea quod officium sequuntur; taceant autem idcirco quia periculum metuunt. Quid ergo audacissimus ego ex omnibus? Minime. At tanto officiosior quam ceteri? Ne istius quidem laudis ita sum cupidus ut aliis eam praereptam velim. Quae me igitur res praeter ceteros impulit ut caussam Sex. Roscii reciperem? Quia, si quis istorum dixisset, quos videtis adesse, in quibus summa auctoritas est atque amplitudo; si verbum de re publica fecisset, id quod in hac caussa fieri necesse est, multo plura dixisse quam dixisset putaretur. Ego etiamsi omnia quae dicenda sunt libere dixero, nequaquam tamen similiter oratio mea exire atque in vulgus emanare poterit. Deinde, quod ceterorum neque dictum obscurum potest esse propter nobilitatem et amplitudinem, neque temere dicto concedi propter aetatem et prudentiam; ego si quid liberius dixero, vel occultum esse propterea quod nondum ad rem publicam accessi,

1. his qui] Some MSS. have 'iis qui,' but the words are emphatic; and what follows omnes enim hi,' seems to show that he had said 'his.'-'defendi:' the primary meaning of 'defendere' is 'to repel,' 'to drive off."

temere dicto concedi] 'What they say or would say could not readily be assented to or allowed to pass unnoticed because

of their age and character for judgment.' What these nobiles' would say, would have weight for the reasons which he gives; but his words would have little weight. Comp. Ad Div. vi. 6: “Si tibi, cui justius videtur irasci posse, concesserit." Cicero had not yet filled any public office (nondum ad rem publicam accessi). He was too young.

vel ignosci adolescentiae meae poterit: tametsi non modo ignoscendi ratio, verum etiam cognoscendi consuetudo jam de civitate sublata est. Accedit illa quoque caussa, quod a ceteris forsitan ita petitum sit ut dicerent ut utrumvis salvo officio se facere posse arbitrarentur: a me autem ii contenderunt, qui apud me et amicitia et beneficiis et dignitate plurimum possunt, quorum ego neque benevolentiam erga me ignorare, nec auctoritatem aspernari, nec voluntatem negligere debeam. II. His de caussis ego huic caussae patronus exstiti, non electus unus qui maximo ingenio, sed relictus ex omnibus, qui minimo periculo possem dicere; neque uti satis firmo praesidio defensus Sex. Roscius, verum uti ne omnino desertus esset. Forsitan quaeratis qui iste terror sit et quae tanta formido, quae tot ac tales viros impediat quo minus pro capite et fortunis alterius, quemadmodum consuerunt, caussam velint dicere. Quod adhuc vos ignorare non mirum est, propterea quod consulto ab accusatoribus ejus rei quae conflavit hoc judicium mentio facta non est. Quae res ea est? Bona patris hujusce Sex. Roscii, quae sunt sexagies: quae de viro fortissimo et clarissimo, L. Sulla, quem honoris caussa nomino, duobus millibus nummum sese dicit emisse adolescens vel potentissimus hoc tempore nostrae civitatis, L. Cornelius Chrysogonus. Is a vobis, judices, hoc postulat ut, quoniam in alienam pecuniam tam plenam atque praeclaram nullo jure invaserit, quoniamque ei pecuniae vita Sex. Roscii obstare atque officere videatur, deleatis ex animo suo suspicionem omnem metumque tollatis: sese hoc incolumi non arbitratur hujus innocentis patrimonium tam amplum et copiosum posse obtinere; damnato et ejecto sperat se posse ignoscendi cognoscendi] This is boldly said at a time when the tyrant Sulla was in power. Sulla never pardoned, and inquiry in legal form (cognoscendi) was out of fashion; at least such a trial as an innocent man could rely on. The legislation of Sulla had excluded the Equites from the office of Judices, and the Senators, who were his tools, were the class out of which the Judices were now taken (Vol. I. p. 46). In c. 3 Cicero says: "qui ex civitate in Senatum propter dignitatem, ex senatu in hoc consilium delecti estis propter severitatem."

ut dicerent] He says that others who might have been asked or were asked to speak in defence of Roscius (ut dicerent), had been applied to in such wise that they supposed they might either refuse or assent, might do as they liked, without violating any moral obligation (salvo officio). The words which follow show by implication that the persons who applied to them had not

the same title to ask for assistance, which those had who addressed themselves to Cicero.

2. sexagies:] According to the Roman reckoning, 'decies' is a sum of a million sesterces. There is a good story about a 'decies' in Plutarch's Life of Antonius, c. 4; which also shows what a Decies is. It is equal to 250,000 denarii, that is, 1,000,000 sestertii; and 'sexagies' is six times as much.

L. Cornelius Chrysogonus.] Cicero gives his full name, which tells us that he was a Greek and a freedman of Sulla, one of the many thousands, ten thousand it is said, who had been manumitted and had taken

Sulla's gentile name. Plutarch (Cicero, c. 3) tells the story of Chrysogonus buying the property of Roscius for 2000 drachmae. Plutarch's drachmae have the value of the Roman denarii; and he adds that the property was worth 250 talents.

note.

See c. 3,