Trial of Sextius Roscius

[M. Porcius Cato]

There's a very nice re-creation of the trial of Sextius Roscius HERE. It's well worth a watch.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Thanks for that MPC,

 

I've just two words to say......"Cui bono"

 

I wasn't aware that the prosecutor who failed to make his case was branded with the letter K on his forehead which stood for Kalumniator which meant "false accuser". I was under the impression that this kind of punishment was only reserved for slaves.

 

Even though Erucius got away with out this punishment, is there any record of any other prosecutor who wasn't so lucky?

[Nephele]

I started watching this morning, and I already find it riveting. Have to leave the rest for later, though.

 

Thanks for this link!

 

-- Nephele

[M. Porcius Cato]

Is there a lawyer on the boards who could compare this trial to what would be admissible in a modern court? In the trial of Sextius Roscius, it seems like the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on hearsay evidence (for an amusing explanation of exceptions to the hearsay rule, see

).

 

I love these historical recreations because it puts everything together in its context. Sort of like the difference between seeing the plans for an airplane and actually seeing one fly.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I wasn't aware that the prosecutor who failed to make his case was branded with the letter K on his forehead which stood for Kalumniator which meant "false accuser". I was under the impression that this kind of punishment was only reserved for slaves.Even though Erucius got away with out this punishment, is there any record of any other prosecutor who wasn't so lucky?

 

In his oration for Sextus Roscius, Cicero alludes to the lex Remmia, which forbade calumnia. The penalties are not actually known, according to Smith's Dictionary, but we might gather what they were from Cicero's threat to the prosecutor Erucius that "if you act in such a way as to accuse a man of having murdered his father, without being able to say why or how; and if you are only barking without any ground for suspicion, no one, indeed, will break your legs; but if I know these judges well, they will so firmly affix to your heads that letter to which you are so hostile that you will hate all the Kalends too, that you shall hereafter be able to accuse no one but your own fortunes!"

[Crispina]

Very good. Thanks for sharing.

[Kosmo]

The testimony of the first cousin would be taken in account because he described a relevant conversation with the accused. That of the second cousin that described what the first cousin told him would not be accepted.

It's strange, the prosecutor accused Sextus Rocius of murder while claiming that the victim had been on a proscription list. Why would he kill his father that was sentenced to death anyway? Killing a person that was condamned to death could be called murder? Those that killed the people from those lists were awarded not punished.

[M. Porcius Cato]

It's strange, the prosecutor accused Sextus Rocius of murder while claiming that the victim had been on a proscription list. Why would he kill his father that was sentenced to death anyway? Killing a person that was condamned to death could be called murder? Those that killed the people from those lists were awarded not punished.

 

What an interesting point!

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

It's strange, the prosecutor accused Sextus Rocius of murder while claiming that the victim had been on a proscription list. Why would he kill his father that was sentenced to death anyway? Killing a person that was condamned to death could be called murder? Those that killed the people from those lists were awarded not punished.

 

What an interesting point!

 

A very interesting point indeed.

 

Maybe the fact that the crime Sextius Roscius was accused of was parricide had something to do with the fact that this glaringly obvious (which no-one seems to have noticed!! ) point was over looked.

 

Under Sulla's rules of proscription I wonder was it OK for a son to commit parricide or was this act still considered one of the most terrible crimes a Roman can commit?

 

I just can't believe that Cicero wouldn't have addressed this issue if it had been relevant to the case.

[Nephele]

I just now finished watching this -- what a great re-enactment! I especially liked the bit of irony at the end, where we are told that Cicero became famous from this trial and was elected consul -- four years before his "great rival" Julius Caesar made consul. (Previously, we hear the Lady Caecilia reminding Cicero that he's five years older than Caesar, and Caesar is already ahead of him politically).

 

Under Sulla's rules of proscription I wonder was it OK for a son to commit parricide or was this act still considered one of the most terrible crimes a Roman can commit?

 

I wonder, too! But judging from the severity of the punishment decreed for a parricide, and the special symbolism attached to the punishment, I'd say that parricide was just so terrible and shocking a concept to the Romans that not even the fact that the father had been proscribed would have made a difference.

 

Roman mystery novelist Steven Saylor, in his Roman Blood (which involves the story of the trial of Sextus Roscius), has Cicero describe the traditional punishment for a parricide in deliciously lurid detail:

 

"When the people are assembled, the parricide shall be stripped naked, as on the day of his bith. Two pedestals, knee-high, shall be placed several feet apart. The parricide shall mount them, one foot on each pedestal, squatting down with his hands chained behind his back. In this fashion, every part of his naked body is made accessible to his tormentors, who are charged by the law to lash him with knotted whips until the blood pours like water from his flesh. If he falls from his perch, he is made to mount it again. The whips are to fall on every part of him, even to the bottoms of his feet and the nether regions between his legs. The blood that drips from his body is the same as the blood that ran through his father's veins and gave him life. Watching it spill from his wounds, he may contemplate the waste."

 

More symbolism is explained as Saylor then goes on to have Cicero describe the four different animals that get sewn up in the sack with the parricide:

 

"Within the sack, the parricide is returned to the womb, unborn, unbirthed. To be born, the philosophers tell us, is an agony. To be unborn is greater agony. Into the sack, crammed against the parricide's torn, bleeding flesh, the tormentors shall push four living animals. First a dog, the most slavish and contemptuous of beasts, and a rooster, with its beak and claws especially sharpened. These symbols are very ancient: the dog and the cock, the watcher and the waker, guardians of the hearth; having failed to protect father from son, they take their place with the murderer. Along with them goes a snake, the male principle which may kill even as it gives life; and a monkey, the gods' cruelest parody of mankind."

 

It just seems to me that, with such a ritualized and horrific tradition of punishment for the particular crime of parricide, that the ancient Romans would not look kindly upon any son who took advantage of a convenient proscription in order to off his father.

 

-- Nephele

[Klingan]

Thanks for posting this video MPC. The only thing I found disappointing (and I realize that it would impossible to have in this kind of reenactment) was the very short speeches. They should at least have included that they could talk for hours and hours.

 

On the point of proscription, my professor frequently on the subject tells us that one son told Sulla of his fathers whereabouts and received money for this as any one else would. I cannot reckon where the fact come from however.

 

Edit: By the way, that sword the messenger carried, wasn't that a little odd?

Edited May 13, 2008 by Klingan

[ASCLEPIADES]

It's strange, the prosecutor accused Sextus Rocius of murder while claiming that the victim had been on a proscription list. Why would he kill his father that was sentenced to death anyway? Killing a person that was condamned to death could be called murder? Those that killed the people from those lists were awarded not punished.

 

What an interesting point!

 

A very interesting point indeed...

 

I just can't believe that Cicero wouldn't have addressed this issue if it had been relevant to the case.

Salve, Amici

 

Cicero addressed heavily on this issue; it was a critical part of his defense, as he showed how the purported proscription was a crude hoax from Chrysogonus and company. Actually, Sextus Roscius Sr. was a sullan.

 

For example, let see chapter XLV:

 

"primum qua re civis optimi bona venierint, deinde qua re hominis eius qui neque proscriptus neque apud adversarios occisus est bona venierint, cum in eos solos lex scripta sit, deinde qua re aliquanto post eam diem venierint quae dies in lege praefinita est, "

 

"First of all, why the property of a virtuous citizen was sold? Next, why the property of a man who was neither proscribed, nor slain in the garrisons of the opposite party, were sold; when the law was made against them alone? Next, why were they sold long after the day which is appointed by the law?"

 

Sextus Roscius Sr. was slained many months after the prescription of the Lex Cornelia de Proscriptione et Proscriptis at Kalendas Iunias (June 1), DCLXXIII AUC / 81 BC (see cp. XLIV).

 

BTW, this extracts also shows again how Sullan proscription was not limited by Sacramentum.

Edited May 26, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[spittle]

Very enjoyable.

 

It seems to me that the worst thing a person could be (in a Roman court) was a non-Roman.

The re-enactment was pro-Cicero but, reading between the lines, he emphasized Crysogenus's (sp?) Greek slave past.

 

I read an account of another trial where the advocat pointed out that one man was born and raised in Rome and the other had been born in Spain. The court found for the former, despite everything pointing to the other persons argument being just and truthful.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Nice to see you back Asclepiades.

 

It's strange, the prosecutor accused Sextus Rocius of murder while claiming that the victim had been on a proscription list. Why would he kill his father that was sentenced to death anyway? Killing a person that was condamned to death could be called murder? Those that killed the people from those lists were awarded not punished.

What an interesting point!

A very interesting point indeed...I just can't believe that Cicero wouldn't have addressed this issue if it had been relevant to the case.

 

Cicero addressed heavily on this issue; it was a critical part of his defense, as he showed how the purported proscription was a crude hoax from Chrysogonus and company. Actually, Sextus Roscius Sr. was a sullan.

 

You're entirely missing the point of the question: Why would Cicero want to show that the proscription of Sextus Roscius the Elder was a hoax? If Sextus Roscius the Elder really had been proscribed by Sulla, then Sextus Roscius the Younger would seem to have been acting legally in killing his father. Indeed, as his killer, he would have had a legal claim to the property of his father, rather than it having been sold at auction. Thus, Cicero appears to have missed an easy way out for his client.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Nice to see you back Asclepiades.

 

You're entirely missing the point of the question: Why would Cicero want to show that the proscription of Sextus Roscius the Elder was a hoax? If Sextus Roscius the Elder really had been proscribed by Sulla, then Sextus Roscius the Younger would seem to have been acting legally in killing his father. Indeed, as his killer, he would have had a legal claim to the property of his father, rather than it having been sold at auction. Thus, Cicero appears to have missed an easy way out for his client.

Salve, MPC

 

Again, Sextus Roscius Maior was slained many months after the prescription of the Lex Cornelia de Proscriptione et Proscriptis at Kalendas Iunias (June 1), DCLXXIII AUC / 81 BC (see cp. XLIV), so his murder couldn't be justified in that way:

 

"Opinor enim esse in lege quam ad diem proscriptiones venditionesque fiant, nimirum Kalendas Iunias. Aliquot post mensis et homo occisus est ..."

 

"For I think it is set down in the law on what day these proscriptions and sales shall take place, forsooth on the first of June. Some months afterwards the man was slain..."

Edited May 26, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES