---
title: "For Sextus Roscius of Ameria · Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino"
author: "Cicero"
translator: "Charles Duke Yonge"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Classical Latin"
section: 2 of 4
url: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-roscio-amerino/2/
cite: "Cicero, tr. Charles Duke Yonge, For Sextus Roscius of Ameria · Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino, section 2. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-roscio-amerino/2/"
---

# For Sextus Roscius of Ameria · Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino

*Cicero, tr. Charles Duke Yonge*

At twenty-six Cicero defends a man accused of parricide by the agents of Sulla’s favourite Chrysogonus.

> Latin: ed. Albert Curtis Clark, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-latinLit, phi0474.phi002, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: Charles Duke Yonge, from the Perseus Digital Library (phi0474.phi002.perseus-eng2). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## 2. Sections 43–79

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-roscio-amerino/2/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-roscio-amerino/2/#p-N

[¶0] 43. What do you say, Erucius? Did Sextus Roscius entrust so many farms, and such fine and productive ones to his son to cultivate and manage, for the sake of getting rid of and punishing him? What can this mean? Do not fathers of families who have children, particularly men of that class of municipalities in the country, do they not think it a most desirable thing for them that their sons should attend in a great degree to their domestic affairs, and should devote much of their labour and attention to cultivating their farms?

> Latin: 43. ais, Eruci? tot praedia, tam pulchra, tam fructuosa Sex. Roscius filio suo relegationis ac supplici gratia colenda ac tuenda tradiderat?? hoc patres familiae qui liberos habent, praesertim homines illius ordinis ex municipiis rusticanis, nonne optatissimum sibi putant esse filios suos rei familiari maxime servire et in praediis colendis operae plurimum studique consumere?

[¶1] 44. Did he send him off to those farms that he might remain on the land and merely have life kept in him at this country seat? that he might be deprived of all conveniences? What? if it is proved that he not only managed the cultivation of the farms, but was accustomed himself to have certain of the farms for his own, even during the lifetime of his father? Will his industrious and rural life still be called removal and banishment? You see, O Erucius, how far removed your line of argument is from the fact itself, and from truth. That which fathers usually do, you find fault with as an unprecedented thing; that which is done out of kindness, that you accuse as having been done from dislike; that which a father granted his son as an honour, that you say he did with the object of punishing him.

> Latin: 44. amandarat hunc sic ut esset in agro ac tantum modo aleretur ad villam, ut commodis omnibus careret?? si constat hunc non modo colendis praediis praefuisse sed certis fundis patre vivo frui solitum esse, tamenne haec a te vita eius rusticana relegatio atque amandatio appellabitur?, Eruci, quantum distet argumentatio tua ab re ipsa atque a veritate. consuetudine patres faciunt, id quasi novum reprehendis; quod benivolentia fit, id odio factum criminaris; quod honoris causa pater filio suo concessit, id eum supplici causa fecisse dicis.

[¶2] 45. Not that you are not aware of all this, but you are so wholly without any arguments to bring forward, that you think it necessary to plead not only against us, but even against the very nature of things, and against the customs of men, and the opinion of every one. Oh but, when he had two sons, he never let one be away from him, and he allowed the other to remain in the country. I beg you, O Erucius, to take what I am going to say in good part; for I am going to say it, not for the sake of finding fault, but to warn you.

> Latin: 45. haec tu non intellegis, sed usque eo quid arguas non habes, ut non modo tibi contra nos dicendum putes verum etiam contra rerum naturam contraque consuetudinem hominum contraque opiniones omnium. enim, cum duos filios haberet, alterum a se non dimittebat, alterum ruri esse patiebatur., Eruci, ut hoc in bonam partem accipias; non enim exprobrandi causa sed commonendi gratia dicam.

[¶3] 46. If fortune did not give to you to know the father whose son you are, so that you could understand what was the affection of fathers towards their children; still, at all events, nature has given you no small share of human feeling. To this is added a zeal for learning, so that you are not unversed in literature. Does that old man in Caecilius, (to quote a play,) appear to have less affection for Eutychus, his son, who lives in the country, than for his other one Chaerestratus? for that, I think, is his name; do you think that he keeps one with him in the city do him honour, and sends the other into the country in order to punish him?

> Latin: 46. tibi fortuna non dedit ut patre certo nascerere ex quo intellegere posses qui animus patrius in liberos esset, at natura certe dedit ut humanitatis non parum haberes; eo accessit studium doctrinae ut ne a litteris quidem alienus esses. tandem tibi videtur, ut ad fabulas veniamus, senex ille Caecilianus minoris facere Eutychum, filium rusticum, quam illum alterum, Chaerestratum? — nam, ut opinor, hoc nomine est — alterum in urbe secum honoris causa habere, alterum rus supplici causa relegasse?

[¶4] 47. Why do you have recourse to such trifling? you will say. As if it were a hard matter for me to bring forward ever so many by name, of my own tribe, or my own neighbours, (not to wander too far off,) who wish those sons for whom they have the greatest regard, to be diligent farmers. But it is an odious step to quote known men, when it is uncertain whether they would like their names to be used; and no one is likely to be better known to you than this same Eutychus; and certainly it has nothing to do with the argument, whether I name this youth in a play, or some one of the country about Veii. In truth, I think that these things are invented by poets in order that we may see our manners sketched under the character of strangers, and the image of our daily life represented under the guise of fiction.

> Latin: 47. “ad istas ineptias abis?” inquies. vero mihi difficile sit quamvis multos nominatim proferre, ne longius abeam, vel tribulis vel vicinos meos qui suos liberos quos plurimi faciunt agricolas adsiduos esse cupiunt. homines notos sumere odiosum est, cum et illud incertum sit velintne ei sese nominari, et nemo vobis magis notus futurus sit quam est hic Eutychus, et certe ad rem nihil intersit utrum hunc ego comicum adulescentem an aliquem ex agro Veienti nominem. haec conficta arbitror esse a poetis ut effictos nostros mores in alienis personis expressamque imaginem vitae cotidianae videremus.

[¶5] 48. Come now; turn your thoughts, if you please, to reality, and consider not only in Umbria and that neighbourhood, but in these old municipal towns, what pursuits are most praised by fathers of families. You will at once see that, from want of real grounds of accusation, you have imputed that which is his greatest praise to Sextus Roscius as a fault and a crime. But not only do children do this by the wish of their fathers, but I have myself known many men (and so, unless I am deceived, has every one of you) who are inflamed of their own accord with a fondness for what relates to the cultivation of land, and who think this rural life, which you think ought to be a disgrace to and a charge against a man, the most honourable and the most delightful.

> Latin: 48. nunc, refer animum sis ad veritatem et considera non modo in Umbria atque in ea vicinitate sed in his veteribus municipiis quae studia a patribus familias maxime laudentur; iam profecto te intelleges inopia criminum summam laudem Sex. Roscio vitio et culpae dedisse. non modo hoc patrum voluntate liberi faciunt sed permultos et ego novi et, nisi me fallit animus, unus quisque vestrum qui et ipsi incensi sunt studio quod ad agrum colendum attinet, vitamque hanc rusticam, quam tu probro et crimini putas esse oportere, et honestissimam et suavissimam esse arbitrantur.

[¶6] 49. What do you think of this very Sextus Roscius? How great is his fondness for, and shrewdness in rural affairs! As I hear from his relations, most honourable men, you are not more skillful in this your business of an accuser, than he is in his. But, as I think, since it seems good to Chrysogonus, who has left him no farm, he will be able now to forget this skill of his, and to give up this taste. And although that is a sad and a scandalous thing, yet he will bear it, O judges, with equanimity, if, by your verdict, he can preserve his life and his character; but this is intolerable, if he is both to have this calamity brought upon him on account of the goodness and number of his farms, and if that is especially to be imputed to him as a crime that he cultivated them with great care; so that it is not to be misery enough to have cultivated them for others not for himself, unless it is also to be accounted a crime that he cultivated them at all.

> Latin: 49. censes hunc ipsum Sex. Roscium quo studio et qua intellegentia esse in rusticis rebus? Vt ex his propinquis eius, hominibus honestissimis, audio, non tu in isto artificio accusatorio callidior es quam hic in suo., ut opinor, quoniam ita Chrysogono videtur qui huic nullum praedium reliquit, et artificium obliviscatur et studium deponat licebit. tametsi miserum et indignum est, feret tamen aequo animo, iudices, si per vos vitam et famam potest obtinere; hoc vero est quod ferri non potest, si et in hanc calamitatem venit propter praediorum bonitatem et multitudinem et quod ea studiose coluit, id erit ei maxime fraudi, ut parum miseriae sit quod aliis coluit non sibi, nisi etiam quod omnino coluit crimini fuerit.

[¶7] 50. In truth, O Erucius, you would have been a ridiculous accuser, if you had been born in those times when men were sent for from the plough to be made consuls. Certainly you, who think it a crime to have superintended the cultivation of a farm, would consider that Atilius, whom those who were sent to him found sowing seed with his own hand, a most base and dishonourable man. But, forsooth, our ancestors judged very differently both of him and of all other such men. And therefore from a very small and powerless state they left us one very great and very prosperous. For they diligently cultivated their own lands, they did not graspingly desire those of others; by which conduct they enlarged the republic, and this dominion, and the name of the Roman people, with lands and conquered cities, and subjected nations.

> Latin: 50. tu, Eruci, accusator esses ridiculus, si illis temporibus natus esses cum ab aratro arcessebantur qui consules fierent. qui praeesse agro colendo flagitium putes, profecto illum Atilium quem sua manu spargentem semen qui missi erant convenerunt hominem turpissimum atque inhonestissimum iudicares. hercule maiores nostri longe aliter et de illo et de ceteris talibus viris existimabant itaque ex minima tenuissimaque re publica maximam et florentissimam nobis reliquerunt. enim agros studiose colebant, non alienos cupide appetebant; quibus rebus et agris et urbibus et nationibus rem publicam atque hoc imperium et populi Romani nomen auxerunt.

[¶8] 51. Nor do I bring forward these instances in order to compare them with these matters which we are now investigating; but in order that that may be understood: that, as in the times of our ancestors, the highest and most illustrious men, who ought at all times to have been sitting at the helm of the republic, yet devoted much of their attention and time to the cultivation of their lands; that man ought to be pardoned, who avows himself a rustic, for having lived constantly in the country, especially when be could do nothing which was either more pleasing to his father, or more delightful to himself, or in reality more honourable.

> Latin: 51. ego haec eo profero quo conferenda sint cum hisce de quibus nunc quaerimus, sed ut illud intellegatur, cum apud maiores nostros summi viri clarissimique homines qui omni tempore ad gubernacula rei publicae sedere debebant tamen in agris quoque colendis aliquantum operae temporisque consumpserint, ignosci oportere ei homini qui se fateatur esse rusticum, cum ruri adsiduus semper vixerit, cum praesertim nihil esset quod aut patri gratius aut sibi iucundius aut re vera honestius facere posset.

[¶9] 52. The bitter dislike of the father to the son, then, is proved by this, O Erucius, that he allowed him to remain in the country. Is there anything else? Certainly, says he, there is. For he was thinking of disinheriting him. I hear you. Now you are saying something which may have a bearing on the business, for you will grant, I think, that those other arguments are trifling and childish. He never went to any feasts with his father. Of course not, as he very seldom came to town at all. People very seldom asked him to their houses. No wonder, for a man who did not live in the city, and was not likely to ask them in return.

> Latin: 52. igitur acerrimum patris in filium ex hoc, opinor, ostenditur, Eruci, quod hunc ruri esse patiebatur. est aliud? “vero” inquit “est; nam istum exheredare in animo habebat.”; nunc dicis aliquid quod ad rem pertineat; nam illa, opinor, tu quoque concedis levia esse atque inepta: “cum patre non inibat.”, qui ne in oppidum quidem nisi perraro veniret. “suam istum non fere quisquam vocabat.” mirum, qui neque in urbe viveret neque revocaturus esset.

[¶10] 53. But you are aware that these things too are trifling. Let us consider that which we began with, than which no more certain argument of dislike can possibly be found. The father was thinking of disinheriting his son. I do not ask on what account. I ask how you know it? Although you ought to mention and enumerate all the reasons. And it was the duty of a regular accuser, who was accusing a man of such wickedness, to unfold all the vice and sins of a son had exasperated the father so as to enable him to bring his mind to subdue nature herself—to banish from his mind that affection so deeply implanted in it—to forget in short that he was a father; and all this I do not think could have happened without great errors on the part of the son.

> Latin: 53. haec tu quoque intellegis esse nugatoria; illud quod coepimus videamus, quo certius argumentum odi reperiri nullo modo potest. “pater filium cogitabat.” Mitto quaerere qua de causa; quaero qui scias; tametsi te dicere atque enumerare causas omnis oportebat, et id erat certi accusatoris officium qui tanti sceleris argueret explicare omnia vitia ac peccata fili quibus incensus parens potuerit animum inducere ut naturam ipsam vinceret, ut amorem illum penitus insitum eiceret ex animo, ut denique patrem esse. sese oblivisceretur; quae sine magnis huiusce peccatis accidere potuisse non arbitror.

[¶11] 54. But I give you leave to pass over those things, which, as you are silent, you admit have no existence. At all events you ought to make it evident that he did intend to disinherit him. What then do you allege to make us think that that was the case? You can say nothing with truth. Invent something at least with probability in it; that you may not manifestly be convicted of doing what you are openly doing—insulting the fortunes of this unhappy man, and the dignity of these noble judges. He meant to disinherit his son. On what account? I don't know. Did he disinherit him? No. Who hindered him? He was thinking of it. He was thinking of it? Who did he tell? No one. What is abusing the court of justice, and the laws, and your majesty, O judges, for the purposes of gain and lust, but accusing men in this manner, and bringing imputations against them which you not only are not able to prove, but which you do not even attempt to?

> Latin: 54. concedo tibi ut ea praetereas quae, cum taces, nulla esse concedis; illud quidem, voluisse exheredare, certe tu planum facere debes. ergo adfers qua re id factum putemus? nihil potes dicere; finge aliquid saltem commode ut ne plane videaris id facere quod aperte facis, huius miseri fortunis et horum virorum talium dignitati inludere. filium voluit. ob causam? “.”? “.” prohibuit? “.”? cui dixit? “.” est aliud iudicio ac legibus ac maiestate vestra abuti ad quaestum atque ad libidinem nisi hoc modo accusare atque id obicere quod planum facere non modo non possis verum ne coneris quidem?

[¶12] 55. There is not one of us, O Erucius, who does not know that you have no enmity against Sextus Roscius. All men see on what account you come here as his adversary. They know that you are induced to do so by this man's money. What then? Still you ought to have been desirous of gain with such limitations as to think that the opinion of all these men, and the Remmian law ought to nave some weight.

> Latin: 55. nostrum est, Eruci, quin sciat tibi inimicitias cum Sex. Roscio nullas esse; vident omnes qua de causa huic inimicus venias; sciunt huiusce pecunia te adductum esse ergo est? tamen quaestus te cupidum esse oportebat ut horum existimationem et legem Remmiam putares aliquid valere oportere.

[¶13] 56. It is a useful thing for there to be many accusers in the city, in order that audacity may be kept in check by fear; but it is only useful with this limitation, that we are not to be manifestly mocked by accusers. A man is innocent. But although he is free from guilt he is not free from suspicion. Although it is a lamentable thing, still I can, to some extent, pardon a man who accuses him. For when be has anything which he can say, imputing a crime, or fixing a suspicion, he does not appear knowingly to be openly mocking and calumniating. On which account we all easily allow that there should be as many accusers as possible; because an innocent man, if he be accused, can be acquitted; a guilty man, unless or he be accused cannot be convicted. But it is more desirable that an innocent man should be acquitted, than that a guilty man should not be brought to trial. Food for the geese is contracted for at the public expense, and dogs are maintained in the Capitol, to give notice if thieves come. But they cannot distinguish thieves. Accordingly they give notice if any one comes by night to the Capitol; and because that is a suspicious thing, although they are but beasts, yet they oftenest err on that side which is the more prudent one. But if the dogs barked by day also, when any one came to pay honour to the gods, I imagine their legs would be broken for being active then also, when there was no suspicion. The notion of accusers is very much the same.

> Latin: 56. multos esse in civitate utile est ut metu contineatur audacia; verum tamen hoc ita est utile ut ne plane inludamur ab accusatoribus. est quispiam, verum tamen, quamquam abest a culpa, suspicione tamen non caret; tametsi miserum est, tamen ei qui hunc accuset possim aliquo modo ignoscere. enim aliquid habeat quod possit criminose ac suspiciose dicere, aperte ludificari et calumniari sciens non videatur. re facile omnes patimur esse quam plurimos accusatores, quod innocens, si accusatus sit, absolvi potest, nocens, nisi accusatus fuerit, condemnari non potest; utilius est autem absolvi innocentem quam nocentem causam non dicere. Anseribus cibaria publice locantur et canes aluntur in Capitolio ut significent si fures venerint. fures internoscere non possunt, significant tamen si qui noctu in Capitolium venerint et, quia id est suspiciosum, tametsi bestiae sunt, tamen in eam partem potius peccant quae est cautior. si luce quoque canes latrent cum deos salutatum aliqui venerint, opinor, eis crura suffringantur, quod acres sint etiam tum cum suspicio nulla sit.

[¶14] 57. Some of you are geese, who only cry out, and have no power to hurt, some are dogs who can both bark and bite. We see that food is provided for you; but you ought chiefly to attack those who deserve it. This is most pleasing to the people; then if you will, then you may bark on suspicion when it seems probable that some one has committed a crime. That may be allowed. But 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 hate all the Calends too, that you shall hereafter be able to accuse no one but your own fortunes.

> Latin: 57. est accusatorum ratio. Alii vestrum anseres sunt qui tantum modo clamant, nocere non possunt, alii canes qui et latrare et mordere possunt. vobis praeberi videmus; vos autem maxime debetis in eos impetum facere qui merentur. populo gratissimum est., si voletis, etiam tum cum veri simile erit aliquem commisisse, in suspicione latratote; id quoque concedi potest. autem sic agetis ut arguatis aliquem patrem occidisse neque dicere possitis aut qua re aut quo modo, ac tantum modo sine suspicione latrabitis, crura quidem vobis nemo suffringet, sed, si ego hos bene novi, litteram illam cui vos usque eo inimici estis ut etiam Kal. omnis oderitis ita vehementer ad caput adfigent ut postea neminem alium nisi fortunas vestras accusare possitis.

[¶15] 58. What have you given me to defend my client against, my good accuser? And what ground have you given these judges for any suspicion? He was afraid of being disinherited. I hear you. But no one says what ground he had for fear. His father had it in contemplation. Prove it. There is no proof; there is no mention of any one with whom he deliberated about it—whom he told of it; there is no circumstance from which it could occur to your minds to suspect it. When you bring accusations in this manner, O Erucius, do you not plainly say this? “I know what I have received, but I do not know what to say. I have had regard to that alone which Chrysogonus said, that no one would be his advocate; that there was no one who would dare at this time to say a word about the purchase of the property, and about that conspiracy.” This false opinion prompted you to this dishonesty. You would not in truth have said a word if you had thought that any one would answer you.

> Latin: 58. mihi ad defendendum dedisti, bone accusator? quid hisce autem ad suspicandum? “exheredaretur veritus est.”, sed qua de causa vereri debuerit nemo dicit. “pater in animo.” fac. est; non quicum deliberaverit, quem certiorem fecerit, unde istud vobis suspicari in mentem venerit. hoc modo accusas, Eruci, nonne hoc palam dicis: “quid acceperim scio, quid dicam nescio; unum illud spectavi quod Chrysogonus aiebat neminem isti patronum futurum; de bonorum emptione deque ea societate neminem esse qui verbum facere auderet hoc tempore”? te opinio falsa in istam fraudem impulit; non me hercules verbum fecisses, si tibi quemquam responsurum putasses.

[¶16] 59. It were worth while, if you have noticed it, O judges, to consider this man's carelessness in bringing forward his accusations. I imagine, when he saw what men were sitting on those benches, that he inquired whether this man or that man was going to defend him; that he never even dreamt of me, because I have never pleaded any public cause before. After he found that no one was going to defend him of those men who have the ability and are in the habit of so doing, he began to be so careless that, when it suited his fancy he sat down, then he walked about, sometimes he even called his boy, I suppose to give him orders for supper, and utterly overlooked your assembly and all this court as if it had been a complete desert.

> Latin: 59. pretium erat, si animadvertistis, iudices, neglegentiam eius in accusando considerare., cum vidisset qui homines in hisce subselliis sederent, quaesisse num ille aut ille defensurus esset; de me ne suspicatum quidem esse, quod antea causam publicam nullam dixerim. quam invenit neminem eorum qui possunt et solent ita neglegens esse coepit ut, eum in mentem veniret ei, resideret, deinde spatiaretur, non numquam etiam puerum vocaret, credo, cui cenam imperaret, prorsus ut vestro consessu et hoc conventu pro summa solitudine abuteretur. aliquando, adsedit; surrexi ego.

[¶17] 60. At length he summed up. He sat down. I got up. He seemed to breathe again because no one else rose to speak other than I. I began to speak. I noticed, O judges, that he was joking and doing other things, up to the time when I named Chrysogonus; but as soon as I touched him, my man at once raised himself up. He seemed to be astonished. I knew what had pinched him. I named him a second time, and a third. After, men began to run hither arid thither, I suppose to tell Chrysogonus that there was some one who dared to speak contrary to his will, that the cause was going on differently from what he expected, that the purchase of the goods was being ripped up; that the conspiracy was being severely handled; that his influence and power was being disregarded; that the judges were attending diligently; that the matter appeared scandalous to the people.

> Latin: 60. visus est quod non alius potius diceret. dicere. Vsque eo animadverti, iudices, eum iocari atque alias res agere ante quam Chrysogonum nominavi; quem simul atque attigi, statim homo se erexit, mirari visus est. quid cum pepugisset. ac tertio nominavi. homines cursare ultro et citro non destiterunt, credo, qui Chrysogono nuntiarent esse aliquem in civitate qui contra voluntatem eius dicere auderet; aliter causam agi atque ille existimaret, aperiri bonorum emptionem, vexari pessime societatem, gratiam potentiamque eius neglegi, iudices diligenter attendere, populo rem indignam videri.

[¶18] 61. And since you were deceived in all this, O Erucius, and since you see that everything is altered; that the cause on behalf of Sextus Roscius is argued, if not as it should be, at all events with freedom, since you see that be is defended whom you thought was abandoned, that those who you expected would deliver him up to you are judging impartially, give us again, at last, some of your old skill and prudence; confess that you came hither with the hope that there would he a robbery here, not a trial. A trial is held on a charge of parricide, and no reason is alleged by the accuser why the son has slain his father.

> Latin: 61. quoniam te fefellerunt, Eruci, quoniamque vides versa esse omnia, causam pro Sex. Roscio, si non commode, at libere dici, quem dedi putabas defendi intellegis, quos tradituros sperabas vides iudicare, restitue nobis aliquando veterem tuam illam calliditatem atque prudentiam, confitere huc ea spe venisse quod putares hic latrocinium, non iudicium futurum. parricidio causa dicitur; ratio ab accusatore reddita non est quam ob causam patrem filius occiderit.

[¶19] 62. That which, in even the least offences and in the more trifling crimes, which are more frequent and of almost daily occurrence, is asked most earnestly and as the very first question, namely what motive there was for the offence; that Erucius does not think necessary to be asked in a case of parricide. A charge which, O judges, even when many motives appear to concur, and to be connected with one another, is still not rashly believed, nor is such a case allowed to depend on slight conjecture, nor is any uncertain witness listened to, nor is the matter decided by the ability of the accuser. Many crimes previously committed must be proved, and a most profligate life on the part of the prisoner, and singular audacity, and not only audacity, but the most extreme frenzy and madness. When all these things are proved, still there must exist express traces of the crime: where, in what manner, by whose means, and at what time the crime was committed. And unless these proofs are numerous and evident—so wicked, so atrocious, so nefarious a deed cannot be believed.

> Latin: 62. in minimis noxiis et in his levioribus peccatis quae magis crebra et iam prope cotidiana sunt vel maxime et primum quaeritur, quae causa malefici fuerit, id Erucius in parricidio quaeri non putat oportere. quo scelere, iudices, etiam cum multae causae convenisse unum in locum atque inter se congruere videntur, tamen non temere creditur, neque levi coniectura res penditur, neque testis incertus auditur, neque accusatoris ingenio res iudicatur. multa antea commissa maleficia, cum vita hominis perditissima, tum singularis audacia ostendatur necesse est, neque audacia solum sed summus furor atque amentia. cum sint omnia, tamen exstent oportet expressa sceleris vestigia, ubi, qua ratione, per quos, quo tempore maleficium sit admissum. nisi multa et manifesta sunt, profecto res tam scelesta, tam atrox, tam nefaria credi non potest.

[¶20] 63. For the power of human feeling is great; the connection of blood is of mighty power; nature herself cries out against suspicions of this sort; it is a most undeniable portent and prodigy, for any one to exist in human shape, who so far outruns the beasts in savageness, as in a most scandalous manner to deprive those of life by whose means he has himself beheld this most delicious light of life; when birth, and bringing up, and nature herself make even beasts friendly to each other.

> Latin: 63. Magna est enim vis humanitatis; multum valet communio sanguinis; reclamitat istius modi suspicionibus ipsa natura; portentum atque monstrum certissimum est esse aliquem humana specie et figura qui tantum immanitate bestias vicerit ut, propter quos hanc suavissimam lucem aspexerit, eos indignissime luce privarit, cum etiam feras inter sese partus atque educatio et natura ipsa conciliet.

[¶21] 64. Not many years ago they say that Titius Cloelius, a citizen of Terracina, a well-known man, when, having supped, he had retired to rest in the same room with his two youthful sons, was found in the morning with his throat cut: when no servant could be found nor any free man, on whom suspicion of the deed could be fixed, and his two sons of that age lying near him said that they did not even know what had been done; the sons were accused of the parricide. What followed? it was, indeed, a suspicious business; that neither of them were aware of it, and that some one had ventured to introduce himself into that chamber, especially at that time when two young men were in the same place, who might easily have heard the noise and defended him. Moreover, there was no one on whom suspicion of the deed could fall.

> Latin: 64. ita multis ante annis aiunt T. Titum Caelium quendam Terracinensem, hominem non obscurum, cum cenatus cubitum in idem conclave cum duobus adulescentibus filiis isset, inventum esse mane iugulatum. neque servus quisquam reperiretur neque liber ad quem ea suspicio pertineret, id aetatis autem duo filii propter cubantes ne sensisse quidem se dicerent, nomina filiorum de parricidio delata sunt. poterat tam esse suspiciosum? neutrumne sensisse? ausum autem esse quemquam se in id conclave committere eo potissimum tempore cum ibidem essent duo adulescentes filii qui et sentire et defendere facile possent? porro nemo in quem ea suspicio conveniret.

[¶22] 65. Still as it was plain to the judges that they were found sleeping with the door open, the young men were acquitted and released from all suspicion. For no one thought that there was any one who, when he had violated all divine and human laws by a nefarious crime, could immediately go to sleep; because they who have committed such a crime not only cannot rest free from care, but cannot even breathe without fear.

> Latin: 65. , cum planum iudicibus esset factum aperto ostio dormientis eos repertos esse, iudicio absoluti adulescentes et suspicione omni liberati sunt. enim putabat quemquam esse qui, cum omnia divina atque humana iura scelere nefario polluisset, somnum statim capere potuisset, propterea quod qui tantum facinus commiserunt non modo sine cura quiescere sed ne spirare quidem sine metu possunt.

[¶23] 66. Do you not see in the case of those whom the poets have handed down to us, as having, for the sake of avenging their father, inflicted punishment on their mother, especially when they were said to have done so at the command and in obedience to the oracles of the immortal gods, how the furies nevertheless haunt them, and never suffer them to rest, because they could not be pious without wickedness. And this is the truth, O judges. The blood of one's father and mother has great power, great obligation, is a most holy thing, and if any stain of that falls on one, it not only cannot be washed out, but it drips down into the very soul, so that extreme frenzy and madness follow it.

> Latin: 66. quos nobis poetae tradiderunt patris ulciscendi causa supplicium de matre sumpsisse, cum praesertim deorum immortalium iussis atque oraculis id fecisse dicantur, tamen ut eos agitent Furiae neque consistere umquam patiantur, quod ne pii quidem sine scelere esse potuerunt? se res habet, iudices: magnam vim, magnam necessitatem, magnam possidet religionem paternus maternusque sanguis; ex quo si qua macula concepta est, non modo elui non potest verum usque eo permanat ad animum ut summus furor atque amentia consequatur.

[¶24] 67. For do not believe, as you often see it written in fables, that they who have done anything impiously and wickedly are really driven about and frightened by the furies with burning torches. It is his own dishonesty and the terrors of his own conscience that especially harassed each individual; his own wickedness drives each criminal about and affects him with madness; his own evil thoughts, his own evil conscience terrifies him. These are to the wicked their incessant and domestic furies which night and day exact from wicked sons punishment for the crimes committed against their parents.

> Latin: 67. enim putare, quem ad modum in fabulis saepenumero videtis, eos qui aliquid impie scelerateque commiserint agitari et perterreri Furiarum taedis ardentibus. Sua quemque fraus et suus terror maxime vexat, suum quemque scelus agitat amentiaque adficit, suae malae cogitationes conscientiaeque animi terrent; hae sunt impiis adsiduae domesticaeque Furiae quae dies noctesque parentium poenas a consceleratissimis filiis repetant.

[¶25] 68. This enormity of the crime is the cause why, unless a parricide is proved in a manner almost visible, it is not credible, unless a man's youth has been base, unless his life has been stained with every sort of wickedness, unless his extravagance has been prodigal and accompanied with shame and disgrace, unless his audacity has been violent, unless his rashness has been such as to be not far removed from insanity. There must be, besides a hatred of his father, a fear of his father's reproof—worthless friends, slaves privy to the deed, a convenient opportunity, a place fitly selected for the business. I had almost said the judges must see his hands stained with his father's blood, if they are to believe so monstrous, so barbarous, so terrible a crime.

> Latin: 68. magnitudo malefici facit ut, nisi paene manifestum parricidium proferatur, credibile non sit, nisi turpis adulescentia, nisi omnibus flagitiis vita inquinata, nisi sumptus effusi cum probro atque dedecore, nisi prorupta audacia, nisi tanta temeritas ut non procul abhorreat ab insania. huc oportet odium parentis, animadversionis paternae metus, amici improbi, servi conscii, tempus idoneum, locus opportune captus ad eam rem; paene dicam, respersas manus sanguine paterno iudices videant oportet, si tantum facinus, tam immane, tam acerbum credituri sunt.

[¶26] 69. On which account, the less credible it is unless it be proved, the more terribly is it to be punished if it be proved. Therefore, it may be understood by many circumstances that our ancestors surpassed other nations not only in arms, but also in wisdom and prudence; and also most especially by this, that they devise a singular punishment for the impious. And in this matter consider how far they surpassed in prudence those who are said to have been the wisest of all nations.

> Latin: 69. re hoc quo minus est credibile, nisi ostenditur, eo magis est, si convincitur, vindicandum. cum multis ex rebus intellegi potest maiores nostros non modo armis plus quam ceteras nationes verum etiam consilio sapientiaque potuisse, tum ex hac re vel maxime quod in impios singulare supplicium invenerunt. in re quantum prudentia praestiterint eis qui apud ceteros sapientissimi fuisse dicuntur considerate.

[¶27] 70. The state of the Athenians is said to have been the wisest while it enjoyed the supremacy. Moreover of that state they say that Solon was the wisest man, he who made the laws which they use even to this day. When he was asked why he had appointed no punishment for him who killed his father, he answered that he had not supposed that any one would do so. He is said to have done wisely in establishing nothing about a crime which had up to that time never been committed, lest he should seem not so much to forbid it as to put people in mind of it. How much more wisely did our ancestors act! for as they understood that there was nothing so holy that audacity did not sometimes violate it, they devised a singular punishment for parricides in order that they whom nature herself had not been able to retain in their duty, might be kept from crime by the enormity of the punishment. They ordered them to be sown alive in a sack, and in that condition to be thrown into the river.

> Latin: 70. civitas Atheniensium, dum ea rerum potita est, fuisse traditur; eius porro civitatis sapientissimum Solonem dicunt fuisse, eum qui leges quibus hodie quoque utuntur scripserit. cum interrogaretur cur nullum supplicium constituisset in eum qui parentem necasset, respondit se id neminem facturum putasse. fecisse dicitur, cum de eo nihil sanxerit quod antea commissum non erat, ne non tam prohibere quam admonere videretur. nostri maiores sapientius! qui cum intellegerent nihil esse tam sanctum quod non aliquando violaret audacia, supplicium in parricidas singulare excogitaverunt ut, quos natura ipsa retinere in officio non potuisset, ei magnitudine poenae a maleficio summoverentur. voluerunt in culleum vivos atque ita in flumen deici.

[¶28] 71. O singular wisdom, O judges! Do they not seem to have cut this man off and separated him from nature; from whom they took away at once the heaven, the sun, water and earth, so that he who had slain him, from whom he himself was horn, might be deprived of all those things from which everything is said to derive its birth. They would not throw his body to wild beasts, lest we should find the very beasts who had touched such wickedness, more savage; they would not throw them naked into the river, lest when they were carried down into the sea, they should pollute that also, by which all other things which have been polluted are believed to be purified. There is nothing in short so vile or so common that they left them any share in it.

> Latin: 71. O singularem sapientiam, iudices! videntur hunc hominem ex rerum natura sustulisse et eripuisse cui repente caelum, solem, aquam terramque ademerint ut, qui eum necasset unde ipse natus esset, careret eis rebus omnibus ex quibus omnia nata esse dicuntur? feris corpus obicere ne bestiis quoque quae tantum scelus attigissent immanioribus uteremur; non sic nudos in flumen deicere ne, cum delati essent in mare, ipsum polluerent quo cetera quae violata sunt expiari putantur; denique nihil tam vile neque tam volgare est cuius partem ullam reliquerint.

[¶29] 72. Indeed what is so common as breath to the living, earth to the dead, the sea to those who float, the shore to those who are cast up by the sea? These men so live, while they are able to live at all, that they are unable to draw breath from heaven; they so die that earth does not touch their bones; they are tossed about by the waves so that they are never washed; lastly, they are cast up by the sea so, that when dead they do not even rest on the rocks. Do you think, O Erucius, that you can prove to such men as these your charge of so enormous a crime, a crime to which so remarkable a punishment is affixed, if you do not allege any motive for the crime? If you were accusing him before the very purchasers of his property, and if Chrysogonus were presiding at that trial, still you would have come more carefully and with more preparation.

> Latin: 72. quid tam est commune quam spiritus vivis, terra mortuis, mare fluctuantibus, litus eiectis? vivunt, dum possunt, ut ducere animam de caelo non queant, ita moriuntur ut eorum ossa terra non tangat, ita iactantur fluctibus ut numquam adluantur, ita postremo eiciuntur ut ne ad saxa quidem mortui conquiescant. malefici crimen, cui maleficio tam insigne supplicium est constitutum, probare te, Eruci, censes posse talibus viris, si ne causam quidem malefici protuleris? si hunc apud bonorum emptores ipsos accusares eique iudicio Chrysogonus praeesset, tamen diligentius paratiusque venisses.

[¶30] 73. Is it that you do not see what the cause really is, or before whom it is being pleaded? The cause in question is parricide; which cannot be undertaken without many motives; and it is being tried before very wise men, who are aware that no one commits the very slightest crime without any motive whatever. Be it so; you are unable to allege any motive. Although I ought at once to gain my cause, yet I will not insist on this, and I will concede to you in this cause what I would not concede in another, relying on this man's innocence. I do not ask you why Sextus Roscius killed his father; I ask you how he killed him? So I ask of you, O Caius Erucius, how, and I will so deal with you, that I will on this topic give you leave to answer me or to interrupt me, or even, if you wish to at all, to ask me questions.

> Latin: 73. Vtrum quid agatur non vides, an apud quos agatur? de parricidio quod sine multis causis suscipi non potest; apud homines autem prudentissimos agitur qui intellegunt neminem ne minimum quidem maleficium sine causa admittere., causam proferre non potes. statim vicisse debeo, tamen de meo iure decedam et tibi quod in alia causa non concederem in hac concedam fretus huius innocentia. quaero abs te qua re patrem Sex. Roscius occiderit, quaero quo modo occiderit. quaero abs te, C. Gai Eruci: quo modo, et tecum agam ut meo loco vel respondendi vel interpellandi tibi potestatem faciam vel etiam, quid voles, interrogandi.

[¶31] 74. How did he kill him? Did he strike him himself, or did he commit him to others to be murdered? If you say he did it himself, he was not at Rome; if you say he did it by the instrumentality of others, I ask you were they slaves or free men? who were they? Did they come from the same place, from Ameria, or were they assassins of this city? If they came from Ameria, who are they, why are they not named? If they are of Rome, how did Roscius make acquaintance with them? who for many years had not come to Rome, and who never was there more than three days. Where did he meet them? with whom did he speak? how did he persuade them? Did he give them a bribe? to whom did he give it? by whose agency did he give it? whence did he get it, and how much did he giver? Are not these the steps by which one generally arrives at the main fact of guilt? And let it occur to you at the same time how you have painted this man's life; that you have described him as an unpolished and country-mannered man; that he never held conversation with any one, that he had never dwelt in the city.

> Latin: 74. modo occidit? ipse percussit an aliis occidendum dedit? si ipsum arguis, Romae non fuit; si per alios fecisse dicis, quaero quos? an liberos? si liberos, quos homines? indidemne Ameria an hosce ex urbe? si Ameria, qui sunt ei? cur non nominantur? si Roma, unde eos noverat Roscius qui Romam multis annis non venit neque umquam plus triduo fuit? ubi eos convenit? qui conlocutus est? quo modo persuasit? “dedit”; cui dedit? per quem dedit? unde aut quantum dedit? his vestigiis ad caput malefici perveniri solet? simul tibi in mentem veniat facito quem ad modum vitam huiusce depinxeris; hunc hominem ferum atque agrestem fuisse, numquam cum homine quoquam conlocutum esse, numquam in oppido constitisse.

[¶32] 75. And in this I pass over that thing which might be a strong argument for me to prove his innocence, that atrocities of this sort are not usually produced among country manners, in a sober course of life, in an unpolished and rough sort of existence. As you cannot find every sort of crop, nor every tree, in every field, so every sort of crime is not engendered in every sort of life. In a city, luxury is engendered; avarice is inevitably produced by luxury; audacity must spring from avarice, and out of audacity arises every wickedness and every crime. But a country life, which you call a clownish one, is the teacher of economy, of industry, and of justice.

> Latin: 75. in re praetereo illud quod mihi maximo argumento ad huius innocentiam poterat esse, in rusticis moribus, in victu arido, in hac horrida incultaque vita istius modi maleficia gigni non solere. Vt non omnem frugem neque arborem in omni agro reperire possis, sic non omne facinus in omni vita nascitur. urbe luxuries creatur, ex luxuria exsistat avaritia necesse est, ex avaritia erumpat audacia, inde omnia scelera ac maleficia gignuntur; vita autem haec rustica quam tu agrestem vocas parsimoniae, diligentiae, iustitiae magistra est.

[¶33] 76. But I will say no more of this. I ask then by whose instrumentality did this man, who, as you yourself say, never mixed with men, contrive to accomplish this terrible crime with such secrecy, especially while absent? There are many things, O judges, which are false, and which can still be argued so as to cause suspicion. But in this matter, if any grounds for suspicion can be discovered, I will admit that there is guilt. Sextus Roscius is murdered at Rome, while his son is at his farm at Ameria. He sent letters, I suppose, to some assassin, he who knew no one at Rome. He sent for some one—but when? He sent a messenger—whom? or to whom? Did he persuade any one by bribes, by influence, by hope, by promises? None of these things can even be invented against him, and yet a trial for parricide is going on.

> Latin: 76. haec missa facio; illud quaero, is homo qui ut tute dicis, numquam inter homines fuerit, per quos homines hoc tantum facinus, tam occultum, absens praesertim, conficere potuerit. sunt falsa, iudices, quae tamen argui suspiciose possunt; in his rebus si suspicio reperta erit, culpam inesse concedam. Romae Sex. Roscius occiditur, cum in agro Amerino esset filius. Litteras, credo, misit alicui sicario qui Romae noverat neminem. aliquem. aut quando? misit. aut ad quem?, gratia, spe, promissis induxit aliquem. horum ne confingi quidem potest; et tamen causa de parricidio dicitur.

[¶34] 77. The only remaining alternative is that he managed it by means of slaves. Oh ye immortal gods, how miserable and disastrous is our lot. That which under such an accusation is usually a protection to the innocent, to offer his slaves to the question, that it is not allowed to Sextus Roscius to do. You, who accuse him, have all his slaves. There is not one boy to bring him his daily food left to Sextus Roscius out of so large a household. I appeal to you now, Publius Scipio, to you Metellus, while you were acting as his advocates, while you were pleading his cause, did not Sextus Roscius often demand of his adversaries that two of his father's slaves should be put to the question? Do you remember that you, O Titus Roscius, refused it? What? Where are those slaves? They are waiting on Chrysogonus, O judges; they are honoured and valued by him. Even now I demand that they be put to the question; he begs and entreats it.

> Latin: 77. est ut per servos id admiserit. O, di immortales, rem miseram et calamitosam!? tali crimine quod innocenti saluti solet esse ut servos in quaestionem polliceatur, id Sex. Roscio facere non licet? qui hunc accusatis omnis eius servos habetis; unus puer victus cotidiani administer ex tanta familia Sex. Roscio relictus non est. nunc appello, P. Publi Scipio, te, M. Marce Metelle; vobis advocatis, vobis agentibus aliquotiens duos servos paternos in quaestionem ab adversariis Sex. Roscius postulavit; meministisne T. Titum Roscium recusare?? ei servi ubi sunt? Chrysogonum, iudices, sectantur; apud eum sunt in honore et in pretio. nunc ut ex eis quaeratur ego postulo, hic orat atque obsecrat.

[¶35] 78. What are you doing? Why do you refuse? Doubt now, O judges, if you can, by whom Sextus Roscius was murdered; whether by him, who, on account of his death, is exposed to poverty and treachery, who has not even opportunity allowed him of making inquiry into his father's death; or by those who shun investigation, who are in possession of his property, who live amid murder, and by murder. Everything in this cause, O judges, is lamentable and scandalous; but there is nothing which can be mentioned more bitter or more iniquitous than this. The son is not allowed to put his father's slaves to the question concerning his father's death. He is not to be master of his own slaves so long as to put them to the question concerning his father's death. I will come again, and that speedily, to this topic. For all this relates to the Roscii; and I have promised that I will speak of their audacity when I have effaced the accusations of Erucius.

> Latin: 78. facitis? cur recusatis? etiam nunc, iudices, si potestis, a quo sit Sex. Roscius occisus, ab eone qui propter illius mortem in egestate et in insidiis versatur, cui ne quaerendi quidem de morte patris potestas permittitur, an ab eis qui quaestionem fugitant, bona possident, in caede atque ex caede vivunt., iudices, in hac causa sunt misera atque indigna; tamen hoc nihil neque acerbius neque iniquius proferri potest: mortis paternae de servis paternis quaestionem habere filio non licet! tam diu quidem dominus erit in suos dum ex eis de patris morte quaeratur?, neque ita multo postea, ad hunc locum; nam hoc totum ad Roscios pertinet, de quorum audacia tum me dicturum pollicitus sum, cum Eruci crimina diluissem.

[¶36] 79. Now, Erucius, I come to you. You must inevitably agree with me, if he is really implicated in this crime, that he either committed it with his own hand, which you deny, or by means of some other men, either freemen or slaves. Were they freemen? You can neither show that he had any opportunity of meeting them, nor by what means he could persuade them, nor where he saw them, nor by what agency he trafficked with them, nor by what hope, or what bribe he persuaded them. I show, on the other hand, not only that Sextus Roscius did nothing of all this, but that he was not even able to do anything, because he had neither been at Rome for many years, nor did he ever leave his farm without some object. The name of slaves appeared to remain to you, to which, when driven from your other suspicions, you might fly as to a harbour, when you strike upon such a rock that you not only see the accusation rebound back from it, but perceive that every suspicion falls upon you yourselves.

> Latin: 79. , Eruci, ad te venio. mihi tecum necesse est, si ad hunc maleficium istud pertinet, aut ipsum sua manu fecisse, id quod negas, aut per aliquos liberos aut servos.? quos neque ut convenire potuerit neque qua ratione inducere neque ubi neque per quos neque qua spe aut quo pretio potes ostendere. contra ostendo non modo nihil eorum fecisse Sex. Roscium sed ne potuisse quidem facere, quod neque Romae multis annis fuerit neque de praediis umquam temere discesserit. tibi videbatur servorum nomen, quo quasi in portum reiectus a ceteris suspicionibus confugere posses; ubi scopulum offendis modi ut non modo ab hoc crimen resilire videas verum omnem suspicionem in vosmet ipsos recidere intellegas.