CICERO’NUN İLK MÜDÂFİLİĞİ: PRO SEXTO ROSCIO AMERINO

Abstract

Cicero baba katliyle itham edilen Ameria’lı Sextus Roscius’un savunmasını üstlenerek yirmi yedi yaşındayken ilk defa bir ceza davasında görev aldı (M.Ö. 80). Cicero’nun senatörlerden oluşan bir jüri ihtivâ eden dâimî bir mahkeme (quaestio perpetua) önünde görülen bu ilk kamu davası (causa publica) gayrı insânî bir îdamla cezalandırılabilecek parricidium suçuna ilişkin olmanın ötesinde siyâsî açıdan da hassâsiyet arz etmekteydi. Roscius davası iç savaşın neden olduğu toplumsal kargaşanın etkilerinin sürdüğü bir dönemde görüldü. Sulla rejiminin getirdiği siyâsî, kurumsal ve sosyal dönüşümlerin yarattığı zemine oturan bu dava cumhuriyetin krizine ve Roma ceza yargılamasının gelişimine ışık tutması nedeniyle önem taşımaktadır. Müvekkilinin berâat etmesini sağlayan Cicero’ya büyük îtibar ve şöhret kazandıran bu dava netîcesinde genç hatip her türlü dava için yetkin addedilir oldu.

Keywords

• Cicero
• parricidium
• poena cullei
• yasaklama listeleri
• Sulla

Cicero’s First Criminal Defence: Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino

Abstract

Cicero took his first criminal case at the age of twenty-seven by accepting the defence of Sextus Roscius of Ameria who was charged with the murder of his father (80 B.C.). Apart from pertaining to parricidium which could be punished with an inhumane death penalty, Cicero’s first public case (causa publica) before a permanent senatorial jury court (quaestio perpetua) was politically sensitive. The Roscius case was heard in a period where the effects of the social chaos caused by the civil war were still continuing. The case which took place against the political, institutional and social transformations brought in by the Sullan regime is important for shedding light on the crisis of the Republic and the evolution of Roman criminal procedure. Gaining the acquittal of his client, Cicero rose t o new heights of prominence and came to be considered competent for any kind of case.

Keywords

• Cicero
• parricidium
• poena cullei
• proscription lists
• Sulla

References

1. Karadeniz Çelebican (Ö.), Roma Hukuku, Yeni Medeni Kanun’a Uyarlanmış 18. bası, Turhan Yayınevi, Ankara, 2019, xxxv + 374 s.
2. Mousourakis (G.), A Legal History of Rome, Routledge, London and New York, 2007, ix + 281 p.
3. Riggsby (A. M.), Roman Law and the Legal World of the Romans, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012, viii + 283 p.
4. Umur (Z.), Roma Hukuku Ders Notları, 3. baskı, Beta, İstanbul, 1999, xv + 536 s.
5. Alexander (M. C.), The Case for the Prosecution in the Ciceronian Era, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 2005, xii + 370 p.
6. Auvray-Assayas (C.), Cicéron, Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 2006, 149 p.
7. Badian (E.), Foreign Clientelae (264-70 B.C.), Oxford University Press, London, 1967, xii + 342 p.
8. Bauman (R. A.), Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome, Routledge, London and New York, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004, xii + 228 p.

9. Butler (S.), The Hand of Cicero, Routledge, Taylor & Francis e-Library, London and New York, 2005, ix + 165 p.
10. Capogrossi Colognesi (L.), Law and Power in the Making of Roman Commonwealth, Translated by Laura Kopp, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014, xxxii + 370 p.
11. Carbasse (J.-M.), Les 100 dates du droit, Que sais-je, 2011, 1re éd., Paris, 127 p.
12. Crawford, (J. W.), M. Tullius Cicero: The Lost and Unpublished Orations, Hypomnemata, Untersuchungen zur Antike und ihrem Nachleben, Heft 80, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1984, x + 324 p.
13. Crawford, (J. W.), M. Tullius Cicero. The Fragmentary Speeches. An Edition with Commentary, American Philological Association, American Classical Studies, Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1994, x + 348 p.
14. Culpepper Stroup (S.), Catullus, Cicero, and a Society of Patrons. The Generation of the Text, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010, xiv + 308 p.
15. David (J.-M.), Le patronat judiciaire au dernier siècle de la république romaine, École française de Rome, Rome, 1992, xxi + 952 p.
16. Fantham (E.), The Roman World of Cicero’s De Oratore, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004, x + 354 p.
17. Greenidge (A. H. J.), The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1901, xiii + 599 p.
18. Gruen (E. S.), The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1995, xxviii + 596 p.
19. Hinard (F.), Les proscriptions de la Rome Républicaine, Collection de l’École française de Rome, no 83, École française de Rome, 1985, 605 p.
20. Hunter (W. A.), A Systematic and Historical Exposition of Roman Law in the Order of a Code, Embodying the Institutes of Gaius and the Institutes of Justinian, translated into English by J. Ashton Cross, 4th ed., Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1903, xi + 1122 p.
21. Kunkel (W.), An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History, Translated by J. M. Kelly, Oxford University Press, London, 1966, x + 217 p.
22. Lintott (A.), The Constitution of the Roman Republic, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, 372 p.
23. Lintott (A.), Cicero as Evidence. A Historian’s Companion, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008, x + 469 p.
24. Mourier (P.-F.), Cicéron. L’avocat et la République, Michalon, Paris, 1996, 124 p.
25. Robinson (O. F.), Penal Practice and Penal Policy in Ancient Rome, Routledge, London and New York, 2007, viii + 255 p.
26. Sampson (G. C.), The Collapse of Rome. Marius, Sulla and the First Civil War (91-70 BC), Pen & Sword, South Yorkshire, 2013, 304 p.
27. Santangelo (F.), Sulla, the Elites and the Empire. A Study of Roman Policies in Italy and the Greek East, Brill, Leiden and Boston, 2007, xxi + 300 p.
28. Strachan-Davidson (J. L.), Problems of the Roman Criminal Law, vol. I, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1912, xxi + 245 p.
29. Strachan-Davidson (J. L.), Problems of the Roman Criminal Law, vol. II, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1912, 287 p.
30. Türkoğlu (H. G.), Roma Hukukunda Suç ve Ceza, güncellenmiş ikinci baskı, Seçkin, Ankara, 2017, 276 s.
31. Berry (D. H.), “The Publication of Cicero’s Pro Roscio Amerino”, Mnemosyne, vol. 57, fasc. 1, 2004, pp. 80-87.
32. Biscotti (B.), “‘What Kind of Monster or Beast Are You?’ Parricide and Patricide in Roman Law and Society”, in Muravyeva (M.) and Toivo (R. M.), Parricide and Violence against Parents throughout History. (De)Constructing Family and Authority?, World Histories of Crime, Culture and Violence, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2018, pp. 13-33.
33. Cantarella (E.), “Fathers and Sons in Rome”, The Classical World, vol. 96, no 3, 2003, pp. 281-298.
34. Carcopino (J.), « Observations sur le Pro Roscio Amerino », Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 75ᵉ année, no 4, 1931. pp. 361-363.
35. Cloud (J. D.), “How did Sulla Style His Law ‘De Sicariis’?”, The Classical Review, vol. 18, no 2, 1968, pp. 140-143.
36. Cloud (J. D.), “The primary purpose of the lex Cornelia de sicariis”, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 86, 1969, pp. 258-286.
37. Cloud (J. D.), “Parricidium: from the lex Numae to the lex Pompeia de parricidiis”, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 88, 1971, pp. 1-66.
38. Cloud (D.), “The Constitution and Public Criminal Law”, in Crook (J. A.), Lintott (A.) and Rawson (E.) (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. IX: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146-43 B.C., 2nd ed., 7th print., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 491-530.
39. Crawford (J. W.), “The Lost and Fragmentary Speeches”, in May (J. M.) (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Cicero. Oratory and Rhetoric, Brill, Leiden, Boston, Köln, 2002, pp. 305-330.
40. Crook (J. A.), “Was There a ‘Doctrine of Manifest Guilt’ in the Roman Criminal Law?”, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, New Series, no 33 (213), 1987, pp. 38-52.
41. Duckworth (G. E.), “A Chronology of the Plays of Plautus by Charles H. Buck”, The American Journal of Philology, vol. 64, no 3, 1943, pp. 348-352.
42. Dyck (A. R.), “Evidence and Rhetoric in Cicero’s Pro Roscio Amerino: The Case against Sex. Roscius”, The Classical Quarterly, vol. 53, no 1, 2003, pp. 235-246.
43. Egmond (F.), “The Cock, the Dog, the Serpent, and the Monkey. Reception and Transmission of a Roman Punishment, or Historiography as History”, International Journal of the Classical Tradition, vol. 2, no 2, 1995, pp. 159-192.
44. Ferguson (W. S.), “The Lex Calpurnia of 149 B.C.”, The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 11, 1921, pp. 86-100.
45. Hawthorn (J. R.), “The Senate after Sulla”, Greece & Rome, vol. 9, no 1, 1962, pp. 53-60.
46. Hill (H.), “Sulla’s New Senators in 81 B.C.”, The Classical Quarterly, vol. 26, no 3/4, 1932, pp. 170-177.
47. Husband (R. W.), “The Prosecution of Sextus Roscius: A Case of Parricide, with a Plea of Alibi and Non-Motive”, The Classical Weekly, vol. 8, no 12, 1915, pp. 90-93.
48. Imholtz, Jr (A. A.), “Gladiatorial Metaphors in Cicero’s Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino”, Classical World, vol. 65, no 7, 1972, pp. 228-230.
49. Kaplan (A.), “Sulla’s Watergate”, The Classical Outlook, vol. 53, no 9, 1976, pp. 100-102.
50. Kinsey (T. E.), “A Dilemma in the Pro Roscio Amerino”, Mnemosyne, vol. 19, fasc. 3, 1966, pp. 270-271.
51. Kinsey (T. E.), “The Dates of the Pro Roscio Amerino and Pro Quinctio”, Mnemosyne, vol. 20, fasc. 1, 1967, pp. 61-67.
52. Kinsey (T. E.), “Cicero, Pro Roscio Amerino, 125”, Mnemosyne, vol. 21, fasc. 2 / 3, 1968, pp. 290-292.
53. Kinsey (T. E.), “Cicero’s speech for Roscius of America”, Symbolae Osloenses: Norwegian Journal of Greek and Latin Studies, vol. 50, no 1, 1975, pp. 91-104.
54. Kinsey (T. E.), “Cicero’s Case against Magnus, Capito and Chrysogonus in the Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino and its Use for the Historian”, L’Antiquité Classique, t. 49, 1980, pp. 173-190.
55. Kinsey (T. E.), “The Case against Sextus Roscius of Ameria”, L’Antiquité Classique, t. 54, 1985, pp. 188-196.
56. Kinsey (T. E.), “Criminal Courts at Rome under the Cinnan Regime”, Hermes, bd. 115, h. 4, 1987, p. 502.
57. Kinsey (T. E.), “The Sale of the Property of Roscius of America: How Illegal Was It?”, L’Antiquité Classique, t. 57, 1988, pp. 296-297.
58. Leon (H. J.), “The Technique of Emotional Appeal in Cicero’s Judicial Speeches”, The Classical Weekly, vol. 29, no 5, 1935, pp. 33-37.
59. Marshall (A. J.), “Roman Ladies on Trial: The Case of Maesia of Sentinum”, Phoenix, vol. 44, no 1, 1990, pp. 46-59.
60. Paterson (J.), “Self-Reference in Cicero’s Forensic Speeches”, in Powell (J.) and Paterson (J.) (eds.), Cicero the Advocate, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004, pp. 79-96.
61. Prill (P.), “Cicero in Theory and Practice: The Securing of Good Will in the Exordia of Five Forensic Speeches”, Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, vol. 4, no 2, 1986, pp. 93-109.
62. Radin (M.), “The Lex Pompeia and the Poena Cullei”, The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 10, 1920, pp. 119-130.
63. Robinson (O. F.), “Unpardonable Crimes: Fourth Century Attitudes”, in Cairns (J. W.) and Robinson (O. F.), Critical Studies in Ancient Law, Comparative Law and Legal History, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, 2004, pp. 117-126.
64. Satterfield (S.), “Notes on Phlegon’s Hermaphrodite Oracle and the Publication of Oracles in Rome”, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Neue Folge, 154. Bd., H. 1, 2011, pp. 117-124.
65. Schultz (C. E.), “Juno Sospita and Roman Insecurity in the Social War”, in Schultz (C. E.) and Harvey, Jr (P. B.), Religion in Republican Italy, Yale Classical Studies, vol. XXIII, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 207-208.
66. Seager (R.), “Sulla”, in Crook (J. A.), Lintott (A.) and Rawson (E.) (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, volume IX: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146-43 B.C., 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 164-207.
67. Sedgwick (W. B.), “Cicero’s Conduct of the Case Pro Roscio”, The Classical Review, vol. 48, no 1, 1934, p. 13.
68. Solmsen (F.), “Cicero’s First Speeches: A Rhetorical Analysis”, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, vol. 69, 1938, pp. 542- 556.
69. Steel (C.), “Cicero’s Autobiography: Narratives of Success in The Pre-Consular Orations”, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz, vol. 23, 2012, pp. 251-266.
70. Tatum (W. J.), “Cicero, the Elder Curio, and the Titinia Case”, Mnemosyne, 1991, vol. 44, fasc. 3-4, pp. 364-371.
71. Thomas (Y.), « Parricidium, I: Le père, la famille et la cité (La lex Pompeia et le système des poursuites publiques) », Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité, tome 93, n° 2, 1981, pp. 643-715.
72. Türkoğlu (H. G.), “Roma Cumhuriyet ve İlk İmparatorluk Dönemlerinin İdari Yapısı”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, cilt 11, sayı 2, 2011, s. 251-289.
73. Vasaly (A.), “The Masks of Rhetoric: Cicero’s Pro Roscio Amerino”, Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, vol. 3, no 1, 1985, pp. 1-20.
74. Vervaet (F. J.), “The Lex Valeria and Sulla’s Empowerment as Dictator (82-79 BCE)”, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz, vol. 15, 2004. pp. 37-84.
75. Ward (A. M.), “Cicero and Pompey in 75 and 70 B.C.”, Latomus, t. 29, fasc. 1, 1970, pp. 58-71.
76. Zetzel (J. E. G.), “A Contract on Ameria: Law and Legality in Cicero’s Pro Roscio Amerino”, The American Journal of Philology, vol. 134, no 3, 2013, pp. 425-444.