accedit, there is in addition: used as a kind of passive of addo. illa, this, i.e. the following (a common use of this pronoun). quod, that: § 572(333); B. 299,1,b; G. 525, 1; H.588,3 (540, iv); H.-B. 549,550, 552, 1. a ceteris,from the others, i.e. the nobles. petitum sit: for subjunctive see § 447, a and N. (334,g and N.) ; G. 457, 2, N.; H. (p.267, footnote 1); H.-B. 517,1. ut dicerent [causam], subst. clause of purpose, subj. of petitum sit: § 566 (331, h) ; G. 546; H.565, 2 (499, 3); cf. H.-B. 502, 3, a. dicere causam is the technical expression for defending a case. ut . . . arbitrarentur: a clause of result, dependent on ita petitum sit: § 537 and N.2 (319 and a.) ; B. 284, 1; G. 552; H. 591 (500 and N.1); H.-B. 521, 2 and a. utrumvis, either [course, i.e. to speak or be silent], at their choice ; lit. either [of the two] you please. salvo officio (abl. of manner), without a breach of duty. arbitrarentur: imperf. following petitum sit, which is regarded as a secondary tense since it represents the perf. indic. ; § 485, a (287, a) ; B. 268, I; G. 511, N.2; H.546 (495, i); H.-B. 481. a me autem, etc., lit. but from me, etc. (opposed to a ceteris above). The emphasis may be preserved by changing the construction in English: but as for myself, men have urged it [i.e. that I should undertake the defence of Roscius] on me who, etc. ei, men ; here used simply as a correlative to qui, and not in a really demonstrative sense. The reference is of course to the noble friends of Roscius debeam, subj. of characteristic: § 535(320); B. 283,1; G. 631, 2; H. 591, I (503, i); H.-B. 521, 1. his, emphatic, summing up the reasons he has given for undertaking the case, ego (next line), emphatic as opposed to the others present. patronus, advocate, the word advocati having a different meaning (see note on p. 2, l. 7, above). unus, as the one man. uti ne: in purpose clauses the double form is often used instead of ne alone. desertus, etc.: observe that Cicero not only attempts to win the sympathies of the jurors for the helpIessness of his client, but that he also contrives to suggest, in advance of the formal statement of facts, that there is a combination or conspiracy of some kind against young Roscius The same thing was insinuated in sect. vi by the use of conflatam (1.6).
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
text S. Rosc.
Defence of Roscius. ( Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino ) B.C. 80.
Roscius had not only no motive to commit the crime, but no means of committing it. Erucius is challenged to tell how Roscius could himself have killed his father or could have procured his death through others.
The sale of the property of the elder Roscius was illegal and his proscription in every way irregular. For this act Chrysogonus is to be blamed, not Sulla for Sulla was necessarily so much occupied with affairs of state that details of this kind escaped his attention.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.