vol. I A p.1117
He was the son of nr. 6, born around 634 = 120 (Cic. pro Sex. Roscio amer. 39). He was clumsy and more at home in the countryside (Cic. 20. 74. 143), so his father kept him on his estate and charged him with its management (Cic. 39f. 42f. 45. 48f. 52. 74ff. 79. 81. 94. 120). <20> After the inheritance which he would have received from his father was confiscated, he was completely destitute (Cic. 13. 23. 32. 88. 128. 143ff. 152), and since he felt his life was in danger after his father’s murder (Cic. 26ff. 30. 34. 149. 151), he went to Rome to enter the protection of his father’s powerful patron, Caecilia Metella (Cic. 27. 147. 147; see above vol. III p.1235). <30> It seemed he had been ruined along with his father (Cic. 40ff. 52ff. 58) when, at the start of 674 = 80, he was brought to trial before the praetor M. Fannius [corrected from C. Fannius] (see above vol. VI p.1993) by the professional prosecutor Erucius (see above vol. VI p.552), likely on behalf of Chrysogonus, for the murder of his father, as well as the embezzlement of his confiscated estate (Cic. 82. 144. 146). He was supported by the young M. Messala (Cic. 149), and defended in the extant speech by Cicero (as well as the speech itself, cf. Cic. de orat. 107f.; Brut. 312; de off. II 51. Hieronym. on Ol. 175, 1 = Sueton. p. 81, 2f. Reiff. Gell. XV 28. Auct. de vir. ill. 81, 2). <40> Since Cicero gained a certain amount of reputation from this trial, we can assume that Roscius was acquitted, and indeed Plut. Cic. 3 attests this, though that itself could simply be Plutarch coming to his own conclusions too, as he does very frequently in his work on Sulla. <50>
[Vonder Mühll.]