Property and Violence: The Pro Tullio and Pro Caecina

This chapter examines two cases wherein Cicero appears to have had a reasonable case on a strict interpretation of the law. However, in the case of pro Roscio Comoedo he needed to reinforce it by presenting his client in a better light than perhaps his character justified. The two lawsuits arose from property disputes involving violence. In each case, Cicero's client claimed to have suffered violence: in pro Tullio to his slaves; in pro Caecina to his own person and those of his friends and supporters. The aims of the suits, however, were different: in the first it was a matter of obtaining...

This chapter examines two cases wherein Cicero appears to have had a reasonable case on a strict interpretation of the law. However, in the case of pro Roscio Comoedo he needed to reinforce it by presenting his client in a better light than perhaps his character justified. The two lawsuits arose from property disputes involving violence. In each case, Cicero's client claimed to have suffered violence: in pro Tullio to his slaves; in pro Caecina to his own person and those of his friends and supporters. The aims of the suits, however, were different: in the first it was a matter of obtaining damages for the loss; in the second the winning of a judicial wager which in due course should have led to the taking possession of a disputed piece of real estate.