by Cicero
I am not only going to touch upon, but (after revealing certain information) will actually discuss in detail all the wicked and disgraceful crimes which have been committed in connection with the courts over the ten years* since they were transferred to the senate. [38] I will tell the Roman people how it is that, when juries consisted of equestrians, there was for nearly fifty years* not even the least suspicion of a juror ever having accepted a bribe in return for giving a particular verdict; how it is that, once the courts had been transferred to the senatorial order and the Roman people’s control over each one of you had been removed, it was possible for Quintus Calidius* to declare on his conviction that no ex-praetor could be convicted honourably for less than three million sesterces; and how it is that, when the senator Publius Septimius* was convicted, at the time when Quintus Hortensius was the praetor in charge of the extortion court, the damages that were assessed explicitly took account of the fact that Septimius had accepted a bribe in a previous case. [39] Again, at the trials of Gaius Herennius and Gaius Popillius,* two senators who were convicted of embezzlement, and at that of Marcus Atilius* who was convicted of treason, it was established that they had all accepted bribes in previous cases; when Gaius Verres was drawing lots as city praetor,* senators were produced who, chosen by the lot, convicted a defendant without holding a proper trial; and a senator was found* who, while serving as a juror in one and the same court, both took money from a defendant to distribute among the other jurors and at the same time took money from the prosecutor to find the defendant guilty. [40] And now, what words can I use to deplore that shame, disgrace, and catastrophe for the whole senatorial order, the fact that in this country of ours, while senators supplied the juries, the voting-tablets of jurors under oath were marked with symbols of different colours?* I give you my promise that I will go over all these crimes rigorously and in detail.
Now tell me, what view do you think I am going to take if I find out that in this trial too a similar violation has been committed? Especially when I have numerous witnesses to prove that Gaius Verres, when he was in Sicily, repeatedly said in many people’s hearing that he had a powerful friend* he could rely on while plundering the province; and that he was not taking money for himself alone, but had his three-year governorship of Sicily parcelled out in such a way that, he said, he would be doing very nicely if he kept his gains from the first year for his own use, handed over those of the second to his advocates* and supporters, and reserved those of the third year—the richest and most lucrative of the three—entirely for his jurors.
[41] This prompts me to tell you of a remark which I recently made before Manius Glabrio when the rejection of jurors was being held,* and which I noticed made a profound impression on the people of Rome. I said that I thought that there would come a time when foreign peoples would send delegations to Rome to request that the extortion law and this court be abolished. For if there were no courts, they believe that each governor would only carry off enough for himself and his children. With the courts as they are now, on the other hand, they reckon that each governor carries away enough for himself, his advocates, his supporters, the president of the court, and the jurors—in other words, an infinite amount. Their conclusion is that they are capable of satisfying the avarice of one greedy individual, but incapable of subsidizing a guilty man’s acquittal. [42] How remarkable are our courts and how glorious the reputation of our order, when the allies of the Roman people hope for the abolition of the extortion court, which our ancestors established for their benefit! Would Verres ever have been so optimistic about his own chances if he had not absorbed the same bad opinion of yourselves? This ought to make your own hatred of him even greater than the Roman people’s, if such a thing were possible, seeing that he imagines that you are his equals in avarice, criminality, and perjury.
[43] By the immortal gods, gentlemen, I beg you to consider this situation and take the necessary action! I advise and warn you of what I myself have realized, that this is a golden opportunity which the gods have given you to rid our whole order of hatred, unpopularity, scandal, and disgrace. It is widely believed that there is no strictness in the courts, no honesty—and that there are now in fact no courts worthy of the name. As a result, we are scorned and despised by the Roman people, and we now burn with an extreme and long-lasting infamy.
[44] It was for this reason and no other that the Roman people were so determined to see the restoration of the tribunes’ powers.* When they were demanding that, that was what they seemed on the surface to be demanding, but in reality they were demanding courts. And this fact did not escape the distinguished and wise Quintus Catulus.* When the valiant and illustrious* Gnaeus Pompeius raised the question of the tribunes’ powers before the senate, Catulus, on being asked for his opinion, replied with the greatest authority, saying straightaway that the conscript fathers were managing the courts in a wicked and scandalous fashion, and that if, while acting as jurors, they had paid heed to what the Roman people thought, then the tribunes’ loss of their powers would not have been so keenly regretted. [45] Furthermore, when Gnaeus Pompeius himself as consul-elect first held a public meeting outside the city* and revealed that he was intending to restore the tribunes’ powers (the thing which it was supposed people were most waiting for), there was a hum of approval and a murmur of appreciation among the audience. But when later in the same speech he pointed out that the provinces had been plundered and devastated, that the courts were behaving scandalously and disgracefully, and that he wanted to consider this problem and take action, at that moment not with a mere murmur but with a deafening shout the Roman people signified that this was their own wish too.
[46] So now people are on the lookout, watching to see how each one of us conducts himself, whether he stays honest and abides by the laws. They note that since the law about the tribunes* was passed, only a single senator has been convicted, and he a man of slender means.* They do not actually criticize this, but they do not find much in it to praise either. After all, there is no great glory in being honest when there is nobody who is able, or attempts, to corrupt you.
[47] This is a trial in which you will be passing verdict on the defendant, but the Roman people will also be passing verdict on you. This case will determine whether it is possible, when a jury consists of senators, for a very guilty but very rich man to be convicted. Moreover, this is a defendant who has only two characteristics, extreme guilt and immense wealth; so if he is acquitted, no other conclusion could possibly be drawn except the least favourable one. Neither popularity, nor family tie, nor any good deed done in the past, nor even any fault of a venial kind will be thought to have compensated for his numerous and abominable crimes. [48] Lastly, I will put the case before you so clearly, gentlemen, and I will present you with facts so familiar, so well attested, so damning, and so conclusive that no one will dream of asking you to acquit this man as a personal favour. I have a definite and properly thought-out strategy which I will use to track down and pursue all the opposition’s schemes; and I will conduct my prosecution in such a way that their intrigues will all appear manifest not only to the ears of the Roman people, but to their eyes as well.
[49] You have the power to wipe out and destroy the disgrace and scandal by which this order has for some years now been affected. It is universally agreed that since the courts were constituted in their present form, no panel has been so eminent and admired as this one. So if anything should go wrong in this trial, everyone will conclude not that more suitable jurors should be selected from the same order—since no such men exist—but that a different order altogether* should be found to judge cases.
[50] Therefore, members of the jury, I first ask the immortal gods to grant what I think I have grounds for believing will be the case, that no one in this trial will prove to be dishonest, barring only him* who has long ago been found to be so. Secondly, if there are some who are found to be dishonest, then I promise to you, gentlemen, and to the Roman people that only death—b
y Hercules!—will prevent me from opposing their corruption with vigour and perseverance.
[51] My promise, then, is that, at the cost of toil, danger, and hostility to myself, I will strongly oppose this shameful conduct once it has been committed. Your task, Manius Glabrio, is on the other hand to use your authority, wisdom, and diligence to prevent it happening in the first place. Take up the cause of the courts, take up the cause of justice, honesty, principle, and conscience—and take up the cause of the senate, so that it may pass the test of this particular trial and win the respect and gratitude of the Roman people! Reflect on who you are, on where you are, on what you owe to the Roman people, and on what you should repay to your ancestors! Remember your own father’s Acilian law,* which gave the Roman people, in extortion cases, the best courts and the strictest jurors! [52] You have the greatest precedents surrounding you: they do not allow you to forget the glory your family has won, and they remind you day and night of your valiant father, your wise grandfather, and your distinguished father-in-law. So if you have indeed acquired the vigour and energy of your father Glabrio in standing up to the criminal elements, if you have acquired the foresight of your grandfather Scaevola* in looking out for the traps which are being prepared to damage your reputation and that of these jurors, and if you have acquired the steadfastness of your father-in-law Scaurus* in never being deflected from a fixed and true judgement, the Roman people will then surely realize this—that with an upright and honourable praetor and a carefully chosen jury, immense wealth is far more likely to increase the suspicion of a criminal’s guilt than to provide him with a means of acquittal.
[53] I am determined not to do anything that will result in the praetor in this case or the court being changed. I will not allow the trial to be spun out until a time when people who collectively refused to obey a summons—one wholly without precedent—from the slaves of consuls-elect are then forced to obey a similar summons, from the lictors of consuls.* Nor will I allow it to be spun out until a time when wretched individuals, formerly the friends and allies of the Roman people but now our slaves and suppliants, will not only lose their rights and fortunes through the power of those consuls, but will even be denied the opportunity to protest against their loss. [54] I will certainly not permit a speech delivered by me to be replied to only after forty days have gone by,* when my allegations have been forgotten owing to the passage to time. I will not do anything that will result in a verdict being given only when these crowds from all over Italy have left Rome—people who have come from everywhere all at the same moment to attend the elections, the games, and the census.* In this trial, both the reward of glory and the risk of unpopularity ought, I think, to belong to you; the anxiety and hard work should belong to me; but the knowledge of what is done here and the memory of what was said by both parties should belong to the whole of the general public.
[55] The procedure I am going to follow is not unprecedented: it has been adopted in the past by men who today are leaders of our country.* I am going to call my witnesses immediately. What you will find unusual, gentlemen, is the way I deploy these witnesses. First of all I shall explain a particular charge in detail, and then, when I have established it with arguments and a speech, I will bring on the witnesses relevant to that charge. There will be no difference between this method of prosecution and the normal one, except that, in a normal prosecution, witnesses are produced only once all the speeches have been made, whereas in this one they will be produced to back up each separate charge. The defence will of course have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, to argue their points, and to make speeches. If anyone feels sorry at missing a full-scale prosecution speech, they will have that in the second hearing. I am sure they will appreciate that what I am doing is absolutely necessary: I have to have a means of countering the trickery of my opponents.
[56] In the first hearing, my case will be as follows. I accuse Gaius Verres of having committed many arbitrary and cruel actions against both Roman citizens and allies, and many acts of wickedness against both gods and men, and in particular of having illegally taken forty million sesterces out of Sicily. I will prove this to you so conclusively, by means of witnesses, private account books, and certified public documents, that you will realize this: that even if I had had all the time in the world for speaking just as I chose, there would still have been no need at all for a lengthy oration. I have finished.
IN VERREM II.5
[1] Members of the jury, I see that none of you is in any doubt that Gaius Verres has openly plundered everything in Sicily that is sacred or profane, public or private,* and that he has engaged in every type of theft and robbery not merely without any compunction, but without even the slightest attempt at concealment. But a brilliant and impressive defence of the man is nevertheless being mounted; and I must work out well in advance, gentlemen, how I am to counter it. The case that is being drawn up is this: that Verres by his bravery and by his exemplary vigilance during a time of terrifying danger kept the province of Sicily safe from runaway slaves and from the threat of war.* [2] What am I to do, gentlemen? Where am I to direct the thrust of my prosecution? Where am I to turn? Against all my attacks the description ‘a good general’ blocks my way like a wall. I know the ground. I see where Hortensius will disport himself. He will enlarge upon the dangers of war, the national emergency, and the shortage of generals; then he will beg of you, then he will insist as of right that you refuse to allow the Roman people to be deprived of such a fine general by the evidence of Sicilians, or to allow a general’s glory to be tarnished by charges of greed.
[3] Gentlemen, I cannot hide my feelings from you. I am afraid that Gaius Verres, because of his outstanding military genius, may get away with everything that he has done. I am reminded of the trial of Manius Aquillius* and how impressive and how decisive the speech of Marcus Antonius* was considered to have been. Just before the end of his speech, Antonius, like the intelligent and indeed courageous speaker that he was, grabbed hold of Aquillius, placed him where everyone could see him, and tore the tunic from his chest, thus allowing the Roman people and the jurors to see the battle scars which he had on the front of his body. While he was doing this he spoke at length about the wound which Aquillius had received in the head from the enemy commander; and he made the jurors who were about to deliver their verdict seriously afraid that the man whom fortune had snatched from the weapons of the enemy, when he had had no thought of saving himself, should now appear to have been kept back not in order to receive the congratulations of the Roman people, but to satisfy the cruelty of a jury. [4] That is the line of defence which my opponents are now attempting—and that is the result they are aiming for. Yes, he is a thief; yes, he is a sinner against the gods; yes, he is more guilty than anyone of every conceivable crime and vice—but he is a good general, one with luck on his side, and well worth keeping in reserve in case of a dangerous national emergency.
Now I am not going to deal with you in the way I am fully entitled to. I am not going to insist on the point which should perhaps be allowed to me—that since this court is constituted under a specific law,* what you ought to be demonstrating is not what great exploits you achieved as a general, but how you kept your hands off other people’s property. I am not, I repeat, going to deal with you in that way. Instead, I am going to ask, as I understand you wish me to, what were your achievements in war, and how significant were they.
[5] So what are you claiming? That in the war against the slaves* it was your military skill that saved Sicily? A praiseworthy achievement, and an honourable line of argument. But which war are we talking about? I have always understood that since the war which Manius Aquillius brought to an end, there has been no slave war in Sicily. ‘No, it was in Italy.’ Certainly, and a very serious and terrible war it was too. But surely you are not trying to claim part of the credit arising from that war? Surely you do not imagine that you have a share in the glory of that victory together with Marcus Crassus or with Gnaeus Pompei
us? Although I suppose it would not be beyond the scope of your shamelessness to dare to assert a claim of that kind. I suppose you prevented the slaves’ army from crossing over from Italy to Sicily.* Where? When? From which place? Did they try to cross on rafts, or was it on ships? I for one certainly never heard about it—although I did hear that, as a result of the courage and foresight of the valiant Marcus Crassus, the runaway slaves were prevented from lashing rafts together and crossing the strait to Messana; though that would not have needed much preventing if the slaves had actually had reason to believe that there were any forces in Sicily waiting to attack them on their arrival.
[6] ‘But when war was going on in Italy so near to Sicily, do you really imagine that Sicily was unaffected?’ And what is so surprising about that? After all, when there was war in Sicily, Italy was entirely unaffected—and Sicily is exactly the same distance from Italy as Italy is from Sicily. In any case, what are you attempting to prove here when you talk about the proximity of the two places? That it was easy for the enemy to cross over, or that there was a likelihood of Sicily being infected by a similar outbreak? For men who had no means of obtaining ships, the way to Sicily was not merely obstructed by water, it was completely impassable: those who you claim were close to Sicily would have found it easier to make their way to the Atlantic than to reach Cape Peloris. [7] And as for being infected by a slave war, why should that relate to you any more than to all the other provincial governors? Is it because there have been slave wars in Sicily in the past?* But that is precisely why in that province the danger was, and is, minimal. Ever since Manius Aquillius completed his term, each governor’s regulations and edicts have stipulated that no slave is allowed to possess a weapon. I will tell you an old story, which, since it is a striking instance of severity, you have probably all heard before. When Lucius Domitius* was governor of Sicily, a gigantic boar was brought to him. He was very impressed, and asked who had killed it. On being told that it was somebody’s shepherd, he ordered the man to be sent for. The shepherd came as fast as he could, in all eagerness, expecting to be praised and rewarded. Domitius asked him how he had managed to kill so large an animal. The man replied that he had killed it with a hunting spear—and was immediately crucified on the governor’s order. Now that may perhaps seem rather harsh. I make no judgement; I merely observe that Domitius preferred to appear cruel in inflicting punishment rather than lax in sparing it.