94. What are you waiting for? till poor Malleolus rises from the shades below, and demands of you an account of your discharge of the duties of a guardian, of a comrade, of an intimate friend? Fancy that he is present himself, O most avaricious and most licentious man, restore the property of your comrade to his son; if not all you have robbed him of, at least that which you have confessed that you received. Why do you compel the son of your comrade to utter his first words in the forum with the voice of indignation and complaint? Why do you compel the wife of your comrade, the mother-in-law of your comrade, in short, the whole family of your dead comrade, to hear evidence against you? Why do you compel most modest and admirable women to come against their wont and against their will into so great an assembly of men? Recite the evidence of them all. [The evidence of the mother and grandmother is read.]
94. exspectas? an dum ab inferis ipse exsistat, atque abs te officia tutelae sodalitatis familiaritatisque flagitet? putato adesse. avarissime et spurcissime, redde bona sodalis filio, si non quae abstulisti, at quae confessus es! cogis sodalis filium hanc primam in foro vocem cum dolore et querimonia emittere? cur sodalis uxorem, sodalis socrum, domum denique totam sodalis mortui contra te testimonium dicere? cur pudentissimas lectissimasque feminas in tantum virorum conventum insolitas invitasque prodire cogis? omnium testimonia. testimonivm matris et aviae.
95. But how he as proquaestor harassed the republic of the Milyades, how he oppressed Lycia, Pamphylia, Piscidia, and all Phrygia, in his levying corn from them, and valuing it according to that valuation of his which he then devised for the first time, it is not necessary for me now to relate, know this much, that these articles (and all such matters were transacted through his instrumentality, while he levied on the cities corn, hides, hair-cloth, sacks, but did not receive the goods but exacted money instead of them),—for these articles alone damages were laid in the action against Dolabella, at three millions of sesterces. And all these things even if they were done with the consent of Dolabella, were yet all accomplished through the instrumentality of that man.
95. quaestore vero quo modo iste commune Milyadum vexarit, quo modo Lyciam, Pamphyliam, Pisidiam Phrygiamque totam frumento imperando, aestimando, hac sua, quam tum primum excogitavit, Siciliensi aestimatione adflixerit, non est necesse demonstrare verbis: hoc scitote, [his nominibus—quae res per hunc gestae sunt ] cum iste civitatibus frumentum, coria, cilicia, saccos imperaret, neque ea sumeret proque iis rebus pecuniam exigeret—his nominibus solis Cn. Dolabellae HS ad triciens litem esse aestimatam. omnia, etiamsi voluntate Dolabellae fiebant, per istum tamen omnia gerebantur.
96. I will pause on one article, for many are of the same sort. Recite. “Money received from the actions against Cnaeus Dolabella, praetor of the Roman people, that which was received from the State of the Milyades...” I say that you collected this money, that you made this valuation, that the money was paid to you; and I prove that you went through every part of the province with the same violence and injustice, when you were collecting most enormous sums, like some disastrous tempest or pestilence.
96. in uno nomine; multa enim sunt ex eodem genere.. de litibvs aestimatis Cn. Dolabellae pr. pecvniae redactae. qvod a commvni Milvadvm —. haec coegisse, te aestimasse, tibi pecuniam numeratam esse dico, eademque vi et iniuria, cum pecunias maximas cogeres, per omnis partis provinciae te tamquam aliquam calamitosam tempestatem pestemque pervasisse demonstro.
97. Therefore Marcus Scaurus, who accused Cnaeus Dolabella, held him under his power and in subjection. Being a young man, when in prosecuting his inquiries he ascertained the numerous robberies and iniquities of that man, he acted skillfully and warily. He showed him a huge volume full of his exploits; he got from the fellow all he wanted against Dolabella. He brought him forward as a witness; the fellow said everything which he thought the accuser wished him to say.
97. M. Scaurus, qui Cn. Dolabellam accusavit, istum in sua potestate ac dicione tenuit. adulescens cum istius in inquirendo multa furta ac flagitia cognosset, fecit perite et callide; volumen eius rerum gestarum maximum isti ostendit; ab homine quae voluit in Dolabellam abstulit; istum testem produxit; dixit iste quae velle accusatorem putavit. ex genere mihi testium qui cum isto furati sunt, si uti voluissem, magna copia fuisset; qui ut se periculo litium, coniunctione criminum liberarent, quo ego vellem descensuros pollicebantur.
98. And of that class of witnesses, men who were accomplices in his robberies, I might have had a great plenty if I had chosen to employ them; who offered of their own accord to go wherever I chose, in order to deliver themselves from the danger of actions, and from a connection with his crimes. I rejected the voluntary offers of all of them. There was not only no room for a traitor, there was none even for a deserter in my camp. Perhaps they are to be considered better accusers than I, who do all these things; but I wish the defender of others to be praised in my person, not the accuser. He does not dare bring in his accounts to the treasury before Dolabella is condemned. He prevails on the senate to grant him an adjournment; because he said that his account-books had been sealed up by the accusers of Dolabella; just as if he had not the power of copying them. This man is the only man who never renders accounts to the treasury. You have heard the accounts of his quaestorship rendered in three lines; but no accounts of his lieutenancy, till he was condemned and banished who alone could detect any error in them. The accounts of his praetorship, which, according to the decree of the senate, he ought to have rendered immediately on leaving office, he has not rendered to this very day.
98. Eorum ego voluntatem omnium repudiavi; non modo proditori, sed ne perfugae quidem locus in meis castris cuiquam fuit. meliores illi accusatores habendi sint, qui haec omnia fecerunt. est; sed ego defensorem in mea persona, non accusatorem maxime laudari volo. ad aerarium, antequam Dolabella condemnatus est, non audet referre; impetrat a senatu ut dies sibi prorogaretur, quod tabulas suas ab accusatoribus Dolabellae obsignatas diceret, proinde quasi exscribendi potestatem non haberet. est hic qui numquam rationes ad aerarium referat. Audistis quaestoriam rationem, tribus versiculis relatam; legationis, non nisi condemnato et eiecto eo qui posset reprehendere; nunc denique praeturae, quam ex senatus consulto statim referre debuit, usque ad hoc tempus non rettulit.
99. He said that he was waiting for the quaestors to appear in the senate; just as if a praetor could not give in his accounts without the quaestor, in the same way as the quaestor does without the praetor, (as you did, Hortensius, and as all have done.) He said that Dolabella obtained the same permission. The omen pleased the conscript fathers rather than the excuse; they admitted it. But now the quaestors have arrived some time. Why have you not rendered them now? Among the accounts of that infamous lieutenancy and pro-quaestorship of yours, those items occur which are necessarily set down also in the accounts of Dolabella. (An extract is read of the account of the damages assessed against Dolabella, praetor of the Roman people, for money received.)
99. se in senatu exspectare dixit, proinde quasi non, ut quaestor sine praetore possit rationem referre, —ut tu, Hortensi, ut omnes—eodem modo sine quaestore praetor. idem Dolabellam impetrasse. magis patribus conscriptis quam causa placuit: probaverunt. quaestores quoque iam pridem venerunt: cur non rettulisti? rationum ex ea faece legationis quaestoriaeque tuae procurationis illa sunt nomina, quae Dolabellae necessario sunt aestimata. litibvs aestimatis Dolabellae pr. et pro pr.:
100. The sum which Dolabella entered to Verres as having been received from him, is less than the sum which Verres has entered as having been paid to him by four hundred and thirty-five thousand sesterces. The sum which Dolabella made out that Verres received less than he has put down in his account-books, is two hundred and thirty-two thousand sesterces. Dolabella also made out that on account of corn he had received one million and eight hundred thousand sesterces; as to which you, O most incorruptible man, had quite a different entry in your account-books. Hence it is that those extraordinary gains of yours have accumulated, which we are examining into without any guide, article by article as we can;—hence the account with Quintus and Cnaeus Postumus Curtius, made up of many items; of which that fellow has not one in his account-books;—hence the fourteen hundred thousand sesterces paid to Publius Tadius at Athens, as I will prove by witnesses;—hence the praetorship, openly purchased; unless indeed that also is doubtful, how that man became praetor.
100. minus Dolabella Verri acceptum rettulit quam Verres illi expensum tulerit, HS quingenta triginta quinque milia, et quod plus fecit Dolabella Verrem accepisse quam iste in suis tabulis habuit, HS ducenta triginta duo milia, et quod plus frumenti fecit accepisse istum, HS deciens et octingenta milia, quod tu homo castissimus aliud in tabulis habebas. illae extraordinariae pecuniae, quas nullo duce tamen aliqua ex particula investigamus, redundarunt, hinc ratio cum Q. et Cn. Postumis Curtiis multis nominibus, quorum in tabulis iste habet nullum; hinc HS quater deciens P. Tadio numeratum Athenis testibus planum faciam; hinc empta apertissime praetura, nisi forte id etiam dubium est, quo modo iste praetor factus sit.
101. Oh, he was a man, indeed, of tried industry and energy, or else of a splendid reputation for economy, or perhaps, which is however of the least importance, for his constant attendance at our assemblies;—a man who had lived before his quaestorship with prostitutes and pimps; who had passed his quaestorship you yourselves know how;—who, since that infamous quaestorship, has scarcely been three days in Rome: who, while absent, has not been out of sight, but has been the common topic of conversation for every one on account of his countless iniquities. He, on a sudden, the moment he came to Rome, is made praetor for nothing! Besides that, other money was paid to buy off accusations. To whom it was paid is, I think, nothing to me; nothing to the matter in hand. That it was paid was at the time notorious to every one while the occurrence was recent.
101. scilicet aut industria aut opera probata aut frugalitatis existimatione praeclara aut denique, id quod levissimum est, adsiduitate, qui ante quaesturam cum meretricibus lenonibusque vixisset, quaesturam ita gessisset quem ad modum cognovistis, Romae post quaesturam illam nefariam vix triduum constitisset, absens non in oblivione iacuisset sed in adsidua commemoratione omnibus omnium flagitiorum fuisset, is repente, ut Romam venit, gratiis praetor factus est. Alia porro pecunia ne accusaretur data. sit data, nihil ad me, nihil ad rem pertinere arbitror: datam quidem esse tum inter omnis recenti negotio facile constabat.
102. O you most foolish, most senseless man, when you were making up your accounts, and when you wanted to shirk out of the charge of having made extraordinary gains, did you think that you would escape sufficiently from all suspicion, if when you lent men money you did not enter any sums as given to them, and put down no such item at all in your account-books, while the Curtii were giving you credit in their books for all that had been received? What good did it do you that you had not put down what was paid to them? Did you think you were going to try your cause by the production of no other account-books than your own?
102. stultissime et amentissime, tabulas cum conficeres et cum extraordinariae pecuniae crimen subterfugere velles, satis te elapsurum omni suspicione arbitrabare si, quibus pecuniam credebas, iis expensum non ferres, neque in tuas tabulas ullum nomen referres, cum tot tibi nominibus acceptum Curtii referrent? proderat tibi te expensum illis non tulisse? an tuis solis tabulis te causam dicturum existimasti?
103. However, let us now come to that splendid praetorship and to those crimes which are better known to those who are here present, than even to us who come prepared to speak after long consideration. In dealing with which, I do not doubt that I may not be able to avoid and escape from some blame on the ground of negligence. For many will say, “He said nothing of the transaction at which I was present; he never touched upon that injury which was done to me, or to my friend, transactions at which I was present.” To all those who are acquainted with the wrongs this man has done—that is, to the whole Roman people—I earnestly wish to make this excuse, that it will not be out of carelessness that I shall pass over many things, but because I wish to reserve some points till I produce the witnesses, and because I think it necessary to omit some altogether with a view to brevity, and to the time my speech must take. I will confess too, though against my will, that, as he never allowed any moment of time to pass free from crime, I have not been able to ascertain fully every iniquity which has been committed by him. Therefore I beg you to listen to me with respect to the crimes of his praetorship, expecting only to hear those mentioned, both in the matters of deciding law-suits and of insisting on the repair of public buildings, which are thoroughly worthy of a criminal whom it is not worth while to accuse of any small or ordinary offences.
103. ad illam iam veniamus praeclaram praeturam, criminaque ea quae notiora sunt his qui adsunt quam nobis qui meditati ad dicendum paratique venimus; in quibus non dubito quin offensionem neglegentiae vitare atque effugere non possim. enim ita dicent, “illo nihil dixit in quo ego interfui; illam iniuriam non attigit quae mihi aut quae amico meo facta est, quibus ego in rebus interfui”. omnibus qui istius iniurias norunt, hoc est populo Romano universo, me vehementer excusatum volo non neglegentia mea fore ut multa praeteream, sed quod alia testibus integra reservari velim, multa autem propter rationem brevitatis ac temporis praetermittenda existimem. etiam illud invitus, me prorsus, cum iste punctum temporis nullum vacuum peccato praeterire passus sit, omnia quae ab isto commissa sint non potuisse cognoscere. ita me de praeturae criminibus auditote ut ex utroque genere, et iuris dicendi et sartorum tectorum exigendorum, ea postuletis quae maxime digna sint eo reo cui parvum ac mediocre obici nihil oporteat.
104. For when he was made praetor, leaving the house of Chelidon after having taken the auspices, he drew the lot of the city province, more in accordance with his own inclination and that of Chelidon, than with the wish of the Roman people. And observe how he behaved at the very outset,—what his intentions were as shown in his first edict. Publius Annius Asellus died while Caius Sacerdos was praetor. As he had an only daughter, and as he was not included in the census, he did what nature prompted, and what no law forbade,—he appointed his daughter heiress of all his property. His daughter was his heiress. Everything made for the orphan; the equity of the law, the wish of the father, the edicts of the praetors, the usage of the law which existed at the time that Asellus died.
104. ut praetor factus est, qui auspicato a Chelidone surrexisset, sortem nactus est urbanae provinciae magis ex sua Chelidonisque quam ex populi Romani voluntate. principio qualis in edicto constituendo fuerit cognoscite. P. Annius mortuus est C. Sacerdote praetore. cum haberet unicam filiam neque census esset, quod eum natura hortabatur, lex nulla prohibebat, fecit ut filiam bonis suis heredem institueret. Heres erat filia. omnia cum pupilla, legis aequitas, voluntas patris, edicta praetorum, consuetudo iuris eius quod erat tum cum est mortuus.
105. That fellow, being praetor elect, (whether being instigated by others, or being tempted by circumstances, or whether, from the instinctive sagacity which he has in such matters, he came of his own accord to this rascality, without any prompter, without any informer, I know not; you only know the audacity and insanity of the man,) appeals to Lucius Annius as the heir, (who indeed was appointed heir after the daughter,) for I cannot be persuaded that Verres was appealed to by him; he says that he can give him the inheritance by an edict; he instructs the man in what can be done. To the one the property appeared desirable, the other thought that he could sell it. Verres, although he is of singular audacity, still sent privately to the young girl's mother; he preferred taking money for not issuing any new edict, to interposing so shameful and inhuman a decree.
105. praetor designatus—utrum admonitus an temptatus an, qua est ipse sagacitate in his rebus, sine duce ullo, sine indice pervenerit ad hanc improbitatem, nescio: vos tantum hominis audaciam amentiamque cognoscite—appellat heredem L. Annium, qui erat institutus secundum filiam (non enim mihi persuadetur istum ab illo prius appellatum); dicit se posse ei condonare edicto hereditatem; docet hominem quid possit fieri. bona res, huic vendibilis videbatur., tametsi singulari est audacia, tamen ad pupillae matrem submittebat; malebat pecuniam accipere, ne quid novi ediceret, quam ut hoc edictum tam improbum et tam inhumanum interponeret.
106. Her guardians, if they gave money to the praetor in the name of their ward, especially if it were a huge sum, did not see how they could enter it in their accounts; did not see how they could give it except at their own risk; and at the same time they did not believe that he would be so wicked. Being often applied to, they refused. I pray you, take notice, how equitable a decree he issued at the will of the man to whom he was giving the inheritance of which the children were robbed. “As I understand that the Lex Voconia...” Who would ever believe that Verres would be an adversary of women? or did he do something contrary to the interests of women, in order that the whole edict might not appear to have been drawn up at the will of Chelidon. He wishes, he says, to oppose the covetousness of men. Oh, certainly. Who, not only in the present age, but even in the times of our ancestors, was ever so far removed from covetousness? Recite what comes next, I beg; for the gravity of the man, his knowledge of the law, and his authority delight me. “Who, since the censorship of Aulus Postumius and Quintus Fulvius, has made, or shall have made....” Has made, or shall have made! who ever issued an edict in such a manner?
106. pecuniam praetori si pupillae nomine dedissent, grandem praesertim, quem ad modum in rationem inducerent, quem ad modum sine periculo suo dare possent, non videbant; simul et istum fore tam improbum non arbitrabantur; saepe appellati pernegaverunt. ad arbitrium eius cui condonabat hereditatem ereptam a liberis quam aequum edictum conscripserit, quaeso, cognoscite. cvm intellegam legem Voconiam —. umquam crederet mulierum adversarium Verrem futurum? an ideo aliquid contra mulieres fecit ne totum edictum ad Chelidonis arbitrium scriptum videretur? hominum ait se obviam ire. potius non modo his temporibus, sed etiam apud maiores nostros? quis tam remotus fuit a cupiditate?, quaeso, cetera; delectat enim me hominis gravitas, scientia iuris praetorii auctoritas.. qvi ab A. Postvmio Q. Fulvio censoribvs postve ea — — fecit fecerit.
107. Who ever proposed by an edict any penalty or danger for an act which could not be provided for otherwise either before the edict or after the edict? Publius Annius had made his will in accordance with law, with the statutes, with the authority of all who were consulted; a will neither improper, nor made in disregard of any duty, nor contrary to human nature. But even if he had made such a will as that, still, after his death no new law ought to have been enacted which should have any effect on his will. I suppose the Voconian law pleased you greatly? You should have imitated Quintus Voconius himself, who did not by his law take away her inheritance from any female whether virgin or matron, but established a law for the future, that no one who after the year of the existing censors should be enrolled in the census, should make either virgin or matron his heir.
107. “fecerit”? quis umquam edixit isto modo? quis umquam eius rei fraudem aut periculum proposuit edicto, quae neque post edictum reprehendi neque ante edictum provideri potuit?, legibus, auctoritate omnium qui consulebantur, testamentum P. Annius fecerat non improbum, non inofficiosum, non inhumanum: quodsi ita fecisset, tamen post illius mortem nihil de testamento illius novi iuris constitui oporteret. Voconia lex te videlicet delectabat. esses ipsum illum C. Voconium, qui lege sua hereditatem ademit nulli neque virgini neque mulieri: sanxit in posterum, qui post eos censores census esset, ne quis heredem virginem neve mulierem faceret.
108. In the Voconian law, there is no “has made or shall have made.” Nor in any law is time past ever implicated in blame, except in cases which are of their own nature wicked and nefarious, so that, even if there were no law, they would be strenuously to be avoided. And in these cases we see that many things are established by law in such a way that things done previously cannot be called in question—the Cornelian law the law about testaments, the law about money, and many others, in which no new law is established in the nation, but it is established that what has always been an evil action shall be liable to public prosecution up to a certain time.
108. lege Voconia non est fecit fecerit, neque in ulla praeteritum tempus reprehenditur nisi eius rei quae sua sponte tam scelerata et nefaria est ut, etiamsi lex non esset, magnopere vitanda fuerit. in his ipsis rebus multa videmus ita sancta esse legibus ut ante facta in iudicium non vocentur; Cornelia testamentaria, nummaria, ceterae complures, in quibus non ius aliquod novum populo constituitur, sed sancitur ut, quod semper malum facinus fuerit, eius quaestio ad populum pertineat ex certo tempore.
109. But if any one establishes any new regulation on any points of civil law, does he allow everything which has been previously done to remain unaltered? Look at the Atinian law, at the Furian law, at the Voconian law itself, as I said before; in short, at every law on the subject of civil rights; you will find in all of them that regulations are established which are only to come into operation after the passing of the law. Those who attribute the greatest importance to the edict, say that the edict of the praetor is an annual law. You embrace more in an edict than you can in a law. If the first of January puts an end to the edict of the praetor, why does not the edict have its birth also on the first of January? Or, is it the case that no one can advance forward by his edict into the year when another man is to be praetor, but that he may retire back into the year when another man has been praetor? And if you had published this edict for the sake of right, and not for the sake of one man, you would have composed it more carefully.
109. iure vero civili si quis novi quid instituit, is non omnia quae ante acta sunt rata esse patietur? mihi leges Atinias, Furias, Fusias, ipsam, ut dixi, Voconiam, omnis praeterea de iure civili: hoc reperies in omnibus statui ius quo post eam legem populus utatur. plurimum tribuunt edicto, praetoris edictum legem annuam dicunt esse: tu edicto plus amplecteris quam lege. finem edicto praetoris adferunt Kalendae Ianuariae, cur non initium quoque edicti nascitur a Kalendis Ianuariis? an in eum annum progredi nemo poterit edicto quo praetor alius futurus est, in illum quo alius praetor fuit regredietur?
110. You write, “If any one has made, or shall have made his heir......” What are we to think? Suppose a man has bequeathed in legacies more than comes to his heir or heirs, as by the Voconian law a man may do who is not included in the census? Why do you not guard against this, as it comes under the same class? Because in your expressions you are not thinking of the interests of a class, but of an individual; so that it is perfectly evident that you were influenced by a desire for money. And if you had issued this edict with only a prospective operation, it would have been less iniquitous; still it would have been scandalous: but in that case, though it might have been blamed, it could not have been doubted about, for no one would have broken it. Now it is an edict of such a sort, that any one can see that it was written, not for the people, but for the second heir of Publius Annius.
110. si hoc iuris, non unius hominis causa edixisses, cautius composuisses., qvi heredem fecit fecerit., si plus legarit quam ad heredem heredesve perveniat? quod per legem Voconiam ei qui census non sit licet; cur hoc, cum in eodem genere sit, non caves? non generis, sed hominis causam verbis amplecteris, ut facile appareat te pretio, non iure esse commotum. hoc si in posterum edixisses, etsi minus esset nefarium, tamen esset improbum; sed tum vituperari posset, in discrimen venire non posset; nemo enim committeret. est eius modi edictum ut quivis intellegat non populo esse scriptum, sed P. Anni secundis heredibus.
111. Therefore, though that heading had been embellished by you with so many words, and with that mercenary preamble, was any praetor found afterwards to draw up an edict in similar style? Not only no one ever did publish such an edict, but no one was ever apprehensive even of any one publishing such an edict. For after your praetorship many people made wills in the same manner, and among them Annia did so lately. She, by the advice of many of her relations, being a wealthy woman, because she was not included in the census, by her will made her daughter her heiress. This, now, is great proof of men's opinion of the singular wickedness of that fellow, that, though Verres had established this of his own accord, yet no one was apprehensive that any one could be found to adopt the rule which he had laid down. For you alone were found to be a man who could not be satisfied with correcting the wills of the living, unless you also rescinded those of the dead.
111. cum abs te caput illud tam multis verbis mercennarioque prooemio esset ornatum, ecquis inventus est postea praetor qui idem illud ediceret? modo nemo edixit, sed ne metuit quidem quisquam ne quis ediceret. post te praetorem multi in isdem causis fuerunt; in his nuper Annaea de multorum propinquorum sententia, pecuniosa mulier, quod censa non erat, testamento fecit heredem filiam. hoc magnum iudicium hominum de istius singulari improbitate, quod C. Verres sua sponte instituisset, id neminem metuisse ne quis reperiretur qui istius institutum sequi vellet; solus enim tu inventus es cui satis non fuerit corrigere testamenta vivorum, nisi etiam rescinderes mortuorum.
112. You yourself removed this clause from your Sicilian edict. You wished, if any matters arose unexpectedly, to decide them according to your edict as praetor of the city. The defence which you left yourself afterwards you yourself greatly injured, when you yourself, in your provincial edict, repudiated your own authority. And I do not doubt that as this action appears bitter and unworthy to me, to whom my daughter is very dear, it appears so also to each one of you who is influenced by a similar feeling and love for his daughters. For what has nature ordained to be more agreeable and more dear to us? What is more worthy to have all our affections and all our indulgence expended upon it?
112. ipse ex Siciliensi edicto hoc sustulisti; voluisti, ex improviso si quae res nata esset, ex urbano edicto decernere. postea tu tibi defensionem relinquebas, in ea maxime offendisti, cum tuam auctoritatem tute ipse edicto provinciali repudiabas. ego non dubito quin, ut mihi, cui mea filia maxime cordi est, res haec acerba videtur atque indigna, sic uni cuique vestrum, qui simili sensu atque indulgentia filiarum commovemini. enim natura nobis iucundius, quid carius esse voluit? quid est dignius in quo omnis nostra diligentia indulgentiaque consumatur?
113. O most infamous of men, why did you do so great an injury to Publius Annius after death? Why did you cause such indelible grief to his ashes and bones, as to take from his children the property of their father given to then? by the will of their father in accordance with the law and with the statutes, and to give them to whomsoever you pleased? Shall the praetor be able, when we are dead, to take away our property and our fortunes from those to whom we give them while alive? He says, “I will neither give any right of petition, nor possession.” Will you, then, take away from a young girl her purple-bordered robe? Will you take away, not only the ornaments of her fortune, but those also denoting her noble birth? Do we marvel that the citizens of Lampsacus flew to arms against that man? Do we marvel that when he was leaving his province, he fled secretly from Syracuse as if we were as indignant at what happens to others as at our own injury there would not be a relic of that man left to appear in the forum.
113. importunis ime, cur tantam iniuriam P. Annio mortuo fecisti? cur hunc dolorem cineri eius atque ossibus inussisti, ut liberis eius bona patria—voluntate patris, iure, legibus tradita—eriperes, et cui tibi esset commodum condonares? vivi bona nostra partimur, iis praetor adimere nobis mortuis bona fortunasque poterit? nec petitionem, inquit, nec possessionem dabo. igitur pupillae togam praetextam, detrahes ornamenta non solum fortunae sed etiam ingenuitatis? ad arma contra istum hominem Lampsacenos isse, miramur istum de provincia decedentem clam Syracusis profugisse? si alienam vicem pro nostra iniuria doleremus, vestigium istius in foro nullum esset relictum.
114. The father gives to his daughter: you forbid it. The laws allow it: yet you interpose your authority. He gives to her of his own property in such a manner as not to infringe any law. What do you find to blame in that? Nothing, I think. But I allow you to do so. Forbid it if you can; if you can find any one to listen to you; if any one can possibly obey your order. Will you take away their will from the dead,—their property from the living,—their rights from all men? Would not the Roman people have avenged itself by force if it had not reserved you for this occasion and for this trial? Since the establishment of the praetorian power, we have always adopted this principle,—that if no will was produced, then possession was given to that person who would have had the best right to be the heir, if the deceased had died intestate. Why this is the most righteous principle it is easy to show; but in a matter so established by precedent it is sufficient to point out that all men had previously laid down the law in this way, and that this was the ancient and customary edict.
114. dat filiae, prohibes; leges sinunt, tamen te interponis! suis bonis ita dat ut ab iure non abeat; quid habes quod reprehendas?, opinor. ego concedo; prohibe, si potes, si habes qui te audiat, si potest tibi dicto audiens esse quisquam. tu voluntatem mortuis, bona vivis, ius omnibus? populus Romanus non manu vindicasset, nisi te huic tempori atque huic iudicio reservasset? ius praetorium constitutum est, semper hoc iure usi sumus: si tabulae testamenti non proferrentur, tum ut uti quemque potissimum heredem esse oporteret, si is intestatus mortuus esset, ita secundum eum possessio daretur. hoc sit aequissimum facile est dicere, sed in re tam usitata satis est ostendere omnis antea ius ita dixisse, et hoc vetus edictum translaticiumque esse.
115. Listen to another new edict of the fellow in a case of frequent occurrence; and then, while there is any place where civil law can be learnt, pray send all the youths of Rome to his lectures. The genius of the man is marvellous; his prudence is marvellous. A man of the name of Minucius died while he was praetor. He left no will. By law his inheritance passed to the Minucian family. If Verres had issued the edict which all praetors both before and after him did issue, possession would have been given to the Minucian family. If any thought himself heir by will, though no will was known, he might proceed by law to put forward his claim to the inheritance; or if he had taken security for the claim, and given security, he then proceeded to try an action for his inheritance. This is the law which, as I imagine, both our ancestors and we ourselves have always been accustomed to. See, now, how that fellow amended it.
115. hominis aliud in re vetere edictum novum, et simul, dum est unde ius civile discatur, adulescentis in disciplinam ei tradite: mirum est hominis ingenium, mira prudentia. Minucius quidam mortuus est ante istum praetorem; eius testamentum erat nullum; lege hereditas ad gentem Minuciam veniebat. habuisset iste edictum, quod ante istum et postea omnes habuerunt, possessio Minuciae genti esset data: si quis testamento se heredem esse arbitraretur quod tum non exstaret, lege ageret in hereditatem, aut, pro praede litis vindiciarum cum satis accepisset, sponsionem faceret et ita de hereditate certaret., opinor, iure et maiores nostri et nos semper usi sumus. ut hoc iste correxerit.
116. He composes an edict;—such language that any one can perceive that it was written for the sake of one individual. He all but names the man; he details his whole cause; he disregards right, custom, equity, the edicts of all his predecessors. “According to the edict of the city praetor,—if any doubt arises about an inheritance, if the possessor does not give security....” What is it to the praetor which is the possessor? Is not this the point which ought to be inquired into, who ought to be the possessor? Therefore, because he is in possession, you do not remove him from the possession. If he were not in possession, you would not give him possession. For you nowhere say so; nor do you embrace anything else in your edict except that cause for which you had received money. What follows is ridiculous.
116. edictum his verbis ut quivis intellegere possit unius hominis causa conscriptum esse, tantum quod hominem non nominat; causam quidem totam perscribit, ius, consuetudinem, aequitatem, edicta omnium neglegit. ex edicto vrbano. sl de hereditate ambigitvr — — sl possessor sponsionem non faciet. Iam qui id ad praetorem, uter possessor sit? nonne id quaeri oportet, utrum possessorem esse oporteat?, quia possessor est, non moves possessione: si possessor non esset, non dares? enim scribis, neque tu aliud quicquam edicto amplecteris nisi eam causam pro qua pecuniam acceperas. hoc ridiculum est:
117. “If any doubt arises about an inheritance, and if testamentary papers are produced before me, sealed with not fewer seals than are required by law, I shall adjudge the inheritance as far as possible according to the testamentary papers.” So far is usual. This ought to follow next: “If testamentary papers are not produced....” What says he? That he will adjudge it to him who says he is the heir. What, then, is the difference whether testamentary papers are produced or not? If he produces them, though they may have only one seal less than is required by law, you will not give him possession; but if he produces no such papers at all, you will. What shall I say now? That no one else ever issued a similar edict afterwards? A very marvellous thing, truly, that there should have been no one who chose to be considered like that fellow! He himself, in his Sicilian edict, has not this passage. No; for he had received his payment for it. And so in the edict which I have mentioned before, which he issued in Sicily, about giving possession of inheritances, he laid down the same rules which all the praetors at Rome had laid down besides himself. From the Sicilian edict,—“If any doubt arise about an inheritance...”
117. si de hereditate ambigetvr et tabvlae testamenti obsignatae non minvs mvltis sign is qvam e lege oportet ad me proferentvr, se cvndvm tabvlas testamenti potissimvm possessionem dabo. translaticium est: sequi illud oportet, si tabvlae testamenti non proferentvr. ait? se ei daturum qui se dicat heredem esse. ergo interest proferantur necne? protulerit, uno signo ut sit minus quam ex lege oportet, non des possessionem: si omnino tabulas non proferet, dabis? nunc dicam? neminem umquam hoc postea alium edixisse? valde sit mirum neminem fuisse qui istius se similem dici vellet. in Siciliensi edicto hoc non habet; exegerat enim iam mercedem; item ut illo edicto de quo ante dixi, in Sicilia de hereditatum possessionibus dandis edixit idem quod omnes Romae praeter istum. edicto Siciliensi. si de hereditate ambigitvr —.
118. But, in the name of the immortal gods, what can possibly be said of this business? For I ask of you now a second time, as I did just now, with reference to the affair of Annia, about the inheritance of females,—I ask you now, I say, about the possession of inheritances,—why you were unwilling to transfer those paragraphs into your provincial edict? Did you think those men who were living in the province more worthy to enjoy just laws than we were? Or is one thing just in Rome and another in Sicily? For you cannot say in this place that there are many things in the province which require to be regulated differently from what they would if they existed at Rome; at all events not in the case of taking possession of inheritances, or of the inheritances of women. For in both these cases I see that nor only all other magistrates, but that you yourself, have issued edicts word for word the same as those which are accustomed to be issued at Rome. The clauses which, with great disgrace and for a great bribe, you had inserted in your edict at Rome, those alone, I see, you omitted in your Sicilian edict, in order not to incur odium in the province for nothing.
118. , per deos immortalis! quid est quod de hoc dici possit? enim iam quaero abs te, sicut modo in illo capite Anniano de mulierum hereditatibus, nunc in hoc de hereditatum possessionibus, cur ea capita in edictum provinciale transferre nolueris. Vtrum digniores homines existimasti eos qui habitant in provincia quam nos qui aequo iure uteremur, an aliud Romae aequum est, aliud in Sicilia? enim hoc potest hoc loco dici, multa esse in provinciis aliter edicenda; non de hereditatum quidem possessionibus, non de mulierum hereditatibus. in utroque genere video non modo ceteros, sed te ipsum totidem verbis edixisse quot verbis edici Romae solet. Romae magna cum infamia pretio accepto edixeras, ea sola te, ne gratis in provincia male audires, ex edicto Siciliensi sustulisse video.
119. And as, while he was praetor elect, he composed his whole edict at the pleasure of those who bought law of him to secure their own advantage; so also, when he had entered on his office, he used to make decrees contrary to his edict without the slightest scruple. Therefore, Lucius Piso filled many books with the affairs in which he had interposed his authority, because Verres had decreed in a manner contrary to his edict. And I think that you have not forgotten what a multitude and what respectable citizens used to assemble before Piso's seat while that man was praetor, and unless he had had him for a colleague, he would have been stoned in the very forum. But his injuries at that time appeared of less importance, because there was a refuge always ready in the justice and prudence of Piso, whom men could apply to without any labour, or any trouble, or any expense, and even without a patron to recommend them.
119. cum edictum totum eorum arbitratu, quam diu fuit designatus, componeret qui ab isto ius ad utilitatem suam nundinarentur, tum vero in magistratu contra illud ipsum edictum suum sine ulla religione decernebat. L. Piso multos codices implevit earum rerum in quibus ita intercessit, quod iste aliter atque ut edixerat decrevisset; quod vos oblitos esse non arbitror, quae multitudo, qui ordo ad Pisonis sellam isto praetore solitus sit convenire; quem iste conlegam nisi habuisset, lapidibus coopertus esset in foro. eo leviores istius iniuriae videbantur quod erat in aequitate prudentiaque Pisonis paratissimum perfugium, quo sine labore, sine molestia, sine impensa, etiam sine patrono homines uterentur.
120. For, I entreat you, recall to your recollection, O judges, what licence that fellow took in determining the law; how great a variation there was in his decrees, what open buying and selling of justice; how empty the houses of all those men who were accustomed to be consulted on points of civil law, how full and crammed was the house of Chelidon. And when men had come from that woman to him, and had whispered in his ear, at one time he would recall those between whom he had just decided, and alter his decree; at another time he, without the least scruple, gave a decision between other parties quite contrary to the last decision which he had given only a little while before.
120. , quaeso, redite in memoriam, iudices, quae libido istius in iure dicundo fuerit, quae varietas decretorum, quae nundinatio, quam inanes domus eorum omnium qui de iure civili consuli solent, quam plena ac referta Chelidonis; a qua muliere cum erat ad eum ventum et in aurem eius insusurratum, alias revocabat eos inter quos iam decreverat, decretumque mutabat, alias inter aliquos contrarium sine ulla religione decernebat ac proxumis paulo ante decreverat.
121. Hence it was that men were found who were even ridiculous in their indignation; some of whom, as you have heard, said that it was not strange that such piggish justice should be worthless. Others were colder; but still, because they were angry they seemed ridiculous, while they execrated Sacerdos who had spared so worthless a boar. And I should hardly mention these things, for they were not extraordinarily witty, nor are they worthy of the gravity of the present subject, if I did not wish you to recollect that his worthlessness and iniquity were constantly in the mouths of the populace, and had become a common proverb.
121. illi homines erant qui etiam ridiculi inveniebantur ex dolore; quorum alii, id quod saepe audistis, negabant mirandum esse ius tam nequam esse verrinum; alii etiam frigidiores erant, sed quia stomachabantur ridiculi videbantur esse, cum Sacerdotem exsecrabantur qui verrem tam nequam reliquisset. ego non commemorarem,—neque enim perfacete dicta neque porro hac severitate digna sunt, —nisi vos illud vellem recordari, istius nequitiam et iniquitatem tum in ore vulgi atque in communibus proverbiis esse versatam.
122. But shall I first speak of his arrogance towards the Roman people, or his cruelty? Beyond all question, cruelty is the graver and more atrocious crime. Do you think then that these men have forgotten how that fellow was accustomed to beat the common people of Rome with rods? And indeed a tribune of the people touched on that matter in the public assembly, when he produced in the sight of the Roman people the man whom he had beaten with rods. And I will give you the opportunity of taking cognisance of that business at its proper time.
122. plebem vero Romanam utrum superbiam prius commemorem an crudelitatem? Sine dubio crudelitas gravior est atque atrocior. igitur hos putatis esse quem ad modum sit iste solitus virgis plebem Romanam concidere? rem etiam tribunus plebis in contione egit, cum eum quem iste virgis ceciderat in conspectum populi Romani produxit; cuius rei recognoscendae faciam vobis suo tempore potestatem.
123. But who is ignorant with what arrogance he behaved? how he disregarded every one of a low condition, how he despised them, how he did not account the poor to be free men at all? Publius Trebonius made many virtuous and honourable men his heirs; and among them his own freedman. He had had a brother, Aulus Trebonius, a proscribed man. As he wished to make provision for him, he put down in his will, that his heirs should take an oath to manage that not less than half of each man's share should come to Aulus Trebonius, that proscribed brother of his. The freedman takes the oath; the other heirs go to Verres, and point out to him that they ought not to take such an oath; that they should be doing what was contrary to the Cornelian law, which forbids a proscribed man to be assisted. They obtain from him authority to refuse the oath. He gives them possession; that I do not find fault with. Certainly it was a scandalous thing for any part of his brother's property to be given to a man who was proscribed and in want. But that freedman thought that he should be committing a wickedness if he did not take the oath in obedience to the will of his patron.
123. vero quae fuerit quis ignorat? quem ad modum iste tenuissimum quemque contempserit, despexerit, liberum esse numquam duxerit? P. Trebonius viros bonos et honestos compluris fecit heredes; in iis fecit suum libertum. A. Trebonium fratrem habuerat proscriptum. cum cautum vellet, scripsit ut heredes iurarent se curaturos ut ex sua cuiusque parte ne minus dimidium ad A. Trebonium illum proscriptum perveniret. iurat; ceteri heredes adeunt ad Verrem, docent non oportere se id iurare facturos esse quod contra legem Corneliam esset, quae proscriptum iuvari vetaret; impetrant ut ne iurent; dat his possessionem. ego non reprehendo; etenim erat iniquum homini proscripto egenti de fraternis bonis quicquam dari., nisi ex testamento patroni iurasset, scelus se facturum arbitrabatur;
124. Therefore Verres declares that he will not give him possession of his inheritance, in order that he may not be able to assist his proscribed patron; and also in order that that might serve as a punishment for having obeyed the will of his other patron. You give possession to him who did not take the oath. I admit your right to do so; it is a privilege of the praetor. You take it from him who has taken the oath. According to what precedent? He is aiding a proscribed man. There is a law; there is a punishment established in such a case. What is that to him who is determining the law? Do you blame him because he assisted his patron, who was in distress at the time, or because he attended to the wishes of his other patron, who was dead, from whom he had received the greatest of all benefits? Which of these actions are you blaming? And then that most admirable man, sitting on his curule chair, said this: “Can a freedman be heir to a Roman knight of such great wealth?” O how modest must the class of freedmen be, since he departed from that place alive!
124. itaque ei Verres possessionem hereditatis negat se daturum, ne posset patronum suum proscriptum iuvare, simul ut esset poena quod alterius patroni testamento obtemperasset. possessionem ei qui non iuravit; concedo; praetorium est. tu ei qui iuravit; quo exemplo? iuvat; lex est, poena est. ad eum qui ius dicit? utrum reprehendis quod patronum iuvabat eum qui tum in miseriis erat, an quod alterius patroni mortui voluntatem conservabat, a quo summum beneficium acceperat? Vtrum horum reprehendis? hoc tum de sella vir optimus dixit: “Romano tam locupleti libertinus homo sit heres!” O modestum ordinem, quod illinc vivus surrexerit!
125. I can produce six hundred decrees in which, even if I were not to allege that money had interrupted justice, still the unprecedented and iniquitous nature of the decrees themselves would prove it. But that by one example you may be able to form your conjectures as to the rest, listen to what you have already heard in the previous pleading. There was a man called Caius Sulpicius Olympus. He died while Caius Sacerdos was praetor. I don't know whether it was not before Verres had begun to announce himself as a candidate for the praetorship. He made Marcus Octavius Ligur his heir. Ligur thus entered upon his inheritance; he took possession while Sacerdos was praetor, without any dispute. After Verres entered on his office, in accordance with his edict, an edict such as Sacerdos had not issued, the daughter of the patron of Sulpicius began to claim from Ligur a sixth part of the inheritance. Ligur was absent. His brother Lucius conducted his cause; his friends and relations were present. That fellow Verres said that, unless the business was settled with the woman, he should order her to take possession. Lucius Gellius defended the cause of Ligur. He showed that his edict ought not to prevail with respect to those inheritances which had accrued to the heirs before his praetorship; that, if this edict had existed at that time, perhaps Ligur would not have entered upon the inheritance at all. This just demand, and the highest authority of influential men, was beaten down by money.
125. sescenta decreta proferre in quibus, ut ego non dicam, pecuniam intercessisse ipsa decretorum novitas iniquitasque declarat; verum ut ex uno de ceteris coniecturam facere possitis, id quod priore actione didicistis, audite. C. Sulpicius Olympus fuit; is mortuus est C. Sacerdote praetore, nescio an antequam Verres praeturam petere coeperit; fecit heredem M. Octavium Ligurem. Ligus hereditatem adiit; possedit Sacerdote praetore sine ulla controversia. Verres magistratum iniit, ex edicto istius, quod edictum Sacerdos non habuerat, Sulpici patroni filia sextam partem. L. Gellius causam Liguris defendebat; docebat edictum eius non oportere in eas hereditates valere quae ante eum praetorem venissent; si hoc tum fuisset edictum, fortasse Ligurem hereditatem aditurum non fuisse. postulatio, summa hominum auctoritas pretio superabatur.
126. Ligur came to Rome; he did not doubt that, if he himself had seen Verres, he should have been able to move the man by the justice of his cause and by his own influence. He went to him to his house; he explains the whole business; he points out to him how long ago it was that the inheritance had come to him and, as it was easy for an able man to do in a most just cause, he said many things which might have influenced any one. At last he began to entreat him not to despise his influence and scorn his authority to such an extent as to inflict such an injury upon him. The fellow began to accuse Ligur of being so assiduous and so attentive in a business which was adventitious, and only belonging to him by way of inheritance. He said that he ought to have a regard for him also; that he required a great deal himself; that the dogs whom he kept about him required a great deal. I cannot recount those things to you more plainly than you have heard Ligur himself relate them in his evidence.
126. Romam Ligus; non dubitabat quin, si ipse Verrem convenisset, aequitate causae, auctoritate sua commovere hominem posset. ad eum venit, rem demonstrat, quam pridem sibi hereditas venisset docet; quod facile homini ingenioso in causa aequissima fuit, multa quae quemvis commovere possent dixit; ad extremum petere coepit ne usque eo suam auctoritatem despiceret gratiamque contemneret ut se tanta iniuria adficeret. Ligurem accusare coepit, qui in re adventicia atque hereditaria tam diligens, tam attentus esset; debere eum aiebat suam quoque rationem ducere; multa sibi opus esse, multa canibus suis, quos circa se haberet. possum illa planius commemorare quam ipsum Ligurem pro testimonio dicere audistis.