--- title: "Against Verres · In Verrem" author: "Cicero" translator: "Charles Duke Yonge" languages: [la, en] shelf: "Classical Latin" section: 9 of 31 url: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-in-verrem/9/ cite: "Cicero, tr. Charles Duke Yonge, Against Verres · In Verrem, section 9. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-in-verrem/9/" --- # Against Verres · In Verrem *Cicero, tr. Charles Duke Yonge* Cicero prosecutes the governor who plundered Sicily for three years: the first speech won the case, the five books of the second show Verres’ crimes one by one. > Latin: ed. William Peterson, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-latinLit, phi0474.phi005, CC BY-SA 4.0). > English: Charles Duke Yonge, from the Perseus Digital Library (phi0474.phi005.perseus-eng2). Notes are not included. > Rows follow the references the two texts share (books, chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence. ## 9. Actio Secunda · Book II · sections 36–66 Source: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-in-verrem/9/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-in-verrem/9/#p-N [¶0] 36. Verres, too, hears this; and at first he tries by the tricks and maneuvers which he is so fond of, to get him to lend things to him to look at, which he means never to return. Afterwards he takes counsel from some Syracusans; and they were relations of his, whose wives too were not believed to be entirely strangers to him, by name Cleomenes and Aeschrio. What influence they had with him, and on what disgraceful reasons it was founded, you may understand from the rest of the accusation. These men, as I say, give Verres advice. They tell him that the property is a fine one, which in every sort of wealth; and that Heraclius himself is a man advancing in years, and not very active; and that he has no patron on whom he has any claim, or to whom he has any access except the Marcelli; that a condition was contained in the will in which he was mentioned as heir, that he was to erect some statues in the palaestra. We will contrive to produce people from the palaestra to assert that they have not been erected according to the terms of the will, and to claim the inheritance, because they say that it is forfeited to the palaestra. The idea pleased Verres. > Latin: 36. haec etiam Verres, et primo illo suo leniore artificio Heraclium adgredi conatur, ut eum roget inspicienda, quae non reddat. a quibusdam Syracusanis admonetur,—hi autem quidam erant adfines istius, quorum iste uxores numquam alienas existimavit, Cleomenes et Aeschrio, qui quantum apud istum et quam turpi de causa potuerint ex reliquis criminibus intellegetis: hi, ut dico, hominem admonent rem esse praeclaram, refertam omnibus rebus, ipsum autem Heraclium hominem esse maiorem natu, non promptissimum; eum praeter Marcellos patronum, quem suo iure adire aut appellare posset, habere neminem; esse in eo testamento quo ille heres esset scriptus, ut statuas in palaestra deberet ponere. “ut palaestritae negent ex testamento esse positas, petant hereditatem, quod eam palaestrae commissam esse dicant.” [¶1] 37. For he foresaw that, when such an inheritance became disputed, and was claimed by process of law, it was quite impossible for him not to get some plunder out of it before it was done with. He approves of the plan; he advises them to begin to act as speedily as possible, and to attack a man of that age, and disinclined to law-suits, with as much bluster as possible. An action is brought in due form against Heraclius. At first all marvel at the roguery of the accusation. After a little, of those who knew Verres, some suspected, and some clearly saw that he had cast his eyes on the inheritance. In the mean time the day had arrived, on which he had announced in his edict that, according to established usage, and to the Rupilian law, he would assign judges at Syracuse. He had come prepared to assign judges in this cause. Then Heraclius points out to him that he cannot assign judges in his cause that day, because the Rupilian law said that they were not to be assigned till thirty days after the action was commenced. The thirty days had not yet elapsed; Heraclius hoped that, if he could avoid having them appointed that day, Quintus Arrius, whom the province was eagerly expecting, would arrive as successor to Verres before another appointment could take place. > Latin: 37. ratio Verri; nam hoc animo providebat, cum tanta hereditas in controversiam venisset iudicioque peteretur, fieri non posse ut sine praeda ipse discederet. consilium; auctor est ut quam primum agere incipiant, hominemque id aetatis minime litigiosum quam tumultuosissime adoriantur. Heraclio dica. mirantur omnes improbitatem calumniae; deinde qui istum nossent partim suspicabantur, partim plane videbant adiectum esse oculum hereditati. dies advenit quo die sese ex instituto ac lege Rupilia dicas sortiturum Syracusis iste edixerat. ad hanc dicam sortiendam venerat. eum docet Heraclius non posse eo die sortiri, quod lex Rupilia vetaret diebus xxx sortiri dicam quibus scripta esset. xxx nondum fuerant. Heraclius, si illum diem effugisset, ante alteram sortitionem Q. Arrium, quem provincia tum maxime exspectabat, successurum. [¶2] 38. He postponed appointing judges in all suits, and fixed the first day for appointing them that he legally could after the thirty days claimed by Heraclius in his action had elapsed. When the day arrived, he began to pretend that he was desirous to appoint the judges. Heraclius comes with his advocates, and claims to be allowed to have the cause between him and the men of the palaestra, that is to say, with the Syracusan people, tried by strict law. His adversaries demand that judges be appointed to decide on that matter of those cities which were in the habit of frequenting the Syracusan courts. Judges were appointed, whomsoever Verres chose. Heraclius demanded, on the other hand, that judges should be appointed according to the provisions of the Rupilian law; and that no departure should be made from the established usage of their ancestors, from the authority of the senate, and from the rights of all the Sicilians. > Latin: 38. omnibus dicis diem distulit, et eam diem constituit ut hanc Heraclii dicam sortiri post dies triginta ex lege posset. ea dies venit, iste incipit simulare se velle sortiri. Heraclius cum advocatis adit et postulat ut sibi cum palaestritis, hoc est cum populo Syracusano, aequo iure disceptare liceat. postulant ut in eam rem iudices dentur, ex iis civitatibus quae in id forum convenirent electi, qui Verri viderentur: Heraclius contra, ut iudices ex lege Rupilia dentur, ut ab institutis superiorum, ab auctoritate senatus, ab iure omnium Siculorum ne recedatur. [¶3] 39. Why need I demonstrate the licentious wickedness of that Verres, in the administration of justice? Who of you is not aware of it, from his administration in this city? Who ever, while he was praetor, could obtain anything by law against the will of Chelidon? The province did not corrupt that man, as it has corrupted some; he was the same man that he had been at Rome. When Heraclius said, what all men well knew, that there was an established form of law among the Sicilians by which causes between them were to be tried; that there was the Rupilian law, which Publius Rupilius, the consul, had enacted, with the advice of ten chosen commissioners; that every praetor and consul in Sicily had always observed this law. He said that he should not appoint judges according to the provisions of the Rupilian law. He appointed five judges who were most agreeable to himself. > Latin: 39. ego istius in iure dicundo libidinem et scelera demonstrem? quis vestrum non in urbana iuris dictione cognovit? quis umquam isto praetore Chelidone invita lege agere potuit? istum, ut non neminem, provincia corrupit; idem fuit qui Romae. id quod omnes intellegebant diceret Heraclius, ius esse certum Siculis inter se quo iure certarent, legem esse Rupiliam quam P. Rupilius consul de decem legatorum sententia dedisset, hanc omnis semper in Sicilia consules praetoresque servasse, negavit se e lege Rupilia sortiturum: quinque iudices, quos commodum ipsi fuit, dedit. [¶4] 40. What can you do with such a man as this? What punishment can you find worthy of such licentiousness? Then it was prescribed to you by law, O most wicked and most shameless man, in what way you were to appoint judges among the Sicilians; when the authority of a general of the Roman people, when the dignity of ten commissioners, men of the highest rank, when a positive resolution of the senate was against you, in obedience to which resolution Publius Rupilius had established laws in Sicily by the advice of ten commissioners; when, before you came as praetor every one had most strictly observed the Rupilian laws in all points, and especially in judicial matters; did you dare to consider so many solemn circumstances as nothing in comparison with your own plunder? Did you acknowledge no law? Had you no scruple? no regard for your reputation? no fear of any judgment yourself? Has the authority of no one of any weight with you? Was there no example which you chose to follow? > Latin: 40. hoc homine facias? quod supplicium dignum libidine eius invenias? tibi cum esset, homo deterrime et impudentissime, quem ad modum iudices inter Siculos dares, cum imperatoris populi Romani auctoritas, legatorum decem, summorum hominum, dignitas, senatus consultum intercederet, quo senatus consulto P. Rupilius de decem legatorum sententia leges in Sicilia constituerat, cum omnes ante te praetorem Rupilias leges et in ceteris rebus et in iudiciis maxime servassent, tu ausus es pro nihilo prae tua praeda tot res sanctissimas ducere? tibi nulla lex fuit, nulla religio, nullus existimationis pudor, nullus iudici metus? nullius apud te gravis auctoritas, nullum exemplum quod sequi velles? [¶5] 41. But, I was going to say, when these five judges had been appointed, by no law, according to no use, with none of the proper ceremonies, with no drawing of lots, according to his mere will, not to examine into the cause, but to give whatever decision they were commanded, on that day nothing more was done; the parties are ordered to appear on the day following. In the meantime Heraclius, as he sees that it is all a plot laid by the praetor against his fortune, resolves, by the advice of his friends and relations, not to appear before the court. Accordingly he flies from Syracuse that night. Verres the next day, early in the morning,—for he had got up much earlier than he ever did before,—orders the judges to be summoned. When he finds that Heraclius does not appear, he begins to insist on their condemning Heraclius in his absence. They expostulate with him, and beg him, if he pleases, to adhere to the rule he had himself laid down, and not to compel them to decide against the absent party in favour of the party who was present, before the tenth hour. He agrees. > Latin: 41. , ut institui dicere, quinque iudicibus nulla lege, nullo instituto, nulla reiectione, nulla sorte ex libidine istius datis, non qui causam cognoscerent, sed qui quod imperatum esset iudicarent, eo die nihil actum est; adesse iubentur postridie. Heraclius interea, cum omnis insidias fortunis suis a praetore fieri videret, capit consilium de amicorum et propinquorum sententia non adesse ad iudicium; itaque illa nocte Syracusis profugit. postridie mane, cum multo maturius quam umquam antea surrexisset, iudices citari iubet. Vbi comperit Heraclium non adesse, cogere incipit eos ut absentem Heraclium condemnent. eum commonefaciunt ut, si sibi videatur, utatur instituto suo nec cogat ante horam decimam de absente secundum praesentem iudicare: impetrant. [¶6] 42. In the meantime both Verres himself began to be uneasy, and his friends and counselors began also to be a good deal vexed at Heraclius' having fled. They thought that the condemnation of an absent man, especially in a matter involving so large a sum of money, would be a far more odious measure than if he had appeared in court, and had there been condemned. To this consideration was added the fact, that because the judges had not been appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Rupilian law, they saw that the affair would appear much more base and more iniquitous. And so, while he endeavours to correct this error, his covetousness and dishonesty are made more evident. For he declares that he will not use those five judges; he orders (as ought to have been done at first, according to the Rupilian law) Heraclius to be summoned, and those who had brought the action against him; he says that he is going to appoint the judges by lot, according to the Rupilian law. That which Heraclius the day before could not obtain from him, though he begged and entreated it of him with many tears, occurred to him the next day of his own accord, and he recollected that he ought to appoint judges according to the Rupilian law. He draws the names of three out of the urn: he commands them to condemn Heraclius in his absence. So they condemn him. > Latin: 42. sane perturbatus et ipse et eius amici et consiliarii moleste ferre coeperunt Heraclium profugisse; putabant absentis damnationem, praesertim tantae pecuniae, multo invidiosiorem fore quam si praesens damnatus esset. accedebat quod iudices e lege Rupilia dati non erant; multo etiam rem turpiorem fore et iniquiorem visum iri intellegebant. hoc dum corrigere vult, apertior eius cupiditas improbitasque facta est. illis quinque iudicibus uti se negat; iubet, id quod initio lege Rupilia fieri oportuerat, citari Heraclium et eos qui dicam scripserant; ait se iudices ex lege velle sortiri. ab eo pridie, cum multis lacrimis cum oraret atque obsecraret, Heraclius impetrare non potuerat, id ei postridie venit in mentem, ex lege Rupilia sortiri dicas oportere. ex urna tris; his ut absentem Heraclium condemnent imperat; itaque condemnant. [¶7] 43. What was the meaning of that madness? Did you think that you would never have to give an account of your actions? Did you think that such men as these would never hear of these transactions? Is such an inheritance to be claimed without the slightest grounds for such a claim, in order to become the plunder of the praetor? is the name of the city to be introduced? is the base character of a false accuser to be fixed upon an honourable state? And not this only, but is the whole business to be conducted in such a matter that there is to be not even the least appearance of justice kept up? For, in the name of the immortal gods, what difference does it make whether the praetor commands and by force compels any one to abandon all his property, or passed a sentence by which, without any trial, he must lose all his fortune? > Latin: 43. , malum, ista fuit amentia! Ecquando te rationem factorum tuorum redditurum putasti? ecquando his de rebus talis viros audituros existimasti? hereditas ea, quae nulla debetur, in praedam praetoris? interponatur nomen civitatis? imponatur honestae civitati turpissima persona calumniae? neque hoc solum, sed ita res agatur ut ne simulatio quidem aequitatis ulla adhibeatur?, per deos immortalis, quid interest utrum praetor imperet vique cogat aliquem de suis bonis omnibus decedere, an huiusce modi iudicium det, quo iudicio indicta causa fortunis omnibus everti necesse sit? [¶8] 44. In truth you cannot deny that you ought to have appointed judges according to the provisions of the Rupilian law, especially when Heraclius demanded it. If you say that you departed from the law with the consent of Heraclius, you will entangle yourself, you will be hampered by the statement you make in your own defence. For if that was the case, why, in the first place, did he refuse to appear, when he might have had the judges chosen from the proper body which he demanded? Secondly, why, after his flight, did you appoint other judges by drawing lots, if you had appointed those who had been before appointed, with the consent of each party? Thirdly, Marcus Postumius, the quaestor, appointed as the other judges in the market-place; you appointed the judges in this case alone. > Latin: 44. enim negare non potes te ex lege Rupilia sortiri iudices debuisse, cum praesertim Heraclius id postularet. illud dicis, te Heraclii voluntate ab lege recessisse, ipse te impedies, ipse tua defensione implicabere; quare enim primum ille adesse noluit, cum ex eo numero iudices haberet quos postularat? deinde tu cur post illius fugam iudices alios sortitus es, si eos qui erant antea dati utriusque dederas voluntate? ceteras dicas omnis illo foro M. Postumius quaestor sortitus est: hanc solam tu illo conventu reperiere sortitus. [¶9] 45. However, by these means, some one will say, he gave that inheritance to the Syracusan people. In the first place, even if I were disposed to grant that, still you must condemn him; for it is not permitted to us with impunity to rob one man for the purpose of giving to another. But you will find that he despoiled that inheritance himself without making much secret of his proceedings; that the Syracusan people, indeed, had a great deal of the odium, a great deal of the infamy, but that another had the profit; that a few Syracusans, those who now say that they have come in obedience to the public command of their city, to bear testimony in his favour, were then sharers in the plunder, and are come hither now, not for the purpose of speaking in his favour, but to assist in the valuation of the damages which they claim from him. After he was condemned in his absence, possession is given to the palaestra of the Syracusans,—that is, to the Syracusan people,—not only of that inheritance which was in question, and which was of the value of three millions of sesterces, but also of all Heraclius's own paternal property, which was of equal amount. > Latin: 45. , inquiet aliquis, donavit populo Syracusano illam hereditatem., si id confiteri velim, tamen istum condemnetis necesse est; neque enim permissum est ut impune nobis liceat, quod alicui eripuerimus, id alteri tradere. ex ista reperietis hereditate ita istum praedatum ut perpauca occulte fecerit; populum Syracusanum in maximam invidiam sua infamia, alieno praemio pervenisse, paucos Syracusanos,—eos qui nunc se publice laudationis causa venisse dicunt,—et tunc participes praedae fuisse et nunc non ad istius laudationem, sed ad communem litium aestimationem venisse. damnatus est absens, non solum illius hereditatis de qua ambigebatur, quae erat HS triciens, sed omnium bonorum paternorum ipsius Heraclii, quae non minor erat pecunia, palaestrae Syracusanorum, hoc est Syracusanis, possessio traditur. [¶10] 46. What sort of a partnership in that of yours? You take away a man's inheritance, which had come to him from a relation, had come by will, had come in accordance with the laws; all which property, he, who made the will, had made over to this Heraclius to have and to use as he would, some time before he died,—of which inheritance, as he had died some time before you became praetor, there had been no dispute, nor had any one made any mention of it. However, be it so; take away inheritances from relations, give them to people at the palaestra; plunder other people's property in the name of the state; overturn laws, wills, the wishes of the dead, the rights of the living: had you any right to deprive Heraclius of his paternal property also? And yet as soon as he fled, how shamelessly, how undisguisedly, how cruelly, O ye immortal gods, was his property seized! How disastrous did that business seem to Heraclius, how profitable to Verres, how disgraceful to the Syracusans, how miserable to everybody! For the first measures which are taken are to carry whatever chased plate there was among that property to Verres: as for all Corinthian vessels, all embroidered robes, no one doubted that they would be taken and seized, and carried inevitably to his house, not only out of that house, but out of every house in the whole province. He took away whatever slaves he pleased, others he distributed to his friends: an auction was held, in which his invincible train was supreme everywhere. > Latin: 46. est ista praetura? hereditatem quae venerat a propinquo, venerat testamento, venerat legibus; quae bona is qui testamentum fecerat huic Heraclio, aliquanto ante quam est mortuus, omnia utenda ac possidenda tradiderat, cuius hereditatis, cum ille aliquanto ante te praetorem esset mortuus, controversia fuerat nulla, mentionem fecerat nemo. esto. hereditatem propinquis, da palaestritis, praedare in bonis alienis nomine civitatis, everte leges, testamenta, voluntates mortuorum, iura vivorum: num etiam patriis Heraclium bonis exturbare oportuit? simul ac profugit, quam impudenter, quam palam, quam acerbe, di immortales, illa bona direpta sunt! quam illa res calamitosa Heraclio, quaestuosa Verri, turpis Syracusanis, miseranda omnibus videbatur! illud quidem statim curatur, ut quicquid caelati argenti fuit in illis bonis ad istum deferatur, quicquid Corinthiorum vasorum, stragulae vestis: haec nemo dubitabat quin non modo ex illa domo capta et oppressa, verum ex tota provincia ad istum comportari necesse esset. quae voluit abduxit, alia divisit; auctio facta est, in qua cohors istius invicta dominata est. [¶11] 47. But this is remarkable. The Syracusans who presided over what was called the collection of this property of Heraclius, but what was in reality the division of it, gave in to the senate their accounts of the whole business; they said that many pairs of goblets many silver water-ewers, much valuable embroidered cloth, and many valuable slaves, had been presented to Verres; they stated how much money had been given to each person by his order. The Syracusans groaned, but still they bore it. Suddenly this item is read,—that two hundred and fifty thousand sesterces were given to one person by command of the praetor. A great outcry arises from every one, not only from every virtuous man, nor from those to whom it had always seemed scandalous that the goods of a private individual should be taken from him, by the greatest injustice, under the name of being claimed by the people, but even the very chief instigators of the wrong; and in some degree the partner in the rapine and plunder, began to cry out that the man ought to have his inheritance for himself. So great an uproar arise in the senate-house, that the people ran to see what had happened. > Latin: 47. illud est praeclarum. Syracusani qui praefuerant his Heraclii bonis verbo redigendis, re dispertiendis, reddebant eorum negotiorum rationem in senatu; dicebant scyphorum paria complura, hydrias argenteas pretiosas, vestem stragulam multam, mancipia pretiosa data esse Verri; dicebant quantum cuique eius iussu nummorum esset datum. Syracusani, sed tamen patiebantur. recitatur uno nomine HS ccc iussu praetoris data esse. maximus clamor omnium, non modo optimi cuiusque neque eorum quibus indignum semper visum erat bona privati populi nomine per summam iniuriam erepta, verum etiam ipsi illi auctores iniuriae et ex aliqua particula socii praedae ac rapinarum clamare coeperunt sibi ut haberet hereditatem. in curia clamor factus est ut populus concurreret. [¶12] 48. The matter being known to the whole assembly, is soon reported at Verres's house. The man was in a rage with those who had read out the accounts,—an enemy to all who had raised the outcry; he was in fury with rage and passion. But he was at that moment unlike himself. You know the appearance of the man, you know his audacity; yet at that moment he was much disquieted by the reports circulated among the people, by their outcry, and by the impossibility of concealing the robbery of so large a sum of money. When he came to himself, he summoned the Syracusans to him, because he could not deny that money had been given him by them; he did not go to a distance to look for some one, (in which case he would not have been able to prove it,) but he took one of his nearest relations, a sort of second son, and accused him of having stolen the money. He declared that he would make him refund it; and he, after he heard that, had a proper regard for his dignity, for his age, and for his noble birth. He addressed the senate on the subject; he declared to them that he had nothing to do with the business Of Verres he said what all saw to be true, and he said it plainly enough. Therefore, the Syracusans afterwards erected him a statue; and he himself, as soon as he could, left Verres, and departed from the province. > Latin: 48. ab omni conventu cognita celeriter isti domum nuntiatur. inimicus iis qui recitassent, hostis omnibus qui acclamassent, exarsit iracundia ac stomacho; verum tamen fuit tum sui dissimilis. Nostis os hominis, nostis audaciam; tamen tum rumore populi et clamore et manifesto furto grandis pecuniae perturbatus est. Vbi se collegit, vocat ad se Syracusanos; qui non posset negare ab illis pecuniam datam, non quaesivit procul alicunde, (neque enim probaret), sed proximum, paene alterum filium, quem illam pecuniam diceret abstulisse; ostendit se reddere coacturum. posteaquam id audivit, habuit et dignitatis et aetatis et nobilitatis suae rationem; verba apud senatum fecit, docuit ad se nihil pertinere; de isto, id quod omnes videbant, ne ille quidem obscure locutus est. illi Syracusani statuam postea statuerunt, et is, ut primum potuit, istum reliquit de provinciaque decessit. [¶13] 49. And yet they say that this man complains sometimes of his misery in being weighed down, not by his own offences and crimes, but by those of his friends. You had the province for three years; your son-in-law elect, a young man, was with you one year. Your companions, gallant men, who were your lieutenants, left you the first year. One lieutenant, Publius Tadius, who remained, was not much with you; but if he had been always with you, he would with the greatest care have spared your reputation, and still more would he have spared his own. What presence have you for accusing others? What reason have you for thinking that you can, I will not say, shift the blame of your actions on another, but that you can divide it with another? > Latin: 49. tamen aiunt eum queri solere non numquam se miserum quod non suis, sed suorum peccatis et criminibus prematur. provinciam obtinuisti; gener, lectus adulescens, unum annum tecum fuit; sodales, viri fortes, legati tui primo anno te reliquerunt; unus legatus P. Tadius qui erat reliquus non ita tecum multum fuit; qui si semper una fuisset, tamen summa cura cum tuae, tum multo etiam magis suae famae pepercisset. est quod tu alios accuses? quid est quam ob rem putes te tuam culpam non modo derivare in aliquem, sed communicare cum altero posse? [¶14] 50. That two hundred and fifty thousand sesterces are refunded to the Syracusans, and how they afterwards returned to him by the backdoor, I will make evident to you, O judges, by documents and by witnesses. And akin to this iniquity and rascality of that fellow, by which plunder, consisting of a part of that property, came to many of the Syracusans against the will of the people and senate of Syracuse, are those crimes which were committed by the instrumentality of Theomnastus, and Aeschrio, and Dionysodorus, and Cleomenes, utterly against the wish of the city; first of all in plundering the whole city, of which matter I have arranged to speak in another part of my accusation, so that, by the assistance of those men whom I have named, he carried off all the statues, all the works in ivory out of the sacred temples, all the paintings from every place, and even whatever images of the gods he fancied; secondly, that in the senate-house of the Syracusans, which they call bouleuth/rion, a most honourable place, and of the highest reputation in the eyes of the citizens, where there is a brazen statue of Marcus Marcellus himself, (who preserved and restored that place to the Syracusans, though by the laws of war and victory he might have taken it away,) those men erected a gilt statue to him and another to his son; in order that, as long as the recollection of that man remained, the Syracusan senate might never be in the senate-house without lamentation and groaning. > Latin: 50. illa HS ccc Syracusanis. quem ad modum ad istum postea per pseudothyrum revertantur, tabulis vobis testibusque, iudices, planum faciam. hac iniquitate istius et improbitate, iudices, quod praeda ex illis bonis ad multos Syracusanos invito populo senatuque Syracusano venerat, et illa scelera quae per Theomnastum et Aeschrionem et Dionysodorum et Cleomenem invitissima civitate illa facta sunt: primum ut urbs tota spoliaretur, qua de re alius mihi locus ad dicendum est constitutus; ut omnia signa iste per eos homines quos nominavi, omne ebur ex aedibus sacris, omnis undique tabulas pictas, deorum denique simulacra quae vellet auferret; deinde ut in curia Syracusis, quem locum illi βουλευτήριον nomine appellant, honestissimo loco et apud illos clarissimo, ubi illius ipsius M. Marcelli,—qui eum Syracusanis locum, quem eripere belli ac victoriae lege posset, conservavit et reddidit,—statua [ex aere facta ] est, ibi inauratam istius et alteram filio statuam ponerent, ut dum istius hominis memoria maneret senatus Syracusanus sine lacrimis et gemitu in curia esse non posset. [¶15] 51. By means of the same partners in his injuries, and thefts, and bribes, during his command the festival of Marcellus at Syracuse is abolished, to the great grief of the city;—a festival which they both gladly paid as due to the recent services done them by Caius Marcellus, and also most gladly gave to the family and name and race of the Marcelli. Mithridates in Asia, when he had occupied the whole of that province, did not abolish the festival of Mucius. An enemy, and he too an enemy in other respects, only too savage and barbarous, still would not violate the honour of a name which had been consecrated by holy ceremonies. You forbade the Syracusans to grant one day of festival to the Marcelli, to whom they owed the being able to celebrate other days of festival. > Latin: 51. eosdem istius furtorum iniuriarum uxorumque socios istius imperio Syracusis Marcellia tolluntur maximo gemitu luctuque civitatis, quem illi diem festum cum recentibus beneficiis C. Marcelli debitum reddebant, tum generi nomini familiae Marcellorum maxima voluntate tribuebant. Mithridates in Asia, cum eam provinciam totam occupasset, Mucia non sustulit. Hostis, et hostis in ceteris rebus nimis ferus et immanis, tamen honorem hominis deorum religione consecratum violare noluit: tu Syracusanos unum diem festum Marcellis impertire noluisti, per quos illi adepti sunt ut ceteros dies festos agitare possent? [¶16] 52. Oh, but you gave them a splendid day instead of it; you allowed them to celebrate a festival in honour of Verres, and issued contracts for providing all that would be necessary for sacrifices and banquets on that day for many years. But in such an enormous superfluity of impudence as that man's, it seems better to pass over some things, that we may not appear to strain every point,—that we may not appear to have no feelings but those of indignation. For time, voice, lungs, would fail me, if I wished now to cry out how miserable and scandalous it is, that there should be a festive day in his name among those people, who think themselves utterly ruined by that man's conduct. O splendid Verrine festival! whither have you gone that you have not brought the people cause to remember that day? In truth, what house, what city, what temple even have you ever approached without leaving it emptied and ruined. Let the festival, then, be fitly called Verrine, and appear to be established, not from recollection of your name, but of your covetousness and your natural disposition. > Latin: 52. vero praeclarum diem illis reposuisti Verria ut agerent, et ut ad eum diem quae sacris epulisque opus essent in compluris annos locarentur! in tanta istius impudentia remittendum aliquid videtur, ne omnia contendamus, ne omnia cum dolore agere videamur. me dies vox latera deficiant, si hoc nunc vociferari velim, quam miserum indignumque sit istius nomine apud eos diem festum esse qui se istius opera funditus exstinctos esse arbitrentur. O Verria praeclara! quo accessisti, quaeso, quo non attuleris tecum istum diem? quam tu domum, quam urbem adisti, quod fanum denique, quod non eversum atque extersum reliqueris? appellentur sane ista Verria, quae non ex nomine sed ex manibus naturaque tua constituta esse videantur. [¶17] 53. See, O judges, how easily injustice, and the habit of doing wrong creeps on; see how difficult it is to check. There is a town called Bidis, an insignificant one indeed, not far from Syracuse. By far the first man of that city is a man of the name of Epicrates. An inheritance of five hundred thousand sesterces had come to him from some woman who was a relation of his, and so near a relation, that even if she had died intestate, Epicrates must have been her heir according to the laws of Bidis. The transaction at Syracuse which I have just mentioned was fresh in men's memories,—the affair I mean of Heraclius the Syracusan, who would not have lost his property if an inheritance had not come to him. To this Epicrates too an inheritance had come, as I have said. > Latin: 53. facile serpat iniuria et peccandi consuetudo, quam non facile reprimatur, videte, iudices. Bidis oppidum est tenue sane, non longe a Syracusis. longe primus civitatis est Epicrates quidam. hereditas HS quingentorum milium venerat a muliere quadam propinqua, atque ita propinqua ut, ea etiamsi intestata esset mortua, Epicratem Bidinorum legibus heredem esse oporteret. erat illa res quam ante demonstravi, de Heraclio Syracusano, qui bona non perdidisset nisi ei venisset hereditas. quoque Epicrati venerat, ut dixi, hereditas. [¶18] 54. His enemies began to consider that he too might be easily turned out of his property by the same praetor as Heraclius had been stripped of his by; they plan the affair secretly; they suggest it to Verres by his emissaries. The cause is arranged, so that the people belonging to the palaestra at Bidis are to claim his inheritance from Epicrates, just as the men of the Syracusan palaestra had claimed his from Heraclius. You never saw a praetor so devoted to the interests of the palaestra. But he defended the men of the palaestra in such a way that he himself came off with his wheels all the better greased. In this instance Verres, as soon as he foresaw what would happen, ordered eighty thousand sesterces to be paid to one of his friends. > Latin: 54. coeperunt eius inimici nihilo minus eodem praetore hunc everti bonis posse quo Heraclius esset eversus. occulte instituunt; ad Verrem per eius interpretes deferunt. causa componitur ut item palaestritae Bidini peterent ab Epicrate hereditatem, quem ad modum palaestritae Syracusani ab Heraclio petivissent. 1 vos praetorem tam palaestricum vidistis; verum ita palaestritas defendebat ut ab illis ipse unctior abiret. statim, quo quid praesens esset, iubet cuidam amicorum suorum numerari HS lxxx. [¶19] 55. The matter could not be kept entirely secret. Epicrates is informed of it by one of those who were concerned in it. At first he began to disregard and despise it, because the claim made against him had actually nothing in it about which a doubt could be raised. Afterwards when he thought of Heraclius, and recollected the licentiousness of Verres, he thought it better to depart secretly from the province. He did so; he went to Rhegium. And when this was known, they began to fret who had paid the money. They thought that nothing could be done in the absence of Epicrates. For Heraclius indeed had been present when the judges were appointed; but in the case of this man, who had departed before any steps had been taken in the action, before indeed there had been any open mention made of the dispute, they thought that nothing could be done. The men go to Rhegium; they go to Epicrates; they point out to him, what indeed he knew, that they had paid eighty thousand sesterces; they beg him to make up to them the money they themselves were out of pocket; they tell him he may take any security from them that he likes, that none of them will go to law with Epicrates about that inheritance. > Latin: 55. occultari satis non potuit; per quendam eorum qui interfuerant fit Epicrates certior. contemnere et neglegere coepit, quod causa prorsus quod disputari posset nihil habebat. cum de Heraclio cogitaret et istius libidinem nosset, commodissimum putavit esse de provincia clam abire; itaque fecit; profectus est Regium. ubi auditum est, aestuare illi qui pecuniam dederant, putare nihil agi posse absente Epicrate; nam Heraclius tamen adfuerat, cum primo sunt dati iudices; de hoc qui, antequam aditum in ius esset, antequam mentio denique controversiae facta esset ulla, discessisset, putabant nihil agi posse. Regium proficiscuntur; Epicratem conveniunt; demonstrant, id quod ille sciebat, se HS lxxx dedisse; rogant eum ut sibi id quod ab ipsis abisset pecuniae curet, ab sese caveat quem ad modum velit, de illa hereditate cum Epicrate neminem esse acturum. [¶20] 56. Epicrates reproaches the men at great length and with great severity, and dismisses them. They return from Rhegium to Syracuse; they complain to many people, as men in such a case are apt to do, that they have paid eighty thousand sesterces for nothing. The affair got abroad; it began to be the topic of every one's conversation. Verres repeats his old Syracusan trick. He says he wants to examine into that affair of the eighty thousand sesterces. He summons many people before him. The men of Bidis say that they gave it to Volcatius; they do not add that they had done so by his command. He summons Volcatius; he orders the money to be refunded. Volcatius with great equanimity brings the money, like a man who was sure to lose nothing by it; he returns it to them in the sight of many people; the men of Bidis carry the money away. > Latin: 56. Epicrates homines multis verbis ab se male acceptos dimittit; redeunt illi Regio Syracusas, queri cum multis, ut fit, incipiunt se HS lxxx nummum frustra dedisse. percrebruit et in ore atque sermone omnium coepit esse. Verres refert illam suam Syracusanam; ait se velle de illis HS lxxx cognoscere; advocat multos. Bidini Volcatio se dedisse; illud non addunt, “iussu istius.” Volcatium vocat, pecuniam referri imperat. Volcatius animo aequissimo nummos adfert, qui nihil amitteret, reddit inspectantibus multis: Bidini nummos auferunt. [¶21] 57. Some one will say, “What fault then do you find with Verres in this, who not only is not a thief himself, but who did not even allow any one else to be one?” Listen a moment. Now you shall see that this money which was just now seen to leave his house by the main road returned back again by a by-path. What came next? Ought not the praetor, having inquired into the case with the bench of judges, when he had found out that a companion of his own, with the object of corruptly swaying the law, the sentence, and the bench, (a matter in which the reputation of the praetor and even his condition as a free citizen were at stake,) had received money, and that the men of Bidis had given it, doing injury to the fair fame and fortune of the praetor,—ought he not, I say, to have punished both him who had taken the money, and those who had given it? You who had determined to punish those who had given an erroneous decision, which is often done out of ignorance, do you permit men to escape with impunity who thought that money might be received or be paid for the purpose of influencing your decree, your judicial decision? And yet that same Volcatius remained with you, although he was a Roman knight, after he had such disgrace put upon him. > Latin: 57. aliquis, “ergo in hoc Verrem reprehendis, qui non modo ipse fur non est, sed ne alium quidem passus est esse?”; iam intellegetis hanc pecuniam, quae via modo visa est exire ab isto, eodem semita revertisse. enim debuit praetor facere, cum consilio re cognita cum comperisset suum comitem iuris decreti iudici corrumpendi causa,—qua in re ipsius praetoris caput existimatioque ageretur, —pecuniam accepisse, Bidinos autem pecuniam contra praetoris famam ac fortunas dedisse? non et in eum qui accepisset animadvertisset et in eos qui dedissent?, qui institueras in eos animadvertere qui perperam iudicassent, —quod saepe per imprudentiam fit,—hos pateris impune discedere qui ob tuum decretum, ob tuum iudicium pecuniam aut dandam aut accipiendam putarant? [¶22] 58. For what is more disgraceful for a well-born man—what more unworthy of a free man, than to be compelled by the magistrate before a numerous assembly to restore what has been stolen; and if he had been of the disposition of which not only a Roman knight, but every free man ought to be, he would not have been able after that to look you in the face. He would have been a foe, an enemy, after he had been subjected to such an insult; unless, indeed, it had been done through collusion with you, and he had been serving your reputation rather than his own. And how great a friend he not only was to you then as long as he was with you in the province, but how great a friend he is even now, when you have long since been deserted by all the rest, you know yourself, and we can conceive. But is this the only argument that nothing was done without his knowledge, that Volcatius was not offended with him? that he punished neither Volcatius nor the men of Bidis? > Latin: 58. Volcatius idem apud te postea fuit, eques Romanus, tanta accepta ignominia; nam quid est turpius ingenuo, quid minus libero dignum quam in conventu maximo cogi a magistratu furtum reddere? qui si eo animo esset quo non modo eques Romanus, sed quivis liber debet esse, aspicere te postea non potuisset; inimicus, hostis esset tanta contumelia accepta, nisi tecum tum conlusisset et tuae potius existimationi servisset quam suae. quam tibi amicus non modo tum fuerit quam diu tecum in provincia fuit, verum etiam nunc sit cum iam a ceteris amicis relictus es, et tu intellegis et nos existimare possumus. hoc solum argumentum est nihil isto imprudente factum, quod Volcatius ei non succensuit? quod iste neque in Volcatium neque in Bidinos animadvertit? [¶23] 59. It is a great proof, but this is the greatest proof of all, that to those very men of Bidis, with whom he ought to have been angry, as being the men by whom he found out that his decree had been attempted to be influenced by bribes, because they could do nothing against Epicrates according to law, even if he were present,—to these very men, I say, he not only gave that inheritance which had come to Epicrates, but, as in the case of Heraclius of Syracuse, so too in this case, (which was even rather more atrocious than the other, because Epicrates had actually never had any action brought against him at all,) he gave them all his paternal property and fortune. For he showed that if any one made a demand of any thing from an absent person, he would hear the cause, though without any precedent for so doing. The men of Bidis appear—they claim the inheritance. The agents of Epicrates demand that he would either refer them to their own laws, or else appoint judges, in accordance with the provisions of the Rupilian law. The adversaries did not dare to say anything against this; no escape from it could be devised. They accuse the man of having fled for the purpose of cheating them. They demand to be allowed to take possession of his property. > Latin: 59. magnum argumentum, verum illud maximum, quod illis ipsis Bidinis, quibus iste iratus esse debuit, a quibus comperit, quod iure agere cum Epicrate nihil possent, etiamsi adesset, idcirco suum decretum pecunia esse temptatum: iis, inquam, ipsis non modo illam hereditatem quae Epicrati venerat, sed, ut in Heraclio Syracusano, item in hoc,—paulo etiam atrocius, quod Epicrates appellatus omnino non erat,—bona patria fortunasque eius Bidinis tradidit. enim novo modo, si quis quid de absente peteret, se auditurum. Bidini, petunt hereditatem; procuratores postulant ut se ad leges suas reiciat aut ex lege Rupilia dicam scribi iubeat. non audebant contra dicere: exitus nullus reperiebatur. hominem fraudandi causa discessisse; postulant ut bona possidere iubeat. [¶24] 60. Epicrates did not owe a farthing to any one. His friends said that, if any one claimed anything from him, they would stand the trial themselves, and that they would give security to satisfy the judgment. When the whole business was getting cool, by Verres's instigation they began to accuse Epicrates of having tampered with the public documents; a suspicion from which he was far removed. They demand a trial on that charge. His friends began to object that no new proceeding, that no trial affecting his rank and reputation, ought to be instituted while he was absent; and at the same time they did not cease to reiterate their demands that Verres should refer them to their own laws. > Latin: 60. Epicrates nummum nullum nemini; amici, si quis quid peteret, iudicio se passuros, iudicatum solvi satis daturos esse dicebant. omnia consilia frigerent, admonitu istius insimulare coeperunt Epicratem litteras publicas corrupisse, a qua suspicione ille aberat plurimum: actionem eius rei postulant. recusare ne quod iudicium neve ipsius cognitio illo absente de existimatione eius constitueretur, et simul illud idem postulare non desistebant ut se ad leges suas reiceret. [¶25] 61. He, having now got ample room for false accusation, when he sees that there is any point on which his friends refused to appear for Epicrates in his absence, declares that he will appoint a trial on that charge before any other. When all saw plainly that not only that money which had (to make a presence) been sent from his house, had returned back to it, but that he had afterwards received much more money, the friends of Epicrates ceased to argue in his defence. Verres ordered the men of Bidis to take possession of all his property, and to keep it for themselves. Besides the five hundred thousand sesterces which the inheritance amounted to, his own previous fortune amounted to fifteen hundred thousand. Was the affair planned out in this way from the beginning? Was it completed in this way? Is it a very trifling sum of money? Is Verres such a man as to be likely to have done all this which I have related for nothing? > Latin: 61. amplam nactus, ubi videt esse aliquid quod amici absente Epicrate nollent defendere, adseverat se eius rei in primis actionem1 daturum. omnes perspicerent ad istum non modo illos nummos qui per simulationem ab isto exierant revertisse, sed multo etiam pluris eum postea nummos abstulisse, amici Epicratem defendere destiterunt, iste Epicratis bona Bidinos omnia possidere et sibi habere iussit. illa HS d hereditaria accessit ipsius antiqua HS quindeciens pecunia. Vtrum res ab initio ita ducta est an ad extremum ita perducta, an ita parva est pecunia, an is homo Verres ut haec quae dixi gratiis facta esse videantur? [¶26] 62. Now, O judges, hear a little about the misery of the Sicilians. Both Heraclius the Syracusan, and Epicrates of Bidis, being stripped of all their property, came to Rome. They lived at Rome nearly two years in mourning attire, with unshaven beard and hair. When Lucius Metellus went to the province, then they also go back with Metellus, bearing with them letters of high recommendation. As soon as Metellus came to Syracuse he rescinded both the sentences—the sentence in the case of Epicrates, and that against Heraclius. In the property of both of them there was nothing which could be restored, except what was not able to be moved from its place. > Latin: 62. nunc de miseria Siculorum, iudices, audite. Heraclius ille Syracusanus et hic Bidinus Epicrates expulsi bonis omnibus Romam venerunt; sordidati, maxima barba et capillo, Romae biennium prope fuerunt. L. Metellus in provinciam profectus est, tum isti bene commendati cum Metello una proficiscuntur. Metellus, simul ac venit Syracusas, utrumque rescidit, et de Epicrate et de Heraclio. utriusque bonis nihil erat quod restitui posset, nisi si quid moveri loco non potuerat. [¶27] 63. Metellus had acted admirably on his first arrival, in rescinding and making of no effect all the unjust acts of that man which he could rescind. He had ordered Heraclius to be restored to his property; he was not restored. Every Syracusan senator who was accused by Heraclius he ordered to be imprisoned. And on this ground many were imprisoned. Epicrates was restored at once. Other sentences which had been pronounced at Lilybaeum, at Agrigentum, and at Panormus, were reviewed and reformed. Metellus showed that he did not mean to attend to the returns which had been made while Verres was praetor. The tithes which he had sold in a manner contrary to the Lex Hieronica, he said that he would sell according to that law. All the actions of Metellus went to the same point, so that he seemed to be remodeling the whole of Verres's praetorship. As soon as I arrived in Sicily, he changed his conduct. > Latin: 63. hoc egregie primo adventu Metellus, ut omnis istius iniurias, quas modo posset, rescinderet et inritas faceret. Heraclium restitui iusserat ac non restituebatur, quisquis erat eductus senator Syracusanus ab Heraclio, duci iubebat; itaque permulti ducti sunt. Epicrates quidem continuo est restitutus. Alia iudicia Lilybaei, alia Agrigenti, alia Panhormi restituta sunt. qui isto praetore sunt habiti non servaturum se Metellus ostenderat; decumas quas iste contra legem Hieronicam vendiderat sese venditurum Hieronica lege edixerat. erant Metelli eius modi ut non tam suam praeturam gerere quam istius praeturam retexere videretur. atque ego in Siciliam veni, mutatus est. [¶28] 64. A man of the name of Letilius had come to him two days before, a man not unversed in literature, so he constantly used him as his secretary. He had brought him many letters, and, among them, one from home which had changed the whole man. On a sudden he began to say that he wished to do everything to please Verres; that he was connected with him by the ties of both friendship and relationship. All men wondered that this should now at last have occurred to him, after he had injured him by so many actions and so many decisions. Some thought that Letilius had come as an ambassador from Verres, to put him in mind of their mutual interests, their friendship, and their relationship. From that time he began to solicit the cities for testimony in favour of Verres, and not only to try to deter the witnesses against him by threats, but even to detain them by force. And if I had not by my arrival checked his endeavours in some degree, and striven among the Sicilians, by the help of Glabrio's letters and of the law, I should not have been able to bring so many witnesses into this court. > Latin: 64. ad eum illo biduo Laetilius quidam, homo non alienus a litteris; itaque eo iste tabellario semper usus est. epistulas compluris attulerat, in his unam domo quae totum mutarat hominem. coepit dicere se omnia Verris causa velle; sibi cum eo amicitiam cognationemque esse. omnes hoc ei tum denique in mentem venisse, posteaquam tam multis eum factis decretisque iugulasset. qui putarent Laetilium legatum a Verre venisse, qui gratiam amicitiam cognationemque commemoraret. illo tempore a civitatibus laudationes petere, testis non solum deterrere verbis, sed etiam vi retinere coepit. nisi ego meo adventu illius conatus aliquantum repressissem, et apud Siculos non Metelli, sed Glabrionis litteris ac lege pugnassem, tam multos [testis ] huc evocare non potuissem. [¶29] 65. But, as I began to say, remark the miseries of the Sicilians. Heraclius, whom I have mentioned, and Epicrates came forward a great distance to meet me, with all their friends. When I came to Syracuse, they thanked me with tears; they wished to leave Syracuse, and go to Rome in my company: because I had many other towns left which I wanted to go to, I arranged with the men on what day they were to meet me at Messana. They sent a messenger to me there, that they were detained by the praetor. And though I summoned them formally to attend and give evidence,—though I gave in their names to Metellus,—though they were very eager to come, having been treated with the most enormous injustice, they have not arrived yet. These are the rights which the allies enjoy now, not to be allowed even to complain of their distresses. > Latin: 65. , quod institui dicere, miserias cognoscite sociorum. Heraclius ille et Epicrates longe mihi obviam cum suis omnibus processerunt, venienti Syracusas egerunt gratias flentes, Romam mecum decedere cupiverunt. erant oppida mihi complura etiam reliqua quae adire vellem, constitui cum hominibus quo die mihi Messanae praesto essent. mihi nuntium miserunt se a praetore retineri. ego testimonium denuntiavi, quorum edidi nomina Metello, cupidissimi veniendi, maximis iniuriis adfecti, adhuc non venerunt. iure sunt socii ut iis ne deplorare quidem de suis incommodis liceat. [¶30] 66. You have already heard the evidence of Heraclius of Centuripa, a most virtuous and noble young man, from whom a hundred thousand sesterces were claimed by a fraudulent and false accusation. Verres, by means of penalties and securities exacted, contrived to extort three hundred thousand; and the sentence which had been given in favour of Heraclius, in the affairs about which security had been given) he set aside, because a citizen of Centuripa had acted as judge between two of his fellow-citizens, and he said that he had given a false decision; he forbade him to appear in the senate, and deprived him by an interdict of all the privileges of citizens and of access to all public places. If any one struck him, he announced that he would take no cognisance of the injury; that if any claim were made on him, he would appoint a judge from his own retinue, but that he would not allow him an action on any ground whatever. > Latin: 66. Heraclii Centuripini, optimi nobilissimique adulescentis, testimonium audistis; a quo HS c per calumniam malitiamque petita sunt. poenis compromissisque interpositis HS cccc extorquenda curavit, quodque iudicium secundum Heraclium de compromisso factum erat, cum civis Centuripinus inter duos civis diiudicasset, id inritum iussit esse eumque iudicem falsum iudicasse iudicavit; in senatu esse, locis commodisque publicis uti vetuit; si quis eum pulsasset, edixit sese iudicium iniuriarum non daturum; quicquid ab eo peteretur, iudicem de sua cohorte daturum, ipsi autem nullius actionem rei se daturum.