---
title: "For Quintus Roscius the Actor · Pro Q. Roscio comoedo"
author: "Cicero"
translator: "Charles Duke Yonge"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Classical Latin"
section: 2 of 2
url: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-roscio-comoedo/2/
cite: "Cicero, tr. Charles Duke Yonge, For Quintus Roscius the Actor · Pro Q. Roscio comoedo, section 2. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-roscio-comoedo/2/"
---

# For Quintus Roscius the Actor · Pro Q. Roscio comoedo

*Cicero, tr. Charles Duke Yonge*

A suit over the profits of a slave trained as an actor by Rome’s most famous actor.

> Latin: ed. Albert Curtis Clark, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-latinLit, phi0474.phi003, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: Charles Duke Yonge, from the Perseus Digital Library (phi0474.phi003.perseus-eng2). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## 2. Sections 30–56

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-roscio-comoedo/2/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-roscio-comoedo/2/#p-N

[¶0] 30. Very few observed what he knew, but every one asked where he had been taught; they thought that nothing poor or had could be produced by him. If he had come from Statilius, even if he had surpassed Roscius in skill, no one would have been able to see it. For just as no one supposes that a good son can be born to a worthless father, so no one would suppose that a good Comedian could be formed by a very bad actor; but because he came from Roscius, he appeared to know more than he really did know. And this lately did actually happen in the case of Eros the comedian, for he, after he was driven off the stage, not merely by hisses, but even by reproaches, took refuge, as at an altar, in the house, and instruction, and patronage, and name of Roscius. Therefore, in a very short time he who had not been even one of the lowest class of actors, came to be reckoned among the very first comedians.

> Latin: 30. sciret ille perpauci animadvertebant, ubi didicisset omnes quaerebant; nihil ab hoc pravum et perversum produci posse arbitrabantur. veniret ab Statilio, tametsi artificio Roscium superaret, aspicere nemo posset; nemo enim, sicut ex improbo patre probum filium nasci, sic a pessimo histrione bonum comoedum fieri posse existimaret. veniebat a Roscio, plus etiam scire quam sciebat videbatur. item nuper in Erote comoedo usu venit; qui postea quam e scaena non modo sibilis sed etiam convicio explodebatur, sicut in aram confugit in huius domum, disciplinam, patrocinium, nomen: itaque perbrevi tempore qui ne in novissimis quidem erat histrionibus ad primos pervenit comoedos.

[¶1] 31. What was it that raised him? This man's commendation alone who not only took this Panurgus home that he might have the name of a pupil of Roscius, but who also instructed him with the greatest pains and energy and patience. For the more skillful and ingenious any one is, the more vehement and laborious is he in teaching his art; for that which he himself caught quickly, he is tortured by seeing slowly comprehended by another. My speech has extended itself to some length, in order that you may thoroughly understand the conditions of this partnership.

> Latin: 31. res extulit eum? Vna commendatio huius; qui tamen Panurgum illum, non solum ut Rosci discipulus fuisse diceretur domum recepit, sed etiam summo cum labore, stomacho miseriaque erudivit. quo quisque est sollertior et ingeniosior, hoc docet iracundius et laboriosius; quod enim ipse celeriter arripuit, id cum tarde percipi videt, discruciatur. Paulo longius oratio mea provecta est hac de causa ut condicionem societatis diligenter cognosceretis.

[¶2] 32. What then followed? A man of Tarquinii, Quintus Flavius by name, knew this Panurgus, the common slave of Roscius and Fannius, and you appointed me as the advocate to conduct the action about that business. The cause having been commenced, and an action being appointed according to the formula, “for injury and loss inflicted,” you brought it to a conclusion with Flavius, without my knowledge. Was it for the half share, or for the entire partnership? I will speak plainly. Was it for myself, or for myself and for yourself? Was it for myself alone? I could do so according to the precedent set by many people; it is lawful to do so; many men have legally done so; I have done you no injury in that matter. Do you demand what is due to you? Exact it, and carry it off. Let every one have and follow up his portion of his right. “But you managed your affair very well.” “Do you too manage yours well” “You get your half share valued at a high price.” “Do you too get yours valued at a high price.” “You get a hundred thousand sesterces,”—if indeed that be true. “Then do you also get a hundred thousand sesterces.”

> Latin: 32. deinde sunt consecuta? “Panurgum,” inquit, “hunc servum communem, Q. Flavius Tarquiniensis quidam interfecit. hanc rem,” inquit, “me cognitorem dedisti. contestata, iudicio damni iniuria constituto tu sine me cum Flavio decidisti.” Vtrum pro dimidia parte an pro ⟨re⟩ tota? planius dicam: utrum pro me an et pro me et pro te? me; potui exemplo multorum; licitum est; iure fecerunt multi; nihil in ea re tibi iniuriae feci. tu tuum, exige et aufer quod debetur; suam quisque partem iuris possideat et persequatur.—“enim tu tuum negotium gessisti bene.”— et tu tuum bene.—“Magno ⟨tu⟩ tuam dimidiam partem decidisti.”—Magno et tu tuam partem decide. —“HS Q. tu abstulisti.”— ita hoc, vero HS Q. tu aufer.

[¶3] 33. But you may easily, both in belief and in speaking of it, have exaggerated the terms on which Roscius concluded his business; in fact and reality you will find them moderate and unimportant. For he got a farm at a time when the prices of farms were very low,—a farm which had not a house on it, and was not well cultivated in any respect, which is worth much more now than it was. And no wonder, for at that time, on account of the calamities of the republic, every one's possessions were uncertain; now, by the kindness of the immortal gods, the fortunes of every one are well assured: then it was an uncultivated farm, without a house; now it is beautifully cultivated, with an excellent villa on it.

> Latin: 33. hanc decisionem Rosci oratione et opinione augere licet, re et veritate mediocrem et tenuem esse invenietis. enim agrum temporibus eis cum iacerent pretia praediorum; qui ager neque villam habuit neque ex ulla parte fuit cultus; qui nunc multo pluris est quam tunc fuit. id est mirum. enim propter rei publicae calamitates omnium possessiones erant incertae, nunc deum immortalium benignitate omnium fortunae sunt certae; tum erat ager incultus sine tecto, nunc est cultissimus cum optima villa.

[¶4] 34. But since by nature you are so malevolent, I will never relieve you from that vexation and that anxiety. Roscius managed his business well; he got a most fertile farm. What is that to you? Do you settle your half of the matter anyhow you please. He then changes his plan of attack, and endeavours to invent a story which he cannot prove. “You,” says he, “arranged the whole matter, and not your share of it only.” The whole cause then is brought to this point,—whether Roscius came to a settlement with Flavius for his own share, or for the whole partnership.

> Latin: 34. tamen, quoniam natura tam malivolus es, numquam ista te molestia et cura liberabo. suum negotium gessit Roscius, fundum fructuosissimum abstulit; quid ad te? partem dimidiam, quem ad modum vis, decide. hic rationem et id quod probare non potest fingere conatur. “tota re,” inquit, “decidisti.” huc universa causa deducitur, utrum Roscius cum Flavio de sua parte an de tota societate fecerit pactionem. ego Roscium, si quid communi nomine tetigit, confiteor praestare debere societati.—, non suas litis redemit, cum fundum a Flavio accepit.— ita satis non dedit amplius assem neminem petiturum?

[¶5] 35. For I confess that, if Roscius touched anything on their joint account, he ought to pay it to the partnership. Did he settle the quarrel of the partnership, and not merely his own, when he received this farm from Flavius? If so, why did he not give security to Flavius, that no one else should make any demand on him? He who settles his own demand only, leaves to the rest their right of action unimpaired; he who acts for his partners, gives security that none of them shall afterwards make any demand. Why did it not occur to Flavius to take this precaution for himself? Was he, forsooth, not aware that Panurgus belonged to a partnership. He knew that. Was he not aware that Fannius was Roscius' partner? Thoroughly; for he himself had a law-suit commenced with him.

> Latin: 35. de sua parte decidit, reliquis integram relinquit actionem, qui pro sociis transigit, satis dat neminem eorum postea petiturum. ita Flavio sibi cavere non venit in mentem? nesciebat videlicet Panurgum fuisse in societate.. Fannium Roscio esse socium.—; nam iste cum eo litem contestatam habebat.

[¶6] 36. Why then does he settle this action, and not exact an agreement that no one shall make any further demand on him? Why does he lose the farm, and yet get no release from this action? Why does he act in so inexperienced a manner, as neither to bind Roscius by any stipulation, nor on the other hand to get a release from Fannius' action?

> Latin: 36. igitur decidit et non restipulatur neminem amplius petiturum? cur de fundo decedit et iudicio non absolvitur? cur tam imperite facit ut nec Roscium stipulatione adliget neque a Fannio iudicio se absolvat?

[¶7] 37. This first argument, drawn both from the rules of civil rights, and from the customs prevailing with respect to such security, is a most important and powerful one, which I would press at greater length, if I had not other more undeniable and manifest proofs in the cause. And that you may not say I have promised this on insufficient grounds, I will call you—you, I say, Fannius—from your seat as a witness against yourself.—What is your charge? That Roscius settled with Flavius on behalf of the partnership.—When? Four years ago.—What is my defence? That Roscius settled with Flavius for his share in the property. You yourself, three years ago, made a new engagement with Roscius.—What? Recite that stipulation plainly.—Attend, I beg you, O Piso—I am compelling Fannius against his will, and though he is shuffling off in every direction, to give evidence against himself. For what are the words of this new agreement? “Whatever I receive from Flavius, I undertake to pay one half of to Roscius.” These are your words, O Fannius.

> Latin: 37. hoc primum et ex condicione iuris et ex consuetudine cautionis firmissimum et gravissimum argumentum, quod ego pluribus verbis amplecterer, si non alia certiora et clariora testimonia in causa haberem. ne forte me hoc frustra pollicitum esse praedices, te, te inquam, Fanni, ab tuis subselliis contra te testem suscitabo. tua quae est? Roscium cum Flavio pro societate decidisse. tempore? annis xv. mea quae est? Roscium pro sua parte cum Flavio transegisse. tu abhinc triennium Roscio.? recita istam restipulationem clarius., quaeso, Piso; Fannium invitum et huc atque illuc tergiversantem testimonium contra se cogo dicere. enim restipulatio clamat? qvod a flavio abstvlero, partem dimidiam inde roscio me solvtvrvm spondeo. vox est, Fanni.

[¶8] 38. What can you get from Flavius, if Flavius owes you nothing? Moreover, why does he now enter into a mutual engagement about a sum which he has already exacted some time ago? But what can Flavius be going to give you, if he has already paid Roscius everything that he owed? Why is this new mutual arrangement interposed in so old an affair, in a matter so entirely settled, in a partnership which has been dissolved? Who is the drawer up of this agreement? who is the witness? who is the arbitrator? who? You, O Piso: for you begged Quintus Roscius to give Fannius fifteen thousand sesterces, for his care, for his labour, for having been his agent, and for having given security, on this condition, that, if he get anything from Flavius, he should give half of that sum to Roscius. Does not that agreement seem to show you with sufficient clearness that Roscius settled the affair on his own behalf alone?

> Latin: 38. tu auferre potes a Flavio, si Flavius nihil debet? quid hic porro nunc restipulatur quod iam pridem ipse exegit? quod vero Flavius tibi daturus est, qui Roscio omne quod debuit dissolvit? in re tam vetere, in negotio iam confecto, in societate dissoluta nova haec restipulatio interponitur? quis est huius restipulationis scriptor, testis arbiterque?, Piso; tu enim Q. Roscium pro opera ⟨ac⟩ labore, quod cognitor fuisset, quod vadimonia obisset, rogasti ut Fannio daret HS ccciↄↄↄ hac condicione ut, si quid ille exegisset a Flavio, partem eius dimidiam Roscio dissolveret. ipsa restipulatio dicere tibi videtur aperte Roscium pro se decidisse?

[¶9] 39. But perhaps this also may occur to you, that Fannius did in requital promise Roscius half of whatever he might get from Flavius, but that be got nothing at all. What has that to do with it? You ought to regard not the result of the demand, but the beginning of the mutual agreement. And it does not follow, if he did not choose to prosecute his demand, that he did not for all that, as far as it depended on him, show his opinion that Roscius had only settled his own claim, and not the claim of the partnership. What more? Suppose I make it evident, that after the whole settlement come to by Roscius, after this fresh mutual agreement entered into by Fannius, Fannius also recovered a hundred thousand sesterces from Flavius, for the loss of Panurgus? Will he after that still dare to sport with the character of that most excellent man, Quintus Roscius?

> Latin: 39. enim forsitan hoc tibi veniat in mentem, repromisisse Fannium Roscio, si quid a Flavio exegisset, eius partem dimidiam, sed omnino exegisse nihil. tum? exitum exactionis, sed initium repromissionis spectare debes., si ille id exsequendum ⟨non iudicavit⟩, non, quod in se fuit, iudicavit Roscium suas, non societatis litis redemisse. si tandem planum facio post decisionem veterem Rosci, post repromissionem recentem hanc Fanni HS ccciↄↄↄ Fannium a. Q. Flavio Panurgi nomine abstulisse? tamen diutius inludere viri optimi existimationi, Q. Rosci, audebit?

[¶10] 40. I asked a little before—what was very material to the business, on what account Flavius, when (as they say) he was settling the whole claim, did neither take security from Roscius, nor obtain a release from all demands from Fannius? But now I ask how it was that, when he had settled the whole affair with Roscius, he paid also a hundred thousand sesterces to Fannius on his separate account? (a thing still more strange and incredible.) I should like to know, O Saturius, what answer are you preparing to give to this? Whether you are going to say that Fannius never got a hundred thousand sesterces from Flavius at all, or that he got them for some other claim, and on some other account?

> Latin: 40. Paulo ante quaerebam, id quod vehementer ad rem pertinebat, qua de causa Flavius, cum de tota lite faceret pactionem, neque satis acciperet a Roscio neque iudicio absolveretur a Fannio; nunc vero, id quod mirum et incredibile est, requiro: ob rem, cum de tota re decidisset cum Roscio, HS ccciↄↄↄ separatim Fannio dissolvit? loco, Saturi, quid pares respondere scire cupio; utrum omnino Fannium ⟨a⟩ Flavio HS ccciↄↄↄ non abstulisse an alio nomine et alia de causa abstulisse.

[¶11] 41. If you say it was on some other account, what dealings had you ever had with him? None. Had you obtained any verdict against him? No. I am wasting time to no purpose. He never, he says, got a hundred thousand sesterces from Flavius at all, neither on account of Panurgus, nor of any one else. If I prove that, after this recent agreement with Roscius, you did get a hundred thousand sesterces from Flavius, what have you to allege why you should not leave the court defeated with disgrace? By what witness then shall I make this plain?

> Latin: 41. alia de causa, quae ratio tibi cum eo intercesserat?. erat tibi?. tempus contero. “,” inquit, “HS ccciↄↄↄ a Flavio non abstulit neque Panurgi nomine neque cuiusquam.” planum facio post hanc recentem stipulationem Rosci HS ccciↄↄↄ a Flavio te abstulisse, numquid causae est quin ab iudicio abeas turpissime victus? teste igitur hoc planum faciam?

[¶12] 42. This affair, as I imagine, came to trial. Certainly. Who was the plaintiff? Fannius. Who the defendant? Flavius. Who was the judge? Cluvius. Of all these men I must produce one as witness who can say that the money was paid. Who of these is the most authoritative witness? Beyond all controversy, he who was approved of as judge by the sentence of every one. Which of the three then will you look to me for as a witness? The plaintiff? That is Fannius; he will never give evidence against himself. The defendant? That is Flavius. He has been dead some time. The judge? That is Cluvius. What does he say? That Flavius did pay a hundred thousand sesterces to Fannius on account of Panurgus. And if you look at the rank of Cluvius, he is a Roman knight; if at his life, he is a most illustrious man; if at your own opinion of him, you chose him as judge; if to his truth, he has said what he both could know, and ought to know.

> Latin: 42. , ut opinor, haec res in iudicium.. erat petitor? Fannius. reus? Flavius. iudex? Cluvius. his unus mihi testis est producendus qui pecuniam datam dicat. est ex his gravissimus? Sine controversia qui omnium iudicio comprobatus est iudex. igitur ex his tribus a me testem exspectabis? petitorem? Fannius est; contra se numquam testimonium dicet.? Flavius est. iam pridem est mortuus; si viveret, verba eius audiretis.? Cluvius est. is dicit? HS ccciↄↄↄ Panurgi nomine Flavium Fannio dissolvisse. tu si ex censu spectas, eques Romanus est, si ex vita, homo clarissimus est, si ex fide, iudicem sumpsisti, si ex veritate, id quod scire potuit et debuit dixit.

[¶13] 43. Deny now, deny, if you can, that credit ought to be given to a Roman knight, to an honest man, to your own judge. He looks round; he fumes; he denies that we are going to recite the testimony of Cluvius. We will recite it; you are mistaken, you are consoling yourself with a slight and empty hope. Recite the testimony of Titus Manilius and Caius Luscius Ocrea, two senators, most accomplished men, who heard it from Cluvius. (The secretary reads the evidence of Manilius and Luscius.) What do you say now—that we are not to believe Luscius and Manilius, or that we are not to believe Cluvius? I will speak more plainly and openly. Did Luscius and Manilius hear nothing from Cluvius about the hundred thousand sesterces? or did Cluvius say what was false to Luscius and Manilius? On this point I am of a calm and easy mind, and I am not particularly anxious as to which way you answer. For the cause of Roscius is fortified by the strongest and most solemn evidence of most excellent men. If you have taken time enough to consider to which you will refuse belief on their oath, answer me.

> Latin: 43. , nega nunc equiti Romano, homini honesto, iudici tuo credi oportere!, aestuat, negat nos Cluvi testimonium recitaturos..; inani et tenui spe te consolaris. testimonium T. Manili et C. Lusci Ocreae, duorum senatorum, hominum ornatissimorum qui ex Cluvio audierunt. ⟨T. Manili et C. Lvsci Ocreae. ⟩ Vtrum dicis Luscio et Manilio, an etiam Cluvio non esse credendum? atque apertius dicam. Vtrum Luscius et Manilius nihil de HS ccciↄↄↄ ex Cluvio audierunt, an Cluvius falsum Luscio et Manilio dixit? ego loco soluto et quieto sum animo et quorsom recidat responsum tuum non magno opere laboro; firmissimis enim et sanctissimis testimoniis virorum optimorum causa Rosci communita est.

[¶14] 44. Do you say that one must not believe Manilius and Luscius? Say it. Dare to say it. Such a saying suits your obstinacy, your arrogance, your whole life. What! Are you waiting till I say presently of Luscius and Manilius that they are as to rank senators; as to age, old; as to their nature, pious and religious; as to their property, rich and wealthy I will not do so; I will not, on pretence of giving these men the credit due to a life passed with the greatest strictness, put myself in so bad a light as to venture to panegyrize men so much older and nobler than myself, whose characters stand in no need of my praise. My youth is in more need of their favourable opinion than their strict old age is of my commendation. But you, O Piso, must deliberate and consider for a long time whether you will rather believe Chaerea, though not on his oath, and in his own cause, or Manilius and Luscius on their oaths, in a cause in which they have no interest.

> Latin: 44. iam tibi deliberatum est quibus abroges fidem iuris iurandi, responde. Manilio et Luscio negas esse credendum?, aude; est tuae contumaciae, adrogantiae vitaeque universae vox. exspectas quam mox ego Luscium et Manilium dicam ordine esse senatores, aetate grandis natu, natura sanctos et religiosos, copiis rei familiaris locupletis et pecuniosos? faciam; nihil mihi detraham, cum illis exactae aetatis severissime fructum quem meruerunt retribuam. mea adulescentia indiget illorum bona existimatione quam illorum severissima senectus desiderat meam laudem.

[¶15] 45. The remaining alternative is for him to contend that Cluvius told a falsehood to Luscius and Manilius. And, if he does that, how great is his impudence! Will he throw discredit on that man as a witness whom he approved of as a judge? Will he say that you ought not to trust that man whom he has trusted himself? Will he disparage the credit of that man as a witness to the judge, when on account of his opinion of his good faith and scrupulousness as a judge, he brought witnesses before him? When I produce that man as a witness, will he dare to find fault with him, when if I were to bring him as a judge even, he would be bound not to decline him? Oh, but says he, he was not on his oath when he said that to Luscius and Manilius. Would you believe him, if he said it on his oath?

> Latin: 45. vero, Piso, diu deliberandum et concoquendum est utrum potius Chaereae iniurato in sua lite, an Manilio et Luscio iuratis in alieno iudicio credas. est ut Cluvium falsum dixisse Luscio et Manilio contendat. si facit, qua impudentia est, eumne testem improbabit quem iudicem probarit? ei negabit credi oportere cui ipse crediderit? eius testis ad iudicem fidem infirmabit cuius propter fidem et religionem iudicis testis compararit? quem ego si ferrem iudicem, refugere non deberet, cum testem producam, reprehendere audebit?

[¶16] 46. But what is the difference between a perjurer and a liar? He who is in the habit of lying, is in the habit of perjuring himself. The man whom I can induce to tell a lie, I shall easily be able to prevail on to take a false oath. For he who has once departed from truth, is easily led on, with no greater scruples to perjury than to a lie. For who is influenced by just a mention of the gods in the way of deprecating their anger, and not by the influence of conscience? Because the same punishment which is appointed by the immortal gods for a perjurer is appointed also for a liar. For the immortal gods are accustomed to be indignant and angry, not on account of the form of words in which an oath is contained, but on account of the treachery and malice by which a plot is laid to deceive any one.

> Latin: 46. “enim,” inquit, “iniuratus Luscio et Manilio.” diceret iuratus, crederes? quid interest inter periurum et mendacem? mentiri solet, peierare consuevit. ego ut mentiatur inducere possum, ut peieret exorare facile potero. qui semel a veritate deflexit, hic non maiore religione ad periurium quam ad mendacium perduci consuevit. enim deprecatione deorum, non conscientiae fide commovetur?, quae poena ab dis immortalibus periuro, haec eadem mendaci constituta est; non enim ex pactione verborum quibus ius iurandum comprehenditur, sed ex perfidia et malitia per quam insidiae tenduntur alicui, di immortales hominibus irasci et suscensere consuerunt.

[¶17] 47. But I, on the contrary, argue in this way. The authority of Cluvius would be less if be were speaking on his oath, than it is now when he is not speaking on his oath. For then, perhaps, he might seem to bad men over eager in being a witness in a cause in which he had been judge. But now he must appear to all his enemies most upright and most wise, inasmuch as he only tells his intimate friends what he knows.

> Latin: 47. ego hoc ex contrario contendo: levior esset auctoritas Cluvi, si diceret iuratus, quam nunc est, cum dicit iniuratus. enim forsitan improbis nimis cupidus videretur, qui qua de re iudex fuisset testis esset; nunc omnibus non iniquis necesse est castissimus et constantissimus esse videatur, qui id quod scit familiaribus suis dicit.

[¶18] 48. Say now, if you can, if the business, if the cause permits you to, that Cluvius has spoken falsely. Has Cluvius spoken falsely? Truth itself lays its hand upon me, and compels me to stop, and dwell on this point for a short time. Whence was all this lie drawn, and where was it forged? Roscius, forsooth, is a deep and crafty man. He began to think of this from the first. Since, said he to himself, Fannius claims fifty thousand sesterces from me, I will ask Caius Cluvius, a Roman knight, a most accomplished man, to tell a lie for my sake; to say that a settlement was made which was not made; that a hundred thousand sesterces were given by Flavius to Fannius, which were not given. This is the first idea of a wicked mind, of a miserable disposition, of a man of no sense. What came next?

> Latin: 48. nunc, si potes, si res, si causa patitur, Cluvium esse mentitum! est Cluvius? mihi veritas manum iniecit et paulisper consistere et commorari coegit. Vnde hoc totum ductum et conflatum mendacium est? Roscius est videlicet homo callidus et versutus. initio cogitare coepit: “quoniam Fannius a me petit HS iↄↄↄ, petam a C. Cluvio, equite ⟨Romano⟩, ornatissimo homine, ut mea causa mentiatur, dicat decisionem factam esse quae facta non est, HS ccciↄↄↄ a Flavio data esse Fannio quae data non sunt.” hoc principium improbi animi, miseri ingeni, nullius consili.

[¶19] 49. After he had thoroughly made up his mind, he came to Cluvius. What sort of a man was he? an insignificant man? No, a most influential one. A fickle man? A most consistent one. An intimate friend of his? A perfect stranger. After he had saluted him, he began to ask him, in gentle and elegant language to be sure,—“Tell a lie for my sake, tell some excellent men, your own intimate friends who are here with you, that Flavius settled with Fannius about Panurgus, though in truth he did not; tell them that he paid a hundred thousand sesterces, though in reality he did not pay a penny.” What answer did he give? “Oh, indeed, I will willingly and eagerly tell lies for your sake; and if at any time you wish me to perjure myself in order to make a little profit, know that I am quite ready; you need not have taken so much trouble as to come to me yourself; you could have arranged such a trifle as this by a messenger.”

> Latin: 49. deinde? quam se praeclare confirmavit, venit ad Cluvium. hominem? levem? gravissimum.? constantissimum.? alienissimum. postea quam salutavit, rogare coepit blande et concinne scilicet: “mentire mea causa, viris optimis, tuis familiaribus, praesentibus dic Flavium cum Fannio de Panurgo decidisse qui nihil transegit; dic HS ccciↄↄↄ dedisse qui assem nullum dedit.” ille respondit? “vero cupide et libenter mentiar tua causa, et, si quando me peierare ⟨vis⟩, ut paululum tu compendi facias, paratum fore scito; non fuit causa cur tantum laborem caperes et ad me venires; per nuntium hoc quod erat tam leve transigere potuisti.”

[¶20] 50. Oh, the faith of gods and men! Would Roscius ever have asked this of Cluvius, even if he had had a hundred millions of sesterces at stake on the issue of the trial? Or would Cluvius have granted it to Roscius at his request, even if he had been to be a sharer in the whole booty? I scarcely, by the gods, think that you, O Fannius, would dare to make this request to Ballio, or to any one like him; and that you would be able to succeed in a matter not only false, but in its nature incredible. For I say nothing about Roscius and Cluvius being excellent men. I imagine them for this occasion to be worthless.

> Latin: 50. deum hominumque fidem! hoc aut Roscius umquam a Cluvio petisset, si HS miliens in iudicium haberet, aut Cluvius Roscio petenti concessisset, si universae praedae particeps esset? vix me dius fidius tu, Fanni, a Ballione aut aliquo eius simili hoc et postulare auderes et impetrare posses. cum est veritate falsum, tum ratione quoque est incredibile; obliviscor enim Roscium et Cluvium viros esse primarios; improbos temporis causa esse fingo.

[¶21] 51. Roscius, then, suborned Cluvius as a false witness. Why did he do it so late? Why did he do so when the second payment was to be made, not when the first was? for already he had paid fifty thousand sesterce. Secondly; if Cluvius was, by this time, persuaded to tell lies, why did he say that a hundred thousand sesterces had been given to Fannius by Flavius, rather than three hundred thousand; when, according to the mutual agreement, a half-share of it belonged to Roscius. By this time you see, O Caius Piso, that Roscius had made his demand for himself alone, and had made no demand for the partnership. When Saturius perceives that this is proved, he does not dare to resist and struggle against the truth. He finds another subterfuge of dishonesty and treachery in the same track.

> Latin: 51. subornavit testem Roscius Cluvium! tam sero? cur cum altera pensio solvenda esset, non tum cum prima? nam iam antea HS iↄↄↄ dissolverat., si iam persuasum erat Cluvio ut mentiretur, cur potius HS ccciↄↄↄ quam ccciↄↄↄ ccciↄↄↄ ccciↄↄↄ data dixit Fannio ⟨a⟩ Flavio, cum ex restipulatione pars eius dimidia Rosci esset? intellegis, C. Piso, sibi soli, societati nihil Roscium petisse. quoniam sentit Saturius esse apertum, resistere et repugnare contra veritatem non audet, aliud fraudis et insidiarum in eodem vestigio deverticulum reperit.

[¶22] 52. “I admit,” says he, “that Roscius demanded his own share from Flavius; I admit that he left Fannius's right to make a similar demand entire and unimpaired; but I contend that what he got for himself became the common property of the partnership” than which nothing more tricky or more scandalous can be said. For I ask whether Roscius had the power to demand his share from the partnership, or not? If he could not, how did he get it? If he could, how was it that he did not demand it for himself? For that which is demanded for one's self, is certainly not exacted for another.

> Latin: 52. “,” inquit, “suam partem Roscium a Flavio confiteor, vacuam et integram reliquisse Fanni concedo; sed, quod sibi exegit, id commune societatis factum esse contendo.” nihil captiosius neque indignius potest dici. enim potueritne Roscius ex societate suam partem petere necne. non potuit, quem ad modum abstulit? si potuit, quem ad modum non sibi exegit? nam quod sibi petitur, certe alteri non exigitur.

[¶23] 53. Is it so? If he had made a demand of what belonged to the entire partnership, all would equally have shared what then came in. Now, when he demanded what was a part of his own share, did he not demand for himself alone what he got? What is the difference between him who goes to law for himself, and him who is assigned as agent for another? He who commences an action for himself, makes his demand for himself alone. No one can prefer a claim for another except him who is constituted his agent. Is it not so? If her had been your agent, you would get your own, because he had gained the action. But he preferred this claim in his own name; so what he got he got for himself, and not for you.

> Latin: 53. ita est: si quod universae societatis fuisset petisset, quod tum redactum esset aequaliter omnes partirentur; nunc cum petierit quod suae partis esset, non quod tum abstulit soli sibi exegit? interest inter eum qui per se litigat et eum qui cognitor est datus? per se litem contestatur, sibi soli petit, alteri nemo potest, nisi qui cognitor est factus. vero? cognitor si fuisset tuus, quod vicisset iudicio, ferres tuum; ⟨cum⟩ suo nomine petiit, quod abstulit, tibi non sibi exegit?

[¶24] 54. But if any one can make a claim on behalf of another, who is not appointed his agent, I ask why then, when Panurgus was slain, and an action was commenced against Fannius on the plea of injury sustained by the loss, you were made the agent of Roscius for that action? especially when, according to what you now say, whatever claim you made for yourself you made for him; whatever recompense you exacted for yourself, would belong to the partnership. But if nothing would have come to Roscius which you had got from Flavius, unless he had appointed you agent for his action, so nothing ought to come to you which Roscius has exacted for his share, since he was not appointed your agent.

> Latin: 54. si quisquam petere potest alteri qui cognitor non est factus, quaero, quid ita, cum Panurgus esset interfectus et lis contestata cum Flavio damni iniuria esset, tu in eam litem cognitor Rosci sis factus, cum praesertim ex tua oratione quodcumque tibi peteres huic peteres, quodcumque tibi exigeres, id in societatem recideret. si ad Roscium nihil perveniret quod tu a Flavio abstulisses, nisi te in suam litem dedisset cognitorem, ad te pervenire nihil debet quod Roscius pro sua parte exegit, quoniam tuus cognitor non est factus.

[¶25] 55. For what answer can you make to this case, O Fannius? When Roscius settled with Flavius for his own share, did he leave you your right of action, or not? If he did not leave it you, how was it that you afterwards exacted a hundred thousand sesterces from him? If he did leave it, why do you claim from him what you ought to demand and follow up yourself? For partnership is very like inheritance, and, as it were, its twin sister. As a partner has a share in a partnership, so an heir has a share in an inheritance. As an heir prefers a claim for himself alone, and not for his co-heirs, so a partner prefers a claim for himself alone, and not for his partners. And as each prefers a claim for his own share, so he makes payments for his share alone; the heir, out of the share which he has received of the inheritance the partner, out of that property with which he entered into the partnership.

> Latin: 55. enim huic rei respondere poteris, Fanni? Cum de sua parte Roscius transegit cum Flavio, actionem tibi tuam reliquit an non? non reliquit, quem ad modum HS ccciↄↄↄ ab eo postea exegisti? si reliquit, quid ab hoc petis quod per te persequi et petere debes? enim et maxime gemina societas hereditatis est; quem ad modum socius in societate habet partem, sic heres in hereditate habet partem. Vt heres sibi soli non coheredibus petit, sic socius sibi soli non sociis petit; et quem ad modum uterque pro sua parte petit, sic pro sua parte dissolvit, heres ex ea parte qua hereditatem adiit, socius ex ea qua societatem coiit.

[¶26] 56. As Roscius could have executed a release to Flavius in his own name, so as to prevent you from preferring any claim; so, as he only exacted his own share, and left you your right to prefer a claim unimpaired, he ought not to share what he got with you—unless, indeed, you, by a perversion of all justice, are able to rob him of what is his, though you are not able to extort your own rights from another. Saturius persists in his opinion, that whatever a partner claims for himself becomes the property of the partnership. But if that be true, how great (plague take it!) was the folly of Roscius, who, by the advice and influence of lawyers, made a mutual agreement with Fannius, very carefully, that he should pay him half of whatever he got from Flavius; if indeed, without any security or mutual agreement, nevertheless, Fannius owed it to the partnership; that is to say, to Roscius [The rest of this speech is lost.] …

> Latin: 56. ad modum suam partem Roscius suo nomine condonare potuit Flavio, ut eam tu non peteres, sic, cum exegit suam partem et tibi integram petitionem reliquit, tecum partiri non debet, nisi forte tu perverso more quod huius est ab alio extorquere non potes, huic eripere potes. in sententia Saturius, quodcumque sibi petat socius, id societatis fieri. si ita est, qua, malum, stultitia fuit Roscius, qui ex iuris peritorum consilio et auctoritate restipularetur a Fannio diligenter ut eius quod exegisset a Flavio dimidiam partem sibi dissolveret, si quidem sine cautione et repromissione nihilo minus id Fannius societati, hoc est Roscio, debebat? …