All those, gentlemen, who summon another man into court for the commonwealth’s sake — driven by no enmity, hurt by no private wrong, drawn on by no reward — ought to weigh not only what burden they take up at present, but how great a business they undertake for their whole life. For they speak as a law unto themselves, of innocence, of self-restraint, of all the virtues, when they call another man to account for his life; and the more so if, as I said before, they do it moved by nothing else save the common good.

omnes qui alterum, iudices, nullis impulsi inimicitiis, nulla privatim laesi iniuria, nullo praemio adducti in iudicium rei publicae causa vocant providere debent non solum quid oneris in praesentia tollant, sed quantum in omnem vitam negoti suscipere conentur. legem enim sibi ipsi dicunt innocentiae continentiae virtutumque omnium qui ab altero rationem vitae reposcunt, atque eo magis si id, ut ante dixi, faciunt nulla re commoti alia nisi utilitate communi.

For he who has taken upon himself this work — to correct the morals of others and to reproach their faults — who would forgive him if in any matter he himself had departed from the religious obligation of duty? Wherefore such a citizen ought to be praised and loved by all the more, because he not only removes a dishonest citizen from the commonwealth, but also professes himself to be such, and pledges that for him there must be a life lived rightly and honourably — not only by the common will of virtue and duty, but even by a certain more compelling necessity.

nam qui sibi hoc sumpsit, ut corrigat mores aliorum ac peccata reprehendat, quis huic ignoscat si qua in re ipse ab religione offici declinarit? quapropter hoc etiam magis ab omnibus eius modi civis laudandus ac diligendus est, quod non solum ab re publica civem improbum removet, verum etiam se ipsum eius modi fore profitetur ac praestat ut sibi non modo communi voluntate virtutis atque offici, sed etiam vi quadam magis necessaria recte sit honesteque vivendum.

So this, gentlemen, has often been heard from that most distinguished and most eloquent man, Lucius Crassus: that he repented of nothing so much as of having ever called Gaius Carbo into court. For he had a less free will in all things, and reckoned that his life was being watched by more eyes than he wished. And he — though fortified by these defences of talent and fortune — was nevertheless held in by this care, which he had taken upon himself with his judgement not yet firm and at the threshold of life. The virtue and integrity of those who come down to this work as young men is the less observed; that of those who come down with their age now firm, the more. For the first, before they have been able to weigh how much freer is the life of those who have accused no one, accuse for the sake of glory and display; we who have already shown both what we can do and how much we can judge, unless we held our desires easily in check, would never of ourselves cut off from ourselves that licence and freedom of living.

itaque hoc, iudices, ex homine clarissimo atque eloquentissimo, L. Crasso, saepe auditum est, cum se nullius rei tam paenitere diceret quam quod C. Carbonem umquam in iudicium vocavisset; minus enim liberas omnium rerum voluntates habebat, et vitam suam pluribus quam vellet observari oculis arbitrabatur. atque ille his praesidiis ingeni fortunaeque munitus tamen hac cura continebatur, quam sibi nondum confirmato consilio sed ineunte aetate susceperat, cum minus etiam praecipitur eorum virtus et integritas qui ad hanc rem adulescentuli, quam qui iam firmata aetate descendunt. illi enim, ante quam potuerunt existimare quanto liberior vita sit eorum qui neminem accusarint, gloriae causa atque ostentationis accusant: nos qui iam et quid facere et quantum iudicare possemus ostendimus, nisi facile cupiditates nostras teneremus, numquam ipsimet nobis praecideremus istam licentiam libertatemque vivendi.

And I have this greater burden than those who have accused others — if it should be called a burden, what you bear with gladness and pleasure. Yet I have undertaken this beyond the rest, that it is required of men that they should keep themselves above all from those vices in which they have reproached another. You have accused some thief or some grasping man: every suspicion of greed must always be avoided by you. You have brought up some doer of wrong, or some cruel man: care must always be taken not to seem in any matter the harsher or the more inhuman. A corrupter, an adulterer: it must be diligently provided that no trace of lust appear in your life. In short, all the things you have punished in another must by you yourself be vehemently shunned. For not the accuser only, but not even the rebuker is to be borne, who is reproached for the very vice he reproaches in another.

atque ego hoc plus oneris habeo quam qui ceteros accusarunt,—si onus est id appellandum quod cum laetitia feras ac voluptate: verum tamen ego hoc amplius suscepi quam ceteri quod ita postulatur ab hominibus ut his abstineant maxime vitiis in quibus alterum reprehenderint. Furem aliquem aut rapacem accusaris: vitanda tibi semper erit omnis avaritiae suspicio. maleficum quempiam adduxeris aut crudelem: cavendum erit semper ne qua in re asperior aut inhumanior fuisse videare. corruptorem, adulterum: providendum diligenter ne quod in vita vestigium libidinis appareat: omnia postremo quae vindicaris in altero tibi ipsi vehementer fugienda sunt. etenim non modo accusator, sed ne obiurgator quidem ferendus est is qui, quod in altero vitium reprehendit, in eo ipse reprehenditur.

I in one man am reproaching all the vices that can be in a ruined and unspeakable man. I say there is no token of lust, of crime, of audacity, that you cannot see in this man’s one life. So in this defendant I lay down this law for myself, gentlemen: that I must so live that I may be seen to be most unlike, and always to have been most unlike, this man — not only in all his deeds and words, but also in that contumacy and arrogance of mouth and eyes that you behold. I bear it, gentlemen, I bear it not heavily, that the life which had before been to me of its own pleasant should now also by my own law and condition be necessary.

ego in uno homine omnia vitia quae possunt in homine perdito nefarioque esse reprehendo; nullum esse dico indicium libidinis sceleris audaciae quod non in istius unius vita perspicere possitis. ergo in isto reo legem hanc mihi, iudices, statuo, vivendum ita esse ut isti non modo factis dictisque omnibus, sed etiam oris oculorumque illa contumacia ac superbia quam videtis, dissimillimus esse ac semper fuisse videar. patior, non moleste fero, iudices, eam vitam quae mihi sua sponte antea iucunda fuerit nunc iam mea lege et condicione necessariam quoque futuram.

And in this man’s case you ask me often, Hortensius, by what enmities or by what wrong I was led down to accuse. I leave aside now the reckoning of my duty and my connection with the Sicilians: of the very enmities I answer you. Or do you think that any enmities are greater than contrary opinions of men, and unlikenesses of pursuits and wills? He who reckons faith most sacred in life — can he not be an enemy to the man who, as quaestor, dared to plunder, abandon, betray, and assail his consul, with secrets entrusted to him, with money handed over, with all things credited to him? He who cherishes modesty and chastity — can he with calm mind look upon this man’s daily adulteries, his school of harlots, his domestic pandering? He who wishes to keep the religious observances of the immortal gods — can he not be an enemy to one who has plundered all shrines, who has dared to plunder from the very tracks of the sacred chariots? He who thinks all should be on equal right — shall he not be most hostile to you, when he reflects on the variousness and caprice of your decrees? He who grieves at the wrongs of allies and the misfortunes of provinces — shall he not be roused against you by the despoiling of Asia, the harassing of Pamphylia, the squalor and tears of Sicily? He who would have the rights and liberty of Roman citizens held sacred everywhere — ought he not to be more even than an enemy to you, when he recalls your beatings, when your axes, when your crosses fixed for the punishments of Roman citizens?

et in hoc homine saepe a me quaeris, Hortensi, quibus inimicitiis aut qua iniuria adductus ad accusandum descenderim? Mitto iam rationem offici mei necessitudinisque Siculorum: de ipsis tibi inimicitiis respondeo. an tu maiores ullas inimicitias putas esse quam contrarias hominum sententias ac dissimilitudines studiorum ac voluntatum? fidem sanctissimam in vita qui putat, potest ei non inimicus esse qui quaestor consulem suum consiliis commissis, pecunia tradita, rebus omnibus creditis spoliare, relinquere, prodere, oppugnare ausus sit? pudorem ac pudicitiam qui colit, potest animo aequo istius cotidiana adulteria, meretriciam disciplinam, domesticum lenocinium videre? qui religiones deorum immortalium retinere vult, ei qui fana spoliarit omnia, qui ex tensarum orbitis praedari sit ausus, inimicus non esse qui potest? qui iure aequo omnis putat esse oportere, is tibi non infestissimus sit, cum cogitet varietatem libidinemque decretorum tuorum? qui sociorum iniuriis provinciarumque incommodis doleat, is in te non expilatione Asiae, vexatione Pamphyliae, squalore et lacrimis Siciliae concitetur? qui civium Romanorum iura ac libertatem sanctam apud omnis haberi velit, is non tibi plus etiam quam inimicus esse debeat, cum tua verbera, cum securis, cum cruces ad civium Romanorum supplicia fixas recordetur?

Or if in some matter he had decreed something against my interest unjustly, you would justly think me his enemy: when he has done all things against the affairs, the cause, the reasoning, the interest, and the will of all good men, do you ask why I am his enemy — whom the Roman people holds for an enemy? I, who especially must take up more even than my common share of burden and duty for the will of the Roman people. What of those things which seem lighter — can they not move any man’s mind: that this man’s wickedness and audacity has an easier access to your friendship and the friendship of other great and noble men than any of our virtue and integrity? You hate the industry of new men, you despise their thrift, you contemn their modesty; their talent indeed and virtue you wish pressed down and put out: you love Verres!

an si qua in re contra rem meam decrevisset aliquid iniuria, iure ei me inimicum esse arbitrarere: cum omnia contra omnium bonorum rem causam rationem utilitatem voluntatemque fecerit, quaeris cur ei sim inimicus cui populus Romanus infestus est? qui praesertim plus etiam quam pars virilis postulat pro voluntate populi Romani oneris ac muneris suscipere debeam. quid? illa quae leviora videntur esse non cuiusvis animum possunt movere, quod ad tuam ipsius amicitiam ceterorumque hominum magnorum atque nobilium faciliorem aditum istius habet nequitia et audacia quam cuiusquam nostrum virtus et integritas? odistis hominum novorum industriam, despicitis eorum frugalitatem, pudorem contemnitis, ingenium vero et virtutem depressam exstinctamque cupitis: Verrem amatis!

So I suppose: if not by his virtue, not by his industry, not by his innocence, not by his modesty, not by his chastity, then by his conversation, by his learning, by his humanity you are charmed. None of these things has he. On the contrary, all things in him are besmirched with the highest disgrace and shamefulness, with singular stupidity and inhumanity. To this man if anyone’s house lies open — does it lie open, or rather gape and demand something? Him your gatekeepers, him your bedchamber-men love. Him your freedmen, him your slaves and maids love. When he comes, he is summoned out of order; he alone is brought in. Others, often most thrifty men, are shut out. From which can be understood that those are dearest to you who have lived in such a way that without your protection they cannot be safe.

ita credo: si non virtute, non industria, non innocentia, non pudore, non pudicitia, at sermone, at litteris, at humanitate eius delectamini. nihil eorum est, contraque sunt omnia cum summo dedecore ac turpitudine tum singulari stultitia atque inhumanitate oblita. huic homini si cuius domus patet, utrum ea patere an hiare ac poscere aliquid videtur? hunc vestri ianitores, hunc cubicularii diligunt; hunc liberti vestri, hunc servi ancillaeque amant; hic cum venit extra ordinem vocatur; hic solus introducitur; ceteri saepe frugalissimi homines excluduntur. ex quo intellegi potest eos vobis esse carissimos qui ita vixerint ut sine vestro praesidio salvi esse non possint.

What? Do you think this is to be borne by anyone — that we should so live in slender means as to wish to acquire absolutely nothing, that we should defend our own dignity and the kindnesses of the Roman people not by riches but by virtue, while this man, all things snatched from every side, by impunity makes mock, abounds, overflows? That your halls are adorned with his silver, your forum and Comitium with his statues and pictures, especially when you yourselves of your own Mars overflow with all these things? That it is Verres who adorns your villas with his spoils? That it is Verres who vies with Lucius Mummius, that he may seem to have stripped more cities of allies than the other did of enemies; to have adorned more villas with the ornaments of shrines than the other did shrines with the spoils of enemies? And shall he be on this account the dearer to you, that the rest may the more willingly serve your desires at their own peril?

quid? hoc cuiquam ferendum putas esse, nos ita vivere in pecunia tenui ut prorsus nihil adquirere velimus, ut dignitatem nostram populique Romani beneficia non copiis sed virtute tueamur, istum rebus omnibus undique ereptis impune eludentem circumfluere atque abundare? huius argento dominia vestra, huius signis et tabulis forum comitiumque ornari, praesertim cum vos vestro Marte his rebus omnibus abundetis? Verrem esse qui vestras villas suis manubiis ornet? Verrem esse qui cum L. Mummio certet, ut pluris hic sociorum urbis quam ille hostium spoliasse videatur, pluris hic villas ornamentis fanorum quam ille fana spoliis hostium ornasse? et is erit ob eam rem vobis carior ut ceteri libentius suo periculo vestris cupiditatibus serviant?

But these things will be said in another place too, and have been said. Now we shall go forward to the rest, if we shall first have begged a few things of you, gentlemen. Through all the previous speech we have had your minds most attentive: this was very welcome to us. But it will be much more welcome if you wish to attend to what remains, on this account, that in all those things which were said before there was a certain pleasure from the very variety and novelty of the matters and charges. Now we set in hand a case of the grain administration, which by the magnitude of the wrong and by the matter itself will surpass the rest of the charges, but will have less pleasantness in the handling and less variety. It is most worthy of your authority and prudence, gentlemen, in the diligence of hearing to assign no less to scruple than to pleasure.

verum haec et dicentur alio loco et dicta sunt: nunc proficiscemur ad reliqua, si pauca ante fuerimus a vobis, iudices, deprecati. superiore omni oratione perattentos vestros animos habuimus: id fuit nobis gratum admodum. sed multo erit gratius si reliqua voletis attendere, propterea quod in his omnibus quae antea dicta sunt erat quaedam ex ipsa varietate ac novitate rerum et criminum delectatio, nunc tractare causam instituimus frumentariam, quae magnitudine iniuriae et re criminibus ceteris antecellet, iucunditatis in agendo et varietatis minus habebit. vestra autem auctoritate et prudentia dignissimum est, iudices, in audiendi diligentia non minus religioni tribuere quam voluptati.

In learning this case of the grain administration, set this before yourselves, gentlemen: that you are about to learn of the affairs and fortunes of all the Sicilians, of the goods of those Roman citizens who plough in Sicily, of the revenues handed down by our ancestors, of the life and sustenance of the Roman people. If these things shall seem to you great — nay greatest — do not look for how variously and how copiously they shall be spoken of. None of you can fail to see, gentlemen, that all the usefulness and convenience of the province of Sicily, which is joined to the advantages of the Roman people, rests above all in the matter of grain. For in the rest of things we are helped by that province; by this we are fed and sustained.

in hac causa frumentaria cognoscenda haec vobis proponite, iudices, vos de rebus fortunisque Siculorum omnium, de civium Romanorum qui arant in Sicilia bonis, de vectigalibus a maioribus traditis, de vita victuque populi Romani cognituros: quae si magna atque adeo maxima vobis videbuntur, quam varie et quam copiose dicantur exspectare nolite. neminem vestrum praeterit, iudices, omnem utilitatem opportunitatemque provinciae Siciliae, quae ad commoda populi Romani adiuncta sit, consistere in re frumentaria maxime; nam ceteris rebus adiuvamur ex illa provincia, hac vero alimur ac sustinemur.

The case will fall, gentlemen, into three parts in the prosecution. For first we shall speak about the tithe-grain, then about the bought grain, last about the assessed grain. Between Sicily and the rest of the provinces, gentlemen, in the system of the revenues of fields, this is the difference: that on the rest there is either a fixed tribute imposed (which is called stipendiary), as on the Spaniards and on most of the Carthaginians, as it were the prize of victory and the penalty of war; or a censorial leasing has been established, as in Asia by the Sempronian law. The cities of Sicily we received into our friendship and faith on this footing: that they should be on the same right as before, and should obey the Roman people on the same condition on which they had before obeyed their own.

ea causa tripertita, iudices, erit in accusatione; primum enim de decumano, deinde de empto dicemus frumento, postremo de aestimato. inter Siciliam ceterasque provincias, iudices, in agrorum vectigalium ratione hoc interest, quod ceteris aut impositum vectigal est certum, quod stipendiarium dicitur, ut Hispanis et plerisque Poenorum quasi victoriae praemium ac poena belli, aut censoria locatio constituta est, ut Asiae lege Sempronia: Siciliae civitates sic in amicitiam fidemque accepimus ut eodem iure essent quo fuissent, eadem condicione populo Romano parerent qua suis antea paruissent.

Very few cities of Sicily have been subdued in war by our ancestors. Of these, the land, although it was made the public property of the Roman people, was nevertheless given back to them; this land is wont to be leased by the censors. There are two cities in alliance whose tithes are not wont to be sold, the Mamertine and the Tauromenitan; and besides these, five cities free of tribute and free, without treaty: Centuripa, Halaesa, Segesta, Halicyae, Panhormus. Besides this all the land of the Sicilian cities is subject to tithe, and so it was, before the empire of the Roman people, by the will and institution of the Sicilians themselves.

perpaucae Siciliae civitates sunt bello a maioribus nostris subactae; quarum ager cum esset publicus populi Romani factus, tamen illis est redditus; is ager a censoribus locari solet. foederatae civitates duae sunt, quarum decumae venire non soleant, Mamertina et Tauromenitana, quinque praeterea sine foedere immunes civitates ac liberae, Centuripina, Halaesina, Segestana, Halicyensis, Panhormitana; praeterea omnis ager Siciliae civitatum decumanus est, itemque ante imperium populi Romani ipsorum Siculorum voluntate et institutis fuit.

See now the wisdom of our ancestors. When they had joined Sicily, so opportune a support of war and peace, to the commonwealth, they wished to protect and keep the Sicilians with such great care that they not only put no new revenue on their fields, but did not change even the law for selling the tithes, nor either the time or the place of selling: that they should sell at a fixed time of year, in Sicily itself, and finally by the Hieronic law. They wished them themselves to take part in their own affairs, and that their minds should not be moved either by a new law or even by a new name of a law.

videte nunc maiorum sapientiam, qui cum Siciliam tam opportunum subsidium belli atque pacis ad rem publicam adiunxissent, tanta cura Siculos tueri ac retinere voluerunt ut non modo eorum agris vectigal novum nullum imponerent, sed ne legem quidem venditionis decumarum neve vendundi aut tempus aut locum commutarent, ut certo tempore anni, ut ibidem in Sicilia, denique ut lege Hieronica venderent. voluerunt eos in suis rebus ipsos interesse, eorumque animos non modo lege nova sed ne nomine quidem legis novo commoveri.

So they decreed that the tithes should always be sold by the Hieronic law, that to them the discharge of that tribute might be the more pleasant: if of the king who was dearest to the Sicilians not only the institutions, with the empire changed, but the very name should remain. By this right the Sicilians always used before Verres became praetor. He first dared to tear down and to change the institutions of all, the custom handed down by the elders, the condition of friendship, the right of partnership.

itaque decumas lege Hieronica semper vendundas censuerunt, ut iis iucundior esset muneris illius functio, si eius regis qui Siculis carissimus fuit non solum instituta commutato imperio, verum etiam nomen maneret. hoc iure ante Verrem praetorem Siculi semper usi sunt: hic primus instituta omnium, consuetudinem a maioribus traditam, condicionem amicitiae, ius societatis convellere et commutare ausus est.

In which matter the first thing I reproach and accuse is this: why in a thing so old, so customary, did you do anything new? Did you achieve something by talent? Did you outdo by prudence and counsel so many wisest and most distinguished men, who held that province before you? It is yours, it is the work of your talent and diligence: I grant it and concede it. I know that at Rome, when you were praetor, by your edict you transferred the possession of inheritances from children to strangers, from the first heirs to the second, from the laws to your own caprice. I know that you "corrected" the edicts of all your predecessors and gave the possession of inheritances not to those who produced a will, but to those who said one had been made. And those novelties brought forth and devised by you, I know, were of great gain to you. The same man, I remember, removed and altered the censorial laws too in the matter of letting out repairs of public buildings, that the man whose property it was should not contract for it, that guardians and kinsmen of an orphan should not see to it that he should not be overthrown in all his fortunes; that you should fix a short day for the work, by which to shut the rest out of the business, while in the case of your own contractor you observed no fixed day.

qua in re primum illud reprehendo et accuso, cur in re tam vetere, tam usitata quicquam novi feceris. ingenio aliquid adsecutus es? tot homines sapientissimos et clarissimos, qui illam provinciam ante te tenuerunt, prudentia consilioque vicisti? est tuum, est ingeni diligentiaeque tuae: do hoc tibi et concedo. scio te Romae, cum praetor esses, edicto tuo possessiones hereditatum a liberis ad alienos, a primis heredibus ad secundos, a legibus ad libidinem tuam transtulisse; scio te edicta superiorum omnium correxisse et possessiones hereditatum non secundum eos qui proferrent, sed secundum eos qui dicerent testamentum factum dedisse; easque res novas abs te prolatas et inventas magno tibi quaestui fuisse scio; eundemque te memini censorias quoque leges in sartis tectis exigendis tollere et commutare, ne is redimeret cuia res esset, ne pupillo tutores propinquique consulerent quo minus fortunis omnibus everteretur; exiguam diem praefinire operi qua ceteros ab negotio excluderes, ipse in tuo redemptore nullam certam diem observares.

For which reason I am not surprised that you established a new law in the matter of tithes — a man so prudent, so practised in praetorian edicts and censorial laws — I am not, I say, surprised that you devised something. But that of your own accord, without the bidding of the people, without the authority of the senate, you have changed the rights of the province of Sicily, this I reproach, this I accuse.

quam ob rem novam legem te in decumis statuisse non miror, hominem in edictis praetoriis, in censoriis legibus tam prudentem, tam exercitatum,—non, inquam, miror te aliquid excogitasse; sed quod tua sponte iniussu populi sine senatus auctoritate iura provinciae Siciliae mutaveris, id reprehendo, id accuso.

In the consulship of Lucius Octavius and Gaius Cotta the senate gave permission that the tithes of wine and oil and of the smaller crops — which the quaestors had previously been wont to sell in Sicily — should be sold at Rome, and that for these matters the consuls should lay down such law as seemed good to them. When the contract was being made, the publicans demanded that they should add certain things to the law, but yet should not depart from the rest of the censorial laws. Against this spoke the man who happened then to be at Rome, your guest-friend, Verres — guest-friend, I say, and familiar of yours — this Sthenius of Thermae. The consuls examined the case. When they had called many leading and most ample men of the city into council, they pronounced from the council’s opinion that they would sell by the Hieronic law.

L. Octavio et C. Cottae consulibus senatus permisit ut vini et olei decumas et frugum minutarum, quas ante quaestores in Sicilia vendere consuessent, Romae venderent, legemque his rebus quam ipsis videretur dicerent. cum locatio fieret, publicani postularunt quasdam res ut ad legem adderent neque tamen a ceteris censoriis legibus recederent. contra dixit is qui casu tum Romae fuit, tuus hospes, Verres,—hospes, inquam, et familiaris tuus,—Sthenius hic Thermitanus. consules causam cognorunt; cum viros primarios atque amplissimos civitatis multos in consilium advocassent, de consili sententia pronuntiarunt se lege Hieronica vendituros.

Indeed? Most prudent men, endowed with the highest authority, to whom the senate had given full power of laying down laws in the leasing of the revenues, and the Roman people had ordered the same, were unwilling, with one Sicilian protesting, to change the name of the Hieronic law even for the increase of the revenues. And you, a man of the slightest counsel, of no authority, against the bidding of the people and of the senate, with all Sicily refusing, with the greatest loss — nay, the very ruin — of the revenues, did away with the whole Hieronic law?

itane vero? prudentissimi viri summa auctoritate praediti, quibus senatus legum dicendarum in locandis vectigalibus omnem potestatem permiserat populusque Romanus idem iusserat, Siculo uno recusante cum amplificatione vectigalium nomen Hieronicae legis mutare noluerunt: tu, homo minimi consili, nullius auctoritatis, iniussu populi ac senatus, tota Sicilia recusante, cum maximo detrimento atque adeo exitio vectigalium totam Hieronicam legem sustulisti?

But what a law is it, gentlemen, that he "corrects" — nay, that he wholly removes! Most acutely and most diligently written, which law subjected the farmer to all guardianships of the tithe-collector, so that neither in the standing crop nor on the threshing-floors nor in the granaries nor in the moving away nor in the exporting of the grain could the farmer cheat the tithe-collector of one grain without the greatest penalty. The law is so diligently written that it is plain the man who wrote it had no other revenues; so acutely as a Sicilian, so severely as a tyrant. Yet by which law it was profitable to the Sicilians to plough; for the rights of the tithe-collector are so diligently established that nevertheless from an unwilling farmer no more than the tithe could be carried away.

at quam legem corrigit, iudices, atque adeo totam tollit! acutissime ac diligentissime scriptam, quae lex omnibus custodiis subiectum aratorem decumano tradidit, ut neque in segetibus neque in areis neque in horreis neque in amovendo neque in exportando frumento grano uno posset arator sine maxima poena fraudare decumanum. scripta lex ita diligenter est ut eum scripsisse appareat qui alia vectigalia non haberet, ita acute ut Siculum, ita severe ut tyrannum; qua lege Siculis tamen arare expediret; nam ita diligenter constituta sunt iura decumano ut tamen ab invito aratore plus decuma non possit auferri.

When these things were so established, Verres in so many years, nay in so many generations, was found to be the man who not to alter but to overturn them, and what had long since been arranged and prepared for the safety of the allies and the advantage of the commonwealth, to convert to his own most dishonest gains. He first appointed certain men under the name of tithe-collectors, in truth the ministers and satellites of his own desires, through whom I shall show that the province was so harassed and laid waste through three years, gentlemen, that for many years we shall not be able to recover it by the innocence and wisdom of many.

cum haec essent ita constituta, Verres tot annis atque adeo saeculis tot inventus est qui haec non commutaret sed everteret, eaque quae iam diu ad salutem sociorum utilitatemque rei publicae composita comparataque essent ad suos improbissimos quaestus converteret; qui primum certos instituerit nomine decumanos, re vera ministros ac satellites cupiditatum suarum, per quos ostendam sic provinciam per triennium vexatam atque vastatam, iudices, ut eam multis annis multorum innocentia sapientiaque recreare nequeamus.

Of all those who were called tithe-collectors the chief was that famous Quintus Apronius whom you see; of whose singular wickedness you have heard the complaints of the gravest embassies. Look, gentlemen, on the man’s countenance and look; and from that contumacy which he keeps even in his ruined affairs, consider and recall what you must suppose those Sicilian airs of his to have been. This is the Apronius whom Verres in the whole province, when he had hunted out from every side the most worthless men, and when he had brought with him many like himself, judged most like himself in wickedness, luxury, and audacity. So those men, in a very short time, no business, no reckoning, no recommendation joined together, but the foulness and likeness of their pursuits.

Eorum omnium qui decumani vocabantur princeps erat Q. ille Apronius, quem videtis; de cuius improbitate singulari gravissimarum legationum querimonias audivistis. aspicite, iudices, vultum hominis et aspectum, et ex ea contumacia quam hic in perditis rebus retinet illos eius spiritus Siciliensis quos fuisse putetis cogitate ac recordamini. hic est Apronius quem in provincia tota Verres, cum undique nequissimos homines conquisisset, et cum ipse secum sui similis duxisset non parum multos, nequitia luxuria audacia sui simillimum iudicavit; itaque istos inter se perbrevi tempore non res, non ratio, non commendatio aliqua, sed studiorum turpitudo similitudoque coniunxit.

You know Verres’s dishonest and impure ways: feign to yourselves, if you can, someone who in all those things might be his match for the unspeakable lusts of every disgrace. That will be the famous Apronius, who, as he himself signifies not only by his life but by his body and face, is some immense gulf or whirlpool of vices and shames of every kind. This man in all his debauches, this man in his plunderings of shrines, this man in his impure feasts he kept as chief. So great a likeness of ways has its joining and concord that Apronius — who to others seemed inhuman and barbarous — to him alone seemed agreeable and witty. So that whom all hated and would not see, without him this man could not be. So that, when others did not even use the same banquets as Apronius, he used the same cups too. Finally so that the most foul smell of Apronius’s mouth and body — which, as men say, not even the beasts could bear — to him alone seemed sweet and pleasant. He was nearest at the tribunal, alone in the bedchamber, master at the banquet — and most of all then, when, with the praetor’s son in the praetexta reclining beside him, he had begun to dance naked at the banquet.

Verris mores improbos impurosque nostis: fingite vobis si potestis, aliquem qui in omnibus isti rebus par ad omnium flagitiorum nefarias libidines esse possit; is erit Apronius ille qui, ut ipse non solum vita sed corpore atque ore significat, immensa aliqua vorago est aut gurges vitiorum turpitudinumque omnium. hunc in omnibus stupris, hunc in fanorum expilationibus, hunc in impuris conviviis principem adhibebat; tantamque habet morum similitudo coniunctionem atque concordiam ut Apronius, qui aliis inhumanus ac barbarus, isti uni commodus ac disertus videretur; ut quem omnes odissent neque videre vellent, sine eo iste esse non posset; ut cum alii ne conviviis quidem isdem quibus Apronius, hic isdem etiam poculis uteretur; postremo ut odor Aproni taeterrimus oris et corporis,—quem, ut aiunt, ne bestiae quidem ferre possent,—uni isti suavis et iucundus videretur. ille erat in tribunali proximus, in cubiculo solus, in convivio dominus, ac tum maxime cum accubante praetextato praetoris filio saltare in convivio nudus coeperat.

This man, as I have begun to say, Verres wished to be chief in harassing and plundering the fortunes of the farmers. Know, gentlemen, that under this praetor the most faithful allies and the best citizens were handed over and made over to his audacity, his wickedness, his cruelty by new institutions and edicts, the whole Hieronic law, as I said before, cast off and repudiated.

hunc, uti dicere institui, principem Verres ad fortunas aratorum vexandas diripiendasque esse voluit: huius audaciae nequitiae crudelitati fidelissimos socios optimosque civis scitota hoc praetore traditos, iudices, atque addictos fuisse novis institutis et edictis, tote Hieronica lege, quem ad modum antea dixi, reiecta ac repudiata.

Hear, gentlemen, the famous first edict: whatever the tithe-collector shall have declared that the farmer ought to give him for the tithe, that much let the farmer be compelled to give the tithe-collector. How? "However much Apronius has demanded, let it be given." What is this? Is it a praetor’s institution against allies, or the edict and command of a mad tyrant against conquered enemies? "I shall give as much as he has demanded?" He shall demand all that I shall have ploughed. "All? Nay even more," he says, "if he wish." What then? What do you think? Either you shall give it, or you shall be condemned for having acted against the edict. By the immortal gods, what is this? It is not credible.

primum edictum, iudices, audite praeclarum: quantum decumanus edidisset aratorem sibi decumae dare oportere, ut tantum arator decumano dare cogeretur. quo modo? quantum poposcerit Apronius, dato. quid est hoc? utrum praetoris institutum in socios an in hostis victos insani edictum atque imperium tyranni? ego tantundem dabo quantum ille poposcerit? poscet omne quantum exaravero. quid omne? plus immo etiam, inquit, si volet. quid tum? quid censes? aut dabis aut contra edictum fecisse damnabere. per deos immortalis, quid est hoc? veri enim simile non est.

I so persuade myself, gentlemen, that, although you may think all things fit this man, yet this seems to you false. For I, when all Sicily was saying it, would yet not dare to affirm it, were I not able to read these edicts in the same words from his own tablets, as I shall do. Give me, please, the clerk, let him read out the proclamation from the codex. Read. the edict on declaration. He says I do not read out the whole. For he seems to signify this by his nod. What do I leave out? Is it that part where you nevertheless take precaution for the Sicilians, and look upon the wretched farmers? For you say that, against the tithe-collector, if he shall have carried off more than was due, you will give an action for eightfold. I do not wish anything to be passed over. Read this too which he asks for, in full. Read. the edict on the action for eightfold. That the farmer should pursue the tithe-collector by an action? Wretched and unjust! You bring men out of the field into the forum, from the plough to the benches, from the practice of country affairs to a strange suit and trial?

sic mihi persuadeo, iudices, tametsi omnia in istum hominem convenire putetis, tamen hoc vobis falsum videri. ego enim, cum hoc tota Sicilia diceret, tamen adfirmare non auderem, si haec edicta non ex ipsius tabulis totidem verbis recitare possem, sicuti faciam. da, quaeso, scribae, recitet ex codice professionem. recita. EDICTVM DE PROFESSIONE. negat me recitare totum; nam id significare nutu videtur. quid praetereo? an illud, ubi caves tamen Siculis et miseros respicis aratores? dicis enim te in decumanum, si plus abstulerit quam debitum sit, in octuplum iudicium daturum. nihil mihi placet praetermitti; recita hoc quoque quod postulat totum. recita. EDICTVM DE IVDICIO IN OCTVPLVM. Iudicio ut arator decumanum persequatur? miserum atque iniquum! ex agro homines traducis in forum, ab aratro ad subsellia, ab usu rerum rusticarum ad insolitam litem atque iudicium?

When in all other revenues — of Asia, Macedonia, Spain, Gaul, Africa, Sardinia, the revenues of Italy itself — when in all these matters, I say, the publican is wont to be a claimant and a taker of pledges, not a snatcher and possessor, you, against the best, most just, most honourable kind of men — that is, the farmers — were establishing those rights which were contrary to all the rest? Which is fairer: that the tithe-collector seek, or that the farmer claim back? That the trial be held with the matter still whole, or with it lost? That he should hold who has sought by his hand, or he who has bid by his finger? What of those who plough with single yokes, who do not themselves leave the work — in which number, before you were praetor, was a great number and a great multitude of Sicilians — what shall they do when they have given Apronius what he has demanded? Shall they leave their plough-lands, leave their household Lar? Shall they come to Syracuse, that under you as praetor, of course, on equal right, they may pursue Apronius, your darling and your life, by an action of recovery?

cum omnibus in aliis vectigalibus, Asiae Macedoniae Hispaniae Galliae Africae Sardiniae, ipsius Italiae quae vectigalia sunt —cum in his, inquam, rebus omnibus publicanus petitor ac pignerator, non ereptor neque possessor soleat esse, tu de optimo, de iustissimo, de honestissimo genere hominum, hoc est de aratoribus, ea iura constituebas quae omnibus aliis essent contraria? Vtrum est aequius, decumanum petere an aratorem repetere? iudicium integra re an perdita fieri? eum qui manu quaesierit, an eum qui digito sit licitus possidere? quid? qui singulis iugis arant, qui ab opere ipsi non recedunt,—quo in numero magnus ante te praetorem numerus ac magna multitudo Siculorum fuit,— quid facient cum dederint Apronio quod poposcerit? relinquent arationes, relinquent Larem familiarem suum? venient Syracusas, ut te praetore videlicet aequo iure Apronium, delicias ac vitam tuam, iudicio recuperatorio persequantur?

But suppose so. Some brave and resourceful farmer will be found who, when he has given the tithe-collector as much as the man has said is due, claims it back by an action and pursues the eightfold penalty. I look for the force of the edict, the severity of the praetor: I favour the farmer, I desire Apronius to be condemned for eightfold. What at last does the farmer ask? Nothing but the action for eightfold under the edict. What Apronius? He does not refuse. What the praetor? He orders the recoverers to be challenged. "Let us write the panels." What panels? "From my own staff," he says, "you will challenge." "What? That staff of yours — of what kind of men is it?" Volusius the soothsayer, and Cornelius the doctor, and those dogs whom you see licking my tribunal. For from the assize he never gave any judge or recoverer; he used to say that all who possessed any clod of land were unjust to the tithe-collectors. One had to come, against Apronius, to those who had not yet breathed out the fumes of an Apronian banquet. O famous and memorable trial! O severe edict! O safe refuge of the farmers!

verum esto: reperietur aliqui fortis et experiens arator, qui, cum tantum dederit decumano quantum ille deberi dixerit, iudicio repetat et poenam octupli persequatur: exspecto vim edicti, severitatem praetoris: faveo aratori, cupio octupli damnari Apronium. quid tandem postulat arator? nihil nisi ex edicto iudicium in octuplum. quid Apronius? non recusat. quid praetor? iubet recuperatores reicere. ’ decurias scribamus.’ quas decurias? ’de cohorte mea reicies,’ inquit. ’ quid? ista cohors quorum hominum est?’ Volusi haruspicis et Corneli medici et horum canum quos tribunal meum vides lambere; nam de conventu nullum umquam iudicem nec recuperatorem dedit; iniquos decumanis aiebat omnis esse qui ullam agri glebam possiderent. veniendum erat ad eos contra Apronium qui nondum Aproniani convivi crapulam exhalassent. O praeclarum et commemorandum iudicium! o severum edictum! o tutum perfugium aratorum!

And that you may understand of what kind those trials for eightfold were, of what kind those recoverers from his staff were reckoned to be, attend to this. Do you suppose any tithe-collector, this licence having been given that he might carry off from the farmer as much as he had demanded, demanded more than was due? Consider with your own minds whether you suppose any did so, especially since this might happen not from greed only but from imprudence. Many of necessity. But I say all carried off more, and much more, than the tithe. Give me one out of the three years of your praetorship who was condemned for eightfold. Condemned? Nay, against whom an action was even asked under your edict. There was no farmer, of course, who could complain that wrong had been done him; no tithe-collector who confessed that he had had a single grain owed him beyond what was due. Nay, on the contrary, Apronius was snatching and carrying away as much as he wished from each man, and in every place the farmers were complaining, despoiled and harassed; nor will any trial be found.

atque ut intellegatis cuius modi ista iudicia in octuplum, cuius modi istius de cohorte recuperatores existimati sint, sic attendite. ecquem putatis decumanum, hac licentia permissa ut tantum ab aratore quantum poposcisset auferret, plus quam deberetur poposcisse? considerate cum vestris animis vosmet ipsi ecquem putetis, praesertim cum id non solum avaritia sed etiam imprudentia accidere potuerit. multos necesse est. at ego omnis dico plus, ac multo plus, quam decumam abstulisse. cedo mihi unum ex triennio praeturae tuae qui octupli damnatus sit. damnatus? immo vero in quem iudicium ex edicto tuo postulatum sit. nemo erat videlicet aratorum qui iniuriam sibi factam queri posset, nemo decumanorum qui grano amplius sibi quam deberetur deberi professus esset. immo vero contra rapiebat et asportabat quantum a quoque volebat Apronius, omnibus autem locis aratores spoliati ac vexati querebantur; neque tamen ullum iudicium reperietur.

What is this? So many brave, honourable, well-favoured men, so many Sicilians, so many Roman knights, hurt by the most worthless and most shameful man, were not pursuing the eightfold penalty, undoubtedly incurred? What cause, what reason is there? That one, gentlemen, which you see: that they saw they would depart from the trial mocked and laughed at into the bargain. For what trial would it be, when from Verres’s most shameful and disgraceful retinue three of his hangers-on had sat down under the name of recoverers — not handed to him by his father but recommended by some little harlot?

quid est hoc? tot viri fortes honesti gratiosi, tot Siculi, tot equites Romani, ab homine nequissimo ac turpissimo laesi poenam octupli sine ulla dubitatione commissam non persequebantur? quae causa, quae ratio est? una illa, iudices, quam videtis, quod ultro etiam inlusos se et inrisos ab iudicio discessuros videbant. etenim quod esset iudicium, cum ex Verris turpissimo flagitiosissimoque comitatu tres recuperatorum nomine adsedissent adseculae istius, non a patre ei traditi sed a meretricula commendati?

The farmer, of course, would plead his case: would say that no grain had been left him by Apronius; that his goods too had been plundered, that he had been pummelled and beaten. The good men would put their heads together; they would talk among themselves about the carouse and about the little women, if any they could catch as they were leaving the praetor; the matter would seem to be in hand. Apronius would have risen — a new dignity of a publican; not as a tithe-collector full of squalor and dust, but anointed with unguents, languid with wine and watching — by his very first motion and breath he would have filled all things with the smell of wine, of unguent, of his body. He would have said the things he was wont to say openly: that he had not bought the tithes, but the goods and fortunes of the farmers; that he, Apronius, was not the tithe-collector, but a second Verres, the master and tyrant of those men. When he had said these things, those most excellent men, the recoverers from his staff, would not have deliberated about acquitting Apronius, but would have asked by what means they could condemn the claimant himself to Apronius.

ageret videlicet causam arator; nihil sibi frumenti ab Apronio relictum, bona sua etiam direpta, se pulsatum verberatumque diceret; conferrent viri boni capita, de comissatione loquerentur inter se ac de mulierculis, si quas a praetore abeuntis possent deprehendere; res agi videretur. surrexisset Apronius, nova dignitas publicani, non ut decumanus squaloris plenus ac pulveris, sed unguentis oblitus, vino vigiliisque languidus; omnia primo motu ac spiritu suo vini unguenti corporis odore complesset. dixisset haec quae volgo dicere solebat, non se decumas emisse, sed bona fortunasque aratorum, non se decumanum esse Apronium, sed Verrem alterum dominum illorum ac tyrannum. quae cum dixisset, illi viri optimi de cohorte istius recuperatores non de absolvendo Apronio deliberarent, sed quaererent ecquo modo petitorem ipsum Apronio condemnare possent.

When you had given this licence to plunder the farmers to the tithe-collectors, that is, to Apronius — that he should demand as much as he wished, should carry off as much as he had demanded — did you prepare this defence for your trial: that you had given an edict that you would give recoverers for the eightfold? Were you, by Hercules, out of the whole resources of the Syracusan assize, of most splendid and honourable men, to give the farmer power not only of challenging but even of choosing the recoverers, yet no one could bear this new kind of wrong: that you, when you had handed over all his crops to the publican and let the matter go from your hands, then should claim back your own goods and pursue them by suit and trial.

hanc tu licentiam diripiendorum aratorum cum decumanis, hoc est cum Apronio permisisses, ut quantum vellet posceret, quantum poposcisset auferret, hoc tibi defensionis ad iudicium tuum comparabas, habuisse te edictum recuperatores daturum in octuplum? si mehercule ex omni copia conventus Syracusani, splendidissimorum honestissimorumque hominum, faceres potestatem aratori non modo reiciendi sed etiam sumendi recuperatores, tamen hoc novum genus iniuriae ferre nemo posset, te, cum tuos omnis fructus publicano tradidisses et rem de manibus amisisses, tum bona tua repetere ac persequi lite atque iudicio.

But when in word it is a trial in your edict, in fact really a collusion of your retinue — of the most worthless men — with the tithe-collectors, your partners, nay even your agents, do you yet dare to make mention of any trial? Especially when this is refuted not only by my speech but even by the matter itself: that in such great misfortunes of the farmers and wrongs of the tithe-collectors no trial under that famous edict of yours is found, not only carried out but not even asked for.

cum vero verbo iudicium sit in edicto, re quidem vera tuorum comitum, hominum nequissimorum, conlusio cum decumanis, sociis tuis atque adeo procuratoribus, tamen audes ullius mentionem iudici facere? praesertim cum id non modo oratione mea sed etiam re ipsa refellatur, quod in tantis incommodis aratorum iniuriisque decumanorum nullum ex isto praeclaro edicto non modo factum sed ne postulatum quidem iudicium invenitur.

Yet he will be milder against the farmers than he seems. For the man who proclaimed by his edict that he would give an action for eightfold against the tithe-collectors, the same man had it in his edict that he would give an action for fourfold against the farmer. Who dares to say this man was hostile or an enemy to the farmers? How much milder he is against them than against the publican! He gave it by edict that what the tithe-collector had declared ought to be given him, that the Sicilian magistrate should exact from the farmer. What is left of the trial that can be given against the farmer? "It is not bad," he says, "that this fear should exist, so that, when it has been exacted from the farmer, the remaining fear of trial may keep him from stirring." If you wish to exact it from me by trial, remove the Sicilian magistrate. If you apply this force, what need is there of trial? Who, moreover, will there be that does not prefer to give your tithe-collectors what they have demanded, rather than be condemned to fourfold by your hangers-on?

erit tamen in aratores lenior quam videtur. nam qui in decumanos octupli iudicium se daturum edixit, idem habuit in edicto se in aratorem in quadruplum daturum. quis hunc audet dicere aratoribus infestum aut inimicum fuisse? quanto lenior est quam in publicanum! edixit ut, quod decumanus edidisset sibi dari oportere, id ab aratore magistratus Siculus exigeret. quid est reliqui iudici quod in aratorem dari possit? ’ non malum est,’ inquit, ’esse istam formidinem, ut, cum exactum sit ab aratore, tamen ne se commoveat reliquus metus iudici sit.’ si iudicio vis a me exigere, remove Siculum magistratum: si hanc vim adhibes, quid opus est iudicio? quis porro erit quin malit decumanis tuis dare quod poposcerint, quam ab adseculis tuis quadruplo condemnari?

But that famous closing clause of the edict — that, of all controversies between farmer and tithe-collector, if either wishes, he proclaims he will give recoverers. First, what controversy can there be, when the man who ought to claim takes; and when this man takes not what is owed but what is convenient; while the other from whom it has been taken cannot in any way recover his own by trial? Next, in this matter the muddy man wishes to be cunning and a sharper too, in that he so writes, if either wishes, I shall give recoverers. How prettily he thinks he is stealing! He gives the power to either; but whether he wrote, "if either wishes," or "if the tithe-collector wishes," makes no difference. For the farmer will never wish for those recoverers of yours.

illa vero praeclara est clausula edicti, quod omnium controversiarum quae essent inter aratorem et decumanum, si uter velit, edicit se recuperatores daturum. primum quae potest esse controversia, cum is qui petere debet aufert, et cum is non quantum debetur sed quantum commodum est aufert, ille autem unde ablatum est iudicio suum recuperare nullo modo potest? deinde in hoc homo luteus etiam callidus ac veterator esse vult, quod ita scribit, SI VTER VOLET, RECVPERATORES DABO. quam lepide se furari putat! Vtrique facit potestatem, sed utrum ita scripserit, ’si uter volet’ an ’si decumanus volet,’ nihil interest; arator enim tuos istos recuperatores numquam volet.

What of those edicts which, on the spur of the moment, prompted by Apronius, he proclaimed? When Quintus Septicius, a most honourable Roman knight, was resisting Apronius and saying he would give no more than the tithe, there springs up a peculiar sudden edict: that no one should remove grain from the threshing-floor before he had come to terms with the tithe-collector. Septicius bore this iniquity too, and was suffering his grain to be spoiled by rain on the floor, when of a sudden that most fertile and most lucrative edict is born: that before the Kalends of August they should have all the tithes carried down to the water.

quid? illa cuius modi sunt quae ex tempore ab Apronio admonitus edixit? Q. Septicio, honestissimo equite Romano, resistente Apronio et adfirmante se plus decuma non daturum, exoritur peculiare edictum repentinum, ne quis frumentum de area tolleret antequam cum decumano pactus esset. ferebat hanc quoque iniquitatem septicius et imbri frumentum corrumpi in area patiebatur, cum illud edictum repente uberrimum et quaestuosissimum nascitur, ut an te Kalendas Sextilis omnis decumas ad aquam deportatas haberent.

By this edict not the Sicilians (for them indeed he had ruined and afflicted enough by previous edicts), but those very Roman knights, who had reckoned that they could keep their own right against Apronius, splendid men and well-favoured under other praetors, were handed over bound to Apronius. For attend to the kind of edicts they were. Let him not remove, he says, from the threshing-floor unless he has come to terms. This force is great enough to compel an unfair agreement; for I prefer to give more rather than not to remove from the floor in time. But that force does not constrain a Septicius and not a few like Septicius, who say so: "Rather than agree, I shall not remove." To these is opposed: "You must have it carried away before the Kalends of August." "Then I shall carry it away." "Unless you have agreed, you shall not stir it." So a fixed day for carrying away compelled them to remove from the floor; the prohibition of removing, unless he had agreed, applied force to the agreement, not the will.

hoc edicto non Siculi, nam eos quidem superioribus edictis satis perdiderat atque adflixerat, sed isti ipsi equites Romani qui suum ius retinere se contra Apronium posse erant arbitrati, splendidi homines et aliis praetoribus gratiosi, vincti Apronio traditi sunt. attendite enim cuius modi edicta sint. NE TOLLAT, inquit, EX AREA, NISI ERIT PACTVS. satis haec magna vis est ad inique paciscendum; malo enim plus dare quam non mature ex area tollere. at ista vis Septicium et non nullos septici similis non coercet, qui ita dicunt, ’ non tollam potius quam paciscar.’ his hoc opponitur, ’ deportatum habeas ante Kalendas Sextilis.’ deportabo igitur. ’Nisi pactus eris, non commovebis.’ sic deportandi dies praestituta tollere cogebat ex area: prohibitio tollendi, nisi pactus esset, vim adhibebat pactioni, non voluntatem.

Now this further point was not only against the Hieronic law and not only against the custom of his predecessors, but even against all the rights of the Sicilians, which they have from the senate and Roman people: that no man should be compelled to give bail outside his own assize. He laid down that the farmer should give bail to the tithe-collector wherever the tithe-collector wished, so that here too Apronius, when he was binding any man over from Leontini all the way to Lilybaeum, should add a gain of malicious prosecution from the wretched farmers. Although that scheme was found out for malicious prosecution by singular cunning: that he had given by edict that the farmers should declare the acres of their sowings. Which thing, while it had great force for most unjust agreements (as I shall show) and was of no advantage to the commonwealth, was yet for malicious prosecutions, into which all whom Apronius wished should fall.

iam vero illud non solum contra legem Hieronicam nec solum contra consuetudinem superiorum, sed etiam contra omnia iura Siculorum, quae habent a senatu populoque Romano, ne quis extra suum forum vadimonium promittere cogatur. statuit iste ut arator decumano quo vellet decumanus vadimonium promitteret, ut hic quoque Apronio, cum ex Leontino usque Lilybaeum aliquem vadaretur, ex miseris aratoribus calumniandi quaestus accederet. quamquam illa fuit ad calumniam singulari consilio reperta ratio, quod edixerat ut aratores iugera sationum suarum profiterentur. quae res cum ad pactiones iniquissimas magnam vim habuit, sicut ostendam, neque ad ullam utilitatem rei publicae pertinuit, tum vero ad calumnias, in quas omnes inciderent quos vellet Apronius.

For according as anyone had spoken against his will, so an action was demanded against him for the declaration of acres — by the fear of which trial a great number of bushels of grain was carried off from many men, and great sums of money were exacted; not because it was difficult to declare the number of acres truly — or even more (for what danger could there be in that?) — but because there was a cause of demanding a trial, that he had not declared by the edict. Now what trial it was under this praetor, if you remember what staff and what retinue there was, you ought to know. What then is it, gentlemen, that I would have understood from this iniquity of new edicts? That a wrong was done to the allies? You see it. That the authority of his predecessors was repudiated? He will not dare to deny it.

Vt enim quisque contra voluntatem eius dixerat, ita in eum iudicium de professione iugerum postulabatur, cuius iudici metu magnus a multis frumenti numerus ablatus magnaeque pecuniae coactae sunt; non quo iugerum numerum vere profiteri esset difficile aut amplius etiam profiteri, quid enim in eo periculi esse posset? sed causa erat iudici postulandi quod ex edicto professus non esset. iudicium autem quod fuerit isto praetore, si quae cohors et qui comitatus fuerit meministis, scire debetis. quid igitur est quod ex hac iniquitate novorum edictorum intellegi velim, iudices? iniuriamne factam sociis? at videtis. auctoritatem superiorum repudiatam? non audebit negare.

That Apronius could do so much under this man as praetor? He must confess it. But you perhaps, because the law reminds you, will ask in this place whether he received any money from these things. I shall show that he received the greatest, and I shall convince you that he established all those iniquities of which I spoke before for the sake of his own gain — if I shall first cast down from his defence that bulwark which he thinks he will use against all my assaults. "I sold the tithes for a great sum," he says. What say you? Did you, most audacious and most insane of men, sell the tithes? Did you sell those parts which the senate and Roman people willed you should sell, or whole crops — nay, the goods and fortunes of the farmers? If publicly the crier had announced by your command that not the tithes of the grain but the half-shares were being sold, and so buyers had come up to buy half-shares, if you had sold half-shares for more than the rest sold tithes, to whom would it seem wonderful? What? If the crier proclaimed tithes, but in fact — that is, by law, by edict, by condition — even more than half-shares were sold, will you yet think this distinguished for you: that you sold for more than was lawful, more than the rest sold for what was right? You sold the tithes for more than the rest.

tantum Apronium isto praetore potuisse? confiteatur necesse est. sed vos fortasse, quod vos lex commonet, id in hoc loco quaeretis, num quas ex hisce rebus pecunias ceperit. docebo cepisse maximas, omnisque eas iniquitates de quibus antea dixi sui quaestus causa constituisse vincam, si prius illud propugnaculum quo contra omnis meos impetus usurum se putat ex defensione eius deiecero. ’Magno,’ inquit, ’decumas vendidi.’ quid ais? an tu decumas, homo audacissime atque amentissime, vendidisti? tu partis eas quas te senatus populusque Romanus voluit, an fructus integros atque adeo bona fortunasque aratorum omnis vendidisti? si palam praeco iussu tuo praedicasset non decumas frumenti sed dimidias venire partis, et ita emptores accessissent ut ad dimidias partis emendas, si pluris vendidisses tu dimidias quam ceteri decumas, cuinam mirum videretur? quid? si praeco decumas pronuntiavit, re vera,—hoc est lege, edicto, condicione,—plus etiam quam dimidiae venierunt, tamen hoc tibi praeclarum putabis, te pluris quod non licebat quam ceteros quod oportebat vendidisse? pluris decumas vendidisti quam ceteri.

By what means did you achieve this? By innocence? Look at the temple of Castor; then, if you dare, make mention of innocence. By diligence? Look at the erasures in your codex on Sthenius of Thermae’s entry; then dare to call yourself diligent. By talent? You who in the previous hearing would not question the witnesses, and preferred silently to offer them your face — speak of yourself and your patrons as men of talent however much you will. By what then have you achieved what you say? Great is the praise if you have outdone your predecessors in counsel, have left to those who follow an example and authority. Perhaps no man was for you fit to imitate; but, as the discoverer and chief of the best practices, all, of course, will imitate you.

quibus rebus id adsecutus es? innocentia? aspice aedem Castoris; deinde, si audes, fac mentionem innocentiae. diligentia? codicis lituras tui contemplare in Stheni Thermitani nomine; deinde aude te dicere diligentem. ingenio? qui testis interrogare priore actione nolueris et iis tacitus os tuum praebere malueris, quamvis et te et patronos tuos ingeniosos esse dicito. quare igitur id quod ais adsecutus es? Magna est laus si superiores consilio vicisti, posterioribus exemplum atque auctoritatem reliquisti. tibi fortasse idoneus fuit nemo quem imitarere; at te videlicet inventorem rerum optimarum ac principem imitabuntur omnes.

What farmer under you as praetor gave a tithe? Who two? Who did not think himself afflicted with the greatest benefit when he discharged with three tithes for one — besides those few who, on account of partnership in your thefts, gave nothing at all? See the difference between your harshness and the senate’s goodness. The senate, when in the times of the commonwealth it is compelled to decree that second tithes be exacted, decrees that for these tithes money be paid to the farmers, that what is taken beyond what is owed should be reckoned bought, not carried off. You, when you exacted and snatched so many tithes not by senatorial decree but by your new and wicked edicts and institutions, do you reckon you have done a great thing if you have sold for more than Lucius Hortensius (the father of this Quintus Hortensius), or than Gnaeus Pompeius, or than Gaius Marcellus, who did not depart from equity, from law, from custom?

quis arator te praetore decumam dedit? quis duas? quis non maximo se adfectum beneficio putavit cum tribus decumis pro una defungeretur, praeter paucos qui propter societatem furtorum tuorum nihil omnino dederunt? vide inter importunitatem tuam senatusque bonitatem quid intersit. senatus cum temporibus rei publicae cogitur ut decernat ut alterae decumae exigantur, ita decernit ut pro his decumis pecunia solvatur aratoribus, ut, quod plus sumitur quam debetur, id emi non auferri putetur: tu cum tot decumas non senatus consulto, sed novis edictis tuis nefariisque institutis exigeres et eriperes, magnum te fecisse arbitrare si pluris vendideris quam L. Hortensius, pater istius Q. Hortensi, quam Cn. Pompeius, quam C. Marcellus, qui ab aequitate, ab lege, ab institutis non recesserunt?

Or were you to have regard for the reckoning of one year or two, while the safety of the province, the advantage of the grain administration, the system of the commonwealth for posterity were to be neglected? When you had received the matter so established that both enough grain was furnished from Sicily for the Roman people, and yet to the farmers it was profitable to plough and till the fields — what have you brought about, what have you achieved? That to the Roman people I know not what added to the tithes under you as praetor, you saw to it that the plough-lands were to be deserted and abandoned. Lucius Metellus succeeded you. Are you more innocent than Metellus? More desirous of praise and honour? For you were seeking the consulship, while Metellus was neglecting the honour of his father and grandfather. He sold the tithes for far less, not only than you, but even than those who sold before you. I ask, if he himself could not devise how to sell for the largest sum, could he not even follow your fresh footsteps as the praetor next before him — so as to use your distinguished edicts and institutions, by you the chief invented and devised?

an tibi unius anni aut bienni ratio fuit habenda, salus provinciae, commoda rei frumentariae, ratio rei publicae in posteritatem fuit neglegenda? cum rem ita constitutam accepisses ut et populo Romano satis frumenti ex Sicilia suppeditaretur et aratoribus tamen arare atque agros colere expediret, quid effecisti, quid adsecutus es? Vt populo Romano nescio quid te praetore ad decumas accederet, deserendas arationes relinquendasque curasti. successit tibi L. Metellus. tu innocentior quam Metellus? tu laudis et honoris cupidior? tibi enim consulatus quaerebatur, Metello paternus honos et avitus neglegebatur. multo minoris vendidit non modo quam tu, sed etiam quam qui ante te vendiderunt. quaero, si ipse excogitare non potuerat quem ad modum quam plurimo venderet, ne tua quidem recentia proximi praetoris vestigia persequi poterat, ut tuis praeclaris abs te principe inventis et excogitatis edictis atque institutis uteretur?

He, on the contrary, then thought himself least Metellus if in any matter he should have imitated you. He, from the city of Rome — a thing no man within human memory has done — when he thought he must set out to his province, sent letters to the cities of Sicily, by which he urges and asks that they plough, that they sow. As a kindness the praetor seeks this somewhat before his coming, and at the same time shows that he will sell by the Hieronic law — that is, in all the matter of the tithes will do nothing like this man’s doings. And he writes these things, drawn on by no greed — that he should send letters to another’s province before the time — but with foresight: that, if the time of sowing had passed, we should have no grain from the province of Sicily.

ille vero tum se minime Metellum fore putavit si te ulla in re imitatus esset; qui ab urbe Roma, quod nemo umquam post hominum memoriam fecit, cum sibi in provinciam proficiscendum putaret, litteras ad Siciliae civitates miserit, per quas hortatur et rogat ut arent, ut serant. in beneficio praetor hoc petit aliquanto ante adventum suum et simul ostendit se lege Hieronica venditurum, hoc est in omni ratione decumarum nihil istius simile facturum. atque haec non cupiditate aliqua scribit inductus ut in alienam provinciam mittat litteras ante tempus, sed consilio, ne, si tempus sationis praeterisset, granum ex provincia Sicilia nullum haberemus.

Hear Metellus’s letters. Read. Letter of L. Metellus. These letters, gentlemen, of L. Metellus, which you have heard, ploughed up however much there is of this year’s grain from Sicily. No man would have stirred a clod in a tithe-paying field of Sicily, had not Metellus sent this letter. What? Did this come into Metellus’s mind by divination? Or was he taught by the Sicilians, who had come to Rome in great numbers, and by the businessmen of Sicily? Of whom, what gatherings to the Marcelli, the most ancient patrons of Sicily, what gatherings to Gnaeus Pompeius (then consul-designate), and to the rest of the connections of that province, were wont to take place, who is ignorant? Which thing indeed, gentlemen, has been done about no man ever: that he should be accused in his absence by those over whose goods and children he held the highest command and power. So great was the force of his wrongs that men preferred to suffer anything rather than not to lament and complain about this man’s wickedness.

cognoscite Metelli litteras. recita. EPISTVLA L. METELLI. hae litterae, iudices, L. Metelli, quas audistis, hoc quantum est ex Sicilia frumenti hornotini exaraverunt: glebam commosset in agro decumano Siciliae nemo, si Metellus hanc epistulam non misisset. quid? Metello divinitus hoc venit in mentem an ab Siculis, qui Romam frequentissimi convenerant, negotiatoribusque Siciliae doctus est? quorum quanti conventus ad Marcellos, antiquissimos Siciliae patronos, quanti ad Cn. Pompeium tum consulem designatum, ceterosque illius provinciae necessarios fieri soliti sint, quis ignorat? quod quidem, iudices, nullo umquam de homine factum est, ut absens accusaretur ab iis palam quorum in bona liberosque summum imperium potestatemque haberet. tanta vis erat iniuriarum ut homines quidvis perpeti quam non de istius improbitate deplorare et conqueri mallent.

Although Metellus had sent these letters to all the cities almost as a suppliant, he could in no part attain the old measure of sowing. For very many had fled away — a thing I shall show — and, harassed by this man’s wrongs, had left not only the plough-lands but even the seats of their fathers. Not, by Hercules, gentlemen, for the sake of swelling the charge shall I speak; but the impression which I myself received with my eyes and mind, that I shall set out before you truly, and as plainly as I can.

quas litteras cum ad omnis civitates prope suppliciter misisset Metellus, tamen antiquum modum sationis nulla ex parte adsequi potuit; diffugerant enim permulti, id quod ostendam, nec solum arationes sed etiam sedes suas patrias istius iniuriis exagitati reliquerant. non mehercule augendi criminis causa, iudices, dicam, sed, quem ipse accepi oculis animoque sensum, hunc vere apud vos et, ut potero, planissime exponam.

For when four years later I had come into Sicily, the country seemed to me so afflicted as those lands are wont to be in which a bitter and long-lasting war has been waged. Those plains and most green and shining hills which I had seen before, these I now saw so laid waste and deserted that the field itself seemed to long for its tiller and to mourn its master. The Herbitensian field, the Hennensian, the Murgentine, the Assorine, the Imacharensian, the Agyrinensian had been so largely abandoned that we were searching for the multitude not only of yokes but even of masters. The Aetnensian field, indeed, which had used to be most cultivated, and (which is the head of the grain administration) the Leontine plain — whose look before was such that, if you had seen it sown, you should not fear a high price of corn — was so unsightly and rough that in the most fertile part of Sicily we were searching for Sicily. For the year before had vehemently shaken the farmers; the next had overthrown them utterly.

nam cum quadriennio post in Siciliam venissem, sic mihi adfecta visa est ut eae terrae solent in quibus bellum acerbum diuturnumque versatum est. quos ego campos antea collisque nitidissimos viridissimosque vidissem, hos ita vastatos nunc ac desertos videbam ut ager ipse cultorem desiderare ac lugere dominum videretur. Herbitensis ager et Hennensis, Murgentinus, Assorinus, Imacharensis, Agyrinensis ita relictus erat ex maxima parte ut non solum iugorum sed etiam dominorum multitudinem quaereremus; Aetnensis vero ager, qui solebat esse cultissimus, et, quod caput est rei frumentariae, campus Leontinus,—cuius antea species haec erat ut, cum obsitum vidisses, annonae caritatem non vererere,—sic erat deformis atque horridus ut in uberrima Siciliae parte Siciliam quaereremus; labefactarat enim vehementer aratores iam superior annus, proximus vero funditus everterat.

Do you still dare to make mention to me of the tithes? You, in such great wickedness, in such great bitterness, in so many and such great wrongs — when in the plough-lands and in the rights of those affairs the province of Sicily stands, the farmers utterly overthrown, the fields abandoned, when in a province so wealthy and so well stocked you have left for any man not the substance, not even any hope — will you reckon you have something popular when you say you sold the tithes for more than the rest? As if either the Roman people had wished this, or the senate had given you this charge: that, when you had snatched all the fortunes of the farmers under the name of tithes, you should deprive the Roman people of that profit and advantage of the grain administration for the future, and then, if you had added some part of your plunder to the sum of the tithes, you should seem to have deserved well of the commonwealth and well of the Roman people. And I speak so as if his iniquity were to be reproached on this ground: that out of the desire of glory — to outdo some others by the total of the tithe-grain — he interposed a more bitter law, harder edicts, and repudiated the authority of all his predecessors.

tu mihi etiam audes mentionem facere decumarum? tu in tanta improbitate, in tanta acerbitate, in tot ac tantis iniuriis, cum in arationibus et in earum rerum iure provincia Sicilia consistat, eversis funditus aratoribus, relictis agris, cum in provincia tam locuplete ac referta non modo rem sed ne spem quidem ullam reliquam cuiquam feceris, aliquid te populare putabis habere cum dices te pluris quam ceteros decumas vendidisse? quasi vero aut populus Romanus hoc voluerit aut senatus hoc tibi mandaverit, ut, cum omnis aratorum fortunas decumarum nomine eriperes, in posterum fructu illo commodoque rei frumentariae populum Romanum privares, deinde, si quam partem tuae praedae ad summam decumarum addidisses, bene de re publica, bene de populo Romano meritus viderere. atque perinde loquor quasi in eo sit iniquitas eius reprehendenda, quod propter gloriae cupiditatem, ut aliquos summa frumenti decumani vinceret, acerbiorem legem, duriora edicta interposuerit, omnium superiorum auctoritatem repudiarit.

"You sold the tithes for a great sum." What? If I show that you diverted home no less than you sent to Rome under the name of tithes, what has your speech of the popular in it, when out of a province of the Roman people you took an equal part for yourself and for the Roman people? What? If I show you carried off twice as much grain as you sent to the Roman people, do we yet think your patron will toss his neck on this charge and give himself up to the people and the crowd? These things you have heard before, gentlemen; but perhaps you so heard them as to have rumour and the talk of all as your authority. Hear now of the boundless money snatched away under the name of grain, that you may at the same time recognize too that dishonest saying of his, who used to say that by the one gain of the tithes he would buy off all his perils.

Magno tu decumas vendidisti. quid? si doceo te non minus domum tuam avertisse quam Romam misisse decumarum nomine, quid habet populare oratio tua, cum ex provincia populi Romani aequam partem tu tibi sumpseris ac populo Romano miseris? quid? si duabus partibus doceo te amplius frumenti abstulisse quam populo Romano misisse, tamenne putamus patronum tuum in hoc crimine cerviculam iactaturum et populo se ac coronae daturum? haec vos antea, iudices, audistis, verum fortasse ita audistis ut auctorem rumorem haberetis sermonemque omnium. cognoscite nunc innumerabilem pecuniam frumentario nomine ereptam, ut simul illam quoque eius vocem improbam agnoscatis qui se uno quaestu decumarum omnia sua pericula redempturum esse dicebat.

We have heard this long since, gentlemen. I deny that any of you has not often heard that the tithe-collectors were this man’s partners. I think no other false thing has been said about this man by those who have thought ill of him, save this. For those are to be reckoned partners between whom the matter is shared. I say the whole matter, all the fortunes of the farmers, were this man’s own. I say Apronius and Venus’s slaves — which under this praetor was a new kind of publican — and the rest of the tithe-collectors, were the agents of this man’s gain and the ministers of his rapines.

audivimus hoc iam diu, iudices: nego quemquam esse vestrum quin saepe audierit socios istius fuisse decumanos. nihil aliud arbitror falso in istum esse dictum ab iis qui male de isto existimarint, nisi hoc. nam socii putandi sunt quos inter res communicata est: ego rem totam fortunasque aratorum omnis istius fuisse dico, Apronium Veneriosque servos,—quod isto praetore fuit novum genus publicanorum,—ceterosque decumanos procuratores istius quaestus et administros rapinarum fuisse dico.

"How do you show this?" In the same way I showed that this man plundered out of that contract for the columns: from this above all, I think, that he had laid down an unjust and new law. For who has ever attempted to change all rights and the custom of all with reproach and without gain? I shall press on and follow further. You sold by an unjust law, that you might sell for more. Why, the tithes already auctioned and sold — when nothing more could be added to the total of the tithes, but much to your own gain — did suddenly and on the spur of the moment new edicts spring up? For that bail should be given to the tithe-collector wherever he wished, that out of the threshing-floor (unless he had agreed) the farmer should not remove, that before the Kalends of August he should have the tithes carried away — all these things, I say, with the tithes already sold, you proclaimed in the third year. Which, were you doing them for the commonwealth’s sake, would have been announced in the selling. Because you were doing them for your own sake, what had been left out by imprudence, this — prompted by gain and the moment — you took up.

’ quo modo hoc doces?’ quo modo ex illa locatione columnarum docui istum esse praedatum: opinor, ex eo maxime quod iniquam legem novamque dixisset. quis enim umquam conatus est iura omnia et consuetudinem omnium commutare cum vituperatione sine quaestu? Pergam atque insequar longius. iniqua lege vendebas, quo pluris venderes. cur addictis iam et venditis decumis, cum iam ad summam decumarum nihil, ad tuum quaestum multum posset accedere, subito atque ex tempore nova nascebantur edicta? nam ut vadimonium decumano, quocumque is vellet, promitteretur, ut ex area, nisi pactus esset, arator ne tolleret, ut ante Kalendas Sextilis decumas deportatas haberet, haec omnia iam venditis decumis anno tertio te edixisse dico; quae si rei publicae causa faceres, in vendundo essent pronuntiata; quia tua causa faciebas, quod erat imprudentia praetermissum, id quaestu ac tempore admonitus reprehendisti.

But of this whom can you persuade: that without your gain, and without the greatest gain, you should have neglected so great an infamy of yours, so great a peril to your life and fortunes, that, when daily you were hearing the groans and complaints of all Sicily, when, as you yourself said, you reckoned you would be a defendant, when the crisis of this trial was not far from your own opinion, you yet suffered the farmers to be harassed and plundered by the most unworthy wrongs? Surely, although you are of singular cruelty and audacity, you would not wish the whole province to be alienated from you, so many most honourable and most well-off men to become your bitterest enemies, unless the desire of money and that present plunder overcame this reckoning and thought of your own safety.

illud vero cui probari potest, te sine tuo quaestu, ac maximo quaestu, tantam tuam infamiam, tantum capitis tui fortunarumque tuarum periculum neglexisse ut, cum totius Siciliae cotidie gemitus querimoniasque audires, cum, ut ipse dixisti, reum te fore putares, cum huiusce iudici discrimen ab opinione tua non abhorreret, paterere tamen aratores indignissimis iniuriis vexari ac diripi? profecto, quamquam es singulari crudelitate et audacia, tamen abs te totam abalienari provinciam, tot homines honestissimos ac locupletissimos tibi inimicissimos fieri nolles, nisi hanc rationem et cogitationem salutis tuae pecuniae cupiditas ac praesens illa praeda superaret.

For since I cannot give you, gentlemen, the sum and number of the wrongs, while to speak singly of each man’s hurt is endless, learn the very kinds of wrongs, please. Nympho is a Centuripine, a busy and industrious man, a most experienced and most diligent farmer. He, when he had taken on great plough-lands as tenant (a thing which even well-off men, as he is, are wont to do in Sicily), and was keeping them at great expense and with a great equipment, was so oppressed by this man’s iniquity that he not only abandoned the plough-lands, but even fled from Sicily, and came to Rome together with many cast out by this man. He saw to it that the tithe-collector said Nympho had not declared the number of acres under that famous edict, which had to do with no other thing than gains of this kind.

etenim quoniam summam ac numerum iniuriarum vobis, iudices, non possum expromere, singillatim autem de unius cuiusque incommodo dicere infinitum est, genera ipsa iniuriarum, quaeso, cognoscite. Nympho est Centuripinus, homo gnavus et industrius, experientissimus ac diligentissimus arator. is cum arationes magnas conductas haberet, quod homines etiam locupletes, sicut ille est, in Sicilia facere consuerunt, easque magna impensa magnoque instrumento tueretur, tanta ab isto iniquitate oppressus est ut non modo arationes relinqueret, sed etiam ex Sicilia profugeret Romamque una cum multis ab isto eiectis veniret. fecit ut decumanus Nymphonem negaret ex edicto illo praeclaro, quod nullam ad aliam rem nisi ad huius modi quaestus pertinebat, numerum iugerum professum esse.

When Nympho wished to defend himself by a fair trial, this man gives him most excellent recoverers — the same Cornelius the doctor (that is Artemidorus of Perga, who in his own home country was once Verres’s leader and master in plundering Diana’s temple); and Volusius the soothsayer; and Valerius the crier. Nympho is condemned before he has even fairly stood. For how much, perhaps you ask. There was no fixed penalty in the edict: of all that grain which was on the floors. So Apronius the tithe-collector takes from Nympho’s plough-lands not the tithe owed, not grain stored away and concealed, but seven thousand medimni of wheat as the penalty of the edict, by no right of the contract.

Nympho cum se vellet aequo iudicio defendere, dat iste viros optimos recuperatores, eundem illum medicum Cornelium, is est Artemidorus Pergaeus, qui in sua patria dux isti quondam et magister ad spoliandum Dianae templum fuit, et haruspicem Volusium et Valerium praeconem. Nympho antequam plane constitit condemnatur. quanti fortasse quaeritis. nulla erat edicti poena certa: frumenti eius omnis quod in areis esset. sic Apronius decumanus non decumam debitam, non frumentum remotum atque celatum, sed tritici Vll milia medimnum ex Nymphonis arationibus edicti poena, non redemptionis aliquo iure tollit.

The estate of the wife of Xeno of Menae, a most noble man, had been let out to a tenant farmer. The tenant, because he could not bear the wrongs of the tithe-collectors, had fled from the field. Verres was giving against Xeno that condemnatory action of his on the declaration of acres. Xeno denied that the matter concerned him; he said the estate had been let out. This man was giving the action: if it should appear that the acres of that estate were more than the tenant had declared, then Xeno should be condemned. Xeno said that not only had he himself not ploughed — which was enough — but that he was neither the owner nor the lessor; that the estate was his wife’s; that she herself transacted her own business, that she herself had let it out. Marcus Cossutius, a man of the highest splendour and of the highest authority, was defending Xeno. None the less this man kept giving the action — 50,000 sesterces. Although that man saw recoverers from the staff of brigands being prepared for him, he yet said he would accept the trial. Then this man, with a great voice, commands Venus’s slaves, while Xeno was hearing, to keep the man under guard while the matter was being judged; when judged, to bring him before him; and at the same time he says that he does not think him — if for his riches he despised the penalty of condemnation — about to despise even the rods. By this force and this fear he was led to give the tithe-collectors as much as this man commanded.

Xenonis Menaeni, nobilissimi hominis, uxoris fundus erat colono locatus; colonus, quod decumanorum iniurias ferre non poterat, ex agro profugerat. Verres in Xenonem iudicium dabat illud suum damnatorium de iugerum professione. Xeno ad se pertinere negabat; fundum elocatum esse dicebat. dabat iste iudicium, SI PARERET IVGERA EIVS FVNDI PLVRA ESSE QVAM COLONVS ESSET PROFESSVS, tum uti Xeno damnaretur. dicebat ille non modo se non arasse, id quod satis erat, sed nec dominum eius esse fundi nec locatorem; uxoris esse; eam ipsam suum negotium gerere, ipsam locavisse. defendebat Xenonem homo summo splendore et summa auctoritate praeditus, M. Cossutius. iste nihilo minus iudicium HS IDDD dabat. ille tametsi recuperatores de cohorte latronum sibi parari videbat, tamen iudicium se accepturum esse dicebat. tum iste maxima voce Veneriis imperat, ut Xeno audiret, dum res iudicetur hominem ut adservent; cum iudicata sit, ad se ut adducant; et illud simul ait, se non putare illum, si propter divitias poenam damnationis contemneret, etiam virgas contempturum. hac ille vi et hoc metu adductus tantum decumanis dedit quantum iste imperavit.

Polemarchus is a Murgentine, a good and honourable man. When upon him for fifty acres seven hundred medimni were demanded as the tithe, because he refused, he was led to court at this man’s house, and, although this man was even still in bed, he was led into the bedchamber — which was open to no one save a woman and a tithe-collector. There, when he had been beaten with fists and feet, the man who had not wished to settle for seven hundred medimni promised a thousand. Eubulides Grospus is a Centuripine, a man chief at home both for virtue and nobility, and now too for money. Know, gentlemen, that to this man — a most honourable man of a most honourable city — there was left not only of the grain but even of life and blood as much as Apronius’s lust permitted. For by force, by trouble, by blows he was driven to give of grain not as much as he owed, but as much as he was being compelled to give.

Polemarchus est Murgentinus, vir bonus atque honestus. ei cum pro iugeribus quinquaginta medimna DCC decumae imperarentur, quod recusabat, domum ad istum in ius eductus est, et, cum iste etiam cubaret, in cubiculum introductus est, quod nisi mulieri et decumano patebat alii nemini. ibi cum pugnis et calcibus concisus esset, qui DCC medimnis decidere noluisset, mille promisit. Eubulidas est Grospus Centuripinus, homo cum virtute et nobilitate domi suae, tum etiam pecunia princeps. huic homini, iudices, honestissimae civitatis honestissimo non modo frumenti scitote sed etiam vitae et sanguinis tantum relictum esse quantum Aproni libido tulit; nam vi malo plagis adductus est ut frumenti daret, non quantum deberet, sed quantum cogeretur.

Sostratus and Numenius and Nymphodorus, three brothers in partnership of the same city, when they had fled from their fields because more grain was being demanded of them than they had ploughed up, Apronius came with men gathered to their plough-lands, plundered all the equipment, led off the household slaves, drove off the cattle. Afterwards, when Nymphodorus had come to him at Aetna and was begging that his own things be restored, he ordered the man to be seized and hung up on a certain wild olive — which is a tree, gentlemen, in the forum at Aetna. So long did he hang on the tree, an ally and friend of the Roman people in the city and forum of allies, your settler and farmer, as Apronius’s pleasure carried.

Sostratus et Numenius et Nymphodorus eiusdem civitatis cum ex agris tres fratres consortes profugissent, quod iis plus frumenti imperabatur quam quantum exararant, hominibus coactis in eorum arationes Apronius venit, omne instrumentum diripuit, familiam abduxit, pecus abegit. postea cum ad eum Nymphodorus venisset Aetnam et oraret ut sibi sua restituerentur, hominem corripi ac suspendi iussit in oleastro quodam, quae est arbor, iudices, Aetnae in foro. tam diu pependit in arbore socius amicusque populi Romani in sociorum urbe ac foro, colonus aratorque vester, quam diu voluntas Aproni tulit.

Kinds, gentlemen, of countless wrongs I have for some while been bringing forward, naming them one by one. The boundless multitude of wrongs I leave aside. Set before your own eyes and minds these onsets of the tithe-collectors throughout all Sicily, the plunderings of the farmers, the harshness of this man, the kingship of Apronius. He despised the Sicilians; he reckoned that they would not themselves be vehement in pursuing the matter, and thought that you would bear their wrongs lightly.

genera iam dudum innumerabilium iniuriarum, iudices, singulis nominibus profero, infinitam multitudinem iniuriarum praetermitto. vos ante oculos animosque vestros tota Sicilia decumanorum hos impetus, aratorum direptiones, huius importunitatem, Aproni regnum proponite. contempsit Siculos; non duxit homines nec ipsos ad persequendum vehementis fore, et vos eorum iniurias leviter laturos existimavit.

Be it so: he had a false opinion about them, an evil opinion about you. Yet, although he deserved ill of the Sicilians, did he cherish Roman citizens? Did he indulge them? Was he given over to their goodwill and favour? He, the Roman citizens? But to none was he more an enemy or more hostile. I leave aside the chains; I leave aside the prison; I leave aside the floggings, I leave aside the axes; finally I pass over that famous cross, which this man wished to be a witness to Roman citizens of his humanity and goodwill toward them. I leave aside, I say, all these things, and reserve them for another time of speaking. About the tithes, about the condition of Roman citizens in their plough-lands I am disputing. How they were treated, gentlemen, you have heard from themselves: they have said their goods were snatched from them.

esto; falsam de illis habuit opinionem, malam de vobis; verum tamen, cum de Siculis male mereretur, civis Romanos coluit, iis indulsit, eorum voluntati et gratiae deditus fuit. iste civis Romanos? at nullis inimicior aut infestior fuit. Mitto vincla, mitto carcerem, mitto verbera, mitto securis, crucem denique illam praetermitto quam iste civibus Romanis testem humanitatis in eos ac benivolentiae suae voluit esse,—mitto, inquam, haec omnia atque in aliud dicendi tempus reicio; de decumis, de civium Romanorum condicione in arationibus disputo; qui quem ad modum essent accepti, iudices, audistis ex ipsis; bona sibi erepta esse dixerunt.

But these things, since the case has been such, are to be borne: that equity has had no force, that custom has had none. Finally, gentlemen, no losses are so great that brave men, endowed with a great and free mind, do not reckon them to be borne. What if hands were laid by Apronius, with no hesitation, on Roman knights not obscure or unknown, but honourable and illustrious? What do you await? What more do you think I should say? Or that we should so handle it that we may make an end with this man the more quickly, that we may the more speedily reach Apronius — which is what I myself promised him in Sicily? He kept Gaius Matrinius, gentlemen, a man of the highest virtue, the highest industry, the highest favour, in public for two days at Leontini. By Quintus Apronius, gentlemen — a man born in disgrace, brought up to shamefulness, fitted to Verres’s scandals and lusts — a Roman knight, know, was forbidden food and shelter for two days, kept and watched at Leontini in the forum under Apronius’s guards for two days, and not let go before he was beaten down to the man’s terms.

verum haec, quoniam eius modi causa fuit, ferenda sunt, nihil valuisse aequitatem, nihil consuetudinem; damna denique, iudices, nulla tanta sunt quae non viri fortes ac magno et libero animo adfecti ferenda arbitrentur. quid si equitibus Romanis non obscuris neque ignotis, sed honestis et inlustribus manus ab Apronio isto praetore sine ulla dubitatione adferebantur? quid exspectatis, quid amplius a me dicendum putatis? an id agendum ut eo celerius de isto transigamus quo maturius ad Apronium possimus, id quod ego illi iam in Sicilia pollicitus sum, pervenire? qui C. Matrinium, iudices, summa virtute hominem, summa industria, summa gratia, Leontinis in publico biduum tenuit. A Q. Apronio, iudices, homine in dedecore nato, ad turpitudinem educato, ad Verris flagitia libidinesque accommodato, equitem Romanum scitote biduum cibo tectoque prohibitum, biduum Leontinis in foro custodiis Aproni retentum atque adservatum, neque ante dimissum quam ad condicionem eius depectus est.

For why should I speak, gentlemen, of Quintus Lollius, an esteemed and honourable Roman knight? The thing I shall tell is famous, well-known throughout all Sicily. He, when he was ploughing in the Aetnensian field, and that field had been handed over to Apronius along with the rest, trusting in his old equestrian authority and favour, declared that he would give the tithe-collectors no more than was owed. His talk is reported to Apronius. Indeed this fellow began to laugh and to wonder that Lollius had heard nothing of Matrinius, nothing of the rest. He sends Venus’s slaves to the man. Mark this too: that the tithe-collector had attendants assigned by the praetor, if this can seem any small proof that this man under the name of tithe-collectors abused them for his own gain. Lollius is led, nay dragged, by the Venusians, just as Apronius had returned from the wrestling-school and had reclined in the dining-room he had spread in the forum at Aetna. Lollius is set in that timely banquet of gladiators.

nam quid ego de Q. Lollio, iudices, dicam, equite Romano spectato atque honesto? clara res est quam dicturus sum, tota Sicilia celeberrima atque notissima. qui cum araret in Aetnensi, cumque is ager Apronio cum ceteris agris esset traditus, equestri vetere illa auctoritate et gratia fretus adfirmavit se decumanis plus quam deberet non daturum. refertur eius sermo ad Apronium. enim vero iste ridere ac mirari Lollium nihil de Matrinio, nihil de ceteris rebus audisse. mittit ad hominem Venerios. hoc quoque attendite, apparitores a praetore adsignatos habuisse decumanum, si hoc mediocre argumentum videri potest istum decumanorum nomine ad suos quaestus esse abusum. adducitur a Veneriis atque adeo attrahitur Lollius, commodum cum Apronius e palaestra redisset, et in triclinio quod in foro Aetnae straverat recubuisset. statuitur LolIius in illo tempestivo gladiatorum convivio.

By Hercules, I should not believe these things which I am saying, gentlemen, although I had heard them commonly, were it not that the old man himself spoke to me with the highest authority, when, weeping, he gave thanks to me and to this purpose of my prosecution. There is set, as I say, a Roman knight nearly ninety years old in Apronius’s banquet, while meanwhile Apronius rubbed his head and face with unguent. "What is it, Lollius?" he says. "Do you not know how to do right unless compelled by trouble?" The man, what he should do, whether to be silent or to answer, what at last he should do at that age and with that authority, did not know. Apronius meanwhile was demanding dinner and cups; and his slaves — who were of the same character as their master, and born of the same kind and place — were carrying all these things before Lollius’s eyes. The guests laughed; Apronius himself roared with laughter — unless perhaps you suppose he did not laugh in wine and play, who now in his own peril and ruin cannot keep down his laughter. To be brief, gentlemen: by these insults know that Quintus Lollius was compelled to come to Apronius’s terms and conditions.

non mehercule haec quae loquor crederem, iudices, tametsi vulgo audieram, nisi mecum ipse senex, cum mihi atque huic voluntati accusationis meae lacrimans gratias ageret, summa cum auctoritate esset locutus. statuitur, ut dico, eques Romanus annos prope Lxxxx natus in Aproni convivio, cum interea Apronius caput atque os suum unguento confricaret. ’ quid est, Lolli?’ inquit; ’tu nisi malo coactus recte facere nescis?’ homo quid ageret, taceret responderet, quid faceret denique illa aetate et auctoritate praeditus nesciebat. Apronius interea cenam ac pocula poscebat; servi autem eius, qui et moribus isdem essent quibus dominus et eodem genere ac loco nati, praeter oculos Lolli haec omnia ferebant. ridere convivae, cachinnare ipse Apronius, nisi forte existimatis eum in vino ac ludo non risisse qui nunc in periculo atque exitio suo risum tenere non possit. ne multa, iudices: his contumeliis scitote Q. Lollium coactum ad Aproni leges condicionesque venisse.

Lollius, hindered by age and disease, could not come to give testimony. What need is there of Lollius? No one is ignorant of this; no one of your friends, no one brought forward by you, no one questioned by you will say now that he hears this for the first time. Marcus Lollius, his son, a most choice young man, is here. You shall hear his words. For Quintus Lollius, his other son, who accused Calidius — a young man both good and brave and especially eloquent — when, moved by these wrongs and insults, he had set out for Sicily, was killed on the journey. Of his death the cause is laid on runaway slaves; in fact no one in Sicily doubts that he was killed because he could not keep his counsels about Verres shut up. This man, moreover, was not in doubt that he, who had before this prosecuted another man led on by zeal, would now be at hand to meet him — moved by his father’s wrongs and his domestic grief.

Lollius aetate et morbo impeditus ad testimonium dicendum venire non potuit. quid opus est Lollio? nemo hoc nescit, nemo tuorum amicorum, nemo abs te productus, nemo abs te interrogatus nunc se primum hoc dicet audire. M. Lollius, filius eius, adulescens lectissimus, praesto est: huius verba audietis. nam Q. Lollius, eius filius, qui Calidium accusavit, adulescens et bonus et fortis et in primis disertus, cum his iniuriis contumeliisque commotus in Siciliam esset profectus, in itinere occisus est. cuius mortis causam fugitivi sustinent, re quidem vera nemo in Sicilia dubitat quin eo sit occisus quod habere clausa non potuerit sua consilia de Verre. iste porro non dubitabat quin is, qui alium antea studio adductus accusasset, sibi advenienti praesto esset futurus, cum esset parentis iniuriis et domestico dolore commotus.

Do you now understand, gentlemen, what plague, what monstrousness has been let loose in your most ancient, most faithful, most neighbouring province? Do you now see for what cause Sicily, having before suffered so many men’s thefts, rapines, iniquities, and ignominies, could not bear this new and singular and incredible kind of wrongs and insults? Now all understand why the whole province sought as defender of its safety the man from whose faith, diligence, perseverance this man could in no way be torn. You have been present at so many trials, you know that so many guilty and dishonest men have been accused both within your own and your predecessors’ memory: have you ever seen, have you ever heard of any man’s having been concerned in such great thefts, in thefts so open, in such audacity, in such shamelessness?

iamne intellegitis, iudices, quae pestis, quae immanitas in vestra antiquissima fidelissima proximaque provincia versata sit? iam videtis quam ob causam Sicilia, tot hominum antea furta rapinas iniquitates ignominiasque perpessa, hoc non potuerit novum ac singulare atque incredibile genus iniuriarum contumeliarumque perferre? iam omnes intellegunt cur universa provincia defensorem suae salutis eum quaesiverit cuius iste fidei diligentiae perseverantiae nulla ratione eripi possit. tot iudiciis interfuistis, tot homines nocentis et improbos accusatos et vestra et superiorum memoria scitis esse: ecquem vidistis, ecquem audistis in tantis furtis, in tam apertis, in tanta audacia, in tanta impudentia esse versatum?

Apronius had Venus’s slaves about him as bodyguards; he led them round the cities; he ordered banquets to be prepared for himself publicly, dining-couches to be spread, and to be spread in the forum. Thither most honourable men were summoned — not only Sicilians but even Roman knights — so that the most respected and honourable men were held at his banquet, the man with whom no one had ever wished to live save the foul and impure. These things, when you knew them, when you heard them daily, when you saw them, most ruined and most lost of all mortals — if they were happening without your greatest gain, would you have suffered and granted them to happen at such great peril of your own? Did Apronius’s gain, did his most filthy talk and his disgraceful flatteries weigh so much with you that no care or thought of your own fortunes ever touched your mind?

Apronius stipatores Venerios secum habebat; ducebat eos circum civitates; publice sibi convivia parari, sterni triclinia, et in foro sterni iubebat; eo vocari homines honestissimos non solum Siculos sed etiam equites Romanos, ut, quicum vivere nemo umquam nisi turpis impurusque voluisset, ad eius convivium spectatissimi atque honestissimi viri tenerentur. haec tu, omnium mortalium profligatissime ac perditissime, cum scires, cum audires cotidie, cum videres, si sine tuo quaestu maximo fierent, cum tanto periculo tuo fieri paterere atque concederes? tantum apud te quaestus Aproni, tantum eius sermo inquinatissimus et blanditiae flagitiosae valuerunt ut numquam animum tuum cura tuarum fortunarum cogitatioque tangeret?

You see, gentlemen, what and how great a fire from the assault of the tithe-collectors has spread under this man as praetor not only through the fields but even through the rest of the fortunes of the farmers, and not only through their goods but even through their rights of liberty and citizenship. You see some hanging from a tree, others being beaten, others being scourged, others again kept under guard in public, others set up as a spectacle at a banquet, others condemned by the doctor and the crier of the praetor; meanwhile, none the less, the goods of all those men carried off and plundered out of the fields. What is this? The empire of the Roman people? Praetorian laws, courts? Faithful allies, a province at our suburb? Are not all things rather such that, if Athenion the king of the runaway slaves had won, he would not have done them in Sicily? Not, I say, gentlemen, would the insolence of the runaways have attained any part of this man’s wickedness. So privately. What? Publicly — in what way were the cities treated? You have heard, gentlemen, very many testimonies of the cities, and you shall hear of the rest.

cernitis, iudices, quod et quantum incendium decumanorum impetu non solum per agros sed etiam per reliquas fortunas aratorum, neque solum per bona sed etiam per iura libertatis et civitatis isto praetore pervaserit. videtis pendere alios ex arbore, pulsari alios, alios autem verberari, porro alios in publico custodiri, destitui alios in convivio, condemnari alios a medico et praecone praetoris; bona tamen interea nihilo minus eorum omnium ex agris auferri ac diripi. quid est hoc? populi Romani imperium? praetoriae leges, iudicia? socios fidelis, provincia suburbana. nonne omnia potius eius modi sunt quae, si Athenio rex fugitivorum vicisset, in Sicilia non fecisset? non, inquam, iudices, esset ullam partem istius nequitiae fugitivorum insolentia consecuta. privatim hoc modo: quid? publice civitates tractatae quem ad modum sunt? Audistis permulta, iudices, testimonia civitatum, et reliquarum audietis.

And first hear briefly about the people of Agyrium, faithful and illustrious. Agyrium is among the chief honourable cities of Sicily, of men, before this praetor, well-off and the highest farmers. When the same Apronius had bought the tithes of its field, he came to Agyrium. Having come there with attendants and with force and threats, he began to demand a great sum of money, that he might depart with the gain received: he said he wished to have nothing of the business at all, but, the money received, to run on into another city as soon as possible. All the Sicilians are not to be despised, if our magistrates allow it; but they are men brave enough and downright frugal and sober. And among the chief is this city, gentlemen, of which I am speaking.

ac primum de Agyrinensi populo fideli et inlustri breviter cognoscite. Agyrinensis est in primis honesta Siciliae civitas hominum ante hunc praetorem locupletium summorumque aratorum. eius agri decumas cum emisset idem Apronius, Agyrium venit. qui cum apparitoribus eo et vi ac minis venisset, poscere pecuniam grandem coepit ut accepto lucro discederet; nolle se negoti quicquam habere dicebat, sed accepta pecunia velle quam primum in aliam civitatem occurrere. sunt omnes Siculi non contemnendi, si per nostros magistratus liceat, sed homines et satis fortes et plane frugi ac sobrii, et in primis haec civitas de qua loquor, iudices.

So the Agyrines answer that most dishonest man that they would give him the tithes in such manner as they owed: gain — since he had bought for a great sum — they would not add. Apronius makes plain to that man whose business it was. At once, just as if some conspiracy at Agyrium against the commonwealth had been made, or a praetor’s legate had been beaten, so the magistrates and chief five from Agyrium are summoned at this man’s call. They come to Syracuse. Apronius is at hand. He says that those very men who had come had acted against the praetor’s edict. They asked, what? He answered that he would speak to the recoverers. This most just man was casting that fear of his into the wretched Agyrines: he was threatening that he would give recoverers from his own staff. The Agyrines, the bravest of men, said they would suffer the trial.

itaque homini improbissimo respondent Agyrinenses sese decumas ei quem ad modum deberent daturos: lucrum, cum ille magno praesertim emisset, non addituros. Apronius certiorem facit istum cuia res erat. statim, tamquam coniuratio aliqua Agyri contra rem publicam facta aut legatus praetoris pulsatus esset, ita Agyrio magistratus et quinque primi accitu istius evocantur. veniunt Syracusas; praesto est Apronius; ait eos ipsos qui venissent contra edictum praetoris fecisse. quaerebant, quid? respondebat se ad recuperatores esse dicturum. iste aequissimus homo formidinem illam suam miseris Agyrinensibus iniciebat: recuperatores se de cohorte sua daturum minabatur. Agyrinenses, viri fortissimi, iudicio se passuros esse dicebant.

This man pressed on Artemidorus Cornelius the doctor and Tlepolemus Cornelius the painter and recoverers of that kind, of whom no one was a Roman citizen, but Greeks, sacrilegious and dishonest from of old, but suddenly Cornelii. The Agyrines saw that whatever Apronius brought before those recoverers, he would prove most easily. They preferred to be condemned with this man’s hatred and infamy than to come to his terms and bargains. They asked in what words he was giving the recoverers their charge. He answered, if it shall appear that the man has acted against the edict; in which matter he said he would speak in the trial. They preferred to do battle on the most unjust terms, with the most dishonest recoverers, than to settle anything by their own will with this man. This man sent under Timarchides to warn them, if they were wise, to settle. They flatly refused. "What then? Do you prefer to be condemned to fifty thousand sesterces apiece?" They said they would prefer it. Then this man, with everyone hearing clearly, "He who shall be condemned," he says, "shall be flogged with rods to death." Here they began with weeping to ask and beg that they might be allowed to hand over to Apronius their crops, all their fruits, their plough-lands empty; that they themselves might depart without ignominy and trouble.

ingerebat iste Artemidorum Cornelium medicum et Tlepolemum Cornelium pictorem et eius modi recuperatores, quorum civis Romanus nemo erat, sed Graeci sacrilegi iam pridem improbi, repente Cornelii. videbant Agyrinenses, quicquid ad eos recuperatores Apronius attulisset, illum perfacile probaturum: condemnari cum istius invidia infamiaque malebant quam ad eius condiciones pactionesque accedere. quaerebant quae in verba recuperatores daret. respondebat, Sl PARERET ADVERSVS EDICTVM FECISSE; qua in re in iudicio dicturum esse aiebat. iniquissimis verbis, improbissimis recuperatoribus conflictari malebant quam quicquam cum isto sua voluntate decidere. summittebat iste Timarchidem qui moneret eos, si saperent, ut transigerent. pernegabant. ’ quid ergo? in singulos HS quinquagenis milibus damnari mavultis?’ Malle dicebant. tum iste clare omnibus audientibus, ’ qui damnatus erit,’ inquit, ’virgis ad necem caedetur.’ hic illi flentes rogare atque orare coeperunt ut sibi suas segetes fructusque omnis arationesque vacuas Apronio tradere liceret, ut ipsi sine ignominia molestiaque discederent.

On this condition, gentlemen, Verres sold the tithes. Let Hortensius, if he wishes, say that Verres sold the tithes for a great sum. This was the condition of the farmers under this praetor: that they reckoned matters had gone splendidly with them if they were allowed to hand over the empty fields to Apronius; for they were eager to escape the many crosses set out for them. Whatever Apronius had declared was owed, that much by the edict had to be given. Even if he had declared more than had been grown? Yes, since the magistrates by his edict had to exact it. But the farmer could claim it back. With Artemidorus as recoverer. What if the farmer had given less than Apronius had demanded? An action against the farmer for fourfold. From what panel of judges? From the praetor’s distinguished staff of most honourable men. What further? "I say you have declared too few acres: challenge the recoverers, since you have acted against the edict." From what number? From the same staff. What will be the end? "If you shall be condemned, and indeed when you shall be condemned" — for what doubt of condemnation could there be with those recoverers? — "you must of necessity be flogged with rods to death." Under these laws, on these terms, will any man be so foolish as to think the tithes were sold, who supposes that nine parts were left to the farmer, who does not understand that this man held for himself, as gain and plunder, the goods, the possessions, the fortunes of the farmers? In fear of the rods the Agyrines said they would do whatever was commanded.

hac lege, iudices, decumas vendidit Verres. dicat licet Hortensius, si volet, magno Verrem decumas vendidisse. haec condicio fuit isto praetore aratorum, ut secum praeclare agi arbitrarentur si vacuos agros Apronio tradere liceret; multas enim cruces propositas effugere cupiebant. quantum Apronius edidisset deberi, tantum ex edicto dandum erat. etiamne si plus edidisset quam quantum natum esset? etiam, quando magistratus ex istius edicto exigere debebant. at arator repetere poterat. verum Artemidoro recuperatore. quid si minus dedisset arator quam poposcisset Apronius? iudicium in aratorem in quadruplum. ex quo iudicum numero? ex cohorte praetoria praeclara hominum honestissimorum. quid amplius? minus te iugerum professum esse dico: recuperatores reice, quod adversus edictum feceris. ex quo numero? ex eadem cohorte. quid erit extremum? si damnatus eris, atque adeo cum damnatus eris,—nam dubitatio damnationis illis recuperatoribus quae poterat esse?—virgis te ad necem caedi necesse erit. his legibus, his condicionibus erit quisquam tam stultus qui decumas venisse arbitretur, qui aratori novem partis reliquas factas esse existimet, qui non intellegat istum sibi quaestui praedaeque habuisse bona possessiones fortunasque aratorum? virgarum metu Agyrinenses quod imperatum esset facturos se esse dixerunt.

Hear now what he commanded, and pretend, if you can, that you do not understand that the praetor himself — a thing all Sicily saw through — was the buyer of the tithes, nay the master and king of the farmers. He commands the Agyrines that they themselves take the tithes publicly, and give Apronius the gain. If he had bought for a great sum — since you are the one who most diligently inquired into prices, who, as you say, sold for a great sum — why did you reckon that gain ought to be added for the buyer? Be it so, you reckoned: for what reason did you command that they add? What else is to take and to gather money (in which the law holds you), if not this — by force and command to compel unwilling men to give gain to another, that is, to give money?

accipite nunc quid imperarit, et dissimulate, si potestis, vos intellegere ipsum praetorem, id quod tota Sicilia perspexit, redemptorem decumarum atque adeo aratorum dominum ac regem fuisse. imperat Agyrinensibus ut decumas ipsi publice accipiant, Apronio lucrum dent. si magno emerat, quoniam tu es qui diligentissime pretia exquisisti, qui, ut ais, magno vendidisti, quare putabas emptori lucrum addi oportere? esto, putabas: quam ob rem imperabas ut adderent? quid est aliud capere et conciliare pecunias, in quo te lex tenet, si hoc non est, vi atque imperio cogere invitos lucrum dare alteri, hoc est pecuniam dare?

What then? They were ordered to give Apronius, the praetor’s darling, some little gain. Reckon it given to Apronius, if "Apronius’s little gain" and not "praetorian plunder" shall seem so to you. You command that they take the tithes, that they give Apronius as gain 33,000 medimni of wheat. What is this? One city out of one field is being compelled, by the praetor’s command, to give to Apronius almost the monthly rations of the Roman commons. Did you sell the tithes for a great sum, when so much gain was given to the tithe-collector? Surely, had you inquired diligently into the price when you were selling, they would have added ten thousand medimni rather than 600,000 sesterces afterwards. The plunder seems great: hear the rest, and listen diligently, that you may wonder less that the Sicilians, compelled by necessity, sought help from their patrons, from the consuls, from the senate, from the laws, from the courts.

quid tum? Apronio, deliciis praetoris, lucelli aliquid iussi sunt dare. putatote Apronio datum, si Apronianum lucellum ac non praetoria praeda vobis videbitur. imperas ut decumas accipiant, Apronio dent lucri tritici medimnum XXXIII. quid est hoc? Vna civitas ex uno agro plebis Romanae prope menstrua cibaria praetoris imperio donare Apronio cogitur. tu magno decumas vendidisti, cum tantum lucri decumano sit datum? profecto, si pretium exquisisses diligenter tum cum vendebas, x medimnum potius addidissent quam HS DC postea. Magna praeda videtur: audite reliqua et diligenter attendite, quo minus miremini Siculos re necessaria coactos auxilium a patronis, ab consulibus, ab senatu, ab legibus, ab iudiciis petivisse.

That Apronius might approve this wheat which was given him, Verres commands the Agyrines that for each medimnum a sesterce be given to Apronius. What is this? When such a number of grain has been commanded and wrung out under the name of gain, are coins demanded besides for the wheat to be approved? Or could not Apronius — nay, anyone — if it had to be measured for the army, find fault with Sicilian wheat, which it was lawful for him, if he wished, to measure out from the threshing-floor itself? So great a quantity of grain is given and exacted by your command. It is not enough; coins are commanded besides. They are given. It is too little. For the tithes of barley another sum of money is exacted. You order 30,000 sesterces to be given as gain. So from one city by force, by threats, by command, by the wrong-doing of the praetor, are wrung 33,000 medimni of wheat and besides 60,000 sesterces. But are these things obscure? Or, even if all men should wish, can they be obscure? Things which you did openly, which you commanded in the assize, which you compelled with all looking on; about which the Agyrine magistrates and chief five, whom you had summoned for the sake of your own gain, reported your acts and commands at home to their own senate. Their report has been entrusted to the public records by their laws. Their envoys, most noble men, are at Rome, who have said this very thing in testimony!

Vt probaret Apronius hoc triticum quod ei dabatur, imperat Agyrinensibus Verres ut in medimna singula dentur Apronio HS. quid est hoc? tanto numero frumenti lucri nomine imperato et expresso, nummi praeterea exiguntur ut probetur frumentum? an poterat non modo Apronius, sed quivis, exercitui si metiendum esset, improbare Siculum frumentum, quod illi ex area, si vellet, admetiri licebat? frumenti tantus numerus imperio tuo datur et cogitur. non est satis; nummi praeterea imperantur. dantur. Parum est. pro decumis hordei alia pecunia cogitur; iubes HS xxx lucri dari. ita ab una civitate vi minis imperio iniuriaque praetoris eripiuntur tritici medimnum XXXIII et praeterea HS LX. at haec obscura sunt? aut, si omnes homines velint, obscura esse possunt? quae tu palam egisti, in conventu imperasti, omnibus inspectantibus coegisti; qua de re Agyrinenses magistratus et quinque primi, quos tu tui quaestus causa evocaras, acta et imperia tua domum ad senatum suum renuntiaverunt; quorum renuntiatio legibus illorum litteris publicis mandata est; quorum legati, homines nobilissimi, Romae sunt, qui hoc idem pro testimonio dixerunt!

Hear the public letter of the Agyrines; then the public testimony of the city. Read. Public letter, public testimony. You have noted in this testimony, gentlemen, that Apollodorus, surnamed Pyragrus, the chief man of his city, weeping, bears witness and says that, since the name of the Roman people was heard and known by the Sicilians, never had the Agyrines spoken or done anything against any most lowly Roman citizen — who now were being compelled to bear public testimony against a praetor of the Roman people, with great wrongs and great grief. By Hercules, Verres, your defence cannot stand against this one city; so great is the authority in those men’s faithfulness, so great the grief in the wrong, so great the scruple in the testimony. Yet not one only, but whole cities, afflicted with like wrongs and hurts, pursue you with embassies and public testimonies.

cognoscite Agyrinensium publicas litteras, deinde testimonium publicum civitatis. recita. LITTERAE PUBLICAE, TESTlMONIVM PVBLICLUM. Animadvertistis in hoc testimonio, iudices, Apollodorum, cui Pyragro cognomen est, principem suae civitatis, lacrimantem testari ac dicere numquam post populi Romani nomen ab Siculis auditum et cognitum Agyrinensis contra quemquam infimum civem Romanum dixisse aut fecisse quippiam, qui nunc contra praetorem populi Romani magnis iniuriis et magno dolore publice testimonium dicere cogerentur. Vni mehercule huic civitati, Verres, obsistere tua defensio non potest; tanta auctoritas est in eorum hominum fidelitate, tantus dolor in iniuria, tanta religio in testimonio. verum non una te tantum, sed universae similibus adflictae iniuriis et incommodis civitates legationibus ac testimoniis publicis persequuntur.

Let us see now in turn how the city of Herbita — honourable and once well-off — was stripped and harassed by this man. And of what kind of men! The highest farmers, most far removed from the forum, the courts, the controversies, whom you ought to have spared and consulted for, most filthy man, and the kind of men of all most zealously to keep safe. In the first year the tithes of that field were sold for 18,000 modii of wheat. When Atidius (likewise this man’s minister in tithe matters) had bought, and had come under the title of prefect to Herbita with the Venusians, and a place had been given him publicly to lodge in, the Herbitenses are compelled to give him as gain 38,800 modii of wheat, although the tithes had been sold for 18,000 modii. And this much gain are they compelled to give publicly at the time when already privately the farmers, despoiled and driven from their fields by the wrongs of the tithe-collectors, had fled away.

etenim deinceps videamus Herbitensis civitas honesta et antea copiosa quem ad modum spoliata ab isto ac vexata sit. at quorum hominum! summorum aratorum, remotissimorum a foro, iudiciis, controversiis, quibus parcere et consulere, homo impurissime, et quod genus hominum studiosissime conservare debuisti. primo anno venierunt eius agri decumae tritici modium XVIII Atidius, istius item minister in decumis, cum emisset et praefecti nomine cum venisset Herbitam cum Veneriis, locusque ei publice quo deverteretur datus esset, coguntur Herbitenses ei lucri dare tritici modium XXXVIII DCCC, cum decumae venissent tritici modium XVIII. atque hoc tantum lucri coguntur dare publice tum cum iam privatim aratores ex agris spoliati atque exagitati decumanorum iniuriis profugissent.

In the second year, when Apronius had bought the tithes for 25,800 modii of wheat and had himself come to Herbita with that troop and band of brigands, the people was compelled publicly to bring together for him as gain 21,000 modii of wheat and an addition of 4,000 sesterces. About the addition I am in doubt whether the wages were given to Apronius himself for his labour and shamelessness; but as to so great a number of wheat, who can doubt that it came to that grain-stealing brigand, like the Agyrine grain? But in the third year in this field he used a kingly custom. They say that the barbarian kings of the Persians and Syrians are wont to have several wives, and to assign cities to these wives in this manner: this city for the woman’s headband, this for her necklace, this for her hair-ribbons. So they have whole peoples not only as accomplices of their lust, but even as ministers of it.

anno secundo cum emisset Apronius decumas tritici modium XXVDCCC et ipse Herbitam cum illa sua praedonum copia manuque venisset, populus publice coactus est ei conferre lucri tritici modium XXI et accessionis HS oo oo. de accessione dubito an Apronio ipsi data sit merces operae atque impudentiae: de tritici quidem numero tanto quis potest dubitare quin ad istum praedonem frumentarium sicut Agyrinense frumentum pervenerit? anno tertio vero in hoc agro consuetudine usus est regia. solere aiunt reges barbaros Persarum ac Syrorum pluris uxores habere, his autem uxoribus civitates attribuere hoc modo: haec civitas mulieri in redimiculum praebeat, haec in collum, haec in crinis. ita populos habent universos non solum conscios libidinis suae, verum etiam administros.

Learn that the licence and lust of this man, who said he was king of the Sicilians, was the same. Pipa is the wife of Aeschrio of Syracuse, whose name has been spread by this man’s wickedness over all Sicily; about which woman very many verses were written above the tribunal and above the praetor’s head. This Aeschrio, the imitation husband of Pipa, is set up as a new publican in the Herbitan tithes. The Herbitenses, when they saw that, if the price stuck at Aeschrio’s bid, they would be despoiled at the will of a most lustful woman, bid up as far as they thought they could effect it. Aeschrio went above. For he was not afraid that under Verres as praetor a tithe-collecting woman could be afflicted with loss. The contract is knocked down at 8,100 medimni, almost half as much again as in the previous year. The farmers were utterly overthrown, and the more so because already in the previous years they had been afflicted and almost ruined. This man understood that the price had gone so high that no more could be wrung from the Herbitenses. He takes 600 medimni off the principal, and orders that in the books, for 8,100 medimni, 7,500 be entered.

eandem istius, qui se regem Siculorum esse dicebat, licentiam libidinemque fuisse cognoscite. Aeschrionis Syracusani uxor est Pipa, cuius nomen istius nequitia tota Sicilia pervulgatum est; de qua muliere versus plurimi supra tribunal et supra praetoris caput scribebantur. hic Aeschrio, Pipae vir adumbratus, in Herbitensibus decumis novus instituitur publicanus. Herbitenses cum viderent, si ad Aeschrionem pretium resedisset, se ad arbitrium libidinosissimae mulieris spoliatum iri, liciti sunt usque adeo quoad se efficere posse arbitrabantur. supra adiecit Aeschrio; neque enim metuebat, ne praetore Verre decumana mulier damno adfici posset. addicitur medimnum VIIIC, dimidio fere pluris quam superiore anno. aratores funditus evertebantur, et eo magis quod iam superioribus annis adflicti erant ac paene perditi. intellexit iste ita magno venisse ut amplius ab Herbitensibus exprimi non posset: demit de capite medimna DC, iubet in tabulas pro medimnum VIIIC referri VIID.

The barley tithes of the same field Docimus had bought. This is the Docimus to whom this man had brought Tertia, daughter of Isidorus the mime, carried off by force from a Rhodian flute-player. Of this Tertia the authority with this man even more than that of Pipa, more than that of the rest, and almost as much as that of Chelidon at the city, prevailed in this man’s Sicilian praetorship. There come to Herbita two rivals of the praetor, not troublesome — the most dishonest representatives of the lowest little women. They begin to demand, to press, to threaten. They could not, however, although they wished, imitate Apronius. The Sicilians did not so dread Sicilians. When in every way, however, they were trumping up false charges, the Herbitenses promise bail to Syracuse. Once they have come there, they are compelled to give Aeschrio — that is, Pipa — as much as had been taken off the principal, 3,600 modii of wheat. He did not wish to give too much gain to the publican-woman from the tithes, lest perhaps from her nightly trade she should turn her mind to redeeming the revenues.

hordei decumas eiusdem agri Docimus emerat. hic est Docimus ad quem iste deduxerat Tertiam, Isidori mimi filiam, vi abductam ab Rhodio tibicine. huius Tertiae plus etiam quam Pipae, plus quam ceterarum, ac prope dicam tantum apud istum in Siciliensi praetura auctoritas potuit quantum in urbana Chelidonis. veniunt Herbitam duo praetoris aemuli non molesti, muliercularum deterrimarum improbissimi cognitores; incipiunt postulare, poscere, minari; non poterant tamen, cum cuperent, Apronium imitari; Siculi Siculos non tam pertimescebant. cum omni ratione tamen illi calumniarentur, promittunt Herbitenses vadimonium Syracusas. eo posteaquam ventum est, coguntur Aeschrioni, hoc est Pipae, tantum dare quantum erat de capite demptum, tritici modium IIIDC. Mulierculae publicanae noluit ex decumis nimium lucri dare, ne forte ab nocturno suo quaestu animum ad vectigalia redimenda transferret.

The Herbitenses thought the matter settled, when this man says, "What of the barley? Of Docimus, my dear little friend, what do you propose?" And he transacted this in his bedroom, gentlemen, and on his couch. They said no charge of that sort had been laid on them. "I do not hear: count out 41,000 sesterces." What were the wretches to do, or what to refuse? Especially when they saw on the couch the fresh tracks of the tithe-collecting woman, by which they understood him kindled to persistence. So this one allied and friendly city paid tribute under Verres as praetor to two of the foulest little women. And I now say that this number of grain and these sums of money were given to the tithe-collectors publicly by the Herbitenses; with which grain and with which sums they yet did not buy back their citizens from the wrongs of the tithe-collectors. For with the goods of the farmers already destroyed and plundered, this wage was being given to the tithe-collectors that some day they should depart from those men’s fields and from the cities.

transactum putabant Herbitenses, cum iste, ’ quid? de hordeo,’ inquit, ’et de Docimo, amiculo meo, quid cogitatis?’ atque hoc agebat in cubiculo, iudices, atque in lecto suo. negabant illi quicquam sibi esse mandatum. ’ non audio: numerate HS. xll. ’ quid facerent miseri, aut quid recusarent? praesertim cum in lecto decumanae mulieris vestigia viderent recentia, quibus illum inflammari ad perseverandum intellegebant. ita civitas una sociorum atque amicorum duabus deterrimis mulierculis Verre praetore vectigalis fuit. atque ego nunc eum frumenti numerum et eas pecunias publice decumanis ab Herbitensibus datas esse dico; quo illi frumento et quibus pecuniis tamen ab decumanorum iniuriis civis suos non redemerunt. perditis enim iam et direptis aratorum bonis, haec decumanis merces dabatur ut aliquando ex eorum agris atque ex urbibus abirent.

So, when Philinus of Herbita — an eloquent and prudent man, noble at home — spoke publicly about the calamity of the farmers, about their flight, about the fewness of those who remained, you noted, gentlemen, the groan of the Roman people, whose throng has never failed this case. About which fewness of the farmers I shall speak in another place. Now the thing I passed over does not seem to be wholly to be left aside. For, by the immortal gods, what he took off the principal — in what manner indeed does it seem to you not only to be borne, but even to be heard?

itaque cum Philinus Herbitensis, homo disertus et prudens et domi nobilis, de calamitate aratorum et de fuga et de reliquorum paucitate publice diceret, animadvertistis, iudices, gemitum populi Romani, cuius frequentia huic causae numquam defuit. qua de paucitate aratorum alio loco dicam: nunc illud quod praeterii non omnino relinquendum videtur. nam, per deos immortalis, quod de capite iste dempsit, quo tandem modo vobis non modo ferendum, verum etiam audiendum videtur?

One man only there has been since Rome was founded — the immortal gods grant there be not another! — to whom the commonwealth, compelled by the times and by domestic ills, gave herself wholly: Lucius Sulla. He could do so much that no man against his will could keep his goods, his fatherland, his life. He had so much spirit for audacity that he did not hesitate to say in a public meeting, when he was selling the goods of Roman citizens, that he was selling his own plunder. All his deeds we not only uphold but even, on account of fear of greater hurts and calamities, defend by public authority. This one thing has been reproached by several senatorial decrees: it was decreed that those to whom he had taken anything off the principal should refund the money to the treasury. The senate ruled that not even to him to whom it had granted all things was it lawful to lessen the totals of things made and acquired by the people.

Vnus adhuc fuit post Romam conditam, —di immortales faxint, ne sit alter!—cui res publica totam se traderet temporibus et malis coacta domesticis, L. Sulla. hic tantum potuit ut nemo illo invito nec bona nec patriam nec vitam retinere posset; tantum animi habuit ad audaciam ut dicere in contione non dubitaret, bona civium Romanorum cum venderet, se praedam suam vendere. eius omnis res gestas non solum obtinemus, verum etiam propter maiorum incommodorum et calamitatum metum publica auctoritate defendimus: unum hoc aliquot senatus consultis reprehensum, decretumque est ut, quibus ille de capite dempsisset, ii pecunias in aerarium referrent. statuit senatus hoc ne illi quidem esse licitum cui concesserat omnia, a populo factarum quaesitarumque rerum summas imminuere.

If the senators judged that he could not remit anything from the sum due from the bravest men, will the senators judge that you rightly remitted to a most foul woman? He, about whom the Roman people had ordered by law that his own will could be to him in place of law, is yet in this one kind reproached by the religious obligation of the old laws: shall you, who were held entangled in all the laws, have wished that your lust should be to you in place of law? In him is reproached his having remitted out of money he had himself acquired: shall it be granted to you, who have remitted out of the principal of the revenues of the Roman people?

illum viris fortissimis iudicarunt patres conscripti remittere de summa non potuisse: te mulieri deterrimae recte remisisse senatores iudicabunt? ille, de quo legem populus Romanus iusserat ut ipsius voluntas ei posset esse pro lege, tamen in hoc uno genere veterum religione legum reprehenditur: tu, qui omnibus legibus implicatus tenebare, libidinem tibi tuam pro lege esse voluisti? in illo reprehenditur, quod ex ea pecunia remiserit quam ipse quaesierat: tibi concedetur, qui de capite vectigalium populi Romani remisisti?

And in this kind of audacity even much more shamelessly did he act in the tithes of the people of Acesta. Having knocked them down to that same Docimus — that is, to Tertia — for 5,000 modii of wheat, and having added an addition of 1,500 sesterces, he compelled the Acestans to take publicly from Docimus that same amount; learn this from the public testimony of the Acestans. Read. Public testimony. You have heard for how much the city took the tithes from Docimus, for 5,000 modii of wheat and the addition. Learn now for how much he reported he had sold them. The law of the tithes sold under Gaius Verres as praetor. Under this head you see 3,000 modii of wheat taken off the principal, which, when he had taken from the sustenance of the Roman people, from the sinews of the revenues, from the blood of the treasury, he made over as a gift to Tertia the mime. Was it more shamelessly that he took from allies, or more foully that he gave to a harlot, or more dishonestly that he stole from the Roman people, or more audaciously that he altered the public records? From the strictness of these men shall any force snatch you, or any largesse? It shall not. But if it should snatch you, do you not understand that these things which I have long been speaking of belong to another inquiry — to the trial for embezzlement?

atque in hoc genere audaciae multo etiam impudentius in decumis Acestensium versatus est; quas cum addixisset eidem illi Docimo, hoc est Tertiae, tritici modium v, et accessionem ascripsisset HS MD, coegit Acestensis a Docimo tantundem publice accipere; id quod ex Acestensium publico testimonio cognoscite. recita. TESTMIONIVM PVBLICUM. Audistis quanti decumas acceperit a Docimo civitas, tritici modium v et accessionem: cognoscite nunc quanti se vendidisse rettulerit. LEX DECVMIS VENDVNDIS C. VERRE PR. hoc nomine videtis tritici modium CI3 CI3 CI3 de capite esse dempta, quae cum de populi Romani victu, de vectigalium nervis, de sanguine detraxisset aerari, Tertiae mimae condonavit. Vtrum impudentius ab sociis abstulit an turpius meretrici dedit an improbius populo Romano ademit an audacius tabulas publicas commutavit? ex horum severitate te ulla vis eripiet aut ulla largitio? non eripiet. sed si eripuerit, non intellegis haec quae iam dudum loquor ad aliam quaestionem atque ad peculatus iudicium pertinere?

So I shall reserve this whole kind of charge entire for myself: I shall return to the case I have set in hand, of the grain and the tithes. He, when he was laying waste the largest and most fertile fields by himself — that is, by Apronius, the second Verres — against the smaller cities had others whom he was wont to let loose like dogs, worthless and dishonest men, by whom he was compelling either grain or money to be given publicly. Aulus Valentius is in Sicily an interpreter, by whom this man as interpreter was wont to use not for the Greek tongue but for thefts and disgraces. This interpreter, a worthless and needy man, suddenly becomes a tithe-collector. He buys the tithes of the wretched and meagre field of Lipara for 600 medimni of wheat. The Liparenses are summoned. They themselves are compelled to take the tithes and to count out to Valentius 30,000 sesterces of gain. By the immortal gods, which will you take for your defence: that you sold the tithes for so much less that to the 600 medimni the city, of its own will, at once added 30,000 sesterces of gain (that is, 2,000 medimni of wheat); or, that, when you had sold the tithes for a great sum, you wrung this money out from the unwilling Liparenses?

itaque hoc mihi reservabo genus totum integrum: ad illam quam institui causam frumenti ac decumarum revertar. qui cum agros maximos et feracissimos per se ipsum, hoc est per Apronium, Verrem alterum, depopularetur, ad minores civitates habebat alios quos tamquam canis immitteret, nequam homines et improbos, quibus aut frumentum aut pecuniam publice cogebat dari. A. Valentius est in Sicilia interpres, quo iste interprete non ad linguam Graecam, sed ad furta et flagitia uti solebat. fit hic interpres, homo levis atque egens, repente decumanus; emit agri Liparensis miseri atque ieiuni decumas tritici medimnis DC. Liparenses vocantur; ipsi accipere decumas et numerare Valentio coguntur lucri HS xxx. per deos immortalis, utrum tibi sumes ad defensionem, tantone minoris te decumas vendidisse ut ad medimna DC HS xxx lucri statim sua voluntate civitas adderet, hoc est tritici medimnum ii, an, cum magno decumas vendidisses, te expressisse ab invitis Liparensibus hanc pecuniam?

But why do I ask of you what you mean to defend, rather than learn from the city itself what was done? Read out the public testimony of the Liparenses, then in what manner the coins were given to Valentius. Public testimony. How the payment was made, from the public records. Was even this so small a city, so far set apart from your hands and from your sight, sundered from Sicily, set on a slight and uncultivated island, when heaped with your other and greater wrongs, made to be your plunder and your gain in this kind of grain too? The whole island you had handed over to one of your fellow-revellers as if some little gift; from this also these grain-gains were exacted as if from inland places. So those who through so many years under you as praetor were wont to ransom their little fields from pirates — these same men ransomed themselves at a price imposed by you.

sed quid ego ex te quaero quid defensurus sis, potius quam cognoscam ex ipsa civitate quid gestum sit? recita testimonium publicum Liparensium, deinde quem ad modum nummi Valentio sint dati. TESTIMONIVM PVBLICVM. Qvo MODO SOLVTVM SIT, EX LITTERIS PVBLICIS. etiamne haec tam parva civitas, tam procul a manibus tuis atque a conspectu remota, seiuncta a Sicilia, in insula inculta tenuique posita, cumulata aliis tuis maioribus iniuriis, in hoc quoque frumentario genere praedae tibi et quaestui fuit? quam tu totam insulam cuidam tuorum sodalium sicut aliquod munusculum condonaras, ab hac etiam haec frumentaria lucra tamquam a mediterraneis exigebantur? itaque qui tot annis agellos suos te praetore redimere a piratis solebant, idem se ipsos a te pretio imposito redemerunt.

What of the people of Tissa, a very small and slight city, but most painstaking and most thrifty farmers — is there not snatched from them under the name of gain more than the whole grain they had ploughed up? Whom you sent Diognetus, a Venusian, as your tithe-collector, a new kind of publican. Why, on this man’s authority, do not public slaves at Rome too go after the revenues? In the second year the Tissans are forced to give 21,000 sesterces of gain unwilling. In the third year they were compelled to give 12,000 modii of wheat as gain to Diognetus the Venusian. This Diognetus, who out of public revenues makes such gains, has no underling, no peculium at all. Doubt now if you can whether the Venusian attendant of this man took such a number of wheat for himself or exacted it for him.

quid vero? a Tissensibus, perparva ac tenui civitate, sed aratoribus laboriosissimis frugalissimisque hominibus, nonne plus lucri nomine eripitur quam quantum omnino frumenti exararant? ad quos tu decumanum Diognetum Venerium misisti, novum genus publicani. cur hoc auctore non Romae quoque servi publici ad vectigalia accedunt? anno secundo Tissenses HS xxi lucri dare coguntur inviti; tertio anno xii mod. tritici lucri Diogneto Venerio dare coacti sunt. hic Diognetus, qui ex publicis vectigalibus tanta lucra facit, vicarium nullum habet, nihil omnino peculi. vos etiam nunc dubitate, si potestis, utrum tantum numerum tritici Venerius apparitor istius sibi acceperit an huic exegerit.

Learn this from the public testimony of the Tissans. Public testimony of the Tissans. Obscurely, gentlemen, is the praetor himself the tithe-collector, when his attendants exact the grain from cities, command sums of money, and themselves carry off somewhat more gain than they will give to the Roman people under the name of tithes! This was the equity in your command, this the dignity of the praetor: that you wished Venus’s slaves to be lords of the Sicilians. This was the choice, this the distinction under you as praetor: that the farmers were in the number of slaves, the slaves in the number of publicans.

atque haec ex publico Tissensium testimonio cognoscite. TESTIMONIVM PVBLICVM TISSENSIVM. obscure, iudices, praetor ipse decumanus est, cum eius apparitores frumentum a civitatibus exigant, pecunias imperent, aliquanto plus ipsi lucri auferant quam quantum populo Romano decumarum nomine daturi sunt! haec aequitas in tuo imperio fuit, haec praetoris dignitas, ut servos Venerios Siculorum dominos esse velles; hic dilectus, hoc discrimen te praetore fuit, ut aratores in servorum numero essent, servi in publicanorum.

What? The wretched Amestratines, when such great tithes had been imposed upon them that nothing was left for them, were they not yet compelled to count out money? The tithes are knocked down to Marcus Caesius, while the envoys of the Amestratines were present. At once Heraclius the envoy is compelled to count out 22,000 sesterces. What is this? What is this plunder, what is this force, what is this rape of allies? If a charge had been laid on Heraclius by the senate to buy, he would have bought; if there was none, how could he of his own accord count out money? He reports back to Caesius that he has given.

quid? Amestratini miseri, impositis ita magnis decumis ut ipsis reliqui nihil fieret, nonne tamen numerare pecunias coacti sunt? addicuntur decumae M. Caesio, cum adessent legati Amestratini; statim cogitur Heraclius legatus numerare HS XXII. quid hoc est? quae est ista praeda, quae vis, quae direptio sociorum? si erat Heraclio ab senatu mandatum ut emeret, emisset: si non erat, qui poterat sua sponte pecuniam numerare? Caesio renuntiat se dedisse.

Learn the report from the public records. Read. From the public records. By what senatorial decree had this been entrusted to the envoy? By none. Why did he do it? He was compelled. Who says this? The whole city. Read out the public testimony. Public testimony. From the same city in the second year by like reasoning money was wrung out and given to Sextus Vennonius, as you have learned from the same testimony. But the Amestratines, slight men — when you had sold their tithes to Bariobalus the Venusian for 800 medimni (learn the names of these publicans!) — you compelled them to add more gain than they had been sold for, when they had been sold for a great sum. They give Bariobalus 850 medimni and 1,500 sesterces. Surely this man would never have been so mad as to suffer more grain to be paid to a Venusian slave than to the Roman people out of a field of the Roman people, unless all that plunder under the name of the slave came back to him himself.

cognoscite renuntiationem ex litteris publicis. recita. ex LITTERIS PVBLICIS. quo senatus consulto erat hoc legato permissum? nullo. cur fecit? coactus est. quis hoc dicit? tota civitas. recita testimonium publicum. TESTIMONIVM PVBLICVM. Ab hac eadem civitate anno secundo simili ratione extortam esse pecuniam et sex. Vennonio datam ex eodem testimonio cognovistis. at Amestratinos, homines tenuis, cum eorum decumas medimnis DCCC vendidisses Bariobali Venerio—cognoscite nomina publicanorum!—cogis eos plus lucri addere quam quanti venierant, cum magno venissent. dant Bariobali medimna DCCCL, HS MD. Profecto numquam iste tam amens fuisset ut ex agro populi Romani plus frumenti servo Venerio quam populo Romano tribui pateretur, nisi omnis ea praeda servi nomine ad istum ipsum perveniret.

The Petrines, when their tithes had been knocked down for a great sum, were yet most unwilling forced to give Publius Naevius Turpio — a most dishonest man, who under Sacerdos as praetor was condemned for wrongs — 52,000 sesterces. Did you sell the tithes so loosely that, when the medimnum was 15 sesterces, and the tithes had been sold for 3,000 medimni (that is, 45,000 sesterces), 52,000 sesterces of gain were given to the tithe-collector? But you sold the tithes of that field for a very great sum. Of course he is glorying in this: not that gain was given to Turpio, but that money was snatched from the Petrines.

Petrini, cum eorum decumae magno addictae essent, tamen invitissimi P. Naevio Turpioni, homini improbissimo, qui iniuriarum Sacerdote praetore damnatus est, HS lii dare coacti sunt. itane dissolute decumas vendidisti ut, cum esset medimnum HS xv, venissent autem decumae medimnum III, hoc est HS xxxxv, lucri decumano HS r.ll darentur? at permagno decumas eius agri vendidisti. videlicet gloriatur non Turpioni lucrum datum esse, sed Petrinis pecuniam ereptam.

What of the Halicyenses, whose dependents pay the tithes, while they themselves hold their own fields free of tribute — were they not also compelled to give the same Turpio (when the tithes had been sold for 100 medimni) 15,000 sesterces? If you could prove what you most wish — that these gains came to the tithe-collectors, that you yourself touched none of it — yet these sums of money, taken and gathered by your force and wrong, ought to be your fault and the cause of your condemnation. But when you can persuade no one of this — that you were so mad as to wish Apronius and Turpio, slave-men, to grow rich at the peril of yourself and your children — do you suppose any will doubt that all this money was sought by those emissaries for you?

quid? Halicyenses, quorum incolae decumas dant, ipsi agros immunis habent, nonne huic eidem Turpioni, cum decumae c med. venissent, HS xv dare coacti sunt? si id quod maxime vis posses probare, haec ad decumanos lucra venisse, nihil te attigisse, tamen hae pecuniae per vim atque iniuriam tuam captae et conciliatae tibi fraudi ac damnationi esse deberent; cum vero hoc nemini persuadere possis, te tam amentem fuisse ut Apronium et Turpionem, servos homines, tuo liberumque tuorum periculo divites fieri velles, dubitaturum quemquam existimas quin illis emissariis haec tibi omnis pecunia quaesita sit?

To Segesta also, a free city, the Venusian Symmachus is sent as tithe-collector. He brings letters from this man, that contrary to all senatorial decrees, contrary to all rights, contrary to the Rupilian law, the farmers should give him bail outside their forum. Hear the letters which he sent to the Segestans. Letter of C. Verres. How this Venusian made fools of the farmers, learn from one settlement of an honourable and well-favoured man; for the rest are of the same kind.

Segestam item ad immunem civitatem Venerius Symmachus decumanus immittitur. is ab isto litteras adfert, ut sibi contra omnia senatus consulta, contra omnia iura, contraque legem Rupiliam extra forum vadimonium promittant aratores. audite litteras quas ad Segestanos miserit. LITTERAE C. VERRIS. hic Venerius quem ad modum aratores eluserit, ex una pactione hominis honesti gratiosique cognoscite; in eodem enim genere sunt cetera.

Diocles is a Panhormitan, surnamed Phimes, an illustrious and noble man. He was ploughing a field hired in Segestan territory; for there is no commerce in that field for any man. He had it on lease for six thousand sesterces. As tithe, when he had been beaten by the Venusian, he settled at 16,000 sesterces and 654 medimni. Learn this from his own books. The entry of Diocles the Panhormitan. To this same Symmachus, Gaius Annaeus Brocchus, a senator — a man of that splendour, that virtue, of which all of you think — was forced to give coins besides the grain. Did such a man, a senator of the Roman people, go to make gain for a Venusian slave under you as praetor?

Diocles est Panhormitanus, Phimes cognomine, homo inlustris ac nobilis. arabat is agrum conductum in Segestano; nam commercium in eo agro nemini est; conductum habebat HS sex milibus. pro decuma, cum pulsatus a Venerio esset, decidit HS xvi et medimnis DCLIIII. id ex tabulis ipsius cognoscite. NOMEN DIOCLIS PANHORMITANI. huic eidem Symmacho C. Annaeus Brocchus senator, homo eo splendore, ea virtute, qua omnes existimatis, nummos praeter frumentum coactus est dare. Venerione servo te praetore talis vir, senator populi Romani, quaestui fuit?

If you did not reckon this order to surpass in dignity, did you not at least know this — that it judges? Before, when the equestrian order judged, dishonest and rapacious magistrates in the provinces were the servants of the publicans; they distinguished those who were in their works; whatever Roman knight they had seen in the province, they followed up with kindnesses and liberality. Nor did that arrangement help the guilty so much as it harmed many, when they had done anything against the interest and will of that order. There was kept up at that time, somehow, by them, as if by common counsel, this principle diligently: that whoever had thought one Roman knight worthy of insult, should be judged worthy of trouble by the whole order:

hunc ordinem si dignitate antecellere non existimabas, ne hoc quidem sciebas, iudicare? antea cum equester ordo iudicaret, improbi et rapaces magistratus in provinciis inserviebant publicanis; ornabant eos qui in operis erant; quemcumque equitem Romanum in provincia viderant, beneficiis ac liberalitate prosequebantur; neque tantum illa res nocentibus proderat quantum obfuit multis, cum aliquid contra utilitatem eius ordinis voluntatemque fecissent. retinebatur hoc tum nescio quo modo quasi communi consilio ab illis diligenter, ut, qui unum equitem Romanum contumelia dignum putasset, ab universo ordine malo dignus iudicaretur:

you so despised the senatorial order, so levelled all things to your wrongs and your lusts, so held it set down and resolved in your mind, to challenge as judges all who lived in Sicily, or who had touched Sicily under you as praetor, that you did not even think of this: that you were going to come before judges of the same order? In whom, even if from their own private hurt no grief should sit, yet there would be that thought: that they had been despised in another’s wrong, and the dignity of the order had been contemned and cast aside. Which by Hercules, gentlemen, seems to me not to be borne lightly. For an insult has a certain sting which modest men and good men can least bear.

tu sic ordinem senatorium despexisti, sic ad iniurias libidinesque tuas omnia coaequasti, sic habuisti statutum cum animo ac deliberatum, omnis qui habitarent in Sicilia, aut qui Siciliam te praetore attigissent, iudices reicere ut illud non cogitares tamen, ad eiusdem ordinis homines te iudices esse venturum? in quibus si ex ipsorum domestico incommodo nullus dolor insideret, tamen esset illa cogitatio, in alterius iniuria sese despectos dignitatemque ordinis contemptam et abiectam. quod mehercule, iudices, mihi non mediocriter ferendum videtur; habet enim quendam aculeum contumelia, quem pati pudentes ac viri boni difficillime possunt.

You despoiled the Sicilians; for they are wont to be mute under their own wrongs. You harassed the businessmen; for they come to Rome unwilling and rarely. You handed over Roman knights to Apronius’s wrongs; for what harm can they now do, who are not allowed to judge? What? When you afflict senators with the highest wrongs, what else are you saying than this: "Give me even that senator, that this most ample senatorial name may seem to be born not only for the envy of the unskilled, but even for the insult of the dishonest?"

spoliasti Siculos; solent enim muti esse in iniuriis suis. vexasti negotiatores; inviti enim Romam raroque decedunt. equites Romanos ad Aproni iniurias dedisti; quid enim iam nocere possunt quibus non licet iudicare? quid? cum senatores summis iniuriis adficis, quid aliud dicis nisi hoc, ’ cedo mihi etiam istum senatorem, ut hoc amplissimum nomen senatorium non modo ad invidiam imperitorum, sed etiam ad contumeliam improborum natum esse videatur?’

Nor did he do this in the case of Annaeus alone, but in the case of all senators — so that the name of the order weighed not so much for honour as for ignominy. Toward Gaius Cassius, a most distinguished and bravest man, when he was at that very time consul in this man’s first year, he used such great wickedness that, when his wife — a leading lady — had her father’s plough-lands at Leontini, he ordered the tithe-collectors to carry off all the grain. This man, Verres, you shall have as witness in this case, since you took care not to have him as judge.

neque hoc in uno fecit Annaeo, sed in omnibus senatoribus, ut ordinis nomen non tantum ad honorem quantum ad ignominiam valeret. in C. Cassio, clarissimo et fortissimo viro, cum is eo ipso tempore primo istius anno consul esset, tanta improbitate usus est ut, cum eius uxor, femina primaria, paternas haberet arationes in Leontino, frumentum omne decumanos auferre iusserit. hunc tu in hac causa testem, Verres, habebis, quoniam iudicem ne haberes providisti.

You, however, gentlemen, ought to think there is something common and joined between us. Many duties have been laid on this order, many labours, many perils, not only of laws and trials, but even of rumours and of the times. So is this order set as it were exposed and lifted up on high, that it can seem to be blown round by all winds of envy. In so wretched and unjust a condition of life, shall we not even keep this, gentlemen: that we should not seem to our own magistrates, in upholding our own right, the most contemptible and most despicable of men?

vos autem, iudices, putare debetis esse quiddam nobis inter nos commune atque coniunctum. multa sunt imposita huic ordini munera, multi labores, multa pericula non solum legum ac iudiciorum, sed etiam rumorum ac temporum: sic est hic ordo quasi propositus atque editus in altum ut ab omnibus ventis invidiae circumflari posse videatur. in hac tam misera et iniqua condicione vitae ne hoc quidem retinebimus, iudices, ut magistratibus nostris in obtinendo iure nostro ne contemptissimi ac despicatissimi esse videamur?

The Thermitans sent men to buy the tithes of their own field. They thought it greatly in their public interest that they should be bought, however dear, rather than that they should fall in with one of this man’s emissaries. There was set against them a certain Venuleius to buy. He did not cease bidding. They contended as long as it seemed it could in any way be borne. At last they ceased bidding. The contract is knocked down to Venuleius for 8,000 medimni of wheat. Posidorus the envoy reports back. Although this seemed to all not to be borne, yet Venuleius is given, lest he should come on, 7,000 modii of wheat and besides 2,000 sesterces. From which it easily appears what is the wage of the tithe-collector, what the praetor’s plunder, seems to be. Give me the records of the Thermitans and the testimony. Records of the Thermitans, and testimony.

Thermitani miserunt qui decumas emerent agri sui. Magni sua putabant interesse publice potius quamvis magno emi quam in aliquem istius emissarium inciderent. adpositus erat Venuleius quidam qui emeret. is liceri non destitit; illi quoad videbatur ferri aliquo modo posse contenderunt; postremo liceri destiterunt. addicitur Venuleio tritici medimnum VIII milibus. legatus Posidorus renuntiat. cum omnibus hoc intolerandum videretur, tamen Venuleio dantur, ne accedat, tritici mod. vll et praeterea HS II: ex quo facile apparet quae merces decumani, quae praetoris praeda esse videatur. cedo Thermitanorum mihi litteras et testimonium. TABVLAE THERMITANORVM ET TESTIMONIVM.

The Imacharenses, with all their grain now carried off, with all your wrongs now wrung out of them, you compelled, wretched and ruined as they were, to make a tribute, that they might give Apronius 20,000 sesterces. Read the decree on the tribute and the public testimony. Senate-decree on the tribute being collected. Testimony of the Imacharenses. The Hennenses, when the tithes of the Hennensian field had been sold for 8,200 medimni, were compelled to give Apronius 18,000 modii of wheat and 3,000 sesterces. Mark, please, what a quantity of grain is being exacted out of every tithe-paying field. For my speech runs through all the cities which owe tithes, and in this kind, gentlemen, I am now occupied — not in that in which the farmers were one by one overthrown in all their goods, but in showing what gains were given publicly to the tithe-collectors, that they should some day depart full and gorged from those men’s fields and cities, with this heap of their gain.

Imacharensis iam omni frumento ablato, iam omnibus iniuriis tuis exinanitos, tributum facere miseros ac perditos coegisti, ut Apronio darent HS xx. recita et decretum de tributis et publicum testimonium. SENATVS CONSVLTVM DE TRIBVTO CONFERVNDO. TESTIMONIVM IMACHARENSIVM. Hennenses, cum decumae venissent agri Hennensis med. VIIICC, Apronio coacti sunt dare tritici modium XVIII et HS III milia. quaeso, attendite quantus numerus frumenti cogatur ex omni agro decumano. nam per omnis civitates quae decumas debent percurrit oratio mea, et in hoc genere nunc, iudices, versor, non in quo singillatim aratores eversi bonis omnibus sint, sed quae publice decumanis lucra data sint, ut aliquando ex eorum agris atque urbibus expleti atque saturati cum hoc cumulo quaestus decederent.

Why did you command the Calactines in the third year to give the tithes of their field, which they had been wont to give at Calacte, to Marcus Caesius the tithe-collector at Amestratus? — which they had not done before you were praetor, nor had you yourself so laid down for two years before. Why was Theomnastus the Syracusan let loose by you onto the Mutycensian field? Who so harassed the farmers that they were compelled by want, for the second year’s tithes (a thing I shall show in other cities also), to buy wheat of necessity.

Calactinis quam ob rem imperasti anno tertio ut decumas agri sui, quas Calactae dare consueverant, Amestrati M. Caesio decumano darent? quod neque ante te praetorem illi fecerant neque tu ipse hoc ita statueras antea per biennium. Theomnastus Syracusanus in agrum Mutycensem cur abs te immissus est? qui aratores ita vexavit ut illi in alteras decumas, id quod in aliis quoque civitatibus ostendam, triticum emere necessario propter inopiam cogerentur.

Now from the agreements of the Hyblenses you will understand — which were made with Gnaeus Sergius the tithe-collector — that six times as much as had been sown was carried off from the farmers. Read the sowings and the agreements from the public records. Learn the agreements of the Menaeans with the Venusian slave. Learn likewise the declarations of sowings and the agreements of the Menaeans. Will you suffer it, gentlemen, that from allies, from the farmers of the Roman people, from those who labour for you, who serve you, who so wish the Roman commons to be fed by themselves that there may be left to themselves and their children only enough for them to be fed — that from these by the highest wrong, by the bitterest insults, somewhat more was carried off than had been grown?

iam vero ex Hyblensium pactionibus intellegetis, quae factae sunt cum decumano Cn. Sergio, sexiens tanto quam quantum satum sit ablatum esse ab aratoribus. recita sationes et pactiones ex litteris publicis. cognoscite pactiones Menaenorum cum Venerio servo. cognoscite item professiones sationum et pactiones Menaenorum. patiemini, iudices, ab sociis, ab aratoribus populi Romani, ab eis qui vobis laborant, vobis serviunt, qui ita plebem Romanam ab sese ali volunt ut sibi ac liberis suis tantum supersit quo ipsi ali possint, ab his per summam iniuriam, per acerbissimas contumelias plus aliquanto ablatum esse quam natum sit?

I feel, gentlemen, that I must now hold my speech in measure and shun your weariness. I shall not turn longer in one kind, and so shall I take away other things from my speech that I shall yet leave them in the case. You shall hear the complaints of the Agrigentines, bravest of men, most diligent of farmers. You shall learn the grief and wrongs of the Entellans, men of the highest labour and the highest industry. The hurts of the Heracleans, the Geloans, the Soluntines shall be set forth. You shall learn the fields of the Catinaeans — most well-off and most friendly men — harassed by Apronius. You shall understand that the Tyndaritan, a most noble city, the Cephaloeditan, the Haluntine, the Apolloniate, the Enguine, the Capitine were ruined by this iniquity of the tithes. To the Inenses, Murgentines, Assorines, Helorines, Ietines nothing at all was left. The Cetarini, the Scherini, men of small cities, were utterly cast down and ruined. In short, that all the tithe-paying fields through three years gave tribute to the Roman people in the tithe portion, and to Gaius Verres in all that remained — and that to most farmers absolutely nothing was left over; but if to anyone anything was left or remitted, it was only as much as overflowed from the part with which his greed was satisfied.

Sentio, iudices, moderandum mihi esse iam orationi meae fugiendamque vestram satietatem. non versabor in uno genere diutius, et ita cetera de oratione mea tollam ut in causa tamen relinquam. audietis Agrigentinorum, fortissimorum virorum, diligentissimorum aratorum, querimonias; cognoscetis Entellinorum, hominum summi laboris summaeque industriae, dolorem et iniurias; Heracliensium, Gelensium, Soluntinorum incommoda proferentur; Catinensium, locupletissimorum hominum amicissimorumque, agros vexatos ab Apronio cognoscetis-; Tyndaritanam, nobilissimam civitatem, Cephaloeditanam, Haluntinam, Apolloniensem, Enguinam, Capitinam perditas esse hac iniquitate decumarum intellegetis; Inensibus, Murgentinis, Assorinis, Helorinis, Ietinis nihil omnino relictum; Cetarinos, Scherinos, parvarum civitatum homines, omnino abiectos esse ac perditos; omnis denique agros decumanos per triennium populo Romano ex parte decuma, C. Verri ex omni reliquo vectigalis fuisse, et plerisque aratoribus nihil omnino superfuisse; si cui quid autem aut relictum aut remissum sit, id fuisse tantum quantum ex eo quo istius avaritia contenta fuit redundarit.

I have left for myself the fields of two cities, gentlemen, almost the best and most noble: the Aetnensian and the Leontine. Of these fields I shall let go the gains of three years; I shall pick out one year, that I may the more easily set out what I have begun. I shall take the third year, both because it is the most recent and because it was so administered by this man that, when he saw he was certainly about to leave the province, he did not care if he was about to leave no farmer at all in Sicily. We shall deal with the tithes of the Aetnensian and Leontine fields. Mark, gentlemen, diligently. The fields are fertile; it is the third year; the tithe-collector is Apronius.

duarum mihi civitatum reliquos feci agros, iudices, fere optimos ac nobilissimos, Aetnensem et Leontinum. Horum ego agrorum missos faciam quaestus trienni; unum annum eligam, quo facilius id quod institui explicare possim. sumam annum tertium, quod et recentissimus est et ab isto ita administratus ut, cum se certe decessurum videret, non laboraret si aratorem nullum in Sicilia omnino esset relicturus. Agri Aetnensis et Leontini decumas agemus. attendite, iudices, diligenter. Agri sunt feraces, annus tertius, decumanus Apronius.

Of the Aetnensians I shall say very little; for they themselves spoke publicly in the previous hearing. You hold in memory that Artemidorus the Aetnensian, chief of that embassy, said publicly that Apronius came to Aetna with Venus’s slaves; that he summoned the magistrates to him, ordered couches to be spread for him in the middle of the forum; that he was wont to feast daily not only in public but even out of the public funds; that, while at his banquets a band played and the largest cups were served, the farmers were wont to be detained, and from them, not only by wrong but even by insult, as much grain was wrung out as Apronius had commanded.

de Aetnensibus perpauca dicam; dixerunt enim ipsi priore actione publice. memoria tenetis Artemidorum Aetnensem, legationis eius principem, publice dicere Apronium venisse Aetnam cum Veneriis; vocasse ad se magistratus, imperasse ut in foro sibi medio lecti sternerentur, cotidie solitum esse non modo in publico, sed etiam de publico convivari; cum in eius conviviis symphonia caneret maximisque poculis ministraretur, retineri solitos esse aratores, atque ab eis non modo per iniuriam sed etiam per contumeliam tantum exprimi frumenti quantum Apronius imperasset.

You have heard these things, gentlemen, all of which I now pass over and leave aside. I say nothing of Apronius’s luxury, nothing of his insolence, nothing of the licence allowed him by this man, nothing of his singular wickedness and shamefulness: I shall speak only of the gain and profit of one field and one year, that you may the more easily make a guess of three years and of all Sicily. But the reckoning of the Aetnensians is brief for me; for they themselves came, they themselves carried down the public records. They taught you what little gain that no-bad man, the praetor’s familiar Apronius, had made. Learn it, please, from their own testimony. Read. Testimony of the Aetnensians. What say you? Speak, speak, please, more clearly, that the Roman people may hear about its own revenues, its own farmers, its own allies and friends. 50,000 medimni, 50,000 sesterces, by the immortal gods! One field, in one year, gives Apronius 300,000 modii of wheat and besides 50,000 sesterces of gain! Were the tithes sold for so much less than they were worth, or, since they had been sold for sum great enough, was so great a quantity of grain and money carried off from the farmers by force? For whichever of these you say, in that the fault and the charge will stick.

Audistis haec, iudices; quae nunc ego omnia praetereo et relinquo. nihil de luxuria Aproni loquor, nihil de insolentia, nihil de permissa ab isto licentia, nihil de singulari nequitia ac turpitudine: tantum de quaestu ac lucro dicam unius agri et unius anni, quo facilius vos coniecturam de triennio et de tota Sicilia facere possitis. sed mihi Aetnensium brevis est ratio; ipsi enim venerunt, ipsi publicas litteras deportaverunt; docuerunt vos quid lucelli fecerit homo non malus, familiaris praetoris, Apronius. id, quaeso, ex ipsorum testimonio cognoscite. recita. TESTIMONIVM AETNENSIUM quid ais? dic, dic, quaeso, clarius, ut populus Romanus de suis vectigalibus, de suis aratoribus, de suis sociis atque amicis audiat. L MED., HS L per deos immortalis! unus ager uno anno trecenta milia mod. tritici et praeterea HS L lucri dat Apronio! tantone minoris decumae venierunt quam fuerunt, an, cum satis magno venissent, hic tantus tamen frumenti pecuniaeque numerus ab aratoribus per vim ablatus est? Vtrum enim horum dixeris, in eo culpa et crimen haerebit.

For this you will not say — and would that you did say it! — that so much did not come to Apronius. So I shall hold you fast not only by the public agreements but by the private agreements and writings of the farmers, that you may understand that you have not been more diligent in committing thefts than I in catching them. Will you bear this? Will any defend it? Will these men, if they wish to rule otherwise about you, sustain it: that in one coming, out of one field, Quintus Apronius (besides that ready money I have spoken of) carried off 300,000 modii of wheat under the name of gain?

nam illud quidem non dices—quod utinam dicas!—ad Apronium non pervenisse tantum. ita te non modo publicis tenebo sed etiam privatis aratorum pactionibus ac litteris ut intellegas non te diligentiorem in faciendis furtis fuisse quam me in deprehendendis. hoc tu feres? hoc quisquam defendet? hoc hi, si aliter de te statuere voluerint, sustinebunt? uno adventu ex uno agro Q. Apronium, praeter eam quam dixi pecuniam numeratam, ccc milia mod. tritici lucri nomine sustulisse!

What? Do the Aetnensians say this alone? Indeed the Centuripines too, who hold by far the greatest part of the Aetnensian field, whose envoys — the most noble men, Andron and Artemo — the senate gave instructions in those things which publicly concerned their own city. Of those wrongs which the Centuripine citizens received not in their own but in another’s borders, the senate and people of Centuripa would not send envoys. The Centuripine farmers themselves — which is the greatest number in Sicily of most honourable and most well-off men — chose three envoys, their own citizens, that by their testimony you might learn the calamities not of one field but of almost all Sicily. For the Centuripines plough almost throughout all Sicily; and they are weightier and surer witnesses against you, that the rest of the cities are moved by their own hurts alone, while the Centuripines, because they have possessions in the borders of almost all the cities, have felt the losses and hurts of the rest of the cities too.

quid? hoc Aetnenses soli dicunt? immo etiam Centuripini, qui agri Aetnensis multo maximam partem possident; quorum legatis, hominibus nobilissimis, androni et Artemoni, senatus ea mandata dedit quae publice ad civitatem ipsorum pertinebant; de iis iniuriis quas cives Centuripini non in suis sed in aliorum finibus acceperant, senatus et populus Centuripinus legatos noluit mittere; ipsi aratores Centuripini, qui numerus est in Sicilia maximus hominum honestissimorum et locupletissimorum, tris legatos, civis suos, delegerunt, ut eorum testimonio non unius agri sed prope totius Siciliae calamitates cognosceretis. arant enim tota Sicilia fere Centuripini, et hoc in te graviores certioresque testes sunt, quod ceterae civitates suis solum incommodis commoventur, Centuripini, quod in omnium fere finibus possessiones habent, etiam ceterarum civitatum damna ac detrimenta senserunt.

But, as I said, the reckoning of the Aetnensians is sure, sealed in both public and private records. The pension of my diligence has rather to be exacted from the Leontine field, for this cause: that the Leontines themselves publicly have not much helped me. For under this man as praetor those wrongs of the tithe-collectors did not hurt them. Rather, gentlemen, they helped them. It will perhaps seem wonderful to you or incredible that, in such great hurts of the farmers, the Leontines, who were chiefs of the grain administration, were untouched by hurts and wrongs. The reason is this, gentlemen: that in the Leontine field, except for the one household of Mnasistratus, no Leontine possesses a clod. So you have heard the testimony of Mnasistratus, gentlemen, a most honourable and excellent man. Look not for the rest of the Leontines, whom not only Apronius could not hurt in their fields, but no storm even. For not only did they take no hurt, but in those Apronian rapines they were occupied with gain and profit.

verum, uti dixi, ratio certa est Aetnensium et publicis et privatis litteris consignata. meae diligentiae pensum magis in Leontino agro est exigendum propter hanc causam, quod ipsi Leontini publice non sane me multum adiuverunt; neque enim eos isto praetore hae decumanorum iniuriae laeserunt, potius etiam, iudices, adiuverunt. mirum fortasse hoc vobis aut incredibile videatur, in tantis aratorum incommodis Leontinos, qui principes rei frumentariae fuerint, expertis incommodorum atque iniuriarum fuisse. hoc causae est, iudices, quod in agro Leontino praeter unam Mnasistrati familiam glebam Leontinorum possidet nemo. itaque Mnasistrati, hominis honestissimi atque optimi viri, testimonium, iudices, audistis: ceteros Leontinos, quibus non modo Apronius in agris sed ne tempestas quidem ulla nocere potuit, exspectare nolite: etenim non modo incommodi nihil ceperunt, sed etiam in Apronianis illis rapinis in quaestu sunt compendioque versati.

Wherefore, since the Leontine city and embassy has failed me on the cause I have spoken of, I myself must take up the reckoning and find a way by which I may come to Apronius’s gain — nay, by which I may come to this man’s huge and monstrous plunder. The tithes of the Leontine field, in the third year, were sold for 36,000 medimni of wheat, that is, 216,000 modii of wheat. For a great sum, gentlemen, a great sum. Nor can I deny it. So it is necessary that the tithe-collectors took either a loss or surely no great gain. For this is wont to be the case for those who have bought for a great sum.

quapropter, quoniam Leontina civitas me atque legatio propter eam quam dixi causam defecit, mihimet ineunda ratio et via reperiunda est qua ad Aproni quaestum, sive adeo qua ad istius ingentem immanemque praedam possim pervenire. Agri Leontini decumae tertio anno venierunt tritici medimnum XXXVI, hoc est tritici mod. cc et XVI milibus. Magno, iudices, magno; neque enim hoc possum negare. itaque necesse est aut damnum aut certe non magnum lucrum fecisse decumanos; hoc enim solet usu venire iis qui magno redemerunt.

What if I show that in this one purchase a hundred thousand modii of wheat were made as gain? What, two hundred thousand? What, three hundred thousand? What, four hundred thousand? Will you yet doubt for whom such a great plunder was sought? Some will say I am unjust, who from the size of the gain make a guess at the theft and plunder. What if I show, gentlemen, that those who make 400,000 modii of gain would have made a loss, had your iniquity, had your recoverers from your own staff, not intervened — can anyone in such great gain and such great iniquity doubt that it was on account of your wickedness that you made such great gains, on account of the size of the gain that you wished to be wicked?

quid, si ostendo in hac una emptione lucri fieri tritici mod. c? quid, si cc? quid, si ccc? quid, si cccc milia? dubitabitis etiam cui ista tanta praeda quaesita sit? iniquum me esse quispiam dices, qui ex lucri magnitudine coniecturam capiam furti atque praedae. quid, si doceo, iudices, eos qui cccc mod. lucri faciunt damnum facturos fuisse, si tua iniquitas, si tui ex cohorte recuperatores non intercederent, num quis poterit in tanto lucro tantaque iniquitate dubitare quin propter improbitatem tuam tam magnos quaestus feceris, propter magnitudinem quaestus improbus esse volueris?

How then shall I attain to this, gentlemen, that I may know how much gain has been made? Not from Apronius’s books, which when I sought them out I did not find, and when I had brought him into court I wrung from him a denial that he kept books. If he was lying, why was he taking them out of the way, if those books were not going to harm you? If he had compiled no records at all, does not that itself signify enough that he did not carry on his own business? For the manner of tithe-collectors is such that it cannot be carried on without very many writings; for the names of the farmers one by one, and the agreements with each, the tithe-collectors must necessarily pursue and write up. The acres all the farmers declared by your command and your institution. I do not think anyone declared less than he had ploughed, when so many crosses, so many punishments, so many recoverers from your staff were set out. In an acre of the Leontine field about a medimnum of wheat is sown, in continuous and even sowing. The field yields with the eighth, when it is well managed; but, with all the gods helping, with the tenth. If this happens at any time, then it comes about that there is just so much tithe as you have sown — that is, that, however many acres have been sown, that many medimni of tithe are owed.

quo modo igitur hoc adsequar, iudices, ut sciam quantum lucri factum sit? non ex Aproni tabulis, quas ego cum conquirerem non inveni, et cum in ius ipsum eduxi expressi ut conficere tabulas se negaret. si mentiebatur, quam ob rem removebat, si hae tabulae nihil tibi erant obfuturae? si omnino nullas confecerat litteras, ne id quidem satis significat illum non suum negotium gessisse? ea est enim ratio decumanorum ut sine plurimis litteris confici non possit; singula enim nomina aratorum et cum singulis pactiones decumanorum litteris persequi et conficere necesse est. iugera professi sunt aratores omnes imperio atque instituto tuo: non opinor quemquam minus esse professum quam quantum arasset, cum tot cruces, tot supplicia, tot ex cohorte recuperatores proponerentur. in iugero Leontini agri medimnum fere tritici seritur perpetua atque aequabili satione; ager efficit cum octavo, bene ut agatur; verum ut omnes di adiuvent, cum decumo. quod si quando accidit, tum fit ut tantum decumae sit quantum severis, hoc est ut, quot iugera sint sata, totidem medimna decumae debeantur.

Things being so, first I say this: that the tithes of the Leontine field were sold for many thousands of medimni more than the thousands of acres sown in the Leontine field. But if it could not happen that they should plough up more than ten medimni from an acre, while a medimnum had to be given out of an acre as tithe, when the field — which very rarely happens — had brought forth with the tenth, what reckoning was there for the tithe-collectors (if indeed it was tithes, and not the goods of the farmers, that were being sold) to buy the tithes for somewhat more thousands of medimni than acres were sown? In the Leontine field the subscription and declaration of acres is no more than 30,000; the tithes were sold for 36,000 medimni. Did Apronius err, or rather was he mad? Nay, he would have been mad then, if it had been allowed the farmers to give what they owed, and not been necessary to give what Apronius had commanded.

hoc cum ita esset, primum illud dico, pluribus milibus medimnum venisse decumas agri Leontini quam quot milia iugerum sata essent in agro Leontino. quodsi fieri non poterat ut plus quam x medimna ex iugero exararent, medimnum autem ex iugero decumano dari oportebat, cum ager, id quod perraro evenit, cum decumo extulisset, quae erat ratio decumanis, siquidem decumae ac non bona venibant aratorum, ut pluribus aliquanto medimnis decumas emerent quam iugera erant sata? in Leontino iugerum subscriptio ac professio non est plus xxx; decumae xxxvl medimnum venierunt. erravit an potius insanivit Apronius? immo tum insanisset, si aratoribus id quod deberent licitum esset, et non quod Apronius imperasset necesse fuisset dare.

If I show that no one gave less than three medimni an acre as tithe, you will grant, I suppose, that, since the field’s fruit was reaped at the tenth, no one gave less than three tithes. And this was sought from Apronius as a kindness: that they might be allowed to settle at three medimni for each acre. For when from many four, even five, were being demanded, while from many not only no grain but not even chaff was being left out of all the harvest and out of a year’s labour, then the Centuripine farmers (whose number in the Leontine field is the greatest) gathered into one place and chose Andron of Centuripa, a man chief among the honourable and noble men of his city, as envoy to Apronius (the same whom the Centuripine city has now sent at this time as envoy and witness to this trial), that he might plead the farmers’ case before him, and seek of him not to exact more than three medimni per acre from the Centuripine farmers.

si ostendam minus tribus medimnis in iugerum neminem dedisse decumae, concedes, opinor, ut cum decumo fructus arationis perceptus sit, neminem minus tribus decumis dedisse. atque hoc in benefici loco petitum est ab Apronio, ut in iugera singula ternis medimnis decidere liceret. nam cum a multis quaterna, etiam quina exigerentur, multis autem non modo granum nullum, sed ne paleae quidem ex omni fructu atque ex annuo labore relinquerentur, tum aratores Centuripini, qui numerus in agro Leontino maximus est, unum in locum convenerunt, hominem suae civitatis in primis honestum ac nobilem, andronem Centuripinum, legarunt ad Apronium, (eundem quem hoc tempore ad hoc iudicium legatum et testem Centuripina civitas misit), ut is apud eum causam aratorum ageret, ab eoque peteret ut ab aratoribus Centuripinis ne amplius in iugera singula quam terna medimna exigeret.

This was scarcely got from Apronius as a great kindness for those who were even then still uninjured. When this was being got, this in fact was being got: that, instead of single tithes, three tithes might be given. But if this had not been your business, they would have asked of you not to give more than single tithes, rather than of Apronius not to give more than three tithes. Now, that I may pass over for the moment those things which Apronius set down against the farmers in royal — nay, tyrannical — fashion, and that I may not call upon those from whom he snatched all the grain, and to whom he left nothing not only of the harvest but not even of their own goods — of these three medimni, which he granted as a kindness and a favour, learn how much gain is made.

hoc vix ab Apronio in summo beneficio pro iis qui etiam tum incolumes erant impetratum est. id cum impetrabatur, hoc videlicet impetrabatur, ut pro singulis decumis ternas decumas dare liceret. quodsi tua res non ageretur, a te potius postularent ne amplius quam singulas, quam ab Apronio ut ne plus quam ternas decumas darent. nunc ut hoc tempore ea quae regie seu potius tyrannice statuit in aratores Apronius praetermittam, neque eos appellem a quibus omne frumentum eripuit, et quibus nihil non modo de fructu sed ne de bonis quidem suis reliqui fecit, ex hisce ternis medimnis, quod benefici gratiaeque causa concessit, quid lucri fiat cognoscite.

The declaration of the Leontine field is 30,000 acres; this comes to 90,000 medimni of wheat, that is, 540,000 modii. With 216,000 modii deducted (for which the tithes were sold), there remain 324,000 modii of wheat. Add three fiftieths of the whole sum of 540,000 modii; this comes to 32,400 modii of wheat (for from all there were besides being exacted three fiftieths). These are now towards 360,000 modii of wheat. But I had said 400,000 was made of gain. For I do not bring into this reckoning those for whom it was not allowed to settle for three medimni. Yet, that I may fill out the sum of my promise from this very reckoning, in addition to single medimni many were being compelled to give two sesterces, many one and a half sesterces of additional payment — those who were paying the least, single sesterces apiece. To follow the least: since we have reckoned 90,000 medimni, let there be added by this new and worst precedent 90,000 sesterces.

professio est agri Leontini ad iugerum xxx; haec sunt ad tritici medimnum xc, id est mod. DXXXX; deductis tritici mod. CCXVI, quanti decumae venierunt, reliqua sunt tritici CCCXXIIII. adde totius summae DXXXX milium mod. tris quinquagesimas; fit tritici mod. XXXIICCCC (ab omnibus enim ternae praeterea quinquagesimae exigebantur); sunt haec iam ad CCCLX mod. tritici. at ego cccc lucri facta esse dixeram; non enim duco in hac ratione eos quibus ternis medimnis non est licitum decidere. verum ut hac ipsa ratione summam mei promissi compleam, ad singula medimna multi HS binos, multi HS singulos semis accessionis cogebantur dare, qui minimum, singulos nummos. minimum ut sequamur, quoniam xc med. duximus, accedant eo novo pessimoque exemplo HS xc.

Will he yet dare to tell me that he sold the tithes for a great sum, when from the same field he carried off himself half as much again as he sent to the Roman people? You sold the tithes of the Leontine field for 216,000 modii. If by law, for a great sum; if your lust was the law, if half-tithes were called tithes, you sold them for a small sum. For the yearly fruits of Sicily could have been sold for much more, had the senate or Roman people willed you to do that. For the tithes were often sold, when they were sold by the Hieronic law, for as much as now they were sold for under the Verrine law. Give me the tithes sold by Gaius Norbanus. Tithes of the Leontine field sold by Gaius Norbanus. And then no action was given on the measure of acres, nor was Artemidorus Cornelius a recoverer, nor was the Sicilian magistrate exacting from the farmer as much as the tithe-collector had declared, nor was a kindness sought from the tithe-collector, that they might settle at three medimni an acre, nor was the farmer compelled to give an addition of coins, nor to add three fiftieths in grain. And yet a great quantity of grain was being sent to the Roman people.

hic mihi etiam dicere audebit magno se decumas vendidisse, cum ex eodem agro dimidio ipse plus abstulerit quam populo Romano miserit? CCXVI decumas agri Leontini vendidisti; si ex lege, magno; si ut lex esset libido tua, si ut quae dimidiae essent decumae vocarentur, parvo vendidisti; multo enim pluris fructus annui Siciliae venire potuerunt, si id te senatus aut populus Romanus facere voluisset. etenim decumae saepe tanti venierunt, cum lege Hieronica venirent, quanti nunc lege Verria venierunt. cedo mihi C. Norbani decumas venditas. C. NORBANI DECVMAE VENDITAE AGRI LEONTINI. atqui tum neque iudicium de modo iugerum dabatur, neque erat Artemidorus Cornelius recuperator, neque ab aratore magistratus Siculus tantum exigebat quantum decumanus ediderat, nec beneficium petebatur a decumano, ut in iugera singula ternis medimnis decidere liceret, nec nummorum accessionem cogebatur arator dare nec ternas quinquagesimas frumenti addere: et tamen populo Romano magnus frumenti numerus mittebatur.

What do those fiftieths mean, what those additions of coins? By what right — nay, by what custom — did you do this? The farmer was giving coins. How, or whence? Who, if he had wished to be most generous, would have used a more heaped-up measure (as before they were wont to do in tithes, when they were sold on equal law and condition). He was giving coins! Whence? Out of his grain? As if under you as praetor he had had grain to sell. Out of the living, then, something had to be cut off, to be a source from which to Apronius, beyond those fruits of the plough-lands, this little crown of coins might be added. And further, did they give it willing or unwilling? Willing? They loved Apronius, I suppose. Unwilling? Why, unless they were compelled by force and trouble? Now this most senseless man in selling the tithes was making additions of coins to each tithe, and not little: he was adding two or three thousand sesterces. Through three years they amount to perhaps 500,000 sesterces. This he did neither by anyone’s example nor by any right, nor did he refer the money to the treasury: nor will any man ever devise how he is to defend even this slight charge.

quid vero istae sibi quinquagesimae, quid porro nummorum accessiones volunt? quo id iure atque adeo quo id more fecisti? nummos dabat arator. quo modo aut unde? qui, si largissimus esse vellet, cumulatiore mensura uteretur, ut antea solebant facere in decumis, cum aequa lege et condicione venibant. is nummum dabat! Vnde? de frumento? quasi habuisset te praetore quod venderet. de vivo igitur erat aliquid resecandum, ut esset unde Apronio ad illos fructus arationum hoc corollarium nummorum adderetur. iam id porro utrum libentes an inviti dabant? libentes? amabant, credo, Apronium. inviti? qua re nisi vi et malo cogebantur? iam iste homo amentissimus in vendundis decumis nummorum faciebat accessiones ad singulas decumas, neque multum; bina aut terna milia nummum addebat; fiunt per triennium HS fortasse D milia. hoc neque exemplo cuiusquam neque ullo iure fecit, neque eam pecuniam rettulit; neque hoc parvum crimen quem ad modum defensurus sit homo quisquam umquam excogitabit.

Things being so, do you dare to say you sold the tithes for a great sum, when it is plain that you sold the goods and fortunes of the farmers not for the sake of the Roman people, but for your own gain? Just as if some bailiff out of an estate which had brought ten thousand sesterces should, with the trees cut down and sold, the tiles taken off, the equipment, the cattle alienated, send the master twenty thousand sesterces in place of ten, and put together for himself another hundred thousand besides — the master at first, ignorant of his hurt, would rejoice and be delighted with the bailiff, that so much more rent had been brought to him from the estate; then, when he had heard that those things in which the harvest and tilling of the estate consist had been removed and sold, he would inflict the highest punishment on the bailiff and reckon himself ill served. So the Roman people, when it hears that Gaius Verres sold the tithes for more than that most innocent man Gaius Sacerdos (whom this man succeeded), reckons it has had a good keeper and bailiff in its plough-lands and harvests. When it shall have learned that this man has sold all the equipment of the farmers, all the supports of the revenues; that he has put away by his greed every hope for posterity; that he has wasted and emptied the plough-lands and the tributary fields; that he himself has made the greatest gains and plunder — it will understand that it has been most ill served, and will reckon him worthy of the highest punishment.

quod cum ita sit, audes dicere te magno decumas vendidisse, cum sit perspicuum te bona fortunasque aratorum non populi Romani, sed tui quaestus causa vendidisse? Vt si qui vilicus ex eo fundo qui sestertia dena meritasset, excisis arboribus ac venditis, demptis tegulis, instrumento, pecore abalienato, domino xx milia nummum pro x miserit, sibi alia praeterea centum confecerit, primo dominus ignarus incommodi sui gaudeat vilicoque delectetur, quod tanto plus sibi mercedis ex fundo refectum sit, deinde, cum audierit eas res quibus fundi fructus et cultura continetur amotas et venditas, summo supplicio vilicum adficiat et secum male actum putet: item populus Romanus, cum audit pluris decumas vendidisse C. Verrem quam innocentissimum hominem cui iste successit, C. Sacerdotem, putat se bonum in arationibus fructibusque suis habuisse custodem ac vilicum; cum senserit istum omne instrumentum aratorum, omnia subsidia vectigalium vendidisse, omnem spem posteritatis avaritia sua sustulisse, arationes et agros vectigalis vastasse atque exinanisse, ipsum maximos quaestus praedasque fecisse, intelleget secum actum esse pessime, istum autem summo supplicio dignum existimabit.

Whence then can this be understood? From this most of all: that the tithe-paying field of the province of Sicily was deserted on account of this man’s greed. Nor did this happen only that those who remained in the fields ploughed with fewer yokes, but even that very many well-off men, great and busy farmers, deserted broad and fertile fields and abandoned whole plough-lands. This indeed can most easily be known from the public records of the cities, because by the Hieronic law the number of farmers is yearly subscribed publicly before the magistrates. Read out at last how many farmers Verres received in the Leontine field: 84. How many declare in the third year? 32. Fifty-two farmers, I see, were so cast down that not even substitutes succeeded them. How many farmers were there in the Mutycensian field at your coming? Let us see from the public records. 187. What in the third year? 86. One field misses, by this man’s wrong, 101 farmers; nay, our commonwealth, since those are revenues of the Roman people, misses and demands back this whole number of fathers of households. The Herbitan field had 252 farmers in the first year, in the third 120: from this 132 fathers of households fled away into exile. The Agyrine field — of what kind of men, how honourable, how well-off! — had 250 farmers in the first year of your praetorship.

Vnde ergo hoc intellegi potest? ex hoc maxime, quod ager decumanus provinciae Siciliae propter istius avaritiam desertus est. neque id solum accidit uti minus multis iugis ararent, si qui in agris remanserunt, sed etiam ut permulti locupletes homines, magni et navi aratores, agros latos ac fertilis desererent totasque arationes derelinquerent. id adeo sciri facillime potest ex litteris publicis civitatum, propterea quod lege Hieronica numerus aratorum quotannis apud magistratus publice subscribitur. recita tandem, quot acceperit aratores agri Leontini Verres: LXXXIlII. quot anno tertio profiteantur: xxxll. duo et quinquaginta aratores ita video deiectos ut iis ne vicarii quidem successerint. quot aratores adveniente te fuerunt agri Mutycensis? videamus ex litteris publicis. CLXXXVII. quid? anno tertio? LXXXVI. centum et unum aratores unus ager istius iniuria desiderat, atque adeo nostra res publica, quoniam illa populi Romani vectigalia sunt, hunc tot patrum familias numerum desiderat et reposcit. ager Herbitensis primo anno habuit aratores CCLII, tertio cxx: hinc CXXXII patres familias extorres profugerunt. Agyrinensis ager—quorum hominum, quam honestorum, quam locupletium!—CCL aratores habuit primo anno praeturae tuae.

What in the third year? 80, as you have heard the envoys of the Agyrines read out from public records. Immortal gods! If you had cast 170 farmers out of the whole province, could you under strict judges be safe? When one Agyrine field is the emptier of 170 farmers, will you not make a guess about the whole province? And this you will find equally in every tithe-paying field. Those to whom there was nevertheless something left of a great patrimony, remained in the fields with less equipment, with fewer yokes, because they feared that, if they departed, they would lose all their remaining fortunes. But those for whom this man had left nothing to lose, fled clean away not only out of the fields but even out of their cities. Even those who had remained — scarcely a tenth part of the farmers — were going to leave all the fields, had not Metellus sent letters from Rome that he would sell the tithes by the Hieronic law, and had he not sought from them this: that they should sow as much as possible. Which they had always done for their own sake, with no one asking them, as long as they understood that they were sowing, spending, labouring for themselves and the Roman people, not for Verres and Apronius.

quid? tertio anno? LXXX, quem ad modum legatos Agyrinensis recitare ex publicis litteris audistis. pro di immortales! si ex provincia tota cLxx aratores eiecisses, possesne severis iudicibus salvus esse? Vnus ager Agyrinensis cLxx aratoribus inanior cum sit, vos coniecturam totius provinciae nonne facietis? atque hoc peraeque in omni agro decumano reperietis; quibus aliquid tamen reliqui fuerit ex magno patrimonio, eos in agris minore instrumento, minus multis iugis remansisse, quod metuebant, si discessissent, ne reliquas fortunas omnis amitterent; quibus autem iste nihil reliqui quod perderent fecerat, eos plane non solum ex agris, verum etiam ex civitatibus suis profugisse. illi ipsi qui remanserant, vix decuma pars aratorum, relicturi agros omnes erant, nisi ad eos Metellus Roma litteras misisset se decumas lege Hieronica venditurum, et nisi ab iis hoc petivisset, ut sererent quam plurimum; quod illi semper sui causa fecerant, cum eos nemo rogaret, quam diu intellegebant sese sibi et populo Romano, non Verri et Apronio serere, impendere, laborare.

Now, gentlemen, if you neglect the fortunes of the Sicilians, if you do not labour to know how the allies of the Roman people are treated by our magistrates, yet take up and defend the common cause of the Roman people. I say the farmers were cast out, the tributary fields harassed and emptied by Verres, the province plundered and laid waste. All these things I prove by the writings of the cities, I show by the testimonies both public of the most honourable cities and private of leading men. What more do you wish? Are you waiting for L. Metellus — he who by command and power frightened off many witnesses against this man — to give testimony, in his absence, about this man’s crime, wickedness, audacity? I think not. Yet he, who succeeded this man, could best know. So it is. But friendship hinders him. Yet he ought to make you more certain how the province stands. He ought; but he is not compelled.

iam vero, iudices, si Siculorum fortunas neglegitis, si quem ad modum socii populi Romani a magistratibus nostris tractentur non laboratis, at vos communem populi Romani causam suscipite atque defendite. eiectos aratores esse dico, agros vectigalis vexatos atque exinanitos a Verre, populatam vastatamque provinciam: haec omnia doceo litteris civitatum, ostendo testimoniis et publicis honestissimarum civitatum et privatis primariorum virorum. quid vultis amplius? num exspectatis dum L. Metellus, is qui multos in istum testis imperio et potestate deterruit, idem absens de istius scelere, improbitate, audacia testimonium dicat? non opinor. at is optime qui successit isti potuit cognoscere. ita est; verum amicitia impeditur. at debet vos certiores facere quo pacto se habeat provincia. debet; verum tamen non cogitur.

Does anyone require Lucius Metellus’s testimony against Verres? No one. Does anyone ask for it? I think not. What? If by Lucius Metellus’s testimony and writings I shall show all these things to be true, what will you say? Either that Metellus is writing falsely, or that he is eager to hurt a friend, or that the praetor does not know how the province has been afflicted? Read out the letters of Lucius Metellus, which he sent to the consuls Gnaeus Pompeius and Marcus Crassus, to the praetor Marcus Mummius, to the urban quaestors. Letter of L. Metellus. I sold the tithes of the grain by the Hieronic law. When he writes that he sold by the Hieronic law, what is he writing? That he sold as did all save Verres. When he writes that he sold by the Hieronic law, what is he writing? That through this man the kindnesses of our ancestors were torn from the Sicilians, and that he has restored their own right, the condition of partnership, of friendship, of treaties. He says for how much he sold the tithes of each field; then what does he write?

num quis in Verrem L. Metelli testimonium requirit? nemo. num quis postulat? non opinor. quid? si testimonio L. Metelli ac litteris haec omnia vera esse docebo, quid dicetis? utrum Metellum falsum scribere an amicum laedendi esse cupidum, an praetorem quem ad modum provincia adflicta sit nescire? recita litteras L. Metelli, quas ad Cn. Pompeium et M. Crassum consules, quas ad M. Mummium praetorem, quas ad quaestores urbanos misit. EPISTVLA L. METELLI. DECVMAS FRVMENTI LEGE HIERONICA VENDIDI. cum scribit se lege Hieronica vendidisse, quid scribit? ita se vendidisse ut omnis praeter Verrem. cum scribit se lege Hieronica vendidisse, quid scribit? se per istum erepta Siculis maiorum nostrorum beneficia, ius ipsorum, condicionem societatis, amicitiae, foederum reddidisse. dicit quanti cuiusque agri decumas vendiderit; deinde quid scribit?

Read the rest of the letter. The greatest pains were taken by me, that I might sell the tithes for as much as possible. Why then, Metellus, did you not sell for so great a sum? Because you came upon deserted plough-lands, empty fields, a wretched and ruined province. What? That very thing which has been sown — by what reasoning was anyone found to sow it? Read. He says he sent letters and confirmed his pledge, that he had interposed his own authority. Only short of giving hostages did Metellus assure the farmers that he would in no way be like Verres. But what at last is it in which he says he laboured? Read. That the farmers, who were left, should sow as much as possible. "Who were left." What is this "left"? Out of what war, out of what laying waste? What disaster in Sicily so great, or what war so long-lasting, so calamitous, has been set in motion under you as praetor that he who succeeded you should seem to have collected and revived the "remaining" farmers?

recita de epistula reliqua. SVMMA VI DATA EST A ME OPERA VT QVAM PLVRIMO DECVMAS VENDEREM. Cur igitur, Metelle, non ita magno vendidisti? quia desertas arationes, inanis agros, provinciam miseram perditamque offendisti. quid? id ipsum quod satum est qua ratione quisquam qui sereret inventus est? recita. Litteras ait se misisse et confirmasse, suam se interposuisse auctoritatem; tantum modo aratoribus Metellus obsides non dedit se in nulla re Verri similem futurum. at quid est tandem in quo se elaborasse dicit? recita. VT ARATORES, QVI RELIQVI ERANT, QVAM PLVRIMVM SERERENT. Qui reliqui? quid hoc est ’reliqui’? quo ex bello, qua ex vastitate? quaenam in Sicilia tanta clades aut quod bellum tam diuturnum, tam calamitosum te praetore versatum est ut is qui tibi successerit ’reliquos’ aratores collegisse et recreasse videatur?

When in the Carthaginian wars Sicily was harassed, and afterwards within our own and our fathers’ memory when twice in that province great forces of runaways were at large, yet no destruction of farmers happened. Then, with sowing prevented or harvest lost, the yearly fruit perished; yet the number of masters and farmers remained whole. Then those who came as praetors after Marcus Laevinus or Publius Rupilius or Manius Aquilius into that province did not have to gather "remaining" farmers. Did Verres with Apronius bring such greater calamity upon the province of Sicily than either Hasdrubal with the army of the Carthaginians, or Athenion with the greatest forces of runaway slaves — so that, in those times, as soon as the enemy had been overcome, the whole field was being ploughed; nor did the praetor by letter implore the farmer, nor in person beg him to sow as much as possible? But now, not even after the departure of this most ruinous pest, was anyone found who would plough of his own will; few were left who at the authority of L. Metellus would return to the fields and to their own household Lar.

cum bellis Carthaginiensibus Sicilia vexata est, et post nostra patrumque memoria cum bis in ea provincia magnae fugitivorum copiae versatae sunt, tamen aratorum interitio facta nulla est. tum sementi prohibita aut messe amissa fructus annuus interibat; tamen incolumis numerus manebat dominorum atque aratorum; tum qui M. Laevino aut P. Rupilio aut M’. Aquilio praetores in eam provinciam successerant aratores reliquos non colligebant. tantone plus Verres cum Apronio provinciae Siciliae calamitatis importavit quam aut Hasdrubal cum Poenorum exercitu, aut Athenio cum fugitivorum maximis copiis, ut temporibus illis, simul atque hostis superatus esset, ager araretur omnis neque aratori praetor per litteras supplicaret neque eum praesens oraret ut quam plurimum sereret; nunc autem ne post abitum quidem huius importunissimae pestis quisquam reperiretur qui sua voluntate araret, pauci essent reliqui qui L. Metelli auctoritate in agros atque ad suum larem familiarem redirent?

Most audacious and most senseless of men, do you not feel yourself stabbed to the throat by these letters? Do you not see, when he who succeeded you calls them "remaining" farmers, that he is plainly writing this — that they were "remaining" not from a war nor from any like calamity, but from your crime, from your harshness, your greed, your cruelty? Read the rest. Yet, in proportion as the difficulty of the time and the want of farmers permitted. "Want," he says, "of farmers." If I as prosecutor were so often saying the same thing, I would fear, gentlemen, lest I offend your minds. Metellus cries: had I not sent letters — that is not enough. had I not in person confirmed my pledge — not even that is enough. the remaining, he says, farmers. Remaining? With a word almost mournful he signifies the calamity of the province of Sicily; he adds, want of farmers.

his te litteris, homo audacissime atque amentissime, iugulatum esse non sentis? non vides, cum is qui tibi successit aratores reliquos appellet, hoc eum diserte scribere, reliquos hos esse non ex bello neque ex aliqua eius modi calamitate, sed ex tuo scelere, importunitate, avaritia, crudelitate? recita cetera. TAMEN PRO EO VT TEMPORIS DIFFICVLTAS ARATORVMQVE PENVRIA TVLIT. ’Aratorum,’ inquit, ’penuria.’ si ego accusator totiens de re eadem dicerem, vererer ne animos vestros offenderem, iudices. clamat Metellus, NISI LITTERAS MISISSEM: non est satis. NISI PRAESENS CONFIRMASSEM: ne id quidem satis est. RELIQVOS, inquit, ARATORES. reliquos? prope lugubri verbo calamitatem provinciae Siciliae significat: addit, ARATORVM PENVRIA.

Look further, gentlemen, look further if you can for the support of my prosecution. I say the farmers were cast out by this man’s greed: Metellus writes that the "remaining" were confirmed in their pledge by him. I say the fields were left, the plough-lands deserted: Metellus writes that there is a "want of farmers." When he writes this, he shows this: that the allies and friends of the Roman people were cast down, driven out from all their fortunes. To whom, if any calamity had happened on this man’s account but our revenues unhurt, you ought yet to animadvert against him — especially since you were judging by that law which had been established for the sake of allies. But when, the allies destroyed and overthrown, the revenues of the Roman people are diminished — the grain administration, the supplies, the resources, the safety of the city and our armies for posterity has perished by this man’s greed — look at least to the advantages of the Roman people, if you do not labour to provide for the most faithful allies.

exspectate etiam, iudices, exspectate, si potestis, auctoritatem accusationis meae. dico aratores istius avaritia eiectos: scribit Metellus ’reliquos’ ab se esse confirmatos. dico agros relictos arationesque esse desertas: scribit Metellus aratorum esse ’penuriam’. hoc cum scribit, illud ostendit, deiectos, fortunis omnibus expulsos esse populi Romani socios atque amicos. quibus si qua calamitas propter istum salvis vectigalibus nostris accidisset, animum advertere tamen in eum vos oporteret, praesertim cum ea lege iudicaretis quae sociorum causa esset constituta: cum vero perditis profligatisque sociis vectigalia populi Romani sint deminuta, res frumentaria, commeatus, copiae, salus urbis atque exercituum nostrorum in posteritatem istius avaritia interierit, saltem populi Romani commoda respicite si sociis fidelissimis prospicere non laboratis.

And that you may understand that, before present gain and plunder, neither the revenues nor posterity were reckoned with by him, learn what at the end Metellus writes. Yet for the time to come I have provided for the revenues. He says that for the time to come he has provided for the revenues. He would not write that he had provided for the revenues, did he not wish to show this: that you had ruined the revenues. For what was there for Metellus to provide in the matter of tithes and in the whole grain administration, if this man had not overthrown the revenues of the Roman people for his own gain? And Metellus himself, who provides for the revenues, who gathers up the "remaining" farmers — what does he attain except this: that those plough, if any can, to whom this man’s hanger-on Apronius left at least some plough — those who yet remained on the fields in hope and expectation of Metellus? What of the rest of the Sicilians? What of that greatest number of farmers who not only were cast out from their fields but fled even from their cities, in short out of the province, with all their goods and fortunes torn from them — by what reasoning shall they be called back? How many praetors of innocence and wisdom are needed, that that multitude of farmers should some day be settled in their fields and their seats?

atque ut intellegatis ab isto prae lucro praedaque praesenti nec vectigalium nec posteritatis habitam esse rationem, cognoscite quid ad extremum scribat Metellus. IN RELIQVVM TAMEN TEMPVS VECTIGALIBVS PROSPEXI. in reliquum tempus vectigalibus ait se prospexisse. non scriberet se vectigalibus prospexisse nisi hoc vellet ostendere, te vectigalia perdidisse. quid enim erat quod vectigalibus prospiceret Metellus in decumis et in tota re frumentaria, si iste non vectigalia populi Romani quaestu suo pervertisset? atque ipse Metellus, qui vectigalibus prospicit, qui ’reliquos’ aratores colligit, quid adsequitur nisi hoc, ut arent, si qui possunt, quibus aratrum saltem aliquod satelles istius Apronius reliquum fecit, qui tamen in agris spe atque exspectatione Metelli remanserunt? quid ceteri Siculi? quid ille maximus numerus aratorum qui non modo ex agris eiecti sunt, sed etiam ex civitatibus suis, ex provincia denique bonis fortunisque omnibus ereptis profugerunt, qua ratione ii revocabuntur? quot praetorum innocentia sapientiaque opus est ut illa aratorum multitudo aliquando in suis agris ac sedibus conlocetur?

And lest you wonder that so great a multitude fled away as you have learned from the public records and from the farmers’ declarations, know that this man’s bitterness, this man’s crime against the farmers was so great — a thing incredible to say, gentlemen, but both done and known throughout all Sicily — that men, on account of the wrongs and the licence of the tithe-collectors, took their own lives. It is agreed that Diocles of Centuripa, a well-off man, hanged himself the day on which it was reported to him that Apronius had bought the tithes. That Tyracinus, a chief man of his city, met death in the same way that most noble man Archonidas of Helorus said before you, when he had heard that the tithe-collector had declared by your edict that as much was owed to him as the other could not raise out of all his goods. These things you, although you were always the loosest and most cruel of all men, would yet never have suffered, because that groaning and grief of the province had to do with the peril of your own life. You would not, I say, have suffered that men should seek a remedy for your wrong by death and hanging, did not the matter have to do with your gain and plunder.

ac ne miremini tantam multitudinem profugisse quantam ex litteris publicis aratorumque professionibus cognovistis, scitote tantam acerbitatem istius, tantum scelus in aratores fuisse,—incredibile dictu est, iudices, sed et factum et tota Sicilia pervagatum,—ut homines propter iniurias licentiamque decumanorum mortem sibi ipsi consciverint. Centuripinum Dioclem, hominem locupletem, suspendisse se constat quo die sit ei nuntiatum Apronium decumas redemisse. Tyracinum, principem civitatis, eadem ratione mortem oppetisse dixit apud vos homo nobilissimus, Archonidas Helorinus, cum audisset tantum decumanum professum esse ex edicto istius sibi deberi quantum ille bonis suis omnibus efficere non posset. haec tu, tametsi omnium hominum dissolutissimus crudelissimusque semper fuisti, tamen numquam perpeterere, propterea quod ille gemitus luctusque provinciae ad tui capitis periculum pertinebat; non, inquam, perpeterere ut homines iniuriae tuae remedium morte ac suspendio quaererent, nisi ea res ad quaestum et ad praedam tuam pertineret.

What of this — would you have suffered this? Mark, gentlemen; for I must strain with all sinews and labour in this, that all may understand by what dishonest, what manifest, what confessed thing he is trying to ransom himself with money. This is a grave and vehement charge, and within the memory of men — since trials for extortion were established — the gravest of all: that a praetor had tithe-collectors as partners. He hears this not now first, as a private man hears it from an enemy, as a defendant from a prosecutor. Long since, sitting on his chair as praetor, while he was holding the province of Sicily, while he was feared by all not only (which is common) on account of the imperium, but also (which is special to him) on account of his cruelty, he heard it a thousand times, when his own mind was not held back from the pursuit by negligence, but by consciousness of his crime and greed was reined in. For the tithe-collectors used to say openly, and beyond the rest he who had most power with this man and was laying waste the greatest fields, Apronius, that very little of those great gains came to himself — that the praetor was the partner.

quid? illud perpeterere? attendite, iudices; omnibus enim nervis mihi contendendum est atque in hoc elaborandum, ut omnes intellegant quam improbam, quam manifestam, quam confessam rem pecunia redimere conetur. grave crimen est hoc et vehemens et post hominum memoriam iudiciaque de pecuniis repetundis constituta gravissimum, praetorem socios habuisse decumanos. non hoc nunc primum audit privatus de inimico, reus ab accusatore: iam antea in sella sedens praetor, cum provinciam Siciliam obtineret, cum ab omnibus non solum, id quod commune est, propter imperium, sed etiam, id quod istius praecipuum est, propter crudelitatem metueretur, miliens audivit, cum eius animum ad persequendum non neglegentia tardaret, sed conscientia sceleris avaritiaeque suae refrenaret. loquebantur enim decumani palam, et praeter ceteros is qui apud istum plurimum poterat maximosque agros populabatur, Apronius, perparvum ex illis magnis lucris ad se pervenire, praetorem esse socium.

When the tithe-collectors were saying this openly throughout the province, and were interposing your name in a thing so foul and unspeakable, did nothing come into your mind to consult for your standing, nothing at last to provide for your life and fortunes? Although the terror of your name was running in the ears and minds of the farmers, although the tithe-collectors were setting against the farmers in making bargains not their own force but your crime and name — did you think that any court at Rome would be so loose, so lost, so venal, that out of that court any safety could save you? When it was being made plain that, the tithes having been sold contrary to the institutions, the laws, and the custom of all, in the plundering of the goods and fortunes of the farmers the tithe-collectors had been saying that yours was the share, yours the matter, yours the plunder — and that you had been silent, and, when you could not pretend, you had yet been able to bear and endure it, because the size of the gain was darkening the size of the danger, and somewhat more had power with you the desire of money than the fear of trial.

hoc cum palam decumani tota provincia loquerentur tuumque nomen in re tam turpi nefariaque interponerent, nihilne tibi venit in mentem existimationi tuae consulere, nihil denique capiti ac fortunis tuis providere? cum tui nominis terror in auribus animisque aratorum versaretur, cum decumani aratoribus ad pactiones faciendas non suam vim, sed tuum scelus ac nomen opponerent. ecquod iudicium Romae tam dissolutum, tam perditum, tam nummarium fore putasti, quo ex iudicio te ulla salus servare posset? cum planum fieret, decumis contra instituta leges consuetudinemque omnium venditis, in aratorum bonis fortunisque diripiendis decumanos dictitasse tuas esse partis, tuam rem, tuam praedam, idque te tacuisse et, cum dissimulare non posses, potuisse tamen perpeti et perferre, quod magnitudo lucri obscuraret periculi magnitudinem plusque aliquanto apud te pecuniae cupiditas quam iudici metus posset.

Be it so; the rest you cannot deny. You did not even leave yourself this, that you might be able to say you had heard none of these things, that nothing about your infamy had come to your ears. The farmers were complaining with grief and groaning: did you not know it? The whole province was murmuring: did no one report it to you? At Rome complaints about your wrongs and assemblies were being held: were you ignorant of these things? Were you ignorant of them all? What? When openly at Syracuse, with you hearing, in the greatest assize, Lucius Rubrius challenged Quintus Apronius to a sponsion, unless Apronius were saying that you were his partner in the tithes, did this voice not strike you, not throw you into confusion, not rouse you to look out for your life and fortunes? You were silent; you even quieted their suit, and laboured that that sponsion should not happen. By the immortal gods, could either an innocent man have suffered this; or, however guilty, one who only thought there were going to be courts at Rome, would he not by some pretence have offered himself for sale to men’s good opinion?

esto, cetera negare non potes; ne illud quidem tibi reliquum fecisti, ut hoc posses dicere, nihil eorum te audisse, nihil ad tuas auris de infamia tua pervenisse. querebantur cum luctu et gemitu aratores: tu id nesciebas? fremebat tota provincia: nemo id tibi renuntiabat? Romae querimoniae de tuis iniuriis conventusque habebantur: ignorabas haec? ignorabas haec omnia? quid? cum palam Syracusis te audiente maximo conventu L. Rubrius Q. Apronium sponsione lacessivit, Nl APRONIVS DICTITARET TE SIBI IN DECVMIS ESSE SOCIVM, haec te vox non perculit, non perturbavit, non ut capiti et fortunis tuis prospiceres excitavit? tacuisti, sedasti etiam litis illorum, et sponsio illa ne fieret laborasti. pro di immortales, hoc aut innocens homo perpeti potuisset, aut quamvis nocens, qui modo iudicia Romae fore putaret, non aliqua simulatione existimationi se hominum venditasset?

What is this? A sponsion is being made about your life and fortunes: do you sit still and keep quiet? Do you not pursue it? Do you not press on? Do you not inquire to whom Apronius said it, who heard it, whence the thing was born, in what manner it was brought out? Had someone come up to your ear and told you that Apronius was saying you were his partner, you ought to have been moved, to have summoned Apronius, nor have allowed him to satisfy you before you yourself had satisfied the standing of all. But when in the most thronged forum, in such great frequency, this thing was thrown at Apronius in word and pretence, but in fact at you — could you ever have taken so great a blow in silence, unless you had so resolved that, in a matter so plain, whatever you said, you would only make it worse?

quid est hoc? sponsio fit de capite ac fortunis tuis: tu sedes et quiescis? non persequeris? non perseveras? non perquiris cui dixerit Apronius, quis audierit? unde hoc natum, quem ad modum prolatum sit? si tibi aliquis ad aurem accessisset et dixisset Apronium dictitare te sibi esse socium, commoveri te oportuit, evocare Apronium, nec illum ante tibi satis facere quam tu omnium existimationi satis fecisses: cum vero in foro celeberrimo tanta frequentia hoc verbo ac simulatione Apronio, re vera tibi obiectum esset, tu umquam tantam plagam tacitus accipere potuisses nisi hoc ita statuisses, in re tam manifesta quicquid dixisses te deterius esse facturum?

Quaestors, legates, prefects, their tribunes many men have sent away and ordered to depart from the province, because by their fault they thought their own reputation was less good or because they judged those men were sinning in some matter. You yet — in the case of Apronius, a man scarce free, polluted, ruined, scandalous, who could keep not only no upright mind but not even pure breath — in your great disgrace would surely not have addressed him with even a graver word, nor would the religion of partnership have been so sacred with you that you should neglect the peril of your life — did you not see the thing was so well known to all and so manifest.

quaestores, legatos, praefectos, tribunos suos multi missos fecerunt et de provincia decedere iusserunt, quod illorum culpa se minus commode audire arbitrarentur aut quod peccare ipsos aliqua in re iudicarent: tu Apronium, hominem vix liberum, contaminatum, perditum, flagitiosum, qui non modo animum integrum sed ne animam quidem puram conservare potuisset, eum in tanto tuo dedecore profecto verbo quidem graviore appellasses, neque apud te tam sancta religio societatis fuisset ut tui capitis periculum neglegeres, nisi rem tam notam esse omnibus et tam manifestam videres.

With the same Apronius, afterwards, Publius Scandilius, a Roman knight whom you all know, made the same sponsion about partnership which Rubrius had wished to make. He pressed, he urged, he did not let go. The sponsion was made for 5,000 sesterces. Scandilius began to demand recoverers or a judge. Do the lattices set round a dishonest praetor in his own province seem enough to you, gentlemen — nay, on his own chair and tribunal — that either he should suffer judgement to be held about his own life present and sitting, or confess that he must necessarily be convicted in all trials? The sponsion is, unless Apronius say you to be his partner in the tithes. The province is yours; you are present; from you a trial is asked: what do you do, what do you decree? You say you will give recoverers. Well done; though who will be of such great neck as to be recoverers as would dare in a province, with the praetor present, to judge not only against his will but even against his fortunes?

cum eodem Apronio postea P. Scandilius, eques Romanus, quem vos omnes nostis, eandem sponsionem de societate fecit quam Rubrius facere voluerat. institit, oppressit, non remisit; facta est sponsio HS v; coepit Scandilius recuperatores aut iudicem postulare. satisne vobis praetori improbo circumdati cancelli videntur in sua provincia, immo vero in sella ac tribunali, ut aut de suo capite iudicium fieri patiatur praesens ac sedens, aut confiteatur se omnibus iudiciis convinci necesse esse? sponsio est, NI TE APRONIVS SOCIVM IN DECVMIS ESSE DICAT; provincia tua est, ades, abs te iudicium postulatur; quid facis, quid decernis? recuperatores dicis te daturum. bene agis; tametsi qui tantis erunt cervicibus recuperatores qui audeant in provincia, cum praetor adsit, non solum contra voluntatem eius sed etiam contra fortunas iudicare?

But suppose so. The matter is plain; there was no one who would not say clearly that he had heard this. Each most well-off and most reliable man would be a witness; there was no one in all Sicily who did not know that the tithes were the praetor’s, no one who had not heard that Apronius was so saying. Besides, the honourable assize of Syracuse, many Roman knights, leading men, were available — from the resources of which the recoverers should be challenged, men who could not in any way judge otherwise. Scandilius presses to demand recoverers. Then this innocent man, who was eager to lighten that suspicion and remove it from himself, says he will give recoverers from his own staff.

verum esto; manifesta res est; nemo esset quin hoc se audisse liquido diceret; locupletissimus quisque ac certissimus testis esset; nemo erat Sicilia tota quin sciret decumas esse praetoris, nemo quin audisset id Apronium dictitasse; praeterea conventus honestus Syracusis, multi equites Romani, viri primarii, ex qua copia recuperatores reici oporteret, qui aliter iudicare nullo modo possent. instat Scandilius poscere recuperatores. tum iste homo innocens, qui illam suspicionem levare atque ab sese removere cuperet, recuperatores dicit se de cohorte sua daturum.

By the faith of gods and of men, whom am I accusing? In what would I have my industry and diligence regarded? What is it that I, by speaking or by thinking, should bring to pass or accomplish? I hold him, I hold him, I say, in the midst of the Roman people’s revenues, in the very fruits of the province of Sicily, the thief in the act of diverting the whole grain administration, the greatest sum of money. I hold him, I say, in such a way that he cannot deny it. For what will he say here? A sponsion has been made with your own representative Apronius about all your fortunes, unless he should be saying you to be his partner in the tithes. All await how great is your care for that thing, in what way you wish your innocence to be approved by men’s opinion. Will you here give a doctor and a soothsayer and your crier as recoverers? Or even that very man whom you used to keep in your staff as a Cassian judge, if any greater matter arose — Papirius Potamo, a stern man of that old equestrian discipline? Scandilius asks for recoverers from the assize. Then this man says he will entrust his standing to no one save his own. Businessmen think it shameful for themselves to swear off as unfair to them the forum in which they do business. The praetor swears off his own whole province as unfair to himself.

pro deum hominumque fidem, quem ego accuso? in quo meam industriam ac diligentiam spectari volo? quid est quod ego dicendo aut cogitando efficere aut adsequi debeam? teneo, teneo, inquam, in mediis vectigalibus populi Romani, in ipsis fructibus provinciae Siciliae furem manifesto avertentem rem frumentariam omnem, pecuniam maximam,—teneo, inquam, ita ut negare non possit. nam quid hic dicet? sponsio facta est cum cognitore tuo Apronio de fortunis tuis omnibus, ni socium te sibi in decumis esse dictitaret; exspectant omnes quantae tibi ea res curae sit, quem ad modum hominum existimationi te atque innocentiam tuam probari velis. hic tu medicum et haruspicem et praeconem tuum recuperatores dabis aut etiam illum ipsum quem tu in cohorte tua Cassianum iudicem habebas, si qua res maior esset, Papirium Potamonem, hominem severum ex vetere illa equestri disciplina? Scandilius postulare de conventu recuperatores. tum iste negat se de existimatione sua cuiquam nisi suis commissurum. negotiatores sibi putant esse turpe id forum sibi iniquum eierare ubi negotientur; praetor provinciam suam sibi totam iniquam eierat.

Singular shamelessness! He demands to be acquitted at Rome, when he himself in his own province has judged that he can in no way be acquitted; who reckons that money has more force with chosen senators than fear with three businessmen! But Scandilius says that he will not say a word before Artemidorus as recoverer; and yet he loads and presses you with good terms, if you should wish to use them. If you should determine that out of the whole province of Sicily no fit judge or recoverer can be found, he asks of you that you remit the matter to Rome.

impudentiam singularem! hic postulat se Romae absolvi qui in sua provincia iudicarit absolvi se nullo modo posse, qui plus existimet apud lectissimos senatores pecuniam quam apud tris negotiatores metum valere! Scandilius vero negat sese apud Artemidorum recuperatorem verbum esse facturum, et tamen auget atque onerat te bonis condicionibus, si tu uti velis; si ex provincia Sicilia tota statuas idoneum iudicem aut recuperatorem nullum posse reperiri, postulat abs te ut Romam rem reicias.

Here indeed you cry out the man dishonest, who asks that judgement be made about your standing where he sees that you are unpopular. You deny you will refer it to Rome; you deny you will give recoverers from the assize; you put forward your staff. Scandilius says that he will leave the whole matter and will return at his own time. What do you then there? What do you do? Do you compel Scandilius — to what? to receive the sponsion as paid? You take away shamelessly the awaited trial of your standing. You do not. What then?

hic enim vero tu exclamas hominem improbum, qui postulet ibi de tua existimatione iudicium fieri ubi te invidiosum esse intellegat: negas te Romam reiecturum, negas de conventu recuperatores daturum, cohortem tuam proponis. Scandilius rem se totam relicturum dicit et suo tempore esse rediturum. quid tu ibi tum? quid facis? Scandilium cogis—quid? sponsionem acceptam facere? impudenter tollis exspectatum existimationis tuae iudicium: non facis. quid ergo?

Do you allow Apronius to take whom he wishes from your staff as recoverers? It is unworthy that the power of taking should be granted rather to one out of the unfair, than the power of challenging be granted to each out of the fair. You do neither of these. What then? Is there anything that could be done more dishonestly? There is. For he compels Scandilius to give and count out those 5,000 sesterces to Apronius. What more elegant could a praetor eager for good standing do, who wished to drive away every suspicion from himself, who longed to snatch himself out of infamy? He had been brought into talk, hatred, blame; that dishonest and impure man Apronius had been saying that the praetor was his partner; the matter had come to trial and crisis; power had been given to this man — whole and innocent — that, when he had animadverted upon Apronius, he should free himself from the gravest infamy. What punishment does he devise, what animadversion against Apronius? He compels Scandilius to give Apronius, on account of his singular wickedness and audacity and his preaching of an unspeakable partnership, 5,000 sesterces under the name of wage and prize.

Apronio permittis ut quos velit de cohorte sumat recuperatores? indignum uni potius ex iniquis sumundi quam utrique ex aequis reiciundi fieri potestatem. neutrum facis eorum. quid ergo? estne aliquid quod improbius fieri possit? est; cogit enim Scandilium quinque illa milia nummum dare atque adnumerare Apronio. quid potuit elegantius facere praetor cupidus existimationis bonae, qui ab se omnem suspicionem propulsare, qui se eripere ex infamia cuperet? adductus erat in sermonem, invidiam, vituperationem; dictitarat homo improbus atque impurus, Apronius, socium esse praetorem; venerat res in iudicium atque discrimen; potestas erat isti homini integro atque innocenti data, ut, in Apronium cum animum advertisset, sese gravissima levaret infamia. quid excogitat poenae, quid animadversionis in Apronium? cogit Scandilium Apronio ob singularem improbitatem atque audaciam praedicationemque nefariae societatis HS v mercedis ac praemi nomine dare.

What did it matter, most audacious of men, whether you decreed this, or whether you yourself professed and openly proclaimed of yourself what Apronius was saying? The man whom, if any modesty in you, indeed if any fear, had been, you ought not to have let go without punishment — this same man you would not have depart from you without prize? You can understand all things together, gentlemen, from this one Scandilian charge: first, that this story of partnership in the tithes was not born at Rome, was not feigned by the prosecutor, not (as we are sometimes wont to say in defences) a domestic and home-bred charge, not made up at the time of your peril, but old, agitated already and tossed about while you were praetor, and not framed at Rome by enemies but brought to Rome from the province.

quid interfuit, homo audacissime, utrum hoc decerneres, an id quod Apronius dictitabat tute de te profiterere ac dictitares? quem hominem, si qui pudor in te atque adeo si qui metus fuisset, sine supplicio dimittere non debuisti, hunc abs te sine praemio discedere noluisti? omnia simul intellegere potestis, iudices, ex hoc uno crimine Scandiliano: primum hoc non esse Romae natum de societate decumarum, non ab accusatore fictum, non,—ut solemus interdum in defensionibus dicere,—crimen domesticum ac vernaculum, non ex tempore periculi tui constitutum, sed vetus, agitatum iam et te praetore iactatum, et non ab inimicis Romae compositum sed Romam ex provincia deportatum.

At the same time this can be understood: this man’s zeal toward Apronius; Apronius’s not only confession but even mention about this man. To this is added that you can also understand this: that this man had decided that, in his own province, the trial of his standing was to be entrusted to no one outside his own staff. Is there any judge who has not from the start of this charge of tithes been persuaded that this man made an attack on the goods and fortunes of the farmers? Who would not at once judge this from this — that I have shown him to have sold the tithes by a new law, indeed by no law, against the custom and institutions of all?

simul illud intellegi potest istius in Apronium studium, Aproni de isto non modo confessio verum etiam commemoratio. eodem accedit quod hoc quoque intellegere potestis, istum statuisse in provincia sua existimationis suae iudicium extra cohortem suam committendum fuisse nemini. ecquis est iudex cui non ab initio decumani criminis persuasum sit istum in aratorum bona fortunasque impetum fecisse? quis hoc non ex eo statim iudicavit, quod ostendi istum decumas nova lege atque adeo nulla lege contra omnium consuetudinem atque instituta vendidisse?

But suppose I have not these judges so strict, so diligent, so scrupulous: is there anyone, from the size of the wrongs, the wickedness of the decrees, the iniquity of the trials, who has not long since determined and judged this? Suppose now there be some looser one in judging, more careless of laws, of duty, of the commonwealth, of allies and friends: what? Could he doubt about this man’s wickedness, when he had learned of such great gains made, of such unjust agreements wrung out by force and fear — when he had learned of such great prizes which the cities were forced to give, by force and command, by fear of the rods and of death, not only to Apronius and his like but even to Venusian slaves?

verum ut istos ego iudices tam severos, tam diligentis, tam religiosos non habeam, ecquis est ex iniuriarum magnitudine, improbitate decretorum, iudiciorum iniquitate qui hoc non iam dudum statuerit et iudicarit? etiam sane sit aliquis dissolutior in iudicando, legum offici rei publicae sociorum atque amicorum neglegentior: quid? is possitne de istius improbitate dubitare, cum tanta lucra facta, tam iniquas pactiones vi et metu expressas cognoverit, cum tanta praemia civitates vi atque imperio, virgarum ac mortis metu, non modo Apronio atque eius similibus verum etiam Veneriis servis dare coactas?

But if anyone is less moved by the hurts of the allies — if the flights, the calamities, the exiles, finally the hangings of the farmers do not move him — I cannot doubt but he, when he shall have learned of the laying waste of Sicily, of the abandoned fields, from the writings of the cities and from L. Metellus’s letter, will determine that it cannot be that judgement should not be given against this man most strictly. Will there even be someone who can pretend not to see and neglect all these things? I have brought sponsions made with him present, about the partnership of the tithes, and forbidden by him to be judged: what is it that anyone can demand more manifest than this? I do not doubt but I have satisfied you, gentlemen. Yet I shall go further — not, by Hercules, that I might persuade you of this more than I trust you are now persuaded, but that he may at last set an end to his shamelessness; may at last cease to think he can buy those things which he himself has always had for sale — faith, oath, truth, duty, religion — may his friends cease to repeat those things which can be to all of us a hurt, a stain, a hatred, an infamy.

quodsi quis sociorum incommodis minus commovetur,—si quem aratorum fugae calamitates exsilia suspendia denique non permovent,—non possum dubitare quin is tamen, cum vastatam Siciliam, relictos agros ex civitatum litteris et ex epistula L. Metelli cognoverit, statuat fieri non posse ut de isto non severissime iudicetur. erit etiam aliquis qui haec omnia dissimulare ac neglegere possit? attuli sponsiones ipso praesente factas de decumarum societate ab ipso prohibitas iudicari: quid est quod possit quisquam manifestius hoc desiderare? non dubito quin vobis satis fecerim, iudices; verum tamen progrediar longius, non mehercule quo magis hoc vobis persuadeatur quam iam persuasum esse confido, sed ut ille aliquando impudentiae suae finem faciat, aliquando desinat ea se putare emere quae ipse semper habuit venalia,—fidem ius iurandum veritatem officium religionem,—desinant amici eius ea dictitare quae detrimento maculae invidiae infamiae nobis omnibus esse possint.

Yet what friends! O wretched, O hated and offended order of senators by the fault and unworthiness of a few! Alba Aemilius, sitting in the throat of the food-market, talking openly that Verres has won, that he has bought judges, one for 400,000 sesterces, another for 500, the one most cheaply, 300! And to him, when it was answered that it could not be done, that many witnesses were going to speak, that I moreover would not be wanting to the case, "Let them all," he said, "by Hercules, say all things; in him, unless the matter be brought up so plain that nothing can be answered, we have won."

at qui amici! O miserum, o invidiosum offensumque paucorum culpa atque indignitate ordinem senatorium! Albam Aemilium sedentem in faucibus macelli loqui palam vicisse Verrem, emptos habere iudices, alium HS cccc, alium HS D, quem minimo, ccc! atque ei cum responsum esset fieri non posse, multos testis esse dicturos, me praeterea causae non defuturum, ’ licet hercle,’ inquit, ’omnes omnia dicant, in illo, nisi ita res manifesta erit adlata ut responderi nihil possit, vicimus.’

Well done, Alba: I shall come to your terms. You think nothing has force in trials of conjecture, nothing of suspicion, nothing of the standing of a life lived before, nothing of the testimonies of good men, nothing of the authorities and writings of cities. You ask for plain matters. I do not ask for Cassian judges, I do not look for the old strictness of the courts; I do not implore your faith, your dignity, your scruple in judging in this matter. I shall have Alba as judge — a man who himself wishes to be reckoned the most dishonest buffoon, although by buffoons he has always rather been called a gladiator than a buffoon. I shall bring forward such a thing in the tithes that even Alba may confess that this man openly and plainly plundered in the grain administration and in the goods of the farmers.

bene agis, Alba: ad tuam veniam condicionem. nihil putas valere in iudiciis coniecturam, nihil suspicionem, nihil ante actae vitae existimationem, nihil virorum bonorum testimonia, nihil civitatum auctoritates ac litteras: res manifestas quaeris. non quaero iudices Cassianos, veterem iudiciorum severitatem non requiro, vestram in hac re fidem dignitatem religionem in iudicando non imploro; Albam habebo iudicem, eum hominem qui se ipse scurram improbissimum existimari vult, cum a scurris semper potius gladiator quam scurra appellatus sit; adferam rem eius modi in decumis ut Alba fateatur istum in re frumentaria et in bonis aratorum aperte palamque esse praedatum.

You say you sold the tithes of the Leontine field for a great sum. I have already shown at the start that he is not to be reckoned to have sold for a great sum, who in word sold tithes, but in fact and by condition and by law and by edict and by the licence of the tithe-collectors left no tithes to the farmers. I have also shown that others sold the tithes of the Leontine field and of the rest of the fields for a great sum, and sold by the Hieronic law, and sold for even more than you, nor did any farmer complain. For there was nothing about which any could complain, when they were selling under a most equally written law; nor did it ever matter to the farmer for how much the tithes were sold. For it is not so that, if they were sold for a great sum, the farmer owes more, if for a small sum, less. As the grain is born, so the tithes are sold. Yet it is to the farmer’s interest that the grain be such that the tithes can be sold for as much as possible. Provided the farmer give no more than the tithe, it is in his interest that the tithe should be as large as possible.

decumas agri Leontini magno dicis te vendidisse. ostendi iam illud initio, non existimandum magno vendidisse eum qui verbo decumas vendiderit, re et condicione et lege et edicto et licentia decumanorum decumas aratoribus nullas reliquas fecerit. etiam illud ostendi, vendidisse alios magno decumas agri Leontini ceterorumque agrorum, et lege Hieronica vendidisse et pluris etiam quam te vendidisse, nec aratorem quemquam esse questum; nec enim fuit quod quisquam queri posset, cum lege aequissime scripta venderent, neque illud umquam aratoris interfuit, quanti decumae venirent. non enim ita est ut, si magno venierint, plus arator debeat, si parvo, minus; ut frumenta nata sunt, ita decumae veneunt; aratoris autem interest ita se frumenta habere ut decumae quam plurimo venire possint; dum arator ne plus decuma det, expedit ei decumam esse quam maximam.

But this, as I think, you wish to be the head of your defence: that you sold the tithes for a great sum — and indeed of the other fields proportionately for a great sum, but of the Leontine field, which yields the most, for 216,000 modii of wheat. If I show that you could have sold for somewhat more, and that you would not knock them down to those who were bidding against Apronius, and that you handed them over to Apronius for much less than you could have sold to others — if I show this, will Alba himself, your most ancient not only friend but lover, be able to acquit you? I say that a Roman knight, a most honourable man, Quintus Minucius, with men like himself, was willing to add for the tithes of the Leontine field of wheat not 1,000 modii, not two or three thousand, but for the single tithes of one field 30,000 modii of wheat: that the power of buying was not given him, that the matter should not depart from Apronius.

verum hoc, ut opinor, esse vis caput defensionis tuae, magno te decumas vendidisse, atque aliorum quidem agrorum pro portione magno decumas vendidisse, agri vero Leontini, qui plurimum efficit, tritici mod. CCXVI. si doceo pluris aliquanto potuisse te vendere, neque iis voluisse addicere qui contra Apronium licerentur, et Apronio multo minoris quam aliis potueris vendere tradidisse,— si hoc doceo, poteritne te ipse Alba, tuus antiquissimus non solum amicus verum etiam amator, absolvere? dico equitem Romanum, hominem in primis honestum, Q. Minucium, cum sui similibus ad decumas agri Leontini tritici mod. non mille non duo nec tria milia, sed ad unas unius agri decumas tritici modium triginta voluisse addere: ei potestatem emendi non esse factam, ne res abiret ab Apronio.

You can in no way deny this — unless perhaps you have decided to deny everything. The thing was done in the open in the largest assize at Syracuse; the witness is the whole province, because from every quarter men are wont to gather there to buy the tithes. Whether you confess or are convicted of this, do you not see in how many and how plain matters you are caught? First, that that thing was your own and was your plunder. For were it not so, why did you prefer Apronius (whom all said was your agent in the tithes, who was carrying on your business) to take the tithes of the Leontine field rather than Minucius? Next, that an immense and boundless gain had been made; for if you had not been moved by 30,000, surely Minucius would willingly have given the same gain to Apronius, had he wished to take it.

negare hoc, nisi forte negare omnia constituisti, nullo modo potes; palam res gesta est maximo conventu Syracusis; testis est tota provincia, propterea quod undique ad emendas decumas solent eo convenire. quod sive fateris sive convinceris, quot et quam manifestis in rebus teneare non vides? primum tuam rem illam et praedam fuisse; nam ni ita esset, cur tu Apronium malebas, quem omnes tuum procuratorem esse in decumis, tuum negotium agere loquebantur, quam Minucium decumas agri Leontini sumere? deinde immensum atque infinitum lucrum esse factum; nam si xxx tu commotus non esses, certe hoc idem lucri Minucius Apronio libenter dedisset, si ille accipere voluisset.

How great then do we think was the hope of plunder set out for him who could despise and look down on so much present gain, with no labour spent? Next, Minucius himself would never have wished to value it at so much, were you selling the tithes by the Hieronic law. But because he saw that, by your new edicts and most unjust institutions, somewhat more than the tithes was going to be carried off, he therefore went further. Yet to Apronius always much more was permitted by you than what you had set out by edict. How great then must the gain have been made through him for whom anything was lawful, when so much gain a man wished to add to whom, if he had bought the tithes, the same would not have been lawful?

quantam igitur illi spem praedae propositam arbitramur fuisse qui tantum praesens lucrum nulla opera insumpta contempserit atque despexerit? deinde ipse Minucius numquam tanti habere voluisset, si decumas tu lege Hieronica venderes; sed quia tuis novis edictis et iniquissimis institutis plus aliquanto se quam decumas ablaturum videbat, idcirco longius progressus est. at Apronio semper plus etiam multo abs te permissum est quam quod edixeras. quantum igitur quaestum putamus factum esse per eum cui quidvis licitum sit, cum tantum lucri voluerit addere is cui, si decumas emisset, idem non liceret?

Finally, that defence is surely cut off from you, in which you have always thought all your thefts and disgraces could lie hidden: that you sold the tithes for a great sum, that you consulted for the Roman commons, that you provided for the supply of grain. He cannot say this who cannot deny that he has sold the tithes of one field for 30,000 modii less than he could have. So that, even if I should grant this — that you did not hand them over to Minucius because you had already knocked them down to Apronius (for they say you say so, and I am awaiting and desiring you to make this defence) — yet, even if it were so, you cannot proclaim this as something splendid: that you sold the tithes for a great sum, when you confess there was a man who wished to buy them for much more.

postremo illa quidem certe tibi praecisa defensio est, in qua tu semper omnia tua furta atque flagitia latere posse arbitratus es, magno te decumas vendidisse, plebi Romanae consuluisse, annonae prospexisse. non potest hoc dicere is qui negare non potest se unius agri decumas xxx milibus modium minoris quam potuerit vendidisse; ut etiamsi tibi hoc concedam, Minucio ideo te non tradidisse quod iam addixisses Apronio (aiunt enim te ita dictitare, quod ego exspecto cupioque te illud defendere)—verum ut ita sit, tamen non potes hoc quasi praeclarum aliquid praedicare, magno te decumas vendidisse, cum fuisse fateare qui multo pluris voluerit emere.

He is now caught, gentlemen, he is manifestly caught — the greed, the cupidity of the man, his crime, his wickedness, his audacity. What? If these things which I am saying his own friends and defenders have judged, what more do you wish? At the coming of L. Metellus the praetor, when this man had made all his retinue friends to himself by that all-purpose drug of his, men went to Metellus. Apronius was led out. The leading man Gaius Gallus, a senator, led him out; he asked of L. Metellus that out of his own edict he should give an action against Apronius, for what he had carried off by force or fear. Which formula — the Octavian — Metellus had had at Rome and was having in the province. He does not get his request, although Metellus said this: that he was unwilling that any prejudgement about the life of C. Verres should be made by this trial. The whole staff of Metellus, men not ungrateful, was at hand for Apronius. C. Gallus, a man of your order, cannot get an action under the edict from his most familiar L. Metellus.

tenetur igitur iam, iudices, et manifesto tenetur avaritia, cupiditas hominis, scelus, improbitas, audacia. quid? si haec quae dico ipsius amici defensoresque iudicarunt, quid amplius vultis? adventu L. Metelli praetoris, cum omnis eius comites iste sibi suo illo panchresto medicamento amicos reddidisset, aditum est ad Metellum; eductus est Apronius. eduxit vir primarius, C. Gallus senator; postulavit ab L. Metello ut ex edicto suo iudicium daret in Apronium, QVOD PER VIM AVT METVM ABSTVLISSET, quam formulam Octavianam et Romae Metellus habuerat et habebat in provincia. non impetrat, cum hoc diceret Metellus, praeiudicium se de capite C. Verris per hoc iudicium nolle fieri. tota Metelli cohors hominum non ingratorum aderat Apronio; C. Gallus, homo vestri ordinis, a suo familiarissimo L. Metello iudicium ex edicto non potest impetrare.

I do not blame Metellus. He spared a friendly man and (as I have heard him himself say) a man bound to him. I do not blame Metellus, I say. But I wonder at this: how, in the case of a man for whom he was unwilling that any prejudgement should be made through recoverers, of him he himself not only made a prejudgement but judged most gravely and most vehemently. For first, if he had thought Apronius would be acquitted, there was nothing for him to fear from any prejudgement. Next, if, with Apronius condemned, all were going to reckon Verres’s case bound up with him, Metellus indeed was now passing this judgement: that those men’s matter and case was bound up together — since he was deciding that, with Apronius condemned, a prejudgement against this man would follow. And at the same time the one matter is proof of the other: that the farmers, compelled by force and fear, gave Apronius much more than they owed; and that Apronius transacted this man’s business in his own name, since L. Metellus had ruled that Apronius could not be condemned without judgement at the same time being given on this man’s crime and wickedness.

non reprehendo Metellum,—pepercit homini amico et, quem ad modum ipsum dicere audivi, necessario: non reprehendo, inquam, Metellum, sed hoc miror, quo modo de quo homine praeiudicium noluerit fieri per recuperatores, de hoc ipse non modo praeiudicarit verum gravissime ac vehementissime iudicarit. primum enim si Apronium absolutum iri putaret, nihil erat quod ullum praeiudicium vereretur; deinde si condemnato Apronio coniunctam cum eo Verris causam omnes erant existimaturi, Metellus quidem certe iam hoc iudicabat, eorum rem causamque esse coniunctam, qui statueret Apronio condemnato de isto praeiudicium futurum. et simul una res utrique rei est argumento, et aratores vi et metu coactos Apronio multo plus quam debuerint dedisse, et Apronium istius rem suo nomine egisse, cum L. Metellus statuerit non posse Apronium condemnari quin simul de istius scelere atque improbitate iudicaretur.

I come now to the letter of Timarchides — the freedman and accensus of this man. When I have spoken of it, I shall have closed off this whole charge of the tithes. This is the letter, gentlemen, which we found at Syracuse in the house of Apronius when we were searching for letters. It was sent, as it itself signifies, on the journey, when Verres had now departed from the province, written by Timarchides’s hand. Read. Letter of Timarchides. Timarchides, accensus of Verres, sends greeting. Now this I do not blame, that he writes "accensus." For why should the clerks alone take this for themselves: "L. Papirius the clerk"? I wish this to be common to accensi, lictors, viators. See that you bring diligence, so far as concerns the standing of the praetor. He commends Verres to Apronius, and urges him to resist his enemies. Your standing is fortified by good protection, if it is established on the diligence and authority of Apronius. You have virtue, eloquence.

venio nunc ad epistulam Timarchidi, liberti istius et accensi; de qua cum dixero, totum hoc crimen decumanum peroraro. haec epistula est, iudices, quam nos Syracusis in aedibus Aproni cum litteras conquireremus invenimus. Missa est, ut ipsa significat, ex itinere, cum Verres iam de provincia decessisset, Timarchidi manu scripta. recita. EPISTVLA TIMARCHIDI. TIMARCHIDES VERRIS ACCENSVS SALVTEM DICIT. Iam hoc quidem non reprehendo quod adscribit ’accensus’; cur enim sibi hoc scribae soli sumant, ’L. PAPIRIVS SCRIBA’? volo ego hoc esse commune accensorum, lictorum, viatorum. FAC DILIGENTIAM ADHIBEAS, QVOD AD PRAETORIS EXISTIMATIONEM ATTINET. Commendat Apronio Verrem, et hortatur ut inimicis eius resistat. bono praesidio munitur existimatio tua, siquidem in Aproni constituitur diligentia atque auctoritate. HABES VIRTVTEM, ELOQVENTIAM.

How copiously is Apronius praised by Timarchides, how splendidly! Whom should I think it not necessary to please, whom Timarchides has so highly approved? You have means whence you may make outlay. Of necessity, if anything has overflowed from your grain gain, it has flowed down to him above all by whom you were doing your business. Lay hold on the new clerks, attendants. With L. Volteius, who has the most power, slay, cut to pieces. See how strongly Timarchides trusts in his own malice, who even gives Apronius lessons in wickedness. Now this "slay, cut to pieces"! Does he not seem to you to be drawing words from his patron’s house, fitted to every kind of wickedness? I want, my brother, that you trust your little brother. To his copartner indeed in gains and thefts, the twin and most like in wickedness, in dishonesty, in audacity. In the staff you will be held dear. What is this "in the staff"? To what does it pertain? Are you teaching Apronius? What? Did he come into your staff at your warning, or of his own accord? Whatever each man needs, oppose. With what shamelessness do you suppose he was in his lordship, who in his flight is so dishonest? He says that all things can be brought about by money: that one must give, must spend, if one wishes to win. This is not so troublesome to me — that Timarchides advises Apronius — as that he is teaching the same thing to his patron. When you ask, all are wont to win.

quam copiose laudatur Apronius a Timarchide, quam magnifice! cui ego illum non putem placere oportere qui tanto opere Timarchidi probatus sit? HABES SVMPTVM VNDE FACIAS. necesse est, si quid redundarit de vestro frumentario quaestu, ad illum potissimum per quem agebatis defluxisse. SCRIBAS, APPARITORES RECENTIS ARRIPE; CVM L. VOLTEIO, QVI PLVRIMVM POTEST, CAEDE, CONCIDE. videte quam valde malitiae suae confidat Timarchides, qui etiam Apronio improbitatis praecepta det. iam hoc ’caede, concide’! nonne vobis verba domo patroni depromere videtur ad omne genus nequitiae accommodata? VOLO, Ml FRATER, FRATERCVLO TVO CREDAS. consorti quidem in lucris atque furtis, gemino et simillimo nequitia, improbitate, audacia. IN COHORTE CARVS HABEBERE. quid est hoc ’in cohorte’? quo pertinet? Apronium doces? quid? in vestram cohortem te monitore an sua sponte pervenerat? QVOD CVIQVE OPVS EST,OPPONE. qua impudentia putatis eum in dominatione fuisse qui in fuga tam improbus sit? ait omnia pecunia effici posse: dare, profundere oportere, si velis vincere. non hoc mihi tam molestum est Apronio suadere Timarchidem, quam quod hoc idem patrono suo praecipit. TE POSTVLANTE OMNES VINCERE SOLENT.

Yes, under Verres as praetor; not under Sacerdos, not under Peducaeus, not under this Metellus himself. You know that Metellus is wise. This now is not to be borne: that the talent of an excellent man, L. Metellus, should be mocked and contemned and despised by Timarchides the runaway. If you have Volteius, you will accomplish all things in play. Here Timarchides much errs, in supposing either that Volteius can be corrupted by money, or that Metellus carries on his praetorship at one man’s discretion. But he errs by his domestic conjecture. Because he saw that many things, both by himself and by others, were brought about with Verres in play, he supposes that the same approaches lie open to all. You used the more easily to bring about in play what you wished from Verres, because you knew his many kinds of plays. It has been dinned into Metellus and Volteius that you have overthrown the farmers. Who attributed this to Apronius, when he had overthrown some farmer; or to Timarchides, when he had received money for judging or decreeing or commanding or remitting something; or to the lictor Sextius, when he had struck some innocent man with the axe? No one. All used to attribute it to him whom they now wish to be condemned.

/Verre quidem praetore, non Sacerdote, non Peducaeo, non hoc ipso Metello. SCIS METELLVM SAPIENTEM ESSE. hoc vero ferri iam non potest, inrideri viri optimi, L. Metelli, ingenium et contemni ac despici a fugitivo Timarchide. SI VOLTEIVM HABEBIS, OMNIA LVDIBVNDVS CONFICIES. hic vehementer errat Timarchides, qui aut Volteium pecunia corrumpi putet posse, aut Metellum unius arbitratu gerere praeturam, sed errat coniectura domestica. quia multos et per se et per alios multa ludibundos apud Verrem effecisse vidit, ad omnis eosdem patere aditus arbitratur. facilius vos efficiebatis ludibundi quae volebatis a Verre, quod multa eius ludorum genera noratis. INCVLCATVM EST METELLO ET VOLTEIO TE ARATORES EVERTISSE. quis istuc Apronio attribuebat, cum aratorem aliquem everterat, aut Timarchidi, cum ob iudicandum aut decernendum aut imperandum aliquid aut remittendum pecuniam acceperat, aut Sextio lictori, cum aliquem innocentem securi percusserat? nemo; omnes ei tum attribuebant quem nunc condemnari volunt.

They have battered his ears that you were the praetor’s partner. Do you see how clear this is and was, when even Timarchides fears it? Will you grant that we have not feigned this charge against you, but that already long ago a freedman is seeking some defence against the charge? Your freedman and accensus, joined and closest to you and your children in all things, writes to Apronius that it has been openly so set forth by all to Metellus: that you, Apronius, were Verres’s partner in the tithes. See that he know the wickedness of the farmers; they themselves will sweat, gods willing. What hatred, by the immortal gods, or for what cause shall we say has been roused so hostile and so great against the farmers? What wrong did the farmers do to Verres, that even his freedman and accensus pursues them with such an angry mind and such letters? Nor would I have read out this fugitive’s letter, gentlemen, save that you might know from it the precepts and instructions and discipline of the whole household. You see how he warns Apronius by what acts and gifts he is to wind himself into the friendship of Metellus, to corrupt Volteius, to soften the clerks and accensus by a price. He teaches what he has seen; he warns a stranger of what he himself learned at home. But in this one thing he errs, in supposing that the same ways are paved to the friendships of all.

OBTVDERVNT EIVS AVRIS TE SOCIVM PRAETORIS FVISSE. videsne hoc quam clarum sit et fuerit, cum etiam Timarchides hoc metuat? concedesne non hoc crimen nos in te confingere, sed iam pridem ad crimen aliquam defensionem libertum quaerere? libertus et accensus tuus, et tibi ac liberis tuis omnibus in rebus coniunctus ac proximus, ad Apronium scribit vulgo esse ab omnibus ita demonstratum Metello, tibi Apronium in decumis socium fuisse. FAC SCIAT IMPROBITATEM ARATORVM; IPSI SVDABVNT, Sl DI VOLVNT. Quod istuc, per deos immortalis, aut qua de causa excitatum esse dicamus in aratores tam infestum odium atque tantum? quantam iniuriam fecerunt Verri aratores ut eos etiam libertus et accensus eius tam irato animo ac litteris insequatur? neque ego huius fugitivi, iudices, vobis epistulam recitassem, nisi ut ex ea totius familiae praecepta et instituta et disciplinam cognosceretis. videtis ut moneat Apronium quibus rebus ac muneribus se insinuet in familiaritatem Metelli, Volteium corrumpat, scribas accensumque pretio deleniat. ea praecipit quae vidit, ea monet alienum hominem quae domi didicit ipse; verum in hoc errat uno, quod existimat easdem vias ad omnium familiaritates esse munitas.

Although I have justly been angry with Metellus, yet I shall say what is true. Apronius could not have corrupted Metellus himself, as he did Verres, by a price, by a banquet, by a woman, by impure and dishonest conversation — by which things he had not crept slowly and moderately into this man’s friendship, but in a short time had taken possession of the whole man and the whole of his praetorship. And Metellus’s "staff," as he calls it — what was there for him to corrupt, from which no recoverers were given against the farmer?

quamquam merito sum iratus Metello, tamen haec quae vera sunt dicam. Apronius ipsum Metellum non pretio, ut Verrem, non convivio, non muliere, non sermone impuro atque improbo posset corrumpere, quibus rebus non sensim atque moderate ad istius amicitiam adrepserat, sed brevi tempore totum hominem totamque eius praeturam possederat; cohortem autem Metelli, quam vocat, quid erat quod corrumperet, ex qua recuperatores in aratorem nulli dabantur?

For where he writes that Metellus’s son is a boy, he much errs. For not all praetors’ sons are approached in the same way. O Timarchides! Metellus’s son is in his province not a boy but a young man, modest and good, worthy of that place and name. Yours — a praetexta-clad boy in the province — I would not say in what manner he was, did I not reckon that fault to be a father’s, not a boy’s. Did you, knowing yourself and your life, take to Sicily with you that grown praetexta-clad son, that even if nature were to draw the boy away from his father’s vices and from the likeness of his stock, custom and discipline yet might not let him keep clear?

nam quod scribit Metelli filium puerum esse, vehementer errat; non enim ad omnis praetorum filios idem aditus sunt. O Timarchide, Metelli est filius in provincia non puer, sed adulescens pudens ac bonus, dignus illo loco ac nomine; vester iste puer praetextatus in provincia quem ad modum fuisset non dicerem si pueri esse illam culpam ac non patris existimarem. tune, cum te ac tuam vitam nosses, in Siciliam tecum grandem praetextatum filium ducebas, ut, etiamsi natura puerum a paternis vitiis atque a generis similitudine abduceret, consuetudo tamen eum et disciplina degenerare non sineret?

For suppose there had been in him the matter and disposition of a Gaius Laelius or a Marcus Cato: what good can be hoped or accomplished from him who in his father’s luxury so lived that he never saw any modest or sober banquet, who in daily feasts at the age of growing up was for three years among unchaste women and intemperate men, who never heard from his father anything to make him more modest or better, who never saw his father do anything which, if he had imitated, he would not (which is the foulest thing) be reckoned like his father?

fac enim fuisse in eo C. Laeli aut M. Catonis materiem atque indolem: quid ex eo boni sperari atque effici potest qui in patris luxurie sic vixerit ut nullum umquam pudicum neque sobrium convivium viderit, qui in epulis cotidianis adulta aetate per triennium inter impudicas mulieres et intemperantis viros versatus sit, nihil umquam audierit a patre quo pudentior aut melior esset, nihil umquam patrem facere viderit quod cum imitatus esset non, id quod turpissimum est, patris similis putaretur?

In which matter you have done a wrong not only to your son, Verres, but even to the commonwealth. For you had taken up children not only for yourself but for your country, who could be one day not only of pleasure to you but of use to the commonwealth. Them you ought to have instituted and educated to the institutions of the elders, to the discipline of the state, not to your scandals or your filthinesses. Then out of an idle and dishonest and impure parent there might have come a busy and modest and honest son, the commonwealth would have had something of a gift from you. Now in your own place you have set up a second Verres for the state — unless perhaps the worse, if it be possible, because you turned out such, brought up not in the school of a luxurious man but only in that of a thief and an apportioner.

quibus in rebus non solum filio, Verres, verum etiam rei publicae fecisti iniuriam. susceperas enim liberos non solum tibi sed etiam patriae, qui non modo tibi voluptati sed etiam qui aliquando usui rei publicae esse possent. Eos instituere atque erudire ad maiorum instituta, ad civitatis disciplinam, non ad tua flagitia neque ad tuas turpitudines debuisti: esset ex inerti atque improbo et impuro parente navus et pudens et probus filius, haberet aliquid abs te res publica muneris. nunc pro te Verrem substituisti alterum civitati; nisi forte hoc deteriorem, si fieri potest, quod tu eius modi evasisti non in hominis luxuriosi, sed tantum in furis ac divisoris disciplina educatus;

What more festive than that boy do we suppose will be, if he is your son by nature, your pupil by habit, like you by will? Whom I, gentlemen, however brave and good, would easily suffer to grow into a man. For the enmities — if any are to be between me and him — do not move me. For if I shall in all things be innocent and like myself, what shall this man’s enmities harm me? But if in any matter I have been like Verres, an enemy will no more fail me than has failed Verres. For, gentlemen, the commonwealth ought to be such, and shall be when established by the truth of trials, that an enemy can neither fail to harm the guilty nor harm the innocent. Wherefore there is no reason why I should not wish him to emerge from his father’s reproaches and vices — which, although it is hard for him, yet I do not know but it can come to pass, especially if, as is now happening, the guardianship of friends shall follow him round, since the father is so careless and dissolute.

quid isto fore festivius arbitramur, si est tuus natura filius, consuetudine discipulus, voluntate similis? quem ego, iudices, quamvis bonum fortemque facile paterer evadere; non enim me inimicitiae commovent, si quae mihi cum isto futurae sunt. nam si in omnibus rebus innocens fuero meique similis, quid mihi istius inimicitiae nocebunt? sin aliqua in re Verris similis fuero, non magis mihi deerit inimicus quam Verri defuit. etenim, iudices, eius modi res publica debet esse, et erit veritate iudiciorum constituta, ut inimicus neque deesse nocenti possit neque obesse innocenti. quapropter nulla res est quam ob rem ego istum nolim ex paternis probris ac vitiis emergere; id quod tametsi isti difficile est, tamen haud scio an fieri possit, praesertim si, sicut nunc fit, custodes amicorum eum sectabuntur, quoniam pater tam neglegens ac dissolutus est.

But my speech has gone further than I wished from Timarchides’s letter, with the reading of which I had said I would close the charge of the tithes; from which you have understood that a countless quantity of grain through three years was diverted from the commonwealth and snatched from the farmers. It follows that I should teach you, gentlemen, of the bought grain — of the greatest and most shameless theft. About which, while I shall speak certain and few and great things briefly, attend. Verres ought to have bought grain in Sicily by the senate’s decree and by the Terentian-Cassian grain-law. There were two kinds of buying: one of the tithes, the other what besides was distributed equally among the cities. Of the former (the tithe-grain), as much as had been from the first tithes; of the latter, set yearly at 800,000 modii of wheat. The price was set for the tithe-grain at 3 sesterces per modius, for the requisitioned grain at 3 1/2 sesterces. So for the requisitioned grain 2,800,000 sesterces yearly were decreed to Verres to pay the farmers, for the second tithes about 9,000,000. So through three years for this Sicilian grain-buying nearly 12 million sesterces were paid out.

verum huc longius quam voluntas fuit ab epistula Timarchidi digressa est oratio mea, qua recitata conclusurum me esse crimen decumanum dixeram; ex quo intellexistis innumerabilem frumenti numerum per triennium aversum ab re publica esse ereptumque aratoribus. sequitur ut de frumento empto vos, iudices, doceam, maximo atque impudentissimo furto; de quo dum certa et pauca et magna dicam breviter, attendite. frumentum emere in Sicilia debuit Verres ex senatus consulto et ex lege Terentia et Cassia frumentaria. emundi duo genera fuerunt, unum decumanum, alterum quod praeterea civitatibus aequaliter esset distributum; illius decumani tantum quantum ex primis decumis fuisset, huius imperati in annos singulos tritici mod. DCCC; pretium autem constitutum decumano in modios singulos HS III, imperato HS III S. ita in frumentum imperatum HS duodetriciens in annos singulos Verri decernebatur quod aratoribus solveret, in alteras decumas fere ad nonagiens. sic per triennium ad hanc frumenti emptionem Siciliensem prope centiens et viciens erogatum est.

This great sum of money given to you out of the empty and exhausted treasury, given for grain — that is, for the necessity of safety and life — given that it should be paid to the Sicilian farmers (on whom the commonwealth was laying such great burdens) — I say it has been so torn at by you that I could prove, if I wished, that you turned all this money into your own home. For you so administered this whole matter that what I am saying could be proved before the most equitable judge. But I shall hold the reckoning of my authority. I shall remember with what mind, with what counsel I came to a public case. I shall not deal with you in a prosecutor’s manner; I shall feign nothing; I want nothing to be approved by anyone, when I am speaking, that has not first been approved to myself.

hanc pecuniam tantam datam tibi ex aerario inopi atque exhausto, datam ad frumentum, hoc est ad necessitatem salutis et vitae, datam ut Siculis aratoribus, quibus tanta onera res publica imponeret, solveretur, abs te sic laceratam esse dico ut possim illud probare, si velim, omnem te hanc pecuniam domum tuam avertisse. etenim sic hanc rem totam administrasti ut hoc quod dico probari aequissimo iudici possit. sed ego habebo rationem auctoritatis meae; meminero quo animo, quo consilio ad causam publicam accesserim; non agam tecum accusatorie, nihil fingam, nihil cuiquam probari volo me dicente quod non ante mihimet ipsi probatum sit.

In this public money, gentlemen, there are these three kinds of theft. First, when the money had been deposited with those companies to which it had been assigned, he lent it at interest at twenty-four per cent. Next, to very many cities he paid nothing at all for the grain. Last, if he paid any city, he took off as much as was convenient; to none did he restore what was owed. And first I ask this of you. To you — to whom, by Carpinatius’s letter, the publicans gave thanks — when public money had been paid out from the treasury, assigned out of the revenues of the Roman people for the purchase of grain, was this gain to you, did you draw twenty-four per cent? I trust you will deny it; for the confession is shameful and dangerous.

in hac pecunia publica, iudices, haec insunt tria genera furtorum: primum, cum posita esset pecunia apud eas societates unde erat attributa, binis centesimis faeneratus est, deinde permultis civitatibus pro frumento nihil solvit omnino, postremo, si cui civitati solvit, tantum detraxit quantum commodum fuit, nulli quod debitum est reddidit. ac primum hoc ex te quaero: tu, cui publicani ex Carpinati litteris gratias egerunt, pecunia publica ex aerario erogata, ex vectigalibus populi Romani ad emendum frumentum attributa, fueritne tibi quaestui, pensitaritne tibi binas centesimas? credo te negaturum; turpis enim est et periculosa confessio.

But for me to show this is very hard. For by what witnesses? The publicans? They were treated honourably; they will be silent. By their letters? They were removed by the decree of the tithe-collectors. Where, then, shall I turn? Shall I leave aside, for want of witnesses and writings, a thing so dishonest, a charge of such audacity and such shamelessness? I shall not, gentlemen. I shall use as witness — whom? Publius Vettius Chilo, a man of the equestrian order, most honourable and most adorned, who is so both friend and connection of this man that, even if he were not a good man, yet what he should say against him would seem grave; and so good a man that, even if he were most an enemy to him, yet his testimony would have to be believed.

mihi autem hoc perarduum est demonstrare. quibus enim testibus? publicanis? tractati honorifice sunt: tacebunt. Litteris eorum? decreto decumanorum remotae sunt. quo me igitur vertam? rem tam improbam, crimen tantae audaciae tantaeque impudentiae propter inopiam testium ac litterarum praetermittam? non faciam, iudices, utar teste—quo? P. Vettio Chilone, homine equestris ordinis honestissimo atque ornatissimo, qui isti ita et amicus et necessarius est ut, etiamsi vir bonus non esset, tamen quod contra istum diceret grave videretur, ita vir bonus est ut, etiamsi inimicissimus isti esset, tamen eius testimonio credi oporteret.

He wonders and awaits what Vettius is going to say. He will say nothing on the spur of the moment, nothing of his own will, nothing when either course was open. He sent letters into Sicily to Carpinatius, when he was master of the scriptura and of the six public revenues; which I found at Syracuse with Carpinatius in the books of letters received, and at Rome among the letters sent in the keeping of the master, L. Tullius, your familiar. From which letters, learn the shamelessness of the moneylender. Letters sent of P. Vettius, P. Servilius, C. Antistius the masters. Vettius says he will be at hand to you, and will watch how you render your accounts to the treasury, that, if you have not paid back this money out of interest to the people, you shall pay it back to the company.

admiratur et exspectat quidnam Vettius dicturus sit. nihil dicet ex tempore, nihil ex sua voluntate, nihil, cum utrumvis licuisse videatur. misit in Siciliam litteras ad Carpinatium, cum esset magister scripturae et sex publicorum, quas ego Syracusis apud Carpinatium in litterarum adlatarum libris, Romae in litterarum missarum apud magistrum L. Tullium, familiarem tuum, inveni; quibus ex litteris impudentiam faeneratoris, quaeso, cognoscite. LITTERAE MISSAE P. VETTI, P. SERVILI, C. ANTISTI MAGISTRORVM praesto se tibi ait futurum Vettius et observaturum quem ad modum rationes ad aerarium referas, ut, si hanc ex faenore pecuniam populo non rettuleris, reddas societati.

Can we hold our claim by this witness, can we by the letters of P. Servilius and C. Antistius the masters, leading and most honourable men, can we by the authority of the company whose letters we use — or are stronger or weightier proofs to be sought? Vettius, your most familiar friend; Vettius, your kinsman by marriage, whose sister you have in marriage, your wife’s brother; Vettius, brother of your quaestor, bears witness in writing to your most shameless theft and most certain embezzlement. For by what other name should the lending of public money at interest be called? Read on. He says, Verres, that your clerk was the agent who carried this loan through. The masters threaten him too in the letters; and by chance there were two clerks then masters with Vettius. They reckon it not to be borne that twenty-four per cent should be taken from them, and rightly do they reckon. For who has ever done this, who at last has tried to do, or thought it could be done — that, when the senate had often helped the publicans by interest, a magistrate should dare to take money from the publicans for interest? Surely there would be no hope of safety for this man, if the publicans, that is the Roman knights, were judging.

possumus hoc teste, possumus P. Servili et C. Antisti magistrorum litteris, primorum hominum atque honestissimorum, possumus auctoritate societatis, cuius litteris utimur, quod dicimus obtinere, an aliqua firmiora aut graviora quaerenda sunt? Vettius, tuus familiarissimus, Vettius, tuus adfinis, cuius sororem habes in matrimonio, tuae frater uxoris, Vettius, frater tui quaestoris, testatur litteris impudentissimum tuum furtum certissimumque peculatum; nam quo alio nomine pecuniae publicae faeneratio est appellanda? RECITA RELIQVA. Scribam tuum dicit, Verres, huius perscriptorem faenerationis fuisse: ei quoque magistri minantur in litteris, et casu scribae tum duo magistri fuerunt cum Vettio. binas centesimas ab sese ablatas ferendum non putant, et recte non putant. quis enim hoc fecit umquam, quis denique conatus est facere aut posse fieri cogitavit, ut, cum senatus usura publicanos saepe iuvisset, magistratus a publicanis pecuniam pro usura auderet auferre? certe huic homini spes nulla salutis esset, si publicani, hoc est si equites Romani iudicarent:

It ought now, gentlemen, with you debating, to be less so — and so much less as it is more honourable to be moved by another’s wrongs than by one’s own. What do you intend to answer to these things? Will you deny the deed, or will you defend it as having been allowed you? How can you deny it? Or will you, when you may be convicted by the authority of so many letters, by so many publican witnesses — yet, how is it lawful? If, by Hercules, I were teaching that you, as praetor in your province, had lent your own money at interest, you could not yet escape; but public money, money decreed for grain, money taken at interest from the publicans — will you make any one believe that this was lawful? Than which not only the rest, but you yourself, have done nothing more audacious or more dishonest. By Hercules, this — which seems singular to all, of which I must speak next — I cannot, gentlemen, say is more audacious or more shameless: that to very many cities he paid nothing at all for the grain. The plunder is greater perhaps, but the shamelessness is surely no less.

minor esse nunc, iudices, vobis disceptantibus debet, et tanto minor quanto est honestius alienis iniuriis quam re sua commoveri. quid ad haec respondere cogitas? utrum factum negabis an tibi hoc licitum esse defendes? negare qui potes? an ut tanta auctoritate litterarum, tot testibus publicanis convincare licuisse vero qui? si hercule te tuam pecuniam praetorem in provincia faeneratum docerem, tamen effugere non posses; sed publicam, sed ob frumentum decretam, sed a publicanis faenore acceptam, hoc licuisse cuiquam probabis? quo non modo ceteri, sed tu ipse nihil audacius improbiusque fecisti. non mehercule hoc, quod omnibus singulare videtur,—de quo mihi deinceps dicendum est,— possum, iudices, dicere audacius esse aut impudentius, quod permultis civitatibus pro frumento nihil solvit omnino: maior haec praeda fortasse, sed illa impudentia certe non minor.

And since enough has been said about that money-lending, learn now, please, of this whole money diverted. There are many cities of Sicily, gentlemen, adorned and honourable, among the chief of which is to be reckoned the Halaesine city. For you will find none more faithful in offices, more well-off in resources, more weighty in authority. On her, when this man had laid yearly the requisition of 60,000 modii of wheat, he carried off coins instead of wheat — as much as the wheat was worth in Sicily. The coins he had received from the public, he kept all. I was struck dumb, gentlemen, when this was first set out to me at Halaesa in the senate of the Halaesines by Aeneas of Halaesa — a man of the highest talent, the highest prudence, the highest authority — to whom the senate had given the public case, that he might give thanks to me and my brother, and at the same time teach us those things which had to do with the trial.

et quoniam de illa faeneratione satis dictum est, nunc de hac tota pecunia aversa, quaeso, cognoscite. Siciliae civitates multae sunt, iudices, ornatae atque honestae, ex quibus in primis numeranda est civitas Halaesina; nullam enim reperietis aut officiis fideliorem aut copiis locupletiorem aut auctoritate graviorem. huic iste in annos singulos cum sexagena milia tritici modium imperavisset, pro tritico nummos abstulit, quanti erat in Sicilia triticum; quos de publico nummos acceperat, retinuit omnis. obstipui, iudices, cum hoc mihi primum Halaesae demonstravit in senatu Halaesinorum homo summo ingenio, summa prudentia, summa auctoritate praeditus, Halaesinus Aeneas, cui senatus dederat publicam causam ut mihi fratrique meo gratias ageret, et simul qui nos ea quae ad iudicium pertinerent doceret.

He set forth that this was this man’s habit and reckoning: that, since all the supply of grain under the name of tithes had been gathered in his hands, he was wont to gather coins from the cities, to find fault with their grain, and to send to Rome from his own gain and his own supply as much grain as had to be sent. I demand the accounts; I inspect the records; I see that the Halaesines, on whom 60,000 modii had been requisitioned, gave not a grain of wheat, but gave money to Volcatius and to Timarchides the clerk. I find a kind of plunder of this sort, gentlemen: that the praetor who ought to buy grain does not buy it but sells it; that the moneys which he ought to distribute among the cities he diverts and carries off them all. It seemed to me now not theft, but a monster and a portent: that he should reject the cities’ grain and approve his own; when he had approved his own, fix a price for that grain; what he had fixed, that he should carry off from the cities; what he had received from the Roman people, retain.

demonstravit hanc istius consuetudinem ac rationem fuisse: quod omnis frumenti copia decumarum nomine penes istum esset redacta, solitum esse istum pecuniam cogere a civitatibus, frumentum improbare, quantum frumenti esset Romam mittendum, tantum de suo quaestu ac de sua copia frumenti mittere. posco rationes, inspicio litteras, video frumenti granum Halaesinos, quibus sexagena milia modium imperata erant, nullum dedisse, pecuniam Volcatio, Timarchidi, scribae dedisse: reperio genus huius modi, iudices, praedae, ut praetor, qui frumentum emere debeat, non emat sed vendat, pecunias, quas civitatibus distribuere debeat, eas omnis avertat atque auferat. non mihi iam furtum, sed monstrum ac prodigium videbatur civitatum frumentum improbare, suum probare; cum suum probasset, pretium ei frumento constituere; quod constituisset, id a civitatibus auferre, quod a populo Romano accepisset, tenere.

How many degrees of crime do you wish to be in one theft, that, if I should wish to insist on each, this man could not go forward? You reject the Sicilians’ grain. What? Of your own which you send? Do you have some private Sicily of your own which can supply you with grain of another kind? When the senate decrees that grain should be bought in Sicily, or when the people orders it, this, I suppose, it understands: that Sicilian grain ought to be brought from Sicily. When you, however, generally reject the grain of the cities of Sicily, are you going to send grain to Rome from Egypt or Syria? You reject the grain of the Halaesines, of the Thermitans, of the Cephaloeditans, of the Amestratines, of the Tyndaritans, of the Herbitenses, of many cities besides! What at last has happened that the fields of these peoples bore grain of such a kind under you as praetor (which they had never before) that it could be approved neither by you nor by the Roman people — especially when out of the same fields, of the same year, the contractors had brought to Rome grain from the tithes? What had happened that out of the same granary the tithe-grain was approved, the bought-grain rejected? Is there any doubt that all this rejection was born for the sake of compelling money?

quot vultis esse in uno furto peccatorum gradus, ut, si singulis insistere velim, progredi iste non possit? improbas frumentum Siculorum. quid? ipse quod mittis? peculiarem habes aliquam Siciliam quae tibi ex alio genere frumentum suppeditare possit? cum senatus decernit ut ematur in Sicilia frumentum, aut cum populus iubet, hoc, ut opinor, intellegit, ex Sicilia Siculum frumentum apportari oportere: tu cum civitatum Siciliae vulgo omne frumentum improbas, num ex Aegypto aut Syria frumentum Romam missurus es? improbas Halaesinum, Thermitanum, Cephaloeditanum, Amestratinum, Tyndaritanum, Herbitense, multarum praeterea civitatum! quid accidit tandem ut horum populorum agri frumentum eius modi te praetore ferrent,—quod numquam antea,—ut neque tibi neque populo Romano posset probari, praesertim cum ex isdem agris eiusdem anni frumentum ex decumis Romam mancipes advexissent? quid acciderat ut ex eodem horreo decumanum probaretur, emptum improbaretur? Dubiumne est quin ista omnis improbatio cogendae pecuniae causa nata sit?

Suppose so: you reject the Halaesine. You have from another people what you may approve: buy that which pleases you, send away those whose grain you have rejected. But from those whom you reject you exact as much money as is enough for that quantity of grain which you order that city to buy. For each medimnum, I see from the public records, the Halaesines gave you 15 sesterces. I will show you from the books of the most well-off farmers that at the same time no one in Sicily sold grain for more. What then is that reasoning, or rather what madness, to reject grain that is from that place from which the senate and Roman people willed it to be bought, and from that very heap from which you yourself approve a part under the name of tithes; then to compel money from the cities for buying grain, when you have received it from the treasury? For did the Terentian law order you to buy grain with the Sicilians’ money, or to buy grain from the Sicilians with the money of the Roman people?

esto, improbas Halaesinum, habes ab alio populo quod probes: eme illud quod placet, missos fac eos quorum frumentum improbasti. sed ab iis quos repudias exigis tantum pecuniae quantum ad eum numerum frumenti satis sit quem ei civitati imperas emendum. in medimna singula video ex litteris publicis tibi Halaesinos HS quinos denos dedisse. ostendam ex tabulis locupletissimorum aratorum eodem tempore neminem in Sicilia pluris frumentum vendidisse. quae est ergo ista ratio aut quae potius amentia, frumentum improbare id quod ex eo loco sit ex quo senatus et populus Romanus emi voluerit, et ex eo acervo ex quo partem tu idem decumarum nomine probaris; deinde a civitatibus pecuniam ad emendum frumentum cogere, cum ex aerario acceperis? Vtrum enim te lex Terentia Siculorum pecunia frumentum emere an populi Romani pecunia frumentum a Siculis emere iussit?

Now do you see all that money out of the treasury, which ought to have been given to these cities for grain, taken as gain by this man? You receive 15 sesterces for the medimnum, for so much is the medimnum worth at that time; you keep 21 sesterces, for so much is Sicilian grain assessed by the law. What is the difference whether you do this, or do not reject the Sicilian grain, but, with the grain approved and received, hold all the public money and pay nothing to any city? Although the assessment of the law is such that at other times it ought to be tolerable to the Sicilians, under you as praetor it ought even to have been welcome. For the modius is by the law assessed at 3 1/2 sesterces, but it was under you as praetor (as you boast in many letters to your friends) 2. But suppose it was 2 sesterces, since you exacted so much from the cities per modius. When, if you should have paid the Sicilians as much as the Roman people had ordered you, this could be most pleasing to the farmers, you not only would not have them receive what they ought, but even compelled them to give what they did not owe?

iam vero ab isto omnem illam ex aerario pecuniam, quam his oportuit civitatibus pro frumento dari, lucri factam videtis. accipis enim HS xv pro medimno; tanti enim est illo tempore medimnum; retines HS XXI; tanti enim est frumentum Siciliense ex lege aestimatum. quid interest utrum hoc feceris an frumentum Siciliense non improbaris, sed frumento probato et accepto pecuniam publicam tenueris omnem neque quicquam ulli dissolveris civitati? cum aestimatio legis eius modi sit ut ceteris temporibus tolerabilis Siculis, te praetore etiam grata esse debuerit. est enim modius lege HS IIIS aestimatus, fuit autem te praetore, ut tu in multis epistulis ad amicos tuos gloriaris, HS II. sed fuerit HS iis, quoniam tu tantum a civitatibus in modios singulos exegisti; cum, si solveres Siculis tantum quantum te populus Romanus iusserat, aratoribus fieri gratissimum posset, tu non modo eos accipere quod oportebat noluisti, sed etiam dare quod non debebant coegisti?

And learn, gentlemen, that these things were so done both from the public records of the cities and from the public testimonies, in which you will understand nothing has been feigned, nothing fitted to the moment. All the things we are saying are entered and made up in the accounts of the peoples by no interpolation, by no disorder, not on the spur of the moment, but in fixed, established, regular order. Read. Accounts of the Halaesines. To whom does he say the money was given? Speak more clearly. To Volcatius, to Timarchides, to Maevius. What is it, Verres? You have not even left yourself this defence: that the contractors had a hand in those matters; that the contractors rejected the grain; that the contractors settled with the cities at a price; that they themselves, in the name of those cities, took the moneys from you; that they themselves bought up the grain for themselves; that none of this had to do with you. By Hercules a wretched and ruined defence for a praetor: "I neither touched nor looked at the grain. I gave the contractors power of approving and rejecting; the contractors wrung money from the cities; I, however, the money I ought to have given to the peoples, gave to the contractors!"

atque haec ita gesta esse, iudices, cognoscite et ex litteris publicis civitatum et ex testimoniis publicis, in quibus nihil fictum, nihil ad tempus accommodatum intellegetis; omnia quae dicimus rationibus populorum non interpositis neque perturbatis neque repentinis, sed certis, institutis, ordine relata atque confecta sunt. recita. RATIONES HALAESINORVM. Cui pecuniam datam dicit? dic etiam clarius. VOLCATIO, TIMARCHIDI, MAEVIO. quid est, Verres? ne illam quidem tibi defensionem reliquam fecisti, mancipes in istis rebus esse versatos, mancipes frumentum improbasse, mancipes pretio cum civitatibus decidisse, et eosdem abs te illarum civitatum nomine pecunias abstulisse, deinde ipsos sibi frumentum coemisse, nihil haec ad te pertinere? mala mehercule ac misera defensio praetorem hoc dicere: ’ ego frumentum neque attigi neque aspexi, mancipibus potestatem probandi improbandique permisi; mancipes a civitatibus pecunias extorserunt, ego autem, quam pecuniam populis dare debui, mancipibus dedi!’

Bad indeed, as I said, and rather a ruined confession of the greatest faults, of this iniquity and idleness, this is, not a defence of the charge. Yet even this, if you wished to use it, is not allowed you. Volcatius forbids you, your darling and your friends’, to make mention of contractors. Timarchides, the pillar of your household, presses on the throat of your defence; to whom and to Volcatius the money was counted out together by the city. Now your clerk, by his gold ring (which he found out of these matters), will not allow you to use that line. What then is left except that you confess that you sent grain to Rome bought with the Sicilians’ money, and turned the public money to your own home? O custom of sinning, how great pleasantness do you have for the dishonest and audacious, when punishment has been absent and licence has followed!

mala est haec quidem, ut dixi, ac potius perdita maximorum peccatorum, huius autem iniquitatis et inertiae confessio, non defensio criminis; sed tamen hac ipsa tibi, si uti cupias, non licet; vetat te Volcatius, tuae tuorumque deliciae, mentionem mancipis facere; Timarchides autem, columen familiae vestrae, premit fauces defensionis tuae, cui simul et Volcatio pecunia a civitate numerata est; iam vero scriba tuus anulo aureo suo, quem ex his rebus invenit, ista te ratione uti non sinet. quid igitur est reliquum nisi uti fateare te Romam frumentum emptum Siculorum pecunia misisse publicam pecuniam domum tuam convertisse? O consuetudo peccandi, quantam habes iucunditatem improbis et audacibus, cum poena afuit et licentia consecuta est!

This man in this kind of embezzlement is not now first found, but now at last caught. We saw him as quaestor have money counted out from the treasury for the expenses of a consular army; we saw, a few months later, both army and consul stripped. All that money lay hidden in that mist and darkness which had then taken hold of the whole commonwealth. A second time he carried out an inherited quaestorship, when he diverted a great sum of money from Dolabella, but mixed up its reckoning with Dolabella’s condemnation. So great a sum of money was entrusted to him as praetor; you will not find a man timidly or lightly licking up these most dishonest gains. He has not hesitated to swallow up all the public money. So that ill set in his nature creeps on by the unchecked custom of sinning, that he himself cannot set an end to his audacity.

iste in hoc genere peculatus non nunc primum invenitur, sed nunc demum tenetur. vidimus huic ab aerario pecuniam numerari quaestori ad sumptum exercitus consularis, vidimus paucis post mensibus et exercitum et consulem spoliatum; illa omnis pecunia latuit in illa caligine ac tenebris quae totam rem publicam tum occuparant. iterum gessit hereditariam quaesturam, cum a Dolabella magnam pecuniam avertit, sed eius rationem cum damnatione Dolabellae permiscuit. commissa est pecunia tanta praetori; non reperietis hominem timide nec leviter haec improbissima lucra ligurrientem; devorare omnem pecuniam publicam non dubitavit. ita serpit illud insitum in natura malum consuetudine peccandi libera, finem ut audaciae statuere ipse non possit.

He is at last caught, then; and caught both in the greatest matters and in the most plain. And he seems to me by divine providence to have fallen into this snare, not only that he should pay those penalties which he had lately deserved, but that those crimes of his against Carbo and against Dolabella might be avenged. For another new thing too, gentlemen, has come up in this charge, which removes all doubt about that earlier charge of the tithes. For, to leave aside that very many farmers, in the second tithes and in those 800,000 modii which they should give as bought to the Roman people, did not have it, and bought from your agent — that is, from Apronius — whence it can be understood that you left nothing to the farmers — to pass over this thing which has been set forth by many testimonies, can anything be more sure than this: that in your power and in your granaries was all the grain of Sicily through three years and all the harvest of the tithe-paying field?

tenetur igitur aliquando, et in rebus cum maximis tum manifestis tenetur; atque in eam fraudem mihi videtur divinitus incidisse, non solum ut eas poenas quas proxime meruisset solveret, sed ut illa etiam scelera eius in Carbonem et in Dolabellam vindicarentur. etenim nova quoque alia res, iudices, exstitit in hoc crimine, quae tollat omnem dubitationem superioris illius decumani criminis. nam ut illud missum faciam, permultos aratores in alteras decumas et in haec DCCC milia modium, quod emptum populo Romano darent, non habuisse, et a tuo procuratore, hoc est ab Apronio, emisse, ex quo intellegi potest nihil te aratoribus reliqui fecisse,—ut hoc praeteream, quod multorum est testimoniis expositum, potest illo quicquam esse certius, in tua potestate atque in tuis horreis omne frumentum Siciliae per triennium atque omnis fructus agri decumani fuisse?

For when you were exacting money from the cities for grain, whence was the grain to send to Rome, if you yourself did not possess it all locked and shut up? So in that grain the first gain to you was the grain itself, which had been snatched from the farmers. The second was that, having most shamelessly during three years acquired the grain, you sold one and the same grain not once but twice, and not at one but at two prices — once to the cities at 15 sesterces a medimnum, again to the Roman people, from whom you carried off 21 sesterces a medimnum for that same grain.

cum enim a civitatibus pro frumento pecuniam exigebas, unde erat frumentum quod Romam mitteres, si tu id non omne clausum et compressum possidebas? ita in eo frumento primus tibi ille quaestus erat ipsum frumentum, quod erat ereptum ab aratoribus, alter, quod frumentum improbissime per triennium partum non semel sed bis, neque uno sed duobus pretiis unum et idem frumentum vendidisti, semel civitatibus HS xv in medimnum, iterum populo Romano, a quo HS XXI in medimna pro eodem illo frumento abstulisti.

Yes, but you approved the grain of the Centuripines and of the Agrigentines and of some others perhaps besides, and to these peoples you paid the money. Let there be some cities in that number, whose grain you were unwilling to reject. What then? To these cities was all the money paid which was owed for the grain? Find me one — not a people, but a farmer. See, look round, search if perhaps there is anyone from that province, in which you ruled three years, who would not wish you ruined; one, I say, give me from those farmers who paid money for your statue, who would say to me that all that ought has been paid for the grain. I assure you, gentlemen, no one will say so.

at enim frumentum Centuripinorum et Agrigentinorum et non nullorum fortasse praeterea probasti et his populis pecuniam dissolvisti. sint sane aliquae civitates in eo numero, quarum frumentum improbare nolueris; quid tandem? his civitatibus omnisne pecunia quae pro frumento debita est dissoluta est? Vnum mihi reperi non populum, sed aratorem: vide, quaere, circumspice, si quis forte est ex ea provincia, in qua tu triennium praefuisti, qui te nolit perisse: unum, inquam, da mihi ex illis aratoribus qui tibi ad statuam pecuniam contulerunt, qui sibi dicat omne esse pro frumento quod oportuerit solutum. confirmo, iudices, neminem esse dicturum.

Out of all the money which you ought to have paid to the farmers, certain deductions used to be made under fixed names: first for inspection and exchange-charges, then for some "wax-fee" or other. All these, gentlemen, are not the names of certain things, but of most dishonest thefts. For how can there be exchange-charges, when all use one kind of money? But the wax-fee — what? In what manner has this name been brought into a magistrate’s accounts, in what manner into public money? Now there was a third kind of deduction of this sort, as if it were not only allowed but even fitting, and not only fitting but plainly necessary. In the clerk’s name two fiftieths from the whole sum were being withdrawn. Who granted this to you, what law, what authority of the senate, what equity besides — that your clerk should carry off so great a sum either from the goods of the farmers or from the revenues of the Roman people?

ex omni pecunia quam aratoribus solvere debuisti certis nominibus deductiones fieri solebant, primum pro spectatione et collybo, deinde pro nescio quo cerario. haec omnia, iudices, non rerum certarum, sed furtorum improbissimorum sunt vocabula. nam collybus esse qui potest, cum utuntur omnes uno genere nummorum? cerarium vero—quid? quo modo hoc nomen ad rationes magistratus, quo modo ad pecuniam publicam adlatum est? nam illud genus tertium deductionis erat eius modi, quasi non modo liceret sed etiam oporteret, nec solum oporteret sed plane necesse esset. scribae nomine de tota pecunia binae quinquagesimae detrahebantur. quis tibi hoc concessit, quae lex, quae senatus auctoritas, quae porro aequitas, ut tantam pecuniam scriba tuus auferret sive de aratorum bonis sive de populi Romani vectigalibus?

For if that money can be deducted without wrong to the farmers, let the Roman people have it, especially in such great straits of the treasury. But if both the Roman people willed, and it is fair that it should so be paid to the farmers, will your attendant, hired for a small wage of the people, plunder out of the goods of the farmers? And in this case will Hortensius rouse the order of clerks against me, and will he say that their advantages are being shaken and their rights assailed by me? As if this were granted to clerks by any precedent or by any right. Why should I go back to the old, or why make mention of those clerks who, it is agreed, were the most pure-minded and most innocent of men? It does not escape me, gentlemen, that the old examples are now heard and held as feigned tales. I shall move in these wretched and lost times. Lately, Hortensius, you were quaestor. What your clerks have done, you can say. Of mine I say this: that, when in that same Sicily I was paying the cities money for grain and had with me as clerks two most thrifty men, L. Mamilius and L. Sergius, not only those two fiftieths, but no penny at all was withdrawn from any. I would say this is wholly to be ascribed to me, gentlemen, if those men had ever asked this of me, if they had ever thought of it at all.

nam si potest ista pecunia sine aratorum iniuria detrahi, populus Romanus habeat, in tantis praesertim aerari angustiis; sin autem et populus Romanus voluit, et aequum est ita solvi aratoribus, tuus apparitor parva mercede populi conductus de aratorum bonis praedabitur? et in hac causa scribarum ordinem in me concitabit Hortensius et eorum commoda a me labefactari atque oppugnari iura dicet? quasi vero hoc scribis ullo exemplo sit aut ullo iure concessum. quid ego vetera repetam aut quid eorum scribarum mentionem faciam quos constat sanctissimos homines atque innocentissimos fuisse? non me fugit, iudices, vetera exempla pro fictis fabulis iam audiri atque haberi: in his temporibus versabor miseris ac perditis. nuper, Hortensi, quaestor fuisti. quid tui scribae fecerint, tu potes dicere: ego de meis hoc dico, cum in eadem ista Sicilia pro frumento pecuniam civitatibus solverem et mecum duos frugalissimos homines scribas haberem, L. Mamilium et L. Sergium, non modo istas duas quinquagesimas, sed omnino nummum nullum cuiquam esse deductum. dicerem hoc mihi totum esse attribuendum, iudices, si illi umquam hoc a me postulassent, si umquam omnino cogitassent.

For why should the clerk make a deduction, and not rather the muleteer who carried it, the courier at whose coming they were made certain and asked, the crier who bade them come up, the viator or Venusian who took the money-chest? What share of work or of opportunity is in the clerk that to him not only such great wages should be given, but that with him should be made a partition of so great a sum of money? "It is an honourable order." Who denies it, or what does that have to do with this matter? It is indeed honourable, because to the trust of these men the public records and the perils of magistrates are committed. So out of these clerks who are worthy of that order — fathers of households, good and honourable men — inquire what these fiftieths mean. You will at once understand from all that the whole thing seems new and unworthy.

quam ob rem enim scriba deducat, ac non potius mulio qui advexerit, tabellarius cuius adventu certiores facti petiverunt, praeco qui adire iussit, viator aut Venerius qui fiscum sustulit? quae pars operae aut opportunitatis in scriba est cur ei non modo merces tanta detur, sed cur cum eo tantae pecuniae partitio fiat? ’ ordo est honestus.’ quis negat, aut quid ea res ad hanc rem pertinet? est vero honestus, quod eorum hominum fidei tabulae publicae periculaque magistratuum committuntur. itaque ex his scribis qui digni sunt illo ordine, patribus familias, viris bonis atque honestis, percontamini quid sibi istae quinquagesimae velint: iam omnibus intellegetis novam rem totam atque indignam videri.

Recall me to those clerks, please; do not gather these who, with little coins begged round from the gifts of spendthrifts and from the corollaries of stage-actors, when they have bought a decuria, say they have arrived from the first row of the hooted-off into the second order of the state. Those clerks I shall have with you as judges of this charge who ill bear that these men are clerks. Although when we see in that order many to be unfit, the order which is set out for industry and dignity, shall we wonder that some are foul there, where it is allowed any man to come at any price? When you confess that out of public money 1,300,000 sesterces by your permission your clerk carried off, do you think you have any defence left? That anyone could bear this, that anyone now of your advocates could even hear this with calm mind, in a state in which a fine of 8,000 sesterces was assessed against Gaius Cato, a consular man, a most distinguished man — in the same state will it be granted to your attendant that he should carry off 1,300,000 sesterces under one heading?

ad eos me scribas revoca, si placet, noli hos colligere, qui nummulis corrogatis de nepotum donis ac de scaenicorum corollariis, cum decuriam emerunt, ex primo ordine explosorum in secundum ordinem civitatis se venisse dicunt. Eos scribas tecum disceptatores huius criminis habebo qui istos scribas esse moleste ferunt. tametsi cum in eo ordine videamus esse multos non idoneos, qui ordo industriae propositus est et dignitati, mirabimur turpis aliquos ibi esse quo cuivis pretio licet pervenire? tu ex pecunia publica HS terdeciens scribam tuum permissu tuo cum abstulisse fateare, reliquam tibi ullam defensionem putas esse? hoc quemquam ferre posse, hoc quemquam denique nunc tuorum advocatorum animo aequo audire arbitrare, qua in civitate C. Catoni, consulari homini, clarissimo viro, HS vll1 lis aestimata sit, in eadem civitate apparitori tuo esse concessum ut HS terdeciens uno nomine auferret?

Hence is that gold ring with which you presented him in a public meeting — which giving of yours, by your singular shamelessness, seemed new to all the Sicilians and even to me incredible. For often our generals, with the enemy overcome and the commonwealth excellently served, have presented their clerks with gold rings in a public meeting. But you — with what deeds done, with what enemy overcome, did you dare to call an assembly for the sake of giving? For not only did you give a ring to your clerk, but also to a most brave and most unlike-you man, Quintus Rubrius, surpassing in virtue, authority, resources, you gave a crown and trappings and a torque; to Marcus Cossutius, a most pure and most honourable man; to Marcus Castricius, a man endowed with the highest splendour, talent, and favour.

hinc ille est anulus aureus quo tu istum in contione donasti; quae tua donatio singulari impudentia nova Siculis omnibus, mihi vero etiam incredibilis videbatur. saepe enim nostri imperatores superatis hostibus, optime re publica gesta, scribas suos anulis aureis in contione donarunt: tu vero quibus rebus gestis, quo hoste superato contionem donandi causa advocare ausus es? neque enim solum scribam tuum anulo, sed etiam virum fortissimum ac tui dissimillimum, Q. Rubrium, excellentem virtute auctoritate copiis, corona et phaleris et torque donasti, M. Cossutium, sanctissimum virum atque honestissimum, M. Castricium, summo splendore ingenio gratia praeditum.

What did these gifts to these three Roman citizens mean? You presented also the most powerful and most noble Sicilians, who, not (as you had hoped) the slower for it, but the more adorned by your judgement, came to give testimony. From what spoils of enemies, after what victory, from what plunder or trophies was this giving of yours established? Is it because under you as praetor, at the coming of a few small pirate ships, the most beautiful fleet — the protection of Sicily and bulwark of the province — was burned by the hands of pirates? Or because the Syracusan field was wasted by the brigands’ burnings under you as praetor? Or because the Syracusan forum overflowed with the blood of your captains? Or because in the harbour of Syracuse a piratical light vessel sailed? I can find nothing why I should think you had fallen into that madness, unless perhaps you took care that men should not be allowed even to forget your ill deeds.

quid haec sibi horum trium civium Romanorum dona voluerunt? Siculos praeterea potentissimos nobilissimosque donasti, qui non, quem ad modum sperasti, tardiores fuerunt, sed ornatiores tuo iudicio ad testimonia dicenda venerunt. quibus ex hostium spoliis, de qua victoria, qua ex praeda aut manubiis haec abs te donatio constituta est? an quod te praetore paucorum adventu myoparonum classis pulcherrima, Siciliae praesidium propugnaculumque provinciae, piratarum manibus incensa est? an quod ager Syracusanus praedonum incendiis te praetore vastatus est? an quod forum Syracusanum nauarchorum sanguine redundavit? an quod in portu Syracusano piraticus myoparo navigavit? nihil possum reperire quam ob rem te in istam amentiam incidisse arbitrer, nisi forte id egisti ut hominibus ne oblivisci quidem rerum tuarum male gestarum liceret.

The clerk has been presented with a gold ring, and for that giving a public meeting has been called. What was your face, when you saw in the meeting those men out of whose goods you were giving him a gold ring — those very men who had laid aside their gold rings and stripped them off their children, that there might be a source from which your clerk might keep this gift and benefit of yours? What further was the preface to your giving? That old and imperial one, of course: Whereas you in the battle, in the war, in the military art — of which not even mention has been made under you as praetor. Or perhaps that one: Whereas you have never been wanting to me in any greed and shamefulness, and have shared in all those same disgraces with me, both in my legateship and in my praetorship and here in Sicily, on these grounds, since I have made you rich, I present you with this gold ring? This would have been the true speech. For that gold ring given by you declares him not a brave man but a wealthy one. So the same ring given by another we should reckon a witness to virtue: given by you, we judge it the companion of money.

anulo est aureo scriba donatus, et ad eam donationem contio est advocata. quod erat os tuum, cum videbas in contione eos homines quorum ex bonis istum anulo aureo donabas, qui ipsi anulos aureos posuerant liberisque suis detraxerant, ut esset unde scriba tuus hoc tuum munus ac beneficium tueretur? quae porro praefatio tuae donationis fuit? illa scilicet vetus atque imperatoria, QVANDOQVE TV QVIDEM IN PROELIO, IN BELLO, IN RE MILITARI—cuius ne mentio quidem te praetore ulla facta est: an illa, QVANDOQVE TV NVLLA VMQVAM MIHI IN CVPIDITATE AC TVRPITVDINE DEFVISTI OMNIBVSQVE IN ISDEM FLAGITIIS MECVM ET IN LEGATIONE ET IN PRAETVRA ET HIC IN SICILIA VERSATVS ES, OB EAS RES TE, QVONIAM RE LOCVPLETAVI, HOC ANVLO AVREO DONO? vera haec fuisset oratio; neque enim iste anulus aureus abs te datus istum virum fortem, sed hominem locupletem esse declarat. ita eundem anulum ab alio datum testem virtutis duceremus, abs te donatum comitem pecuniae iudicamus.

I have spoken, gentlemen, of the tithe-grain, I have spoken of the bought; the last that remains is of the assessed. Which both by the size of the sum and by the kind of wrong ought to move anyone, but yet much more on this account: that for this charge no ingenious defence but a most dishonest confession is being prepared. For when by senatorial decree and by the laws he was allowed to take grain for his larder, and the senate had so assessed that grain (4 sesterces a modius for wheat, 2 for barley), he, with the barley count added to the total of the wheat, assessed each modius of wheat at 3 denarii from the farmers. There is no charge in this, Hortensius — lest perhaps you should rehearse this — that many good and brave and innocent men have often, with the farmers and with the cities, assessed the grain that was to be taken for the larder, and have carried off money for the grain. I know what is wont to be done; I know what is allowed. Nothing that has been before in the custom of good men is now reproached in this man’s deed.

dictum, iudices, est de decumano frumento, dictum de empto, extremum reliquum est de aestimato; quod cum magnitudine pecuniae tum iniuriae genere quemvis debet commovere, tum vero eo magis quod ad hoc crimen non ingeniosa aliqua defensio sed improbissima confessio comparatur. nam cum ex senatus consulto et ex legibus frumentum in cellam ei sumere liceret idque frumentum senatus ita aestimasset, quaternis HS tritici modium, binis hordei, iste hordei numero ad summam tritici adiecto tritici modios singulos cum aratoribus denariis ternis aestimavit. non est in hoc crimen, Hortensi, ne forte ad hoc meditere, multos saepe viros bonos et fortis et innocentis cum aratoribus et cum civitatibus frumentum, in cellam quod sumi oporteret, aestimasse et pecuniam pro frumento abstulisse. scio quid soleat fieri, scio quid liceat; nihil quod antea fuerit in consuetudine bonorum nunc in istius facto reprehenditur;

This I reproach: that, when in Sicily a modius of wheat was 2 sesterces (as this man’s letter sent to you declares), at most 3 sesterces (which has been made plain before by all the testimonies and by the books of the farmers), then this man exacted from the farmers 3 denarii for each modius of wheat. This is the charge — that you may understand the charge does not depend on the assessment or on the 3 denarii, but on the joining of the price of grain and the assessment. For this assessment was born originally, gentlemen, not from the convenience of praetors or consuls, but from that of the cities and the farmers. For no one was at the start so shameless that, when grain was owed, he should ask money. Surely this came first from the farmer, or from the city which was being commanded, who, when he had either sold the grain or wished to keep it or did not wish to carry it to the place commanded, asked, as a kindness and a favour, that he might be allowed to give for the grain as much as the grain was worth. From a beginning of this kind, and from the liberality and accommodation of the magistrates, the custom of assessment was brought in.

hoc reprehendo, quod, cum in Sicilia HS binis tritici modius esset, ut istius epistula ad te missa declarat, summum HS ternis, id quod et testimoniis omnium et tabulis aratorum planum factum antea est, tum iste pro tritici modiis singulis ternos ab aratoribus denarios exegit; hoc crimen est, ut intellegas non ex aestimatione neque ex ternis denariis pendere crimen, sed ex coniunctione annonae atque aestimationis. etenim haec aestimatio nata est initio, iudices, non ex praetorum aut consulum, sed ex civitatum et aratorum commodo. nemo enim fuit initio tam impudens qui, cum frumentum deberetur, pecuniam posceret. certe hoc ab aratore primum est profectum, aut ab ea civitate cui imperabatur; cum aut frumentum vendidisset aut servare vellet aut in eum locum quo imperabatur portare nollet, petivit in benefici loco et gratiae ut sibi pro frumento quanti frumentum esset dare liceret. ex huiusce modi principio atque ex liberalitate et accommodatione magistratuum consuetudo aestimationis introducta est.

There followed greedier magistrates, who yet in their greed found not only a way of gain but even a way out and a method of defence. They began always to command grain from the most distant and most difficult places to which to carry, that by the difficulty of carriage they might come to whatever assessment they wished. In this kind it is easier to form an opinion than to find a charge: because we can reckon him who does this greedy, but we cannot so easily establish a charge in it, because it seems must be granted to our magistrates that it should be allowed them to receive grain at whatever place they wish. So this is what many perhaps have done: but so many that those whom we remember or have heard of as the most innocent did not do it.

secuti sunt avariores magistratus, qui tamen in avaritia sua non solum viam quaestus invenerunt, verum etiam exitum ac rationem defensionis. instituerunt semper in ultima ac difficillima ad portandum loca frumentum imperare, ut vecturae difficultate ad quam vellent aestimationem pervenirent. in hoc genere facilior est existimatio quam reprehensio, ideo quod eum qui hoc facit avarum possumus existimare, crimen in eo constituere non tam facile possumus, quod videtur concedendum magistratibus nostris esse ut iis quo loco velint frumentum accipere liceat. itaque hoc est quod multi fortasse fecerunt, sed ita multi ut ii quos innocentissimos meminimus aut audivimus non fecerint.

I now ask of you, Hortensius, with which then are you about to compare this man’s deed? With those, I trust, who, led by kindness, granted as a benefit and a favour to the cities that they should give coins for the grain. So the farmers, I trust, asked of this man that, since they could not sell a modius of wheat for 3 sesterces, they might be allowed to give 3 denarii for each modius. Or, since you do not dare to say this, will you flee to that — that, drawn on by the difficulty of carriage, they preferred to give 3 denarii? Of what carriage? From what place to what place that they should not carry? From Philomelium to Ephesus? I see what difference is wont to be in price; I see how many days’ journey it is; I see that it is to the Philomelians’ interest, given the price of grain at Ephesus, to give in Phrygia rather than carry to Ephesus, or to send money and envoys to Ephesus to buy grain.

quaero nunc abs te, Hortensi, cum utrisne tandem istius factum collaturus es? cum iis, credo, qui benignitate adducti per beneficium et gratiam civitatibus concesserunt ut nummos pro frumento darent. ita credo petisse ab isto aratores ut, cum HS ternis tritici modium vendere non possent, pro singulis modiis ternos denarios dare liceret. an quoniam hoc non audes dicere, illuc confugies, vecturae difficultate adductus ternos denarios dare maluisse? cuius vecturae? quo ex loco in quem locum ne portarent? Philomelio Ephesum? video quid inter annonam interesse soleat, video quot dierum via sit, video Philomeliensibus expedire, quanti Ephesi sit frumentum, dare potius in Phrygia quam Ephesum portare aut ad emendum frumentum Ephesum pecuniam et legatos mittere.

But in Sicily, what of that sort? Henna is the most inland. Compel the Hennenses (which is the highest right) to measure the grain to you down to the water, or to Phintia or Halaesa or Catina, places most far apart from each other: on the same day on which you order it, they will carry it. Although there is no need even of carriage. For the whole gain of this assessment, gentlemen, was born of the variety of price. For this a magistrate can attain in his province: that he should receive there where it is dearest. So that reckoning of assessment has weight in Asia, weight in Spain, weight in those provinces in which there is not wont to be one price of grain. But in Sicily, what did it matter to anyone in what place he should give? For there was no carrying to be done, and, wherever each man was bidden to carry, there he could buy grain for the same price for which he had sold it at home.

in Sicilia vero quid eius modi est? Henna mediterranea est maxime. coge ut ad aquam tibi, id quod summi iuris est, frumentum Hennenses admetiantur vel Phintiam vel Halaesam vel Catinam, loca inter se maxime diversa: eodem die quo iusseris deportabunt. tametsi ne vectura quidem est opus. nam totus quaestus hic, iudices, aestimationis ex annonae natus est varietate. hoc enim magistratus in provincia adsequi potest, ut ibi accipiat ubi est carissimum. ideo valet ista ratio aestimationis in Asia, valet in Hispania, valet in iis provinciis in quibus unum pretium frumento esse non solet: in Sicilia vero quid cuiusquam intererat quo loco daret? neque enim portandum erat, et, quo quisque vehere iussus esset, ibi tantidem frumentum emeret quanti domi vendidisset.

Wherefore, if you wish to teach, Hortensius, that anything was done by this man in his assessment like that done by the rest, you will have to teach that in some place of Sicily under Verres as praetor a modius of wheat was 3 denarii. See what defence I have opened to you — how unjust against the allies, how remote from the advantage of the commonwealth, how sundered from the will and meaning of the law. Will you, when I am ready to give you grain in my own fields and in my own city, indeed in those places in which you are at large, are doing your business, are administering your province — choose me some hidden and abandoned corner of the province? Will you order me to measure it where it is not profitable to carry, where I cannot buy?

quam ob rem, si vis, Hortensi, docere aliquid ab isto simile in aestimatione atque a ceteris esse factum, doceas oportebit aliquo in loco Siciliae praetore Verre ternis denariis tritici modium fuisse. vide quam tibi defensionem patefecerim, quam iniquam in socios, quam remotam ab utilitate rei publicae, quam seiunctam a voluntate ac sententia legis. tu, cum tibi ego frumentum in meis agris atque in mea civitate, denique cum in iis locis in quibus es, versaris, rem geris, provinciam administras, paratus sim dare, angulum mihi aliquem eligas provinciae reconditum ac derelictum? iubeas ibi me metiri quo portare non expediat, ubi emere non possim?

A dishonest deed, gentlemen, not to be borne, granted by no law to anyone, but perhaps not even yet punished in any one! Yet I, what I deny can be borne, grant and freely give to Verres. If in any place of that province grain was as dear as he assessed it, I do not think that this charge ought to weigh against this defendant. But indeed, when grain was 2 or even 3 sesterces in any place of the province, you exacted 12. If with you I can have no controversy either about the price of grain or about your assessment, why do you sit, why do you wait, what do you defend? Whether do these moneys seem to you to have been raked together against the laws, against the commonwealth, with the greatest wrong of the allies? Or do you defend it that this was done rightly, in order, for the commonwealth, with no man’s wrong?

improbum facinus, iudices, non ferendum, nemini lege concessum, sed fortasse adhuc in nullo etiam vindicatum! tamen ego hoc, quod ferri nego posse, Verri, iudices, concedo et largior. si ullo in loco eius provinciae frumentum tanti fuit quanti iste aestimavit, hoc crimen in istum reum valere oportere non arbitror. verum enim vero, cum esset HS binis aut etiam ternis quibusvis in locis provinciae, duodenos sestertios exegisti. si mihi tecum neque de annona neque de aestimatione tua potest esse controversia, quid sedes, quid exspectas, quid defendis? utrum tibi pecuniae coactae conciliatae videntur adversus leges, adversus rem publicam cum maxima sociorum iniuria, an vero id recte, ordine, e re publica, sine cuiusquam iniuria factum esse defendis?

When the senate had drawn out money for you from the treasury, and had counted to you single denarii which you should pay to the farmers for single modii, what ought you to have done? If, what that famous L. Piso Frugi did (who first brought a law on extortion), having bought at the price it was worth, you should have brought back what was over of the money. If, like canvassing or generous men, when the senate had assessed at more than the price of the grain, you should have paid out of the senate’s assessment, not by the reckoning of the price of grain. Or if (as most do, in which there was a certain gain, but it was honourable and granted), since the grain was cheaper, you should not have bought it, but should have taken so much money as the senate had granted you under the name of larder. But this — what is it? What reckoning has it I do not ask of equity, but of wickedness and shamelessness itself? For there is scarcely anything that men dare openly do in office, however dishonestly, without being wont to bring forward, if not a good, yet some reasoning of that deed.

cum tibi senatus ex aerario pecuniam prompsisset et singulos tibi denarios adnumerasset quos tu pro singulis modiis aratoribus solveres, quid facere debuisti? si quod L. Piso ille Frugi, qui legem de pecuniis repetundis primus tulit, cum emisses quanti esset, quod superaret pecuniae rettulisses; si ut ambitiosi homines aut benigni, cum pluris senatus aestimasset quam quanti esset annona, ex senatus aestimatione, non ex annonae ratione solvisses; sin, ut plerique faciunt, in quo erat aliqui quaestus, sed is honestus atque concessus, frumentum, quoniam vilius erat, ne emisses, sumpsisses id nummorum quod tibi senatus cellae nomine concesserat. hoc vero quid est? quam habet rationem non quaero aequitatis, sed ipsius improbitatis atque impudentiae? neque enim est fere quicquam quod homines palam facere audeant in magistratu quamvis improbe, quin eius facti si non bonam, at aliquam rationem adferre soleant.

What is this? The praetor comes; "I must," he says, "buy grain from you." Excellent. The modius for a denarius. Generously and liberally; for I cannot sell it for 3 sesterces. "I do not need grain. I want coins." "For I had hoped," says the farmer, "to come to the denarii. But, if it must be so, consider how much grain is worth. I see it is 2 sesterces. What then can be given by me to you of coins, when the senate has given you 4 sesterces?" What does he ask? Mark, and at the same time, gentlemen, mark the equity of the praetor.

hoc quid est? venit praetor; frumentum, inquit, me abs te emere oportet. optime. modium denario. benigne ac liberaliter; nam ego ternis HS non possum vendere. mihi frumentum non opus est, nummos volo. nam sperabam, inquit arator, me ad denarios perventurum; sed, si ita necesse est, quanti frumentum sit considera. video esse binis HS. quid ergo a me tibi nummorum dari potest, cum senatus tibi quaternos HS dederit? quid poscit? attendite et, vos quaeso, simul, iudices, aequitatem praetoris attendite.

"The 4 sesterces, which the senate has decreed me and given me from the treasury, I shall keep, and shall transfer them from the public chest to my own coffer. What further? What? For each modius which I command of you, you shall give me 8 sesterces." "For what reason?" "Why do you ask the reason? The matter has not so much reason as advantage and plunder." "Tell me, please," says the farmer, "more plainly. The senate willed that you should give me coins, that I should give you grain: will you yourself keep those coins which the senate willed me to be given, and from me, to whom single denarii should be given by you, will you carry off two, and lay on this plunder and rape the name of larder?"

Quaternos HS, quos mihi senatus decrevit et ex aerario dedit, ego habebo et in cistam transferam de fisco. quid postea? quid? pro singulis modiis, quos tibi impero, tu mihi octonos HS dato. qua ratione? quid quaeris rationem? non tantam rationem res habet quantam utilitatem atque praedam. dic, dic, inquit ille, planius. senatus te voluit mihi nummos, me tibi frumentum dare: tu eos nummos quos mihi senatus dare voluit ipse habebis; a me, cui singulos denarios a te dari oportuit, binos auferes et huic praedae ac direptioni cellae nomen impones?

This wrong, this calamity was wanting to the farmers under you as praetor, by which they should be overthrown in all the rest of their fortunes. For what could be left to him who, by this wrong, should not only lose all his harvest, but be forced even to sell all his equipment? Whither should he turn? Out of what harvest should he find coins to give to you? In the name of tithes there had been carried off as much as Apronius’s pleasure had borne. For the second tithes and the bought grain, either nothing had been given, or as much had been given as the rest of the clerks had taken, or even (which you have learned) it had been carried off besides. Are coins also to be exacted from the farmer? In what manner, by what right, by what example? For when the harvests of the farmers were being plundered and torn by every wrong, the farmer seemed to lose what he himself had got by his plough, in which he had laboured, what the fields and crops had brought forth.

haec deerat iniuria et haec calamitas aratoribus te praetore qua reliquis fortunis omnibus everterentur. nam quid esse reliqui poterat ei qui per hanc iniuriam non modo fructum omnem amitteret, sed etiam omne instrumentum vendere cogeretur? quonam se verteret? ex quo fructu nummos quos tibi daret inveniret? decumarum nomine tantum erat ablatum quantum voluntas tulerat Aproni: pro alteris decumis emptoque frumento aut nihil datum aut tantum datum quantum reliqui scribae fecerant, aut ultro etiam, id quod didicistis, ablatum. cogantur etiam nummi ab aratore? quo modo, quo iure, quo exemplo? nam cum fructus diripiebantur aratorum atque omni lacerabantur iniuria, videbatur id perdere arator quod aratro ipse quaesisset, in quo elaborasset, quod agri segetesque extulissent;

In which most grievous wrongs there was yet that wretched comfort: that he seemed to lose what under another praetor from the same field he could regain. But that the farmer should give coins which he does not plough up, which he does not seek by plough and hand — he must of necessity sell oxen and the very plough and all his equipment. For you ought not to think this: he has the like in coins, has it in town estates. For when something is laid on a farmer, not the man’s other resources (if there be any besides), but the very force and reckoning of the ploughing-land are to be regarded — what it can sustain, what it can suffer, what it can and ought to bring forth. Although those men too were emptied out and ruined by this man in every reckoning, yet you must establish what part of duty toward the commonwealth you wish the farmer himself to perform and sustain in the name of his ploughing-land. You lay tithes on him; they bear them. A second; they think your times must be served. Let them give bought grain besides; they will give it, if you wish.

quibus iniuriis gravissimis tamen illud erat miserum solacium, quod id perdere videbatur quod alio praetore eodem ex agro reparare posset. nummos vero ut det arator quos non exarat, quos non aratro ac manu quaerit, boves et aratrum ipsum atque omne instrumentum vendat necesse est. non enim debetis hoc cogitare: habet idem in nummis, habet in urbanis praediis. nam cum aratori aliquid imponitur, non hominis si quae sunt praeterea facultates, sed arationis ipsius vis ac ratio consideranda est, quid ea sustinere, quid pati, quid efficere possit ac debeat; quamquam illi quoque homines sunt ab isto omni ratione exinaniti ac perditi, tamen hoc vobis est statuendum, quid aratorem ipsum arationis nomine muneris in rem publicam fungi ac sustinere velitis. imponitis decumas, patiuntur; alteras, temporibus vestris serviendum putant; dent emptum praeterea; dabunt, si voletis.

How heavy these are, and what after these things have been deducted can come to the masters as net and remaining — this, I trust, you can grasp by guessing from your own expenses, from your own country affairs. Add now to these this man’s edicts, institutions, wrongs. Add the kingdoms and rapines of Apronius and of Venus’s slaves in the tithe-paying field. Yet I leave aside these things: I am speaking of the larder. Does it please you that the Sicilians give grain free to your magistrates for the larder? What more unworthy, what more unjust? And know that this was to be wished and asked for by the farmers under Verres as praetor. Sositheus is from Entella, a man among the chief in prudence and noble at home, whose words you shall hear, who has been sent on this trial as envoy publicly with Artemo and Meniscus, leading men. He, when he was dealing with me much in the senate of Entella about this man’s wrongs, said this: that, if this thing about the larder and this assessment were given up, the Sicilians wished to promise grain free to the senate for the larder, that we should not hereafter decree such great sums to our magistrates.

haec quam sint gravia, et quid his rebus detractis possit ad dominos puri ac reliqui pervenire, credo vos ex vestris impensis, ex vestris rebus rusticis coniectura adsequi posse. addite nunc eodem istius edicta, instituta, iniurias; addite Aproni Veneriorumque servorum in agro decumano regna ac rapinas. quamquam haec omitto: de cella loquor. placet vobis in cellam magistratibus vestris frumentum Siculos gratis dare? quid hoc indignius, quid iniquius? atque hoc scitote aratoribus Verre praetore optandum ac petendum fuisse. Sositheus est Entellinus, homo cum primis prudens et domi nobilis, cuius verba audietis, qui ad hoc iudicium legatus publice cum Artemone et Menisco, primariis viris, missus est. is cum in senatu Entellino multa mecum de istius iniuriis ageret, hoc dixit: si hoc de cella atque hac aestimatione concederetur, velle Siculos senatui polliceri frumentum in cellam gratis, ne posthac tantas pecunias magistratibus nostris decerneremus.

I am sure you can see how greatly this is to the Sicilians’ advantage — not for the equity of the bargain, but for the choice of least evils. For he who would have given freely a thousand modii of wheat from his own portion to Verres for the larder, would have given two thousand sesterces or at most three; the same man now is forced to give 8,000 sesterces for the same number of grain. This the farmer surely could not attain through three years from his own harvest: he must of necessity sell his equipment. But if the ploughing-land can bear this charge and this revenue — that is, if Sicily can bear and suffer it — let her bear it for the Roman people rather than for our magistrates. For it is great money, a great and distinguished revenue, if only we can take it with the province safe, without wrong to the allies. I take nothing from the magistrates; let just so much be given to the larder as has always been given. What besides Verres commands, this, if they cannot, let them refuse; if they can, let it be the revenue of the Roman people rather than the praetor’s plunder.

perspicere vos certo scio Siculis quanto opere hoc expediat non ad aequitatem condicionis, sed ad minima malorum eligenda. nam qui mille modium Verri suae partis in cellam gratis dedisset, duo milia nummum aut summum tria dedisset, idem nunc pro eodem numero frumenti HS viii dare coactus est. hoc arator adsequi per triennium certe fructu suo non potuit: vendiderit instrumentum necesse est. quodsi hoc munus et hoc vectigal aratio tolerare, hoc est Sicilia ferre ac pati potest, populo Romano ferat potius quam nostris magistratibus. Magna est enim pecunia, magnum praeclarumque vectigal, si modo id salva provincia, si sine iniuria sociorum percipere possumus. nihil detraho magistratibus; tantundem detur in cellam quantum semper datum est; quod praeterea Verres imperat, id, si facere non possunt, recusent; si possunt, populi Romani potius hoc sit vectigal quam praeda praetoris.

Next, why is that assessment established in one kind of grain alone, if it is just and to be borne? Sicily owes tithes to the Roman people: let her give for each modius of wheat 3 denarii, let her keep the grain for herself. Money was given you, Verres — one with which you should buy grain for your larder, the other with which you should buy grain from the cities to send to Rome. The money given you, you keep at home, and besides you carry off a very great sum in your own name. Do the same in that grain which has to do with the Roman people. Exact money from the cities by the same assessment, and refer back what you have received: now the treasury of the Roman people will be more full than it has ever been.

deinde cur in uno genere solo frumenti ista aestimatio constituatur, si est aequa et ferenda? debet populo Romano Sicilia decumas; det pro singulis modiis tritici ternos denarios, sibi habeat frumentum. data tibi est pecunia, Verres, una qua frumentum tibi emeres in cellam, altera qua frumentum emeres a civitatibus quod Romam mitteres. tibi datam pecuniam domi retines, et praeterea pecuniam permagnam tuo nomine aufers; fac idem in eo frumento quod ad populum Romanum pertinet; exige eadem aestimatione pecuniam a civitatibus, et refer quam accepisti: iam refertius erit aerarium populi Romani quam umquam fuit.

"But Sicily would not bear this thing in the public grain, while it has borne this thing in my grain." As if either that assessment were juster in your advantage than in the Roman people’s, or as if the thing I am saying and the thing you have done were different in kind of wrong, not in the size of the money. But that very larder they can in no way bear: even if everything else is remitted, even if they were freed for the future from all those wrongs and calamities they have borne under you as praetor, they say they cannot in any way bear this larder and this assessment.

’ at enim istam rem in publico frumento Sicilia non ferret, hanc rem in meo frumento tulit.’ proinde quasi aut aequior sit ista aestimatio in tuo quam in populi Romani commodo, aut ea res quam ego dico et ea quam tu fecisti inter se genere iniuriae, non magnitudine pecuniae differat. verum istam ipsam cellam ferre nullo modo possunt: ut omnia remittantur, ut omnibus iniuriis et calamitatibus quas te praetore tulerunt in posterum liberentur, istam se cellam atque istam aestimationem negant ullo modo ferre posse.

Many things, men say, Sosippus of Agrigentum — a most eloquent man, adorned with every learning and virtue — recently said before Gnaeus Pompeius the consul, gravely and copiously on behalf of all Sicily about the wretchedness of the farmers, and lamented; out of which to those who were present (for the matter was conducted in a great gathering) this seemed most unworthy: that in a matter in which the senate had dealt most excellently and most kindly with the farmers, had assessed largely and liberally, in that very matter the praetor was plundering, the farmers were being overthrown in their goods — and that this was being not only done but done as if it were lawful and granted.

multa Sosippus Agrigentinus apud Cn. Pompeium consulem nuper, homo disertissimus et omni doctrina et virtute ornatissimus, pro tota Sicilia de aratorum miseriis graviter et copiose dixisse ac deplorasse dicitur; ex quibus hoc iis qui aderant,—nam magno conventu acta res est,— indignissimum videbatur, qua in re senatus optime ac benignissime cum aratoribus egisset, large liberaliterque aestimasset, in ea re praedari praetorem, bonis everti aratores, et id non modo fieri sed ita fieri quasi liceat concessumque sit.

What will Hortensius say to these things? That the charge is false? This he will never say. That no great sum was taken by this method? Not even this will he say. That no wrong was done to the Sicilians and the farmers? How can he say it? What then will he say? That others have done it. What is this? Is a defence being sought for the charge, or company for an exile? In this commonwealth and in this lust of men — and (as the state of the courts has stood up to now) in this licence — will you defend not from law, not from equity, not from statute, not from what was right, not from what was lawful, but from what someone has done, that what is reproached has been rightly done?

quid ad haec Hortensius? falsum esse crimen? hoc numquam dicet. non magnam hac ratione pecuniam captam? ne id quidem dicet. non iniuriam factam Siculis atque aratoribus? qui poterit dicere? quid igitur dicet? fecisse alios. quid est hoc? utrum crimini defensio an comitatus exsilio quaeritur? tu in hac re publica atque in hac hominum libidine et, ut adhuc habuit se status iudiciorum, etiam licentia, non ex iure, non ex aequitate, non ex lege, non ex eo quod oportuerit, non ex eo quod licuerit, sed ex eo quod aliqui fecerit, id quod reprehenditur recte factum esse defendes?

Others, indeed, have done very many things. Why in this one charge do you use that kind of defence? There are some things singular in you, which can neither be said nor fit any other man; some you have in common with many. So, that I may leave aside your embezzlements, your moneys taken for the administering of justice, the rest of such things which perhaps others too have done — that thing in which I most gravely accused you, that you had taken money for judging — will you defend by that same reasoning, that others have done it? Even if I should grant your speech, I shall not approve the defence. For rather, with you condemned, will a narrower place be left to others for defending wickedness, than that, with you acquitted, others should be reckoned to have done rightly the things they did most audaciously.

fecerunt alii quidem aliquam multa; cur in hoc uno crimine isto genere defensionis uteris? sunt quaedam omnino in te singularia, quae in nullum hominem alium dici neque convenire possint, quaedam tibi cum multis communia. ergo, ut omittam tuos peculatus, ut ob ius dicendum pecunias acceptas, ut eius modi cetera quae forsitan alii quoque etiam fecerint, illud in quo te gravissime accusavi, quod ob iudicandam rem pecuniam accepisses, eadem ista ratione defendes, fecisse alios? Vt ego adsentiar orationi, defensionem tamen non probabo. potius enim te damnato ceteris angustior locus improbitatis defendendae relinquetur, quam te absoluto alii quod audacissime fecerunt recte fecisse existimentur.

All the provinces are mourning; all the free peoples are complaining; finally even all the kingdoms are lodging complaints about our greeds and wrongs. There is now no place within the Ocean either so distant or so hidden that the lust and iniquity of our men has not in these times pervaded it. The Roman people can no longer sustain the force, not the arms, not the war, but the grief, the tears, the complaints of all nations. In such a state of things and morals, if he who shall have been brought into court, when he is held in the most manifest crimes, says that others have done the same, examples will not fail him: but the safety of the commonwealth will fail, if the dishonest are freed from trial and peril by the examples of the dishonest.

lugent omnes provinciae, queruntur omnes liberi populi, regna denique etiam omnia de nostris cupiditatibus et iniuriis expostulant; locus intra Oceanum iam nullus est neque tam longinquus neque tam reconditus quo non per haec tempora nostrorum hominum libido iniquitasque pervaserit; sustinere iam populus Romanus omnium nationum non vim, non arma, non bellum, sed luctum, lacrimas, querimonias non potest. in eius modi re ac moribus, si is qui erit adductus in iudicium, cum manifestis in flagitiis tenebitur, alios eadem fecisse dicet, illi exempla non deerunt: rei publicae salus deerit, si improborum exemplis improbi iudicio ac periculo liberabuntur.

Do men’s morals please you? Does it please you that magistracies be exercised as they are exercised? Does it please you that the allies be so handled — as far as remains — as you see them handled in these times? Why is this labour spent by me? Why do you sit? Why do you not, in the middle of my speech, rise up and depart? But do you wish in some part to cut back the audacities and lusts of these men? Cease to doubt whether it is more useful, on account of many dishonest men, to spare the one — or, by the punishment of one dishonest man, to restrain the wickedness of many.

placent vobis hominum mores? placet ita geri magistratus ut geruntur? placet socios sic tractari, quod restat, ut per haec tempora tractatos videtis? cur haec a me opera consumitur? quid sedetis? cur non in media oratione mea consurgitis atque disceditis? vultis autem istorum audacias ac libidines aliqua ex parte resecare? desinite dubitare utrum sit utilius propter multos improbos uni parcere, an unius improbi supplicio multorum improbitatem coercere.

Although what are these examples of the many? For when, in so great a case, in the greatest charge, it has been begun by the defender to be said that something has been frequently done, those who hear await examples from old memory, from monuments and writings, full of dignity, full of antiquity. For these are wont to have most authority for proof and most pleasantness for hearing. Will you tell me of the Africani and the Catos and the Laelii and say that they did the same? However the matter may not please me, yet against the authority of those men I shall not be able to fight. Or, when you cannot bring those, will you bring forth those of recent years, Quintus Catulus the elder, Gaius Marius, Quintus Scaevola, Marcus Scaurus, Quintus Metellus? All of whom held provinces and demanded grain under the name of larder. Great is the authority of those men, and so great that it can even cover the suspicion of an offence.

tametsi quae ista sunt exempla multorum? nam cum in causa tanta, cum in crimine maximo dici a defensore coeptum est factitatum esse aliquid, exspectant ii qui audiunt exempla ex vetere memoria, ex monumentis ac litteris, plena dignitatis, plena antiquitatis; haec enim plurimum solent et auctoritatis habere ad probandum et iucunditatis ad audiendum. Africanos mihi et Catones et Laelios commemorabis et eos fecisse idem dices? quamvis res mihi non placeat, tamen contra hominum auctoritatem pugnare non potero. an, cum eos non poteris, proferes hos recentis, Q. Catulum patrem, C. Marium, Q. Scaevolam, M. Scaurum, Q. Metellum? qui omnes provincias habuerunt et frumentum cellae nomine imperaverunt. Magna est hominum auctoritas, et tanta ut etiam delicti suspicionem tegere possit.

You have not even from these men who have lately been any author for that assessment of yours. Whither then or to what examples are you calling me back? From those men, who were occupied in the commonwealth at a time when the morals were the best, when men’s standing was held grave, and trials were strict, do you carry me to this lust and licence of men — and, against those whom the Roman people thinks some example must be set, from these you seek the examples of defence? I do not flee even these morals, provided that we follow out of these things examples which the Roman people approves, not those which it condemns. I shall not look round, I shall not seek outside: I have judges with you the chief men of the state, Publius Servilius and Quintus Catulus, who are of such great authority, of such great deeds done, that they may be set in the number of those most ancient and most distinguished men of whom I spoke before.

non habes ne ex his quidem hominibus qui nuper fuerunt ullum auctorem istius aestimationis. quo me igitur aut ad quae exempla revocas? ab illis hominibus, qui tum versati sunt in re publica cum et optimi mores erant et hominum existimatio gravis habebatur et iudicia severa fiebant, ad hanc hominum libidinem ac licentiam me abducis, et, in quos aliquid exempli populus Romanus statui putat oportere, ab iis tu defensionis exempla quaeris? non fugio ne hos quidem mores, dum modo ex his ea quae probat populus Romanus exempla, non ea quae condemnat sequamur. non circumspiciam, non quaeram foris: habeo iudices tecum principes civitatis, P. Servilium et Q. Catulum, qui tanta auctoritate sunt, tantis rebus gestis, ut in illo antiquissimorum clarissimorumque hominum, de quibus antea dixi, numero reponantur.

We seek examples, and not old ones. Lately each of these had an army. Ask, Hortensius — since fresh examples delight you — what they did. Indeed? Quintus Catulus used grain, did not exact money. Publius Servilius, when he was in command of an army for five years and could by that reasoning make boundless money, did not lay down for himself anything as lawful that he had not seen his father, his grandfather Quintus Metellus, the most distinguished man, do. Will Gaius Verres be found to say that whatever profits is lawful? To defend by the example of others what no man has done save the dishonest? But it has often been done in Sicily. What is this condition of Sicily? Why for her, who by her best right ought (on account of her age, her faithfulness, her nearness) to be best treated, is a special law of wrong defined?

exempla quaerimus, et ea non antiqua. modo uterque horum exercitum habuit. quaere, Hortensi, quoniam te recentia exempla delectant, quid fecerint. itane vero? Q. Catulus frumento est usus, pecuniam non coegit; P. Servilius quinquennium exercitui cum praeesset et ista ratione innumerabilem pecuniam facere cum posset, non statuit sibi quicquam licere quod non patrem suum, non avum Q. Metellum, clarissimum hominem, facere vidisset: C. Verres reperietur qui, quicquid expediat, id licere dicat? quod nemo nisi improbus fecerit, id aliorum exemplo se fecisse defendat? at in Sicilia factitatum est. quae est ista condicio Siciliae? cur quae optimo iure propter vetustatem, fidelitatem, propinquitatem esse debet, huic praecipua lex iniuriae definitur?

But in Sicily itself I shall not seek an example outside. Out of this very council I will use examples. Gaius Marcellus, I call upon you. You ruled the province of Sicily as proconsul: were any moneys exacted under your command in the name of larder? Nor do I set this to your praise: other deeds of yours and your counsels are worthy of the highest praise, by which you raised up and revived that afflicted and ruined province. For this thing about the larder not even Lepidus had done, whom you succeeded. What examples then have you of the larder in Sicily, if you can defend this charge not even by Marcellus’s deed, nor even by Lepidus’s?

sed in ista ipsa Sicilia non quaeram exemplum foris: hoc ipso ex consilio utar exemplis. C. Marcelle, te appello. Siciliae provinciae, cum esses pro consule, praefuisti: num quae in tuo imperio pecuniae cellae nomine coactae sunt? neque ego hoc in tua laude pono: alia sunt tua facta atque consilia summa laude digna, quibus illam tu provinciam adflictam et perditam erexisti atque recreasti; nam hoc de cella ne Lepidus quidem fecerat, cui tu successisti. quae sunt tibi igitur exempla in Sicilia cellae, si hoc crimen non modo Marcelli facto, sed ne Lepidi quidem potes defendere?

Or are you about to call me back to Marcus Antonius’s assessment of grain and exaction of money? "Yes," he says, "to Antonius’s." For so he seemed to me to signify and to nod. Out of all the praetors, consuls, generals of the Roman people, then, you have chosen Marcus Antonius, and his one most dishonest deed, which you should imitate! And here whether is it hard for me to say or for these to think that Marcus Antonius so behaved himself in that boundless command that it is much more ruinous for this man to say he wished to imitate Antonius in a most dishonest matter, than if he could defend that he had done nothing in his life like Marcus Antonius? Men in trials, in defending a charge, are wont to bring forward not what some man did, but what he proved. Antonius, who was both doing and devising many things against the safety of the allies, many things against the advantage of the provinces, in the midst of his wrongs and lusts was overcome by death. Will you, as if all his deeds and counsels had been approved by senate, people, judges, defend this man’s audacity by the example of Marcus Antonius?

an me ad M. Antoni aestimationem frumenti exactionemque pecuniae revocaturus es? ’ ita,’ inquit, ’ad Antoni’; hoc enim mihi significasse et adnuisse visus est. ex omnibus igitur populi Romani praetoribus, consulibus, imperatoribus M. Antonium delegisti, et eius unum improbissimum factum, quod imitarere! et hic utrum mini difficile est dicere an his existimare ita se in isto infinito imperio M. Antonium gessisse ut multo isti perniciosius sit dicere se ih re improbissima voluisse Antonium imitari quam si posset defendere nihil in vita se M. Antoni simile fecisse? homines in iudiciis ad crimen defendendum non quid fecerit quispiam proferre solent, sed quid probarit. Antonium, cum multa contra sociorum salutem, multa contra utilitatem provinciarum et faceret et cogitaret, in mediis eius iniuriis et cupiditatibus mors oppressit. tu mihi, quasi eius omnia facta atque consilia senatus, populus, iudices comprobarint, ita M. Antoni exemplo istius audaciam defendis?

But Sacerdos did the same. You name an innocent man endowed with the highest prudence; but he must be reckoned to have done the same only if he did it with the same purpose. For the kind of assessment itself has never been reproached by me, but its equity is weighed by the convenience and will of the farmers. No assessment can be reproached which to the farmer is not only not inconvenient but even welcome. As Sacerdos came into the province, he commanded grain for the larder. Since the modius of new wheat was 5 denarii, the cities asked of him to assess it. His assessment was somewhat lower than the price; for he assessed at 3 denarii. You see the same assessment, on account of the unlikeness of the time, in him having a cause for praise, in you for charge; in him for kindness, in you for wrong.

at idem fecit Sacerdos. hominem innocentem et summa prudentia praeditum nominas; sed tum idem fecisse erit existimandus si eodem consilio fecerit. nam genus aestimationis ipsum a me numquam est reprehensum, sed eius aequitas aratorum commodo et voluntate perpenditur. non potest reprehendi ulla aestimatio quae aratori non modo incommoda non est sed etiam grata est. Sacerdos ut in provinciam venit, frumentum in cellam imperavit. cum esset ante novum tritici modius denariis v petiverunt ab eo civitates ut aestimaret. remissior aliquanto eius fuit aestimatio quam annona; nam aestimavit denariis iii. vides eandem aestimationem propter temporis dissimilitudinem in illo laudis causam habere, in te criminis, in illo benefici, in te iniuriae.

At the same time the praetor Antonius assessed at 3 denarii after the harvest, in the highest cheapness, when the farmers preferred to give the grain free; and he was saying he had assessed at the same as Sacerdos. Nor was he lying. But by that very same assessment one had relieved the farmers, the other had overthrown them. But unless the whole reckoning of grain were to be considered from times and from price, not from number nor from total, those modii and a half would never have been so welcome, Quintus Hortensius, which you, when you had ascribed them to the Roman people in heads at so small a measure, made most welcome to all. For the dearness of grain made what in itself seems small, by the time seem great. The same thing, if you had wished to give the Roman people in cheapness, your kindness would have been laughed at and despised.

eodem tempore praetor Antonius iii denariis aestimavit post messem, summa in vilitate, cum aratores frumentum dare gratis mallent, et aiebat se tantidem aestimasse quanti Sacerdotem, neque mentiebatur; sed eadem ista aestimatione alter sublevarat aratores, alter everterat. quod nisi omnis frumenti ratio ex temporibus esset et annona, non ex numero neque ex summa consideranda, numquam tam grati hi sesquimodii, Q. Hortensi, fuissent, quos tu cum ad mensurae tam exiguam rationem populo Romano in capita descripsisses, gratissimum omnibus fecisti; caritas enim annonae faciebat ut istuc, quod re parvum videtur, tempore magnum videretur. idem istuc si in vilitate populo Romano largiri voluisses, derisum tuum beneficium esset atque contemptum.

Do not say, then, that this man did the same as Sacerdos, since he did not do it at the same time nor with a like price. Say rather, since you have a fitting authority, that what Antonius did at one coming and with scarcely a month’s rations, that this man did through three years; and defend his innocence by the deed and authority of Marcus Antonius. For about Sextus Peducaeus, that bravest and most innocent man, what will you say? Of whom what farmer ever complained? Or who up to this time does not reckon his praetorship the most innocent and most diligent of all? He held the province for two years. Although one year was in cheapness, the other in the highest dearness, did either in cheapness any farmer give a coin, or in dearness complain of the assessment of grain? "But the rations were made richer by the dearness."

noli igitur dicere istum idem fecisse quod Sacerdotem, quoniam non eodem tempore neque simili fecit annona: dicito potius, quoniam habes auctorem idoneum, quod Antonius uno adventu et vix menstruis cibariis fecerit, id istum per triennium fecisse, et istius innocentiam M. Antoni facto atque auctoritate defendito. nam de sex. quidem Peducaeo, fortissimo atque innocentissimo viro, quid dicetis? de quo quis umquam arator questus est? aut quis non ad hoc tempus innocentissimam omnium diligentissimamque praeturam illius hominis existimat? biennium provinciam obtinuit. cum alter annus in vilitate, alter in summa caritate fuerit, num aut in vilitate nummum arator quisquam dedit aut in caritate de aestimatione frumenti questus est? at uberiora cibaria facta sunt caritate.

I trust so; nor is that new or to be reproached. Lately we saw Gaius Sentius, a man endowed with that old and singular innocence, on account of the dearness of grain which had been in Macedonia, carry away from his rations a very great sum of money. Wherefore I do not envy your advantages, if any have come to you by the law. I complain of the wrong, I expose the wickedness, I summon the greed into charge and trial. But if you wish to throw the suspicion that this charge belongs to many men and to many provinces, I shall not be terrified at that defence of yours, but I shall profess myself the defender of all the provinces. For this I say, and with a great voice say it: wherever this has been done, it has been done dishonestly; whoever has done this is worthy of punishment.

credo; neque id est novum neque reprehendendum. modo C. Sentium vidimus, hominem vetere illa ac singulari innocentia praeditum, propter caritatem frumenti quae fuerat in Macedonia permagnam ex cibariis pecuniam deportare. quam ob rem non ego invideo commodis tuis, si quae ad te lege venerunt: iniuriam queror, improbitatem coarguo, avaritiam in crimen et in iudicium voco. quodsi suspiciones inicere velitis ad pluris homines et ad pluris provincias crimen hoc pertinere, non ego istam defensionem vestram pertimescam, sed me omnium provinciarum defensorem esse profitebor. etenim hoc dico, et magna voce dico, Vbicumque hoc factum est, improbe factum est; quicumque hoc fecit, supplicio dignus est.

For, by the immortal gods, see, gentlemen, and look forward in your minds what is to come. Many have raked together great sums of money from unwilling cities and from unwilling farmers by that reasoning under the name of larder. I see no one, indeed, save this man; but I grant you and concede that there are many. In this man you see the matter brought into court. What can you do? Whether, when you are judges of money taken and gathered, can you neglect such a great sum taken? Or, when the law has been passed for the sake of the allies, can you not hear the complaints of the allies?

nam, per deos immortalis, videte, iudices, et prospicite animis quid futurum sit. multi magnas pecunias ab invitis civitatibus atque ab invitis aratoribus ista ratione cellae nomine coegerunt,—omnino ego neminem video praeter istum, sed do hoc vobis et concedo, esse multos: in hoc homine rem adductam in iudicium videtis. quid facere potestis? utrum, cum iudices sitis de pecunia capta conciliata, tantam pecuniam captam neglegere, an, cum lex sociorum causa rogata sit, sociorum querimonias non audire?

But this also I remit you. Neglect what is past, if you wish; but, lest you trouble the rest of our hopes and overthrow all the provinces, see to this: that to greed, which before was wont to use hidden and narrow paths, you not by your authority lay open a clear and broad way. For if you approve this and judge it lawful that money be taken under that name, surely this — which up to now no man save the most dishonest has done — after this no man save the most foolish will not do. Dishonest are those who exact money against the laws; foolish those who pass over what has been judged lawful.

verum hoc quoque vobis remitto; neglegite praeterita, si vultis; sed ne reliquas spes turbetis atque omnis provincias evertatis, id providete, ne avaritiae, quae antehac occultis itineribus atque angustis uti solebat, auctoritate vestra viam patefaciatis inlustrem atque latam. nam si hoc probatis et si licere pecunias isto nomine capi iudicatis, certe hoc, quod adhuc nemo nisi improbissimus fecit, posthac nemo nisi stultissimus non faciet. improbi sunt qui pecunias contra leges cogunt, stulti qui quod licere iudicatum est praetermittunt.

Next, gentlemen, see what boundless licence you are about to give men of snatching moneys. If he who has exacted 3 denarii be acquitted, another shall exact 4, 5, finally 10 or 20. What blame will there be? At what step of wrong will the strictness of the judge first begin to stand fast? At which denarius will it begin to be unbearable, and at what shall the iniquity and wickedness of the assessment first be reproached? For not the sum but the kind of assessment will have been approved by you. Nor can you judge that to assess at 3 denarii is lawful, at 10 not. For when once the matter has been carried over from the reckoning of price and from the will of the farmers to the praetor’s lust, the measure of assessing is not now placed in law nor in duty, but in the will and greed of men. Wherefore, if you have once in judging gone past the bound of equity and law, know that you have left to others, in assessing, no bound of wickedness and greed.

deinde, iudices, videte, quam infinitam sitis hominibus licentiam pecuniarum eripiendarum daturi. si, ternos denarios qui coegit erit absolutus, quaternos, quinos, denos denique aut vicenos coget alius. quae erit reprehensio? in quo primum iniuriae gradu resistere incipiet severitas iudicis? quotus erit iste denarius qui non sit ferendus, et in quo primum aestimationis iniquitas atque improbitas reprehendatur? non enim a vobis summa, sed genus aestimationis erit comprobatum, neque hoc potestis iudicare, ternis denariis aestimare licere, denis non licere. Vbi enim semel ab annonae ratione et ab aratorum voluntate res ad praetoris libidinem translata est, non est iam in lege neque in officio, sed in voluntate hominum atque avaritia positus modus aestimandi. quapropter, si vos semel in iudicando finem aequitatis et legis transieritis, scitote vos nullum ceteris in aestimando finem improbitatis et avaritiae reliquisse.

See then how many things at once are demanded of you. Acquit him who confesses he took the greatest sums with the highest wrong of the allies. It is not enough: there are several others who have done the same. Acquit them too, if there are any, that by one trial you may free as many dishonest men as possible. Not even that is enough: see to it that hereafter the same be lawful for the rest. It shall be lawful: this is yet not enough. Permit that it be lawful for each man to assess at as much as he wishes. It is permitted: each foolish man hereafter will assess at the least. You see now indeed, gentlemen, with this assessment approved by you, that hereafter there will be neither measure to anyone’s greed nor punishment for wickedness.

videte igitur quam multa simul a vobis postulentur. absolvite eum qui se fateatur maximas pecunias cum summa sociorum iniuria cepisse. non est satis: sunt alii quoque complures qui idem fecerint. absolvite etiam illos, si qui sunt, ut uno iudicio quam plurimos improbos liberetis. ne id quidem satis est: facite ut ceteris posthac idem liceat. licebit: adhuc parum est. permittite ut liceat quanti quisque velit tanti aestimare. permissum est: stultissimus quisque posthac minimo aestimabit. videtis iam profecto, iudices, hac aestimatione a vobis comprobata neque modum posthac avaritiae cuiusquam neque poenam improbitatis futuram.

Wherefore what are you doing, Hortensius? You are consul-designate; you are about to draw lots for a province. When you speak about the assessment of grain, we shall hear you so as if what you defend as rightly done by this man you profess yourself about to do, and as if what you say was lawful for him you vehemently desire to be lawful for yourself. And yet, if this shall be lawful, there is nothing why you should think anyone hereafter will let himself be condemned for extortion. For as much money as each desires, so much it shall be lawful for him to attain through the size of an assessment under the name of larder.

quam ob rem quid agis, Hortensi? consul es designatus, provinciam sortiturus es; de aestimatione frumenti cum dices, sic te audiemus quasi id quod ab isto recte factum esse defendes te facturum profiteare, et quasi quod isti licitum esse dices vehementer cupias tibi licere. atqui, si id licebit, nihil est quod putetis quemquam posthac commissurum ut de pecuniis repetundis condemnari possit. quantam enim quisque concupierit pecuniam, tantam licebit per cellae nomen aestimationis magnitudine consequatur.

But there is something which, even if Hortensius does not say it openly in defending, he will say in such a way that you may suspect and consider it: that this has to do with senatorial advantage, that it has to do with the interest of those who judge, who think they will some day be in the provinces with power or with a legateship. You think indeed we have distinguished judges, whom you suppose will yield to others’ sins that they themselves may sin the more easily. So we wish the Roman people, the provinces, the allies and foreign nations to think this: that, if senators judge, this one kind certainly of wringing boundless money by the highest wrong cannot in any way be reproached? But if this is so, what can we say against that praetor who daily holds the rostrum, who says the commonwealth cannot stand unless the courts are referred back to the equestrian order?

at enim est quiddam quod, etiamsi palam in defendendo 9 non dicet Hortensius, tamen ita dicet ut vos id suspicari et cogitare possitis, pertinere hoc ad commodum senatorium, pertinere ad utilitatem eorum qui iudicent, qui in provinciis cum potestate aut cum legatione se futuros aliquando arbitrentur. praeclaros vero existimas iudices nos habere, quos alienis peccatis concessuros putes quo facilius ipsis peccare liceat. ergo id volumus populum Romanum, id provincias, id socios nationesque exteras existimare, si senatores iudicent, hoc certe unum genus infinitae pecuniae per summam iniuriam cogendae nullo modo posse reprehendi? quod si ita est, quid possumus contra illum praetorem dicere qui cotidie templum tenet, qui rem publicam sistere negat posse nisi ad equestrem ordinem iudicia referantur?

If he begin to drive home this one thing — that there is some kind of compelling money common to senators and now almost granted to the order, by which kind the greatest sums of money are carried off from allies by the highest wrong, and that this can in no way be reproached by senatorial trials, and that, while the equestrian order judged, this was never committed — who will withstand him? Who will be so devoted to you, so a partisan of the order, that he can refuse the transferring of the courts? And would that he could by some reasoning defend this charge, however falsely, only humanly and after a familiar fashion: with less peril to you, less to all the provinces, you would be judging. Were he to deny that he had used this assessment, you would have believed it; you would seem to have trusted the man, not approved the deed. He can in no way deny it; he is pressed by all Sicily; out of so great a number of farmers there is none from whom money has not been exacted under the name of larder.

quodsi ille hoc unum agitare coeperit, esse aliquod genus cogendae pecuniae senatorium commune et iam prope concessum ordini, quo genere ab sociis maxima pecunia per summam iniuriam auferatur, neque id ullo modo senatoriis iudiciis reprehendi posse, idque, dum equester ordo iudicarit, numquam esse commissum, quis obsistet? quis erit tam cupidus vestri, tam fautor ordinis, qui de transferendis iudiciis possit recusare? atque utinam posset aliqua ratione hoc crimen quamvis falsa, modo humana atque usitata defendere: minore periculo vestro, minore periculo provinciarum omnium iudicaretis. negaret hac aestimatione se usum, vos id credidissetis: homini credidisse, non factum comprobasse videremini. nullo modo negare potest; urgetur a tota Sicilia; nemo est ex tanto numero aratorum a quo pecunia cellae nomine non sit exacta.

I would even that he could say this: that this reckoning has nothing to do with him; that the grain administration was carried on by the quaestors. Not even this is allowed him, because his own letters about the 3 denarii sent to the cities are read out. What then is the defence? "I have done what you charge; I have raked together the greatest sums under the name of larder; but this was lawful for me; for you, if you provide for yourselves, it shall be lawful." A perilous thing for the provinces, a kind of wrong confirmed by trial; a ruinous thing to our order, that the Roman people should reckon that those men who themselves are held by the laws cannot in judging defend the laws scrupulously. And under this man as praetor, gentlemen, there was not only no measure of assessing the grain, but not even of commanding it. For he commanded not what was owed, but what was convenient. I will give you the total from the public records and testimonies of the cities of grain commanded for the larder. You will find that this man commanded the cities to give five times as much, gentlemen, as it was lawful for him to take for the larder. What can be added to this shamelessness, if both he assessed at so much that men could not bear it, and commanded so much more than was granted him by the laws?

vellem etiam hoc posset dicere, nihil ad se istam rationem pertinere, per quaestores rem frumentariam esse administratam. ne id quidem ei licet dicere, propterea quod ipsius litterae recitantur ad civitates de ternis denariis missae. quae est igitur defensio? ’ feci quod arguis; coegi pecunias maximas cellae nomine; sed hoc mihi licuit, vobis si prospicitis licebit.’ periculosum provinciis genus iniuriae confirmari iudicio, perniciosum nostro ordini populum Romanum existimare non posse eos homines qui ipsi legibus teneantur leges in iudicando religiose defendere. atque isto praetore, iudices,, non solum aestimandi frumenti modus non fuit, sed ne imperandi quidem; neque enim id quod debebatur, sed quantum commodum fuit imperavit. summam faciam vobis ex publicis litteris ac testimoniis civitatum frumenti in cellam imperati: reperietis quinquiens tanto, iudices amplius istum quam quantum in cellam ei sumere licitum sit civitatibus imperasse. quid ad hanc impudentiam addi potest, si et aestimavit tanti ut homines ferre non possent, et tanto plus quam erat ei concessum legibus imperavit?

Wherefore, the whole grain administration learned, gentlemen, you can now most easily see that Sicily has been lost to the Roman people — a most fruitful and most opportune province — unless by the condemnation of this man you recover her. For what is Sicily, if you take away the tilling of the field, and if you put out the number and name of the farmers? And what can be left in this calamity that has not, by the highest wrong and ignominy, come upon the wretched farmers under this man as praetor? Who, when they ought to give tithes, scarcely had the tithes left to themselves; when money was owed, it was not paid; when the senate had wished them to give grain for the larder at the best assessment, were forced even to sell the equipment of their fields.

quapropter cognita tota re frumentaria, iudices, iam facillime perspicere potestis amissam esse populo Romano Siciliam, fructuosissimam atque opportunissimam provinciam, nisi eam vos istius damnatione recuperatis. quid est enim Sicilia si agri cultionem sustuleris et si aratorum numerum ac nomen exstinxeris? quid autem potest esse in calamitate residui quod non ad miseros aratores isto praetore per summam iniuriam ignominiamque pervenerit? quibus, cum decumas dare deberent, vix ipsis decumae relictae sunt; cum pecunia deberetur, soluta non est; cum optima aestimatione senatus frumentum eos in cellam dare voluisset, etiam instrumenta agrorum vendere coacti sunt.

I have said before, gentlemen, that, even if you remove all these wrongs, yet the very business of ploughing is held up rather by hope and a certain pleasantness than by harvest and gain. For against an uncertain chance and outcome a fixed yearly labour and fixed expense is spent. The price of grain, moreover, has no value save in the calamity of harvests; but if there has been an abundance in reaping the harvests, cheapness follows in selling them, so that you understand either that you must sell ill, if it has gone well, or that the harvests have been reaped ill, if it is allowed to sell well. The whole of country affairs is of such a kind that they are governed not by reckoning and labour but by the most uncertain things, the winds and the storms. So when from this both single tithes by law and custom are deducted, and second tithes are commanded by new institutions on account of the price of grain, and besides grain is bought publicly each year, and finally even the larder is commanded for magistrates and legates — what or how much is there besides which that farmer and master can have free in the power of his own harvests, or unburdened in the harvests themselves?

dixi iam antea, iudices, ut has omnis iniurias tollatis, tamen ipsam rationem arandi spe magis et iucunditate quadam quam fructu atque emolumento teneri. etenim ad incertum casum et eventum certus quotannis labor et certus sumptus impenditur. annona porro pretium nisi in calamitate fructuum non habet; si autem ubertas in percipiendis fructibus fuit, consequitur vilitas in vendendis, ut aut male vendendum intellegas, si bene processit, aut male perceptos fructus, si recte licet vendere. totae autem res rusticae eius modi sunt ut eas non ratio neque labor, sed res incertissimae, venti tempestatesque, moderentur. hinc cum unae decumae lege et consuetudine detrahantur, alterae novis institutis propter annonae rationem imperentur, ematur praeterea frumentum quotannis publice, postremo etiam in cellam magistratibus et legatis imperetur, quid aut quantum praeterea est quod aut liberum possit habere ille arator ac dominus in potestate suorum fructuum aut in ipsis fructibus solutum?

But if they bear all these things, if they serve you and the commonwealth rather than themselves and their own advantages by labour, expense, and toil, must they yet bear these new edicts and commands of praetors, and the lordship of Apronius, and the thefts and rapines of Venus’s slaves? Must they give the bought grain free? When for the larder they are willing to give it free, must they besides add a great sum of money? Must they suffer all these losses and damages with the highest wrongs and insults? So these things, gentlemen, which they could in no way suffer, they have not borne. You are now learning that all the plough-lands of Sicily are deserted and abandoned by their masters. Nothing else is being attempted by this trial save that the most ancient and most faithful allies, the Sicilians, the settlers and farmers of the Roman people, by your strictness and diligence, with me as leader and author, may return to their fields and to their seats.

quodsi haec ferunt omnia, si potius vobis ac rei publicae quam sibi et suis commodis opera sumptu labore deserviunt, etiamne haec nova debent edicta et imperia praetorum et Aproni dominationem et Veneriorum servorum furta rapinasque ferre? etiamne frumentum pro empto gratis dare? etiamne in cellam cum cupiant gratis dare ultro pecuniam grandem addere? etiamne haec tot detrimenta atque damna cum maximis iniuriis contumeliisque perferre? itaque haec, iudices, quae pati nullo modo potuerunt non pertulerunt. arationes omnis tota Sicilia desertas atque a dominis relictas esse cognoscitis; neque quicquam aliud agitur hoc iudicio nisi ut antiquissimi socii et fidelissimi, Siculi, coloni populi Romani atque aratores, vestra severitate et diligentia me duce atque auctore in agros atque in sedes suas revertantur.

C icero by Claude

Against Verres, Second Hearing, Book III

Cite this passage

Support this project