Quintus Roscius (M. Tullius Cicero)

[Close]

	Quintus Roscius Author: M. Tullius Cicero	Translator: C. D. Yonge
1	malitiam naturae crederetur . is scilicet vir optimus et singulari fide praeditus in suo iudicio suis tabulis testibus uti conatur . solent fere dicere qui per tabulas hominis honesti pecuniam expensam tulerunt : ' egone talem virum corrumpere potui , ut mea causa falsum in codicem referret ?' exspecto quam mox Chaerea hac oratione utatur : ' egone hanc manum plenam perfidiae et hos digitos meos impellere potui ut falsum perscriberent nomen ?' quod si ille suas proferet tabulas , proferet suas quoque Roscius . erit in illius tabulis hoc nomen , at in huius non erit .	... He, forsooth, excellent man, and of singular integrity, endeavours in his own cause to bring forward his account-books as witnesses. Men are accustomed to say.... Did I endeavour to corrupt such a man as that, so as to induce him to make a false entrance for my sake? I am waiting till Chaerea uses this argument. Was I able to induce this hand to be full of falsehood, and these fingers to make a false entry? But if he produces his accounts, Roscius will also produce his.
2	cur potius illius quam huius credetur ?— scripsisset ille , si non iussu huius expensum tulisset ? — non scripsisset hic quod sibi expensum ferre iussisset ? nam quem ad modum turpe est scribere quod non debeatur , sic improbum est non referre quod debeas . aeque enim tabulae condemnantur eius qui verum non rettulit et eius qui falsum perscripsit . sed ego copia et facultate causae confisus vide quo progrediar . si tabulas C . Fannius accepti et expensi profert suas in suam rem suo arbitratu scriptas , quo minus secundum illum iudicetis non recuso .	These words will appear in the books of the one, but not in those of the other. Why should you trust one rather than the other? Oh, would he ever have written it if he had not borne this expense by his authority? No, says the other, would he not have written it if he had given the authority? For just as it is discreditable to put down what is not owed, so it is dishonest not to put down what you do owe. For his accounts are just as much condemned who omits to make an entry of the truth, as his who puts down what is false. But see now to what, relying on the abundance and cogency of my arguments, I am now coming. If Caius Fannius produces in his own behalf his accounts of money received and paid, written at his own pleasure, I do not object to your giving your decision in his favour.
3	quis hoc frater fratri , quis parens filio tribuit ut , quodcumque rettulisset , id ratum haberet ? ratum habebit Roscius ; profer ; quod tibi fuerit persuasum , huic erit persuasum , quod tibi fuerit probatum , huic erit probatum . Paulo ante M . Perpennae , P . Saturi tabulas poscebamus , nunc tuas , C . Fanni Chaerea , solius flagitamus et quo minus secundum eas lis detur non recusamus ; quid ita non profers ?	What brother would show so much indulgence to a brother, what father to a son, as to consider whatever he entered in this manner proof of a fact? Oh, Roscius will ratify it. Produce your books; what you were convinced of, he will be convinced of; what was approved of by you, will be approved of by him. A little while ago we demanded the accounts of Marcus Perperna, and of Publius Saturius. Now, O Caius Fannius Chaerea, we demand your accounts alone, and we do not object to the action being decided by them—Why then do you not produce them?
4	non conficit tabulas ? immo diligentissime . non refert parva nomina in codices ? immo omnis summas . leve et tenue hoc nomen est ? HS ccciↄↄↄ sunt . quo modo tibi tanta pecunia extraordinaria iacet ? quo modo HS ccciↄↄↄ in codice accepti et expensi non sunt ? pro di immortales ! essene quemquam tanta audacia praeditum qui , quod nomen referre in tabulas timeat , id petere audeat , quod in codicem iniuratus referre noluerit , id iurare in litem non dubitet , quod sibi probare non possit , id persuadere alteri conetur !	Does he not keep accounts? Indeed he does most carefully. Does he not enter small matters in his books? Indeed be does everything. Is this a small and trifling sum? It is 100,000 sesterces. How is it that such an extraordinary sum us omitted?—how is it that a hundred thousand sesterces, received and expended, are not down in the books? Oh, ye immortal gods that there should be any one endued with such audacity, as to dare to demand a sum which he is afraid to enter in his account-books; not to hesitate to swear before the court to what, when not on his oath, he scrupled to put on paper; to endeavour to persuade another of what he is unable to make out to his own satisfaction.
5	nimium cito ait me indignari de tabulis ; non habere se hoc nomen in codicem accepti et expensi relatum confitetur , sed in adversariis patere contendit . Vsque eone te diligis et magnifice circumspicis ut pecuniam non ex tuis tabulis sed ex adversariis petas ? suum codicem testis loco recitare adrogantiae est ; suarum perscriptionum et liturarum adversaria proferre non amentia est ?	He says that I am indignant, and sent the accounts too soon; he confesses that he has not this sum entered in his book of money received and expended; but he asserts that it does occur in his memoranda. Are you then so fond of yourself, have you such a magnificent opinion of yourself, as to ask for money from us on the strength, not of your account-books, but of your memoranda? To read one's account-books instead of producing witnesses, is a piece of arrogance; but is it not insanity to produce mere notes of writings and scraps of paper?
6	quod si eandem vim , diligentiam auctoritatemque habent adversaria quam tabulae , quid attinet codicem instituere , conscribere , ordinem conservare , memoriae tradere litterarum vetustatem ? sed si , quod adversariis nihil credimus , idcirco codicem scribere instituimus , quod etiam apud omnis leve et infirmum est , id apud iudicem grave et sanctum esse ducetur ? quid est quod neglegenter scribamus adversaria ?	If memoranda have the same force and authority, and are arranged with the same care as accounts, where is the need of making an account-book? of making out careful lists? of keeping a regular order? of making a permanent record of old writings? But if we have adopted the custom of making account-books, because we put no trust in flying memoranda, shall that which, by all individuals, is considered unimportant and not to be relied on, be considered important and holy before a judge?
7	quid est quod diligenter conficiamus tabulas ? qua de causa ? quia haec sunt menstrua , illae sunt aeternae ; haec delentur statim , illae servantur sancte ; haec parvi temporis memoriam , illae perpetuae existimationis fidem et religionem amplectuntur ; haec sunt disiecta , illae sunt in ordinem confectae . itaque adversaria in iudicium protulit nemo ; codicem protulit , tabulas recitavit .	Why is it that we write down memoranda carelessly, that we make up account-books carefully? For what reason? Because the one is to last a month, the other for ever; these are immediately expunged those are religiously preserved; these embrace the recollection of a short time, those pledge the good faith and honesty of a man for ever; these are thrown away, those are arranged in order. Therefore, no one ever produced memoranda at a trial; men do produce accounts, and read entries in books.
8	tu , C . Piso , tali fide , virtute , gravitate , auctoritate ornatus ex adversariis pecuniam petere non auderes .	You, O Caius Piso, a man of the greatest good faith, and virtue, and dignity, and authority, would not venture to demand money on the strength of memoranda.
9	ego quae clara sunt consuetudine diutius dicere non debeo ; illud vero quod ad rem vehementer pertinet , quaero : quam pridem hoc nomen , Fanni , in adversaria rettulisti ? erubescit , quid respondeat nescit , quid fingat extemplo non habet . sunt duo menses iam , dices . tamen in codicem accepti et expensi referri debuit . amplius sunt sex menses . cur tam diu iacet hoc nomen in adversariis ? quid si tandem amplius triennium est ? quo modo , cum omnes qui tabulas conficiant menstruas paene rationes in tabulas transferant , tu hoc nomen triennium amplius in adversariis iacere pateris ?	I need not say any more about matters in which the custom is so notorious; but I ask you this, which is very material to the question, How long ago is it, O Fannius, that you made this entry in your memoranda? He blushes; he does not know what to answer; he is at a loss for anything to invent off-hand. “It is two months ago,” you will say; yet it ought to have been copied into the account-book of money received and paid. “It is more than six months.” Why then is it left so long in the memorandum-book? What if it is more than three years ago? How is it that, when every one else who makes up account-books transfers his accounts every month almost into his books you allow this sum to remain among your memoranda more than three years?
10	Vtrum cetera nomina in codicem accepti et expensi digesta habes an non ? si non , quo modo tabulas conficis ? si etiam , quam ob rem , cum cetera nomina in ordinem referebas , hoc nomen triennio amplius , quod erat in primis magnum , in adversariis relinquebas ? nolebas sciri debere tibi Roscium ; cur scribebas ? rogatus eras ne referres ; cur in adversariis scriptum habebas ? sed haec quamquam firma esse video , tamen ipse mihi satis facere non possum , nisi a C . Fannio ipso testimonium sumo hanc pecuniam ei non deberi . Magnum est quod conor , difficile est quod polliceor ; nisi eundem et adversarium et testem habuerit Roscius , nolo vincat .	Have you all other sums of money received and expended regularly entered, or not? If not, how is it that you make up your books? If you have, how is it that, when you were entering all other items in regular order, you leave this sum, which was one of the greatest of all in amount, for more than three years in your memoranda? “You did not like it to be known that Roscius was in your debt.” Why did you put it down at all? “You were asked not to enter it.” Why did you put it down in your memoranda? But, although I think this is strong enough, yet I cannot satisfy myself unless I get evidence from Caius Fannius himself that this money is not owed to him. It is a great thing which I am attempting; it is a difficult thing which I am undertaking; yet I will agree that Roscius shall not gain the verdict unless he has the same man both for his adversary and for his witness.
11	pecunia tibi debebatur certa , quae nunc petitur per iudicem , in qua legitimae partis sponsio facta est . hic tu si amplius HS nummo petisti , quam tibi debitum est , causam perdidisti , propterea quod aliud est iudicium , aliud est arbitrium . iudicium est pecuniae certae , arbitrium incertae ; ad iudicium hoc modo venimus ut totam litem aut obtineamus aut amittamus ; ad arbitrium hoc animo adimus ut neque nihil neque tantum quantum postulavimus consequamur . ei rei ipsa verba formulae testimonio sunt .	A definite sum of money was owed to you, which is now sought to be recovered at law; and security for a legitimate portion of it has been given. In this case, if you have demanded one sesterce more than is owed to you, you have lost your cause; because trial before a judge is one thing, arbitration is another. Trial before a judge is about a definite sum of money; arbitration about one which is not determined. We come before a judge so as either to gain the whole suit or to lose it; we go before an arbiter on the understanding that we may not get all we asked, and on the other hand may not get nothing.
12	quid est in iudicio ? derectum , asperum , simplex : si paret HS i ↄↄↄ dari —. hic nisi planum facit HS i ↄↄↄ ad libellam sibi deberi , causam perdit . quid est in arbitrio ? mite , moderatum : qvantvm aeqvivs et melivs sit dari . ille tamen confitetur plus se petere quam debeatur , sed satis superque habere dicit quod sibi ab arbitro tribuatur . itaque alter causae confidit , alter diffidit .	Of that the very words of the formula are a proof. What is the formula in a trial before a judge? Direct severe, and simple; “if it be plain that fifty thousand sesterces ought to be paid.” Unless he makes it plain that fifty thousand sesterces to a single farthing are due to him, he loses his cause. What is the formula in a cause brought before an arbiter? “That whatever is just and right shall be given.” But that man confesses that he is asking more than is owed to him, but that he will be satisfied and more than satisfied with what is given him by the arbiter. Therefore the one has confidence in his case, the other distrusts his.
13	quae cum ita sint , quaero abs te quid ita de hac pecunia , de his ipsis HS i ↄↄↄ, de tuarum tabularum fide compromissum feceris , arbitrum sumpseris qvantvm aeqvivs et melivs sit dari repromittiqve si pareat . quis in hanc rem fuit arbiter ? Vtinam is quidem Romae esset ! Romae est . Vtinam adesset in iudicio ! adest . Vtinam sederet in consilio C . Pisonis ! ipse C . Piso est . eundemne tu arbitrum et iudicem sumebas ? eidem et infinitam largitionem remittebas et eundem in angustissimam formulam sponsionis concludebas ? quis umquam ad arbitrum , quantum petiit , tantum abstulit ? nemo ; quantum enim aequius esset sibi dari , petiit . de quo nomine ad arbitrum adisti , de eo ad iudicem venisti ! ceteri cum ad iudicem causam labefactari animadvertunt ,	And as this is the case, I ask you why you made an agreement to abide by arbitration in a matter involving this sum, this very fifty thousand sesterces, and the credit of your own account-books? why you admitted an arbitrator in such a case to decide what it was right and proper should be paid to you; or secured to you by bond, if it so seemed good to him? Who was the arbitrator in this matter? I wish he were at Rome. He is at Rome. I wish he were in court. He is. I wish he were sitting as assessor to Caius Piso. He is Caius Piso himself. Did you take the same man for both arbitrator, and judge? Did you permit to the same man unlimited liberty of varying his decision, and also limit him to the strictest formula of the bond? Who ever went before an arbitrator and got all that he demanded? No one; for he only got all that it was just should be given him. You have come before a judge for the very same sum for which you had recourse to an arbiter.
14	ad arbitrum confugiunt , hic ab arbitro ad iudicem venire est ausus ! qui cum de hac pecunia tabularum fide arbitrum sumpsit , iudicavit sibi pecuniam non deberi . iam duae partes causae sunt confectae ; adnumerasse sese negat , expensum tulisse non dicit , cum tabulas non recitat . reliquum est ut stipulatum se esse dicat ; praeterea enim quem ad modum certam pecuniam petere possit non reperio .	Other men, when they see that their cause is failing before a judge, fly to an arbitrator. This man has dared to come from an arbiter to a judge, who when he admitted an arbitrator about this money, and about the credit due to his account-books, gave a plain indication that no money was owing to him. Already two-thirds of the cause are over. He admits that he has not set down the sum as due, and he does not venture to say that he has entered it as paid, since he does not produce his books. The only alternative remaining, is for him to assert that he had received a promise of it; for otherwise I do not see how he can possibly demand a definite sum of money.
15	stipulatus es — ubi , quo die , quo tempore , quo praesente ?	Did you receive a promise of it? When? On what day? At what time? In whose presence?
16	quis spopondisse me dicit ? nemo . hic ego si finem faciam dicendi , satis fidei et diligentiae meae , satis causae et controversiae , satis formulae et sponsioni , satis etiam iudici fecisse videar cur secundum Roscium iudicari debeat . pecunia petita est certa ; cum tertia parte sponsio facta est . haec pecunia necesse est aut data aut expensa lata aut stipulata sit . datam non esse Fannius confitetur , expensam latam non esse codices Fanni confirmant , stipulatam non esse taciturnitas testium concedit . quid ergo est ?	Who says that I made such a promise? No one. If I were to make an end of speaking here, I appear to have said enough to acquit myself as far as my good faith and diligence are at stake—to have said enough for the cause and dispute, enough for the formula and bond; I seem to have said enough to satisfy the judge why judgment ought to pass for Roscius. A definite sum of money has been demanded; security is given for a third part of it; this money must either have been given, or set down as paid, or promised. Fannius admits it was not given; the books of Fannius prove that it has not been set down as paid; the silence of witnesses proves that it was never promised.
17	quod et reus is est cui et pecunia levissima et existimatio sanctissima fuit semper , et iudex est is quem nos non minus bene de nobis existimare quam secundum nos iudicare velimus , et advocatio ea est quam propter eximium splendorem ut iudicem unum vereri debeamus , perinde ac si in hanc formulam omnia iudicia legitima , omnia arbitria honoraria , omnia officia domestica conclusa et comprehensa sint , perinde dicemus . illa superior fuit oratio necessaria , haec erit voluntaria , illa ad iudicem , haec ad C . Pisonem , illa pro reo , haec pro Roscio , illa victoriae , haec bonae existimationis causa comparata .	What do we want more? Because the defendant is a man to whom money has always seemed of no value, but character of the very highest, and the judge is a man whom we are no less anxious to have think well of us than to decide favourably for us, and the bar present is such, that on account of its extraordinary brilliancy we ought to feel almost as much respect for it as for another judge, we will speak as if every regular trial, every honorary arbitration, every domestic duty were included and comprehended in the present formula. That former oration was necessary, this shall be a voluntary one; the other was addressed to the judge, this is addressed to Caius Piso; that was on behalf of a defendant, this is on behalf of Roscius; the one was prepared to gain a victory, this one to preserve a good character.
18	pecuniam petis , Fanni , a Roscio . quam ? dic audacter et aperte . Vtrum quae tibi ex societate debeatur , an quae ex liberalitate huius promissa sit et ostentata ? quorum alterum est gravius et odiosius , alterum levius et facilius . quae ex societate debeatur ? quid ais ? hoc iam neque leviter ferendum est neque neglegenter defendendum . si qua enim sunt privata iudicia summae existimationis et paene dicam capitis , tria haec sunt , fiduciae , tutelae , societatis . aeque enim perfidiosum et nefarium est fidem frangere quae continet vitam , et pupillum fraudare qui in tutelam pervenit , et socium fallere qui se in negotio coniunxit . quae cum ita sint ,	You demand, O Fannius, a sum of money from Roscius. What sum? Is it money which is owed to you from the partnership? or money which has been promised and assured to you by his liberality? One demand is important and odious, the other is more trifling and easy to be got rid of. Is it a sum which is owing from the partnership? What are you saying? This is neither to be borne lightly nor to be defended carelessly. For if there are any private actions of the greatest, I may almost say, of capital importance, they are these three—the actions about trust, about guardianship, and about partnership. For it is equally perfidious and wicked to break faith, which is the bond of life, and to defraud one's ward who has come under one's guardianship, and to deceive a partner who has connected himself with on. in business.
19	quis sit qui socium fraudarit et fefellerit consideremus ; dabit enim nobis iam tacite vita acta in alterutram partem firmum et grave testimonium . Q . Roscius ? quid ais ? nonne , ut ignis in aquam coniectus continuo restinguitur et refrigeratur , sic refervens falsum crimen in purissimam et castissimam vitam conlatum statim concidit et exstinguitur ? Roscius socium fraudavit ! potest hoc homini huic haerere peccatum ? qui me dius fidius — audacter dico — plus fidei quam artis , plus veritatis quam disciplinae possidet in se , quem populus Romanus meliorem virum quam histrionem esse arbitratur , qui ita dignissimus est scaena propter artificium ut dignissimus sit curia propter abstinentiam .	And as this is the case, let us consider who. it is who in this instance has deceived and cheated his partner. For his past life shall silently give us a trustworthy and important testimony one way or other. Is it Quintus Roscius? What do you say? Does not, as fire dropped upon water is immediately extinguished and cooled, so, does not, I say, a false accusation, when brought in contact with a most pure and holy life, instantly fall and become extinguished? Has Roscius cheated his partner? Can this guilt belong to this man? who, in truth, (I say it boldly,) has more honesty than skill, more truth than learning; whom the Roman people think even a better man than he is an actor; who is as worthy of the stage because of his skill, as he is wholly of the senate on account of his moderation.
20	sed quid ego ineptus de Roscio apud Pisonem dico ? ignotum hominem scilicet pluribus verbis commendo . estne quisquam omnium mortalium de quo melius existimes tu ? estne quisquam qui tibi purior , pudentior , humanior , officiosior liberaliorque videatur ? quid ? tu , Saturi , qui contra hunc venis , existimas aliter ? nonne , quotienscumque in causa in nomen huius incidisti , totiens hunc et virum bonum esse dixisti et honoris causa appellasti ? quod nemo nisi aut honestissimo aut amicissimo facere consuevit .	But why am I so foolish as to say anything about Roscius to Piso? I suppose I am recommending an unknown man in many words. Is there any man in the whole world of whom you have a better opinion? Is there any man who appears to you more pure, more modest, more humane, more regardful of his duty, more liberal? Have even you, O Saturius, who appear against him, have you a different opinion? Is it not true that as often as you have mentioned his name in the cause, you have said that he was a good man, and have spoken of him with expressions of respect? which no one is in the habit of doing except in the case of either a most honorable man, or of a most dear friend.
21	qua in re mihi ridicule es visus esse inconstans qui eundem et laederes et laudares , et virum optimum et hominem improbissimum esse diceres . eundem tu et honoris causa appellabas et virum primarium esse dicebas et socium fraudasse arguebas ? sed , ut opinor , laudem veritati tribuebas , crimen gratiae concedebas ; de hoc , ut existimabas , praedicabas , Chaereae arbitratu causam agebas .	While doing so, in truth, you appeared to me ridiculously inconstant in both injuring and praising the same man; in calling him at the same time a most excellent man and a most dishonest man. You were speaking of the man with respect, and calling him a most exemplary man, and at the same time you were accusing him of having cheated his partner. But I imagine the truth is, your praise was prompted by truth; the accusation by your duty to your client. You were speaking of Roscius as you really thought; you were conducting the cause according to the will of Chaerea. Roscius cheated him.
22	fraudavit Roscius ! est hoc quidem auribus animisque omnium absurdum . quid si tandem aliquem timidum , dementem , divitem , inertem nactus esset qui experiri non posset ?	This, in truth, seems absurd to the ears and minds of men. What? If he had got hold of some man, rich, timid, foolish and indolent, who was unable to go to law with him, still it would Be incredible.
23	tamen incredibile esset . verum tamen quem fraudarit videamus . C . Fannium Chaeream Roscius fraudavit ! oro atque obsecro vos qui nostis , vitam inter se utriusque conferte , qui non nostis , faciem utriusque considerate . nonne ipsum caput et supercilia illa penitus abrasa olere malitiam et clamitare calliditatem videntur ? non ab imis unguibus usque ad verticem summum , si quam coniecturam adfert hominibus tacita corporis figura , ex fraude , fallaciis , mendaciis constare totus videtur ? qui idcirco capite et superciliis semper est rasis ne ullum pilum viri boni habere dicatur ; cuius personam praeclare Roscius in scaena tractare consuevit , neque tamen pro beneficio ei par gratia refertur . nam Ballionem illum improbissimum et periurissimum lenonem cum agit , agit Chaeream ; persona illa lutulenta , impura , invisa in huius moribus , natura vitaque est expressa . qui quam ob rem Roscium similem sui in fraude et malitia existimarit , mihi vix videtur , nisi forte quod praeclare hunc imitari se in persona lenonis animadvertit .	But let us see whom he has cheated. Roscius has cheated Caius Fannius Chaerea. I beg and entreat you, who know them both, compare the lives of the two men together; you who do not know them, compare the countenance of both. Does not his very head, and those eye-brows entirely shaved off, seem to smell of wickedness, and to proclaim cunning? Does he not from his toe-nails to his head, if the voiceless figure of a man's person can enable men to conjecture his character, seem wholly made up of fraud, and cheating, and lies? He who has his head and eyebrows always shaved that he may not be said to have one hair of an honest man about him. And Roscius has been accustomed to represent his figure admirably on the stage, and yet he does no meet with the gratitude due to such kindness. For when he acts Ballio, that most worthless and perjured pimp, he represents Chaerea. That foul, and impure, and detestable character is represented in this man's manners, and nature, and life. And why he should have thought Roscius like himself in dishonesty and wickedness, I do not know; unless, perhaps, because he observed that he imitated himself admirably in the character of the pimp.
24	quam ob rem etiam atque etiam considera , C . Piso , quis quem fraudasse dicatur . Roscius Fannium ! quid est hoc ? probus improbum , pudens impudentem , periurum castus , callidum imperitus , liberalis avidum ? incredibile est . quem ad modum , si Fannius Roscium fraudasse diceretur , utrumque ex utriusque persona veri simile videretur , et Fannium per malitiam fecisse et Roscium per imprudentiam deceptum esse , sic , cum Roscius Fannium fraudasse arguatur , utrumque incredibile est , et Roscium quicquam per avaritiam appetisse et Fannium quicquam per bonitatem amisisse .	Wherefore consider over and over again, O Caius Piso, who is said to have cheated, and who to have been cheated. Roscius is said to have cheated Fannius? What is that? The honest man is said to have cheated the rogue; the modest man, the shameless one; the chaste man, the perjurer; the unpractised man, the cunning one; the liberal man is said to have cheated the covetous one. It is incredible how, if Fannius were said to have cheated Roscius, each fact would appear probable from the character of each man; both that Fannius had acted wickedly, and that Roscius had been cheated by his imprudence. So when Roscius is accused of having cheated Fannius, both parts of the story are incredible, both that Roscius should have sought anything covetously, and that Fannius should have lost anything by his good-nature.
25	principia sunt huius modi ; spectemus reliqua . HS i ↄↄↄ Q . Roscius fraudavit Fannium . qua de causa ? subridet Saturius , veterator , ut sibi videtur ; ait propter ipsa HS i ↄↄↄ. video ; sed tamen cur ipsa HS i ↄↄↄ tam vehementer concupierit quaero ; nam tibi , M . Perpenna , tibi C . Piso , certe tanti non fuissent ut socium fraudaretis . Roscio cur tanti fuerint causam requiro . egebat ? immo locuples erat . debebat ? immo in suis nummis versabatur . avarus erat ? immo etiam ante quam locuples esset , semper liberalissimus munificentissimusque fuit .	Such is the beginning. Let us see what follows. Quintus Roscius has cheated Fannius of 50,000 sesterces. On what account? Saturius smiles; a cunning fellow, as he seems to himself. He says, for the sake of the fifty thousand sesterces. I see; but yet I ask why he was so exceedingly desirous of this particular fifty thousand sesterces? For certainly, O Marcus Perperna and Caius Piso, they would not have been of such consequence to either of you, as to make you cheat your partner. I ask, then, why they were of such consequence to Roscius! Was he in want of money? No, he was even a rich man. Was he in debt? On the contrary, he was living within his income. Was he avaricious? far from it; even before he was a rich man he was always most liberal and munificent.