Quintus Roscius (M. Tullius Cicero)

[Close]

	Quintus Roscius Author: M. Tullius Cicero	Translator: C. D. Yonge
26	pro deum hominumque fidem ! qui HS i ↄↄↄ ccciↄↄↄ quaestus facere noluit — nam certe HS i ↄↄↄ ccciↄↄↄ merere et potuit et debuit , si potest Dionysia HS ccciↄↄↄ ccciↄↄↄ merere — is per summam fraudem et malitiam et perfidiam HS i ↄↄↄ appetiit ? et illa fuit pecunia immanis , haec parvola , illa honesta , haec sordida , illa iucunda , haec acerba , illa propria , haec in causa et in iudicio conlocata . decem his annis proximis HS sexagiens honestissime consequi potuit ; noluit . laborem quaestus recepit , quaestum laboris reiecit ; populo Romano adhuc servire non destitit , sibi servire iam pridem destitit .	Oh, in the name of good faith, of gods, and men! he who once refused to make a gain of three hundred thousand sesterces—for he certainly both could and would have earned three hundred thousand sesterces if Dionysia can earn two hundred thousand,—did he seek to acquire fifty thousand by the greatest dishonesty, and wickedness and treachery? And that sum was immense, this trifling; that was honourable, this sordid; that was pleasant, this bitter; that would have been his own, this must have been stated on an action and a trial. In these last ten years he might have earned six millions of sesterces most honourably. He would not; he undertook the labour entitled to gain, but refused the gain of his labour. He did not yet desist from serving the Roman people; he has long since ceased to benefit himself.
27	hoc tu umquam , Fanni , faceres ? et si hos quaestus recipere posses , non eodem tempore et gestum et animam ageres ? dic nunc te ab Roscio HS i ↄↄↄ circumscriptum esse , qui tantas et tam infinitas pecunias non propter inertiam laboris sed propter magnificentiam liberalitatis repudiarit ! quid ego nunc illa dicam quae vobis in mentem venire certo scio ? fraudabat te in societate Roscius ! sunt iura , sunt formulae de omnibus rebus constitutae , ne quis aut in genere iniuriae aut in ratione actionis errare possit . expressae sunt enim ex unius cuiusque damno , dolore , incommodo , calamitate , iniuria publicae a praetore formulae , ad quas privata lis accommodatur .	Would you even do this, O Fannius? And if you were able to receive such profits, would you not act with all your gestures, and even at the risk of your life? Say now that you have been cheated of fifty thousand sesterces by Roscius, who has refused such enormous sums, not because he was too indolent to labour for them, but out of a magnificence of liberality. What now shall I say of these things which I know to a certainty occur to your minds, O judges? Roscius cheated you in a partnership. There are laws, there are formularies established for every case, that no one may make a blunder, either as to the legal description of injury which he has suffered, or as to the sort of action he should bring; for public formulae have been given by the praetor to suit every evil, or vexation, or inconvenience, or calamity, or injury which any one can suffer and to them each private action is adapted.
28	quae cum ita sint , cur non arbitrum pro socio adegeris Q . Roscium quaero . formulam non noras ? notissima erat . iudicio gravi experiri nolebas ? quid ita ? propter familiaritatem veterem ? cur ergo laedis ? propter integritatem hominis ? cur igitur insimulas ? propter magnitudinem criminis ? itane vero ? quem per arbitrum circumvenire non posses , cuius de ea re proprium non erat iudicium , hunc per iudicem condemnabis , cuius de ea re nullum est arbitrium ? quin tu hoc crimen aut obice ubi licet agere , aut iacere noli ubi non oportet . tametsi iam hoc tuo testimonio crimen sublatum est . nam quo tu tempore illa formula uti noluisti , nihil hunc in societatem fraudis fecisse indicasti . dic enim , tabulas habes an non ? si non habes , quem ad modum pactio est ?	And as this is the case, I ask why you have not Roscius as your partner before an arbitrator? Did you not know the formula? It was most notorious. Were you unwilling to adopt severe proceedings? Why so? On account of your ancient intimacy? Why then do you injure him now? On account of the integrity of the man? Why then do you accuse him now? On account of the magnitude of the crime? Is it so? The man whom you could not circumvent before an arbitrator, to whose decision such a matter properly belonged, will you seek to convict before a judge, who has no power of arbitrating in it? Either, then, bring this charge where it may be discussed, or do not bring it where it may not: although the charge is already done away with by your own evidence; for when you declined to adopt that formula, you showed that he had committed no fraud against the partnership. Oh, he made a covenant. Has he account-books, or not? If he has not, how is the covenant shown? If he has, why do you not tell us?
29	si habes , cur non nominas ? dic nunc Roscium abs te petisse ut familiarem suum sumeres arbitrum ! non petiit . dic pactionem fecisse ut absolveretur ! non pepigit . quaere qua re sit absolutus ! quod erat summa innocentia et integritate . quid enim factum est ? venisti domum ultro Rosci , satis fecisti ; quod temere commisisti , in iudicium ut denuntiares , rogasti ut ignosceret ; te adfuturum negasti , debere tibi ex societate nihil clamitasti . iudici hic denuntiavit ; absolutus est . tamen fraudis ac furti mentionem facere audes ? perstat in impudentia . ' pactionem enim ,' inquit , ' mecum fecerat .' idcirco videlicet ne condemnaretur . quid erat causae cur metueret ne condemnaretur ?— res erat manifesta , furtum erat apertum .	Say now, if you dare, that Roscius begged of you to appoint his own intimate friend arbitrator. He did not beg you to. Say that he made a covenant in order to procure his acquittal. He made no covenant. Ask why then he was acquitted? Because he was a man of the most perfect innocence and integrity. For what happened? You came of your own accord to the house of Roscius; you apologised to him; you begged him to announce to the judge that you had acted hastily, and to pardon you; you said that you would not appear against him; you said loudly that he owed you nothing on account of the partnership. He gave notice to the judge; he was acquitted. And still do you dare to mention dishonesty and theft? He persists in his impudence. I did all this, says he, for he had made a covenant with me. Yes, I suppose to procure his acquittal. What reason had he to fear that he would be condemned?
30	cuius rei furtum factum erat ? exorditur magna cum exspectatione veteris histrionis exponere societatem .	Oh, the matter was evident, the theft was undeniable. A theft of what? He begins, in a manner to create great expectations, to relate his partnership with the old actor.
31	' Panurgus ,' inquit , ' fuit Fanni ; is fit ei cum Roscio communis .' hic primum questus est non leviter Saturius communem factum esse gratis cum Roscio , qui pretio proprius fuisset Fanni . largitus est scilicet homo liberalis et dissolutus et bonitate adfluens Fannius Roscio . sic puto .	Panurgus, says he, was a slave of Fannius. He had an equal share in him with Roscius. Here in the first place Saturius began to complain bitterly that Roscius had had a in him given to him for nothing, when he had become the property of Fannius by purchase. That liberal man, forsooth, that extravagant man, that man overflowing with kindness, made a present of his share to Roscius? No doubt of it.
32	quoniam ille hic constitit paulisper , mihi quoque necesse est paulum commorari . Panurgum tu , Saturi , proprium Fanni dicis fuisse . at ego totum Rosci fuisse contendo . quid erat enim Fanni ? corpus . quid Rosci ? disciplina . facies non erat , ars erat pretiosa . ex qua parte erat Fanni , non erat HS ∞, ex qua parte erat Rosci , amplius erat HS ccciↄↄↄ i ↄↄↄ; nemo enim illum ex trunco corporis spectabat sed ex artificio comico aestimabat ; nam illa membra merere per se non amplius poterant duodecim aeris , disciplina quae erat ab hoc tradita locabat se non minus HS ccciↄↄↄ i ↄↄↄ.	Since he rested on this point for a while, it is necessary for me also to dwell a little on it. You say, O Saturius, that Panurgus was the private property of Fannius. But I say that the whole of him belonged to Roscius, for how much of him belonged to Fannius? His body. How much to Roscius? His education. His person was of no value; his skill was valuable. As far as he belonged to Fannius, he was not worth fifty thousand sesterces; as far as he belonged to Roscius, he was worth more than a hundred thousand. For no one looked at him because of his person; but people estimated him by his skill as a comic actor. For those limbs could not earn by themselves more than twelve sesterces; owing to the education which was given him by Roscius, he let himself out for not less than a hundred thousand.
33	O societatem captiosam et indignam , ubi alter HS ∞, alter ccciↄↄↄ i ↄↄↄ quod sit in societatem adfert ! nisi idcirco moleste pateris quod HS ∞ tu ex arca proferebas , HS ccciↄↄↄ i ↄↄↄ ex disciplina et artificio promebat Roscius . quam enim spem et exspectationem , quod studium et quem favorem secum in scaenam attulit Panurgus , quod Rosci fuit discipulus ! qui diligebant hunc , illi favebant , qui admirabantur hunc , illum probabant , qui denique huius nomen audierant , illum eruditum et perfectum existimabant . sic est volgus ; ex veritate pauca , ex opinione multa aestimat .	Oh, tricky and scandalous partnership, when the one brings what is worth fifty thousand sesterces into the partnership, the other what is worth a hundred thousand; unless you are indignant at this, that you took the fifty thousand out of your strong box, and Roscius got his hundred thousand out of his learning and skill. For what was it that Panurgus brought with him on the stage? What was the expectation formed of him why was there such zeal for him, such partiality to him? Because he was the pupil of Roscius. They who loved the one, favoured the other; they who admired the one, approved of the other; lastly, all who had heard the name of the one, thought the other well-trained and accomplished. And this is the way with the common people; they estimate few things by the real truth, many things by prejudice.
34	quid sciret ille perpauci animadvertebant , ubi didicisset omnes quaerebant ; nihil ab hoc pravum et perversum produci posse arbitrabantur . si veniret ab Statilio , tametsi artificio Roscium superaret , aspicere nemo posset ; nemo enim , sicut ex improbo patre probum filium nasci , sic a pessimo histrione bonum comoedum fieri posse existimaret . quia veniebat a Roscio , plus etiam scire quam sciebat videbatur .	Very few observed what he knew, but every one asked where he had been taught; they thought that nothing poor or had could be produced by him. If he had come from Statilius, even if he had surpassed Roscius in skill, no one would have been able to see it. For just as no one supposes that a good son can be born to a worthless father, so no one would suppose that a good Comedian could be formed by a very bad actor; but because he came from Roscius, he appeared to know more than he really did know.
35	quod item nuper in Erote comoedo usu venit ; qui postea quam e scaena non modo sibilis sed etiam convicio explodebatur , sicut in aram confugit in huius domum , disciplinam , patrocinium , nomen : itaque perbrevi tempore qui ne in novissimis quidem erat histrionibus ad primos pervenit comoedos .	And this lately did actually happen in the case of Eros the comedian, for he, after he was driven off the stage, not merely by hisses, but even by reproaches, took refuge, as at an altar, in the house, and instruction, and patronage, and name of Roscius. Therefore, in a very short time he who had not been even one of the lowest class of actors, came to be reckoned among the very first comedians.
36	quae res extulit eum ? Vna commendatio huius ; qui tamen Panurgum illum , non solum ut Rosci discipulus fuisse diceretur domum recepit , sed etiam summo cum labore , stomacho miseriaque erudivit . nam quo quisque est sollertior et ingeniosior , hoc docet iracundius et laboriosius ; quod enim ipse celeriter arripuit , id cum tarde percipi videt , discruciatur . Paulo longius oratio mea provecta est hac de causa ut condicionem societatis diligenter cognosceretis .	What was it that raised him? This man's commendation alone who not only took this Panurgus home that he might have the name of a pupil of Roscius, but who also instructed him with the greatest pains and energy and patience. For the more skillful and ingenious any one is, the more vehement and laborious is he in teaching his art; for that which he himself caught quickly, he is tortured by seeing slowly comprehended by another. My speech has extended itself to some length, in order that you may thoroughly understand the conditions of this partnership.
37	quae deinde sunt consecuta ? ' Panurgum ,' inquit , ' hunc servum communem , Q . Flavius Tarquiniensis quidam interfecit . in hanc rem ,' inquit , ' me cognitorem dedisti . lite contestata , iudicio damni iniuria constituto tu sine me cum Flavio decidisti .' Vtrum pro dimidia parte an pro re tota ? planius dicam : utrum pro me an et pro me et pro te ? pro me ; potui exemplo multorum ; licitum est ; iure fecerunt multi ; nihil in ea re tibi iniuriae feci . pete tu tuum , exige et aufer quod debetur ; suam quisque partem iuris possideat et persequatur .—' at enim tu tuum negotium gessisti bene .'— gere et tu tuum bene .—' Magno tu tuam dimidiam partem decidisti .'— Magno et tu tuam partem decide . —' HS Q . tu abstulisti .'— sit ita hoc , vero HS Q . tu aufer .	What then followed? A man of Tarquinii, Quintus Flavius by name, knew this Panurgus, the common slave of Roscius and Fannius, and you appointed me as the advocate to conduct the action about that business. The cause having been commenced, and an action being appointed according to the formula, “for injury and loss inflicted,” you brought it to a conclusion with Flavius, without my knowledge. Was it for the half share, or for the entire partnership? I will speak plainly. Was it for myself, or for myself and for yourself? Was it for myself alone? I could do so according to the precedent set by many people; it is lawful to do so; many men have legally done so; I have done you no injury in that matter. Do you demand what is due to you? Exact it, and carry it off. Let every one have and follow up his portion of his right. “But you managed your affair very well.” “Do you too manage yours well” “You get your half share valued at a high price.” “Do you too get yours valued at a high price.” “You get a hundred thousand sesterces,”—if indeed that be true. “Then do you also get a hundred thousand sesterces.”
38	sed hanc decisionem Rosci oratione et opinione augere licet , re et veritate mediocrem et tenuem esse invenietis . accepit enim agrum temporibus eis cum iacerent pretia praediorum ; qui ager neque villam habuit neque ex ulla parte fuit cultus ; qui nunc multo pluris est quam tunc fuit . neque id est mirum . tum enim propter rei publicae calamitates omnium possessiones erant incertae , nunc deum immortalium benignitate omnium fortunae sunt certae ; tum erat ager incultus sine tecto , nunc est cultissimus cum optima villa .	But you may easily, both in belief and in speaking of it, have exaggerated the terms on which Roscius concluded his business; in fact and reality you will find them moderate and unimportant. For he got a farm at a time when the prices of farms were very low,—a farm which had not a house on it, and was not well cultivated in any respect, which is worth much more now than it was. And no wonder, for at that time, on account of the calamities of the republic, every one's possessions were uncertain; now, by the kindness of the immortal gods, the fortunes of every one are well assured: then it was an uncultivated farm, without a house; now it is beautifully cultivated, with an excellent villa on it.
39	verum tamen , quoniam natura tam malivolus es , numquam ista te molestia et cura liberabo . praeclare suum negotium gessit Roscius , fundum fructuosissimum abstulit ; quid ad te ? tuam partem dimidiam , quem ad modum vis , decide . vertit hic rationem et id quod probare non potest fingere conatur . ' de tota re ,' inquit , ' decidisti .' ergo huc universa causa deducitur , utrum Roscius cum Flavio de sua parte an de tota societate fecerit pactionem . nam ego Roscium ,	But since by nature you are so malevolent, I will never relieve you from that vexation and that anxiety. Roscius managed his business well; he got a most fertile farm. What is that to you? Do you settle your half of the matter anyhow you please. He then changes his plan of attack, and endeavours to invent a story which he cannot prove. “You,” says he, “arranged the whole matter, and not your share of it only.” The whole cause then is brought to this point,—whether Roscius came to a settlement with Flavius for his own share, or for the whole partnership.
40	si quid communi nomine tetigit , confiteor praestare debere societati .— societatis , non suas litis redemit , cum fundum a Flavio accepit .— quid ita satis non dedit amplius assem neminem petiturum ? qui de sua parte decidit , reliquis integram relinquit actionem , qui pro sociis transigit , satis dat neminem eorum postea petiturum . quid ita Flavio sibi cavere non venit in mentem ? nesciebat videlicet Panurgum fuisse in societate . sciebat . nesciebat Fannium Roscio esse socium .— praeclare ; nam iste cum eo litem contestatam habebat .	For I confess that, if Roscius touched anything on their joint account, he ought to pay it to the partnership. Did he settle the quarrel of the partnership, and not merely his own, when he received this farm from Flavius? If so, why did he not give security to Flavius, that no one else should make any demand on him? He who settles his own demand only, leaves to the rest their right of action unimpaired; he who acts for his partners, gives security that none of them shall afterwards make any demand. Why did it not occur to Flavius to take this precaution for himself? Was he, forsooth, not aware that Panurgus belonged to a partnership. He knew that. Was he not aware that Fannius was Roscius' partner? Thoroughly; for he himself had a law-suit commenced with him.
41	cur igitur decidit et non restipulatur neminem amplius petiturum ? cur de fundo decedit et iudicio non absolvitur ? cur tam imperite facit ut nec Roscium stipulatione adliget neque a Fannio iudicio se absolvat ?	Why then does he settle this action, and not exact an agreement that no one shall make any further demand on him? Why does he lose the farm, and yet get no release from this action? Why does he act in so inexperienced a manner, as neither to bind Roscius by any stipulation, nor on the other hand to get a release from Fannius' action?
42	est hoc primum et ex condicione iuris et ex consuetudine cautionis firmissimum et gravissimum argumentum , quod ego pluribus verbis amplecterer , si non alia certiora et clariora testimonia in causa haberem .	This first argument, drawn both from the rules of civil rights, and from the customs prevailing with respect to such security, is a most important and powerful one, which I would press at greater length, if I had not other more undeniable and manifest proofs in the cause.
43	et ne forte me hoc frustra pollicitum esse praedices , te , te inquam , Fanni , ab tuis subselliis contra te testem suscitabo . criminatio tua quae est ? Roscium cum Flavio pro societate decidisse . quo tempore ? abhinc annis xv . defensio mea quae est ? Roscium pro sua parte cum Flavio transegisse . repromittis tu abhinc triennium Roscio . quid ? recita istam restipulationem clarius . attende , quaeso , Piso ; Fannium invitum et huc atque illuc tergiversantem testimonium contra se cogo dicere . quid enim restipulatio clamat ? qvod a flavio abstvlero , partem dimidiam inde roscio me solvtvrvm spondeo . tua vox est , Fanni .	And that you may not say I have promised this on insufficient grounds, I will call you—you, I say, Fannius—from your seat as a witness against yourself.—What is your charge? That Roscius settled with Flavius on behalf of the partnership.—When? Four years ago.—What is my defence? That Roscius settled with Flavius for his share in the property. You yourself, three years ago, made a new engagement with Roscius.—What? Recite that stipulation plainly.—Attend, I beg you, O Piso—I am compelling Fannius against his will, and though he is shuffling off in every direction, to give evidence against himself. For what are the words of this new agreement? “Whatever I receive from Flavius, I undertake to pay one half of to Roscius.” These are your words, O Fannius.
44	quid tu auferre potes a Flavio , si Flavius nihil debet ? quid hic porro nunc restipulatur quod iam pridem ipse exegit ? quod vero Flavius tibi daturus est , qui Roscio omne quod debuit dissolvit ? cur in re tam vetere , in negotio iam confecto , in societate dissoluta nova haec restipulatio interponitur ? quis est huius restipulationis scriptor , testis arbiterque ? tu , Piso ; tu enim Q . Roscium pro opera ac labore , quod cognitor fuisset , quod vadimonia obisset , rogasti ut Fannio daret HS ccciↄↄↄ hac condicione ut , si quid ille exegisset a Flavio , partem eius dimidiam Roscio dissolveret . satisne ipsa restipulatio dicere tibi videtur aperte Roscium pro se decidisse ?	What can you get from Flavius, if Flavius owes you nothing? Moreover, why does he now enter into a mutual engagement about a sum which he has already exacted some time ago? But what can Flavius be going to give you, if he has already paid Roscius everything that he owed? Why is this new mutual arrangement interposed in so old an affair, in a matter so entirely settled, in a partnership which has been dissolved? Who is the drawer up of this agreement? who is the witness? who is the arbitrator? who? You, O Piso: for you begged Quintus Roscius to give Fannius fifteen thousand sesterces, for his care, for his labour, for having been his agent, and for having given security, on this condition, that, if he get anything from Flavius, he should give half of that sum to Roscius. Does not that agreement seem to show you with sufficient clearness that Roscius settled the affair on his own behalf alone?
45	at enim forsitan hoc tibi veniat in mentem , repromisisse Fannium Roscio , si quid a Flavio exegisset , eius partem dimidiam , sed omnino exegisse nihil . quid tum ? non exitum exactionis , sed initium repromissionis spectare debes . neque , si ille id exsequendum non iudicavit , non , quod in se fuit , iudicavit Roscium suas , non societatis litis redemisse . quid si tandem planum facio post decisionem veterem Rosci , post repromissionem recentem hanc Fanni HS ccciↄↄↄ Fannium a . Q . Flavio Panurgi nomine abstulisse ? tamen diutius inludere viri optimi existimationi , Q . Rosci , audebit ?	But perhaps this also may occur to you, that Fannius did in requital promise Roscius half of whatever he might get from Flavius, but that be got nothing at all. What has that to do with it? You ought to regard not the result of the demand, but the beginning of the mutual agreement. And it does not follow, if he did not choose to prosecute his demand, that he did not for all that, as far as it depended on him, show his opinion that Roscius had only settled his own claim, and not the claim of the partnership. What more? Suppose I make it evident, that after the whole settlement come to by Roscius, after this fresh mutual agreement entered into by Fannius, Fannius also recovered a hundred thousand sesterces from Flavius, for the loss of Panurgus? Will he after that still dare to sport with the character of that most excellent man, Quintus Roscius?
46	Paulo ante quaerebam , id quod vehementer ad rem pertinebat , qua de causa Flavius , cum de tota lite faceret pactionem , neque satis acciperet a Roscio neque iudicio absolveretur a Fannio ; nunc vero , id quod mirum et incredibile est , requiro : quam ob rem , cum de tota re decidisset cum Roscio , HS ccciↄↄↄ separatim Fannio dissolvit ? hoc loco , Saturi , quid pares respondere scire cupio ; utrum omnino Fannium a Flavio HS ccciↄↄↄ non abstulisse an alio nomine et alia de causa abstulisse .	I asked a little before—what was very material to the business, on what account Flavius, when (as they say) he was settling the whole claim, did neither take security from Roscius, nor obtain a release from all demands from Fannius? But now I ask how it was that, when he had settled the whole affair with Roscius, he paid also a hundred thousand sesterces to Fannius on his separate account? (a thing still more strange and incredible.) I should like to know, O Saturius, what answer are you preparing to give to this? Whether you are going to say that Fannius never got a hundred thousand sesterces from Flavius at all, or that he got them for some other claim, and on some other account?
47	si alia de causa , quae ratio tibi cum eo intercesserat ? nulla . addictus erat tibi ? non . frustra tempus contero . ' omnino ,' inquit , ' HS ccciↄↄↄ a Flavio non abstulit neque Panurgi nomine neque cuiusquam .' si planum facio post hanc recentem stipulationem Rosci HS ccciↄↄↄ a Flavio te abstulisse , numquid causae est quin ab iudicio abeas turpissime victus ? quo teste igitur hoc planum faciam ?	If you say it was on some other account, what dealings had you ever had with him? None. Had you obtained any verdict against him? No. I am wasting time to no purpose. He never, he says, got a hundred thousand sesterces from Flavius at all, neither on account of Panurgus, nor of any one else. If I prove that, after this recent agreement with Roscius, you did get a hundred thousand sesterces from Flavius, what have you to allege why you should not leave the court defeated with disgrace? By what witness then shall I make this plain?
48	venerat , ut opinor , haec res in iudicium . certe . quis erat petitor ? Fannius . quis reus ? Flavius . quis iudex ? Cluvius . ex his unus mihi testis est producendus qui pecuniam datam dicat . quis est ex his gravissimus ? Sine controversia qui omnium iudicio comprobatus est iudex . quem igitur ex his tribus a me testem exspectabis ? petitorem ? Fannius est ; contra se numquam testimonium dicet . reum ? Flavius est . is iam pridem est mortuus ; si viveret , verba eius audiretis . iudicem ? Cluvius est . quid is dicit ? HS ccciↄↄↄ Panurgi nomine Flavium Fannio dissolvisse . quem tu si ex censu spectas , eques Romanus est , si ex vita , homo clarissimus est , si ex fide , iudicem sumpsisti , si ex veritate , id quod scire potuit et debuit dixit .	This affair, as I imagine, came to trial. Certainly. Who was the plaintiff? Fannius. Who the defendant? Flavius. Who was the judge? Cluvius. Of all these men I must produce one as witness who can say that the money was paid. Who of these is the most authoritative witness? Beyond all controversy, he who was approved of as judge by the sentence of every one. Which of the three then will you look to me for as a witness? The plaintiff? That is Fannius; he will never give evidence against himself. The defendant? That is Flavius. He has been dead some time. The judge? That is Cluvius. What does he say? That Flavius did pay a hundred thousand sesterces to Fannius on account of Panurgus. And if you look at the rank of Cluvius, he is a Roman knight; if at his life, he is a most illustrious man; if at your own opinion of him, you chose him as judge; if to his truth, he has said what he both could know, and ought to know.
49	nega , nega nunc equiti Romano , homini honesto , iudici tuo credi oportere ! circumspicit , aestuat , negat nos Cluvi testimonium recitaturos . recitabimus . erras ; inani et tenui spe te consolaris . recita testimonium T . Manili et C . Lusci Ocreae , duorum senatorum , hominum ornatissimorum qui ex Cluvio audierunt . testimonium T . Manili et C . Lvsci Ocreae . Vtrum dicis Luscio et Manilio , an etiam Cluvio non esse credendum ? planius atque apertius dicam .	Deny now, deny, if you can, that credit ought to be given to a Roman knight, to an honest man, to your own judge. He looks round; he fumes; he denies that we are going to recite the testimony of Cluvius. We will recite it; you are mistaken, you are consoling yourself with a slight and empty hope. Recite the testimony of Titus Manilius and Caius Luscius Ocrea, two senators, most accomplished men, who heard it from Cluvius. ( The secretary reads the evidence of Manilius and Luscius.) What do you say now—that we are not to believe Luscius and Manilius, or that we are not to believe Cluvius? I will speak more plainly and openly.
50	Vtrum Luscius et Manilius nihil de HS ccciↄↄↄ ex Cluvio audierunt , an Cluvius falsum Luscio et Manilio dixit ? hoc ego loco soluto et quieto sum animo et quorsom recidat responsum tuum non magno opere laboro ; firmissimis enim et sanctissimis testimoniis virorum optimorum causa Rosci communita est .	Did Luscius and Manilius hear nothing from Cluvius about the hundred thousand sesterces? or did Cluvius say what was false to Luscius and Manilius? On this point I am of a calm and easy mind, and I am not particularly anxious as to which way you answer. For the cause of Roscius is fortified by the strongest and most solemn evidence of most excellent men. If you have taken time enough to consider to which you will refuse belief on their oath, answer me.