Quintus Roscius (M. Tullius Cicero)

[Close]

	Quintus Roscius Author: M. Tullius Cicero	Translator: C. D. Yonge
51	si iam tibi deliberatum est quibus abroges fidem iuris iurandi , responde . Manilio et Luscio negas esse credendum ? dic , aude ; est tuae contumaciae , adrogantiae vitaeque universae vox . quid exspectas quam mox ego Luscium et Manilium dicam ordine esse senatores , aetate grandis natu , natura sanctos et religiosos , copiis rei familiaris locupletis et pecuniosos ? non faciam ; nihil mihi detraham , cum illis exactae aetatis severissime fructum quem meruerunt retribuam . magis mea adulescentia indiget illorum bona existimatione quam illorum severissima senectus desiderat meam laudem .	Do you say that one must not believe Manilius and Luscius? Say it. Dare to say it. Such a saying suits your obstinacy, your arrogance, your whole life. What! Are you waiting till I say presently of Luscius and Manilius that they are as to rank senators; as to age, old; as to their nature, pious and religious; as to their property, rich and wealthy I will not do so; I will not, on pretence of giving these men the credit due to a life passed with the greatest strictness, put myself in so bad a light as to venture to panegyrize men so much older and nobler than myself, whose characters stand in no need of my praise. My youth is in more need of their favourable opinion than their strict old age is of my commendation. But you, O Piso, must deliberate and consider for a long time whether you will rather believe Chaerea, though not on his oath, and in his own cause, or Manilius and Luscius on their oaths, in a cause in which they have no interest.
52	tibi vero , Piso , diu deliberandum et concoquendum est utrum potius Chaereae iniurato in sua lite , an Manilio et Luscio iuratis in alieno iudicio credas . reliquum est ut Cluvium falsum dixisse Luscio et Manilio contendat . quod si facit , qua impudentia est , eumne testem improbabit quem iudicem probarit ? ei negabit credi oportere cui ipse crediderit ? eius testis ad iudicem fidem infirmabit cuius propter fidem et religionem iudicis testis compararit ? quem ego si ferrem iudicem , refugere non deberet , cum testem producam , reprehendere audebit ?	The remaining alternative is for him to contend that Cluvius told a falsehood to Luscius and Manilius. And, if he does that, how great is his impudence! Will he throw discredit on that man as a witness whom he approved of as a judge? Will he say that you ought not to trust that man whom he has trusted himself? Will he disparage the credit of that man as a witness to the judge, when on account of his opinion of his good faith and scrupulousness as a judge, he brought witnesses before him? When I produce that man as a witness, will he dare to find fault with him, when if I were to bring him as a judge even, he would be bound not to decline him? Oh, but says he, he was not on his oath when he said that to Luscius and Manilius. Would you believe him, if he said it on his oath?
53	' dicit enim ,' inquit , ' iniuratus Luscio et Manilio .' si diceret iuratus , crederes ? at quid interest inter periurum et mendacem ? qui mentiri solet , peierare consuevit . quem ego ut mentiatur inducere possum , ut peieret exorare facile potero . nam qui semel a veritate deflexit , hic non maiore religione ad periurium quam ad mendacium perduci consuevit . quis enim deprecatione deorum , non conscientiae fide commovetur ? propterea , quae poena ab dis immortalibus periuro , haec eadem mendaci constituta est ; non enim ex pactione verborum quibus ius iurandum comprehenditur , sed ex perfidia et malitia per quam insidiae tenduntur alicui , di immortales hominibus irasci et suscensere consuerunt .	But what is the difference between a perjurer and a liar? He who is in the habit of lying, is in the habit of perjuring himself. The man whom I can induce to tell a lie, I shall easily be able to prevail on to take a false oath. For he who has once departed from truth, is easily led on, with no greater scruples to perjury than to a lie. For who is influenced by just a mention of the gods in the way of deprecating their anger, and not by the influence of conscience? Because the same punishment which is appointed by the immortal gods for a perjurer is appointed also for a liar. For the immortal gods are accustomed to be indignant and angry, not on account of the form of words in which an oath is contained, but on account of the treachery and malice by which a plot is laid to deceive any one.
54	at ego hoc ex contrario contendo : levior esset auctoritas Cluvi , si diceret iuratus , quam nunc est , cum dicit iniuratus . tum enim forsitan improbis nimis cupidus videretur , qui qua de re iudex fuisset testis esset ; nunc omnibus non iniquis necesse est castissimus et constantissimus esse videatur , qui id quod scit familiaribus suis dicit .	But I, on the contrary, argue in this way. The authority of Cluvius would be less if be were speaking on his oath, than it is now when he is not speaking on his oath. For then, perhaps, he might seem to bad men over eager in being a witness in a cause in which he had been judge. But now he must appear to all his enemies most upright and most wise, inasmuch as he only tells his intimate friends what he knows.
55	dic nunc , si potes , si res , si causa patitur , Cluvium esse mentitum ! mentitus est Cluvius ? ipsa mihi veritas manum iniecit et paulisper consistere et commorari coegit . Vnde hoc totum ductum et conflatum mendacium est ? Roscius est videlicet homo callidus et versutus . hoc initio cogitare coepit : ' quoniam Fannius a me petit HS i ↄↄↄ, petam a C . Cluvio , equite Romano , ornatissimo homine , ut mea causa mentiatur , dicat decisionem factam esse quae facta non est , HS ccciↄↄↄ a Flavio data esse Fannio quae data non sunt .' est hoc principium improbi animi , miseri ingeni , nullius consili .	Say now, if you can, if the business, if the cause permits you to, that Cluvius has spoken falsely. Has Cluvius spoken falsely? Truth itself lays its hand upon me, and compels me to stop, and dwell on this point for a short time. Whence was all this lie drawn, and where was it forged? Roscius, forsooth, is a deep and crafty man. He began to think of this from the first. Since, said he to himself, Fannius claims fifty thousand sesterces from me, I will ask Caius Cluvius, a Roman knight, a most accomplished man, to tell a lie for my sake; to say that a settlement was made which was not made; that a hundred thousand sesterces were given by Flavius to Fannius, which were not given. This is the first idea of a wicked mind, of a miserable disposition, of a man of no sense. What came next?
56	quid deinde ? postea quam se praeclare confirmavit , venit ad Cluvium . quem hominem ? levem ? immo gravissimum . mobilem ? immo constantissimum . familiarem ? immo alienissimum . hunc postea quam salutavit , rogare coepit blande et concinne scilicet : ' mentire mea causa , viris optimis , tuis familiaribus , praesentibus dic Flavium cum Fannio de Panurgo decidisse qui nihil transegit ; dic HS ccciↄↄↄ dedisse qui assem nullum dedit .' quid ille respondit ? ' ego vero cupide et libenter mentiar tua causa , et , si quando me peierare vis , ut paululum tu compendi facias , paratum fore scito ; non fuit causa cur tantum laborem caperes et ad me venires ; per nuntium hoc quod erat tam leve transigere potuisti .'	After he had thoroughly made up his mind, he came to Cluvius. What sort of a man was he? an insignificant man? No, a most influential one. A fickle man? A most consistent one. An intimate friend of his? A perfect stranger. After he had saluted him, he began to ask him, in gentle and elegant language to be sure,—“Tell a lie for my sake, tell some excellent men, your own intimate friends who are here with you, that Flavius settled with Fannius about Panurgus, though in truth he did not; tell them that he paid a hundred thousand sesterces, though in reality he did not pay a penny.” What answer did he give? “Oh, indeed, I will willingly and eagerly tell lies for your sake; and if at any time you wish me to perjure myself in order to make a little profit, know that I am quite ready; you need not have taken so much trouble as to come to me yourself; you could have arranged such a trifle as this by a messenger.”
57	pro deum hominumque fidem ! hoc aut Roscius umquam a Cluvio petisset , si HS miliens in iudicium haberet , aut Cluvius Roscio petenti concessisset , si universae praedae particeps esset ? vix me dius fidius tu , Fanni , a Ballione aut aliquo eius simili hoc et postulare auderes et impetrare posses . quod cum est veritate falsum , tum ratione quoque est incredibile ; obliviscor enim Roscium et Cluvium viros esse primarios ; improbos temporis causa esse fingo .	Oh, the faith of gods and men! Would Roscius ever have asked this of Cluvius, even if he had had a hundred millions of sesterces at stake on the issue of the trial? Or would Cluvius have granted it to Roscius at his request, even if he had been to be a sharer in the whole booty? I scarcely, by the gods, think that you, O Fannius, would dare to make this request to Ballio, or to any one like him; and that you would be able to succeed in a matter not only false, but in its nature incredible. For I say nothing about Roscius and Cluvius being excellent men. I imagine them for this occasion to be worthless.
58	falsum subornavit testem Roscius Cluvium ! cur tam sero ? cur cum altera pensio solvenda esset , non tum cum prima ? nam iam antea HS i ↄↄↄ dissolverat . deinde , si iam persuasum erat Cluvio ut mentiretur , cur potius HS ccciↄↄↄ quam ccciↄↄↄ ccciↄↄↄ ccciↄↄↄ data dixit Fannio a Flavio , cum ex restipulatione pars eius dimidia Rosci esset ? iam intellegis , C . Piso , sibi soli , societati nihil Roscium petisse . hoc quoniam sentit Saturius esse apertum , resistere et repugnare contra veritatem non audet , aliud fraudis et insidiarum in eodem vestigio deverticulum reperit .	Roscius, then, suborned Cluvius as a false witness. Why did he do it so late? Why did he do so when the second payment was to be made, not when the first was? for already he had paid fifty thousand sesterce. Secondly; if Cluvius was, by this time, persuaded to tell lies, why did he say that a hundred thousand sesterces had been given to Fannius by Flavius, rather than three hundred thousand; when, according to the mutual agreement, a half-share of it belonged to Roscius. By this time you see, O Caius Piso, that Roscius had made his demand for himself alone, and had made no demand for the partnership. When Saturius perceives that this is proved, he does not dare to resist and struggle against the truth. He finds another subterfuge of dishonesty and treachery in the same track.
59	' petisse ,' inquit , ' suam partem Roscium a Flavio confiteor , vacuam et integram reliquisse Fanni concedo ; sed , quod sibi exegit , id commune societatis factum esse contendo .' quo nihil captiosius neque indignius potest dici . quaero enim potueritne Roscius ex societate suam partem petere necne . si non potuit , quem ad modum abstulit ? si potuit , quem ad modum non sibi exegit ? nam quod sibi petitur , certe alteri non exigitur .	“I admit,” says he, “that Roscius demanded his own share from Flavius; I admit that he left Fannius's right to make a similar demand entire and unimpaired; but I contend that what he got for himself became the common property of the partnership” than which nothing more tricky or more scandalous can be said. For I ask whether Roscius had the power to demand his share from the partnership, or not? If he could not, how did he get it? If he could, how was it that he did not demand it for himself? For that which is demanded for one's self, is certainly not exacted for another.
60	an ita est : si quod universae societatis fuisset petisset , quod tum redactum esset aequaliter omnes partirentur ; nunc cum petierit quod suae partis esset , non quod tum abstulit soli sibi exegit ?	Is it so? If he had made a demand of what belonged to the entire partnership, all would equally have shared what then came in. Now, when he demanded what was a part of his own share, did he not demand for himself alone what he got?
61	quid interest inter eum qui per se litigat et eum qui cognitor est datus ? qui per se litem contestatur , sibi soli petit , alteri nemo potest , nisi qui cognitor est factus . itane vero ? cognitor si fuisset tuus , quod vicisset iudicio , ferres tuum ; cum suo nomine petiit , quod abstulit , tibi non sibi exegit ?	What is the difference between him who goes to law for himself, and him who is assigned as agent for another? He who commences an action for himself, makes his demand for himself alone. No one can prefer a claim for another except him who is constituted his agent. Is it not so? If her had been your agent, you would get your own, because he had gained the action. But he preferred this claim in his own name; so what he got he got for himself, and not for you.
62	quod si quisquam petere potest alteri qui cognitor non est factus , quaero , quid ita , cum Panurgus esset interfectus et lis contestata cum Flavio damni iniuria esset , tu in eam litem cognitor Rosci sis factus , cum praesertim ex tua oratione quodcumque tibi peteres huic peteres , quodcumque tibi exigeres , id in societatem recideret . quod si ad Roscium nihil perveniret quod tu a Flavio abstulisses , nisi te in suam litem dedisset cognitorem , ad te pervenire nihil debet quod Roscius pro sua parte exegit , quoniam tuus cognitor non est factus .	But if any one can make a claim on behalf of another, who is not appointed his agent, I ask why then, when Panurgus was slain, and an action was commenced against Fannius on the plea of injury sustained by the loss, you were made the agent of Roscius for that action? especially when, according to what you now say, whatever claim you made for yourself you made for him; whatever recompense you exacted for yourself, would belong to the partnership. But if nothing would have come to Roscius which you had got from Flavius, unless he had appointed you agent for his action, so nothing ought to come to you which Roscius has exacted for his share, since he was not appointed your agent.
63	quid enim huic rei respondere poteris , Fanni ? Cum de sua parte Roscius transegit cum Flavio , actionem tibi tuam reliquit an non ? si non reliquit , quem ad modum HS ccciↄↄↄ ab eo postea exegisti ? si reliquit , quid ab hoc petis quod per te persequi et petere debes ? simillima enim et maxime gemina societas hereditatis est ; quem ad modum socius in societate habet partem , sic heres in hereditate habet partem . Vt heres sibi soli non coheredibus petit , sic socius sibi soli non sociis petit ; et quem ad modum uterque pro sua parte petit , sic pro sua parte dissolvit , heres ex ea parte qua hereditatem adiit , socius ex ea qua societatem coiit .	For what answer can you make to this case, O Fannius? When Roscius settled with Flavius for his own share, did he leave you your right of action, or not? If he did not leave it you, how was it that you afterwards exacted a hundred thousand sesterces from him? If he did leave it, why do you claim from him what you ought to demand and follow up yourself? For partnership is very like inheritance, and, as it were, its twin sister. As a partner has a share in a partnership, so an heir has a share in an inheritance. As an heir prefers a claim for himself alone, and not for his co-heirs, so a partner prefers a claim for himself alone, and not for his partners. And as each prefers a claim for his own share, so he makes payments for his share alone; the heir, out of the share which he has received of the inheritance the partner, out of that property with which he entered into the partnership.
64	quem ad modum suam partem Roscius suo nomine condonare potuit Flavio , ut eam tu non peteres , sic , cum exegit suam partem et tibi integram petitionem reliquit , tecum partiri non debet , nisi forte tu perverso more quod huius est ab alio extorquere non potes , huic eripere potes . perstat in sententia Saturius , quodcumque sibi petat socius , id societatis fieri . quod si ita est , qua , malum , stultitia fuit Roscius , qui ex iuris peritorum consilio et auctoritate restipularetur a Fannio diligenter ut eius quod exegisset a Flavio dimidiam partem sibi dissolveret , si quidem sine cautione et repromissione nihilo minus id Fannius societati , hoc est Roscio , debebat ? * * * * * * * * *	As Roscius could have executed a release to Flavius in his own name, so as to prevent you from preferring any claim; so, as he only exacted his own share, and left you your right to prefer a claim unimpaired, he ought not to share what he got with you—unless, indeed, you, by a perversion of all justice, are able to rob him of what is his, though you are not able to extort your own rights from another. Saturius persists in his opinion, that whatever a partner claims for himself becomes the property of the partnership. But if that be true, how great (plague take it!) was the folly of Roscius, who, by the advice and influence of lawyers, made a mutual agreement with Fannius, very carefully, that he should pay him half of whatever he got from Flavius; if indeed, without any security or mutual agreement, nevertheless, Fannius owed it to the partnership; that is to say, to Roscius [The rest of this speech is lost.]