Cicero: ORATORIA

[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.

[1] . . . . it would be believed a malice of nature. He, forsooth, a most excellent man and endowed with singular fidelity, in his own case tries to use his own ledger-books as witnesses. Those who have received money recorded as expended through the account-books of an honorable man are generally wont to say: 'Could I have corrupted such a man, that for my sake he should enter a falsehood in the ledger?' I await how soon Chaerea will use this speech: 'Could I have impelled this hand, full of perfidy, and these my fingers, to write down a false name?' But if that man shall produce his own tablets, Roscius also will produce his own.

Erit in illius tabulis hoc nomen, at <in> huius non erit.

This name will be in that man’s tablets, but in this man’s it will not be.

[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.

[2] Why should that man’s rather than this man’s be believed?—Would that man have written, if he had not, at this man’s order, entered an expense?—Would not this man have written what he had ordered to be carried to his account as an expense? For just as it is shameful to write what is not owed, so it is improper not to record what you do owe. For the tablets are equally condemned, whether of him who did not record the truth or of him who wrote in a falsehood.

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.

But I, confident in the abundance and the faculty of the cause, see to what point I shall advance. If Gaius Fannius produces account-books of receipts and expenses, his own, written for his own advantage at his own discretion, I do not refuse that you judge in accordance with him.

[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?

[3] Who grants this—brother to brother, or parent to son—that whatever he had recorded, that should be held ratified? Roscius will hold it ratified; produce them; what has persuaded you will have persuaded him, what has been approved by you will be approved by him. A little before we were calling for the account-books of Marcus Perpenna and Publius Saturius; now we demand yours, Gaius Fannius Chaerea, yours alone, and we do not refuse that the suit be given judgment in accordance with them; why then do you not produce them?

Non conficit tabulas?

Does he not make up the account-books?

[4] Immo diligentissime. Non refert parva nomina in codices? Immo omnis summas.

[4] No indeed—most diligently. Does he not enter the small accounts into the ledgers? No indeed, he enters all the sums.

Leve et tenue hoc nomen est? HS ccciccc sunt. Quo modo tibi tanta pecunia extraordinaria iacet?

Is this entry light and tenuous? It is 699 sesterces. How is such extraordinary money lying idle for you?

quo modo HS ccciccc 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!

How is it that 399,000 sesterces are not in the codex of receipts and expenditures? By the immortal gods! Is there anyone endowed with such audacity that what he would fear to enter as a “name” in the tablets, that he dares to demand; what he was unwilling to record in the codex unsworn, that he does not hesitate to swear to in a lawsuit; what he cannot prove for himself, that he tries to persuade another of!

[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 adversariis petas? Suum codicem testis loco recitare adrogantiae est; suarum perscriptionum et liturarum adversaria proferre non amentia est?

[5] He says I am getting indignant about the account-books too quickly; he admits he does not have this name entered in the codex of receipts and expenditures, but contends that it appears in the adversaria. Do you so far dote on yourself and look grandly about that you demand money not from your own account-books but from the adversaria? To recite one’s own codex in place of a witness is arrogance; is it not madness to produce the adversaria of one’s own entries and erasures?

[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?

[6] But if the adversaria (daybook) have the same force, diligence, and authority as the account-tablets, what is the point of establishing a ledger, writing it up, conserving order, handing over to memory the antiquity of the letters? But if, because we trust nothing to adversaria, for that reason we have set about writing a ledger, shall that which is light and infirm even among all be deemed weighty and sacred before a judge?

[7] Quid est quod neglegenter scribamus adversaria? quid est quod diligenter conficiamus tabulas? qua de causa?

[7] What is there, on account of which we should write the adversaria negligently? what is there, on account of which we should diligently compile the tablets? for what cause?

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. Tu, C. Piso, tali fide, virtute, gravitate, auctoritate ornatus ex adversariis pecuniam petere non auderes.

Because these are monthly, those are eternal; these are erased at once, those are kept sacredly; these embrace the memory of a short time, those embrace the credibility and scrupulousness of perpetual reputation; these are scattered, those are compiled into order. And so no one has brought adversaria into court; he has produced a codex, he has read out the tablets. You, C. Piso, adorned with such good faith, virtue, gravity, and authority, would not dare to demand money from adversaria.

[8] 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.

[8] I ought not to speak longer about things which are clear by usage; but that which vehemently pertains to the matter, I ask: how long ago did you enter this name, Fannius, in the adversaria? He blushes; he does not know what he should answer; he does not have on the instant what to feign. It is two months now, you will say.

Tamen in codicem accepti et expensi <referri> debuit. Amplius sunt sex menses. Cur tam diu iacet hoc nomen in adversariis?

Nevertheless it ought to have been entered in the codex of receipts and expenses. More than six months have passed. Why does this name lie so long in the adversaria?

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?

What if, after all, it is more than three years? How is it that, when all who make up their tablets transfer their accounts almost monthly into the tablets, you allow this entry to lie in the adversaria for more than three years?

[9] 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?

[9] Do you have the other names arranged in the ledger of receipts and expenses or not? If not, how do you make up your accounts? If indeed you do, for what reason, when you were referring the other names into order, did you leave this name for more than three years—which was especially great—behind in the adversaria (day-book)?

Nolebas sciri debere tibi Roscium; cur scribebas? Rogatus eras ne referres; cur in adversariis scriptum habebas?

You did not wish it to be known that Roscius owed you; why were you writing? You had been asked not to enter it; why did you have it written in the adversaria?

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.

But although I see that these things are firm, nevertheless I cannot satisfy myself, unless I take from Gaius Fannius himself testimony that this money is not owed to him. Great is what I attempt, difficult what I promise; unless Roscius shall have the same man both as adversary and as witness, I do not wish him to prevail.

[10] 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.

[10] A certain sum of money was owed to you, which is now sought through a judge, in which a sponsion of the lawful portion was made. Here if you have demanded more by a single sesterce than is owed to you, you have lost the case, because a iudicium is one thing, an arbitrium another. A iudicium is for certain money, an arbitrium for uncertain; we come to judgment in such a way that we either prevail in the whole lawsuit or lose it; to arbitration we approach with this mind: that we obtain neither nothing at all nor as much as we demanded.

Ei rei ipsa verba formulae testimonio sunt.

For that matter, the very words of the formula are testimony.

[11] Quid est in iudicio? Derectum, asperum, simplex: si paret HS iccc dari—. Hic nisi planum facit HS iccc ad libellam sibi deberi, causam perdit. Quid est in arbitrio?

[11] What is in a judgment? Direct, harsh, simple: if it appears that 300 sesterces are to be given—. Here, unless he makes it plain that 300 sesterces are owed to him to the last penny, he loses the case. What is in an arbitration?

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.

Mild, moderate: how much more equitable and better it is that it be given. That man nevertheless confesses that he seeks more than is owed, but says he will have enough and to spare from what is granted to him by the arbiter. And so one trusts in the case, the other distrusts.

[12] Quae cum ita sint, quaero abs te quid ita de hac pecunia, de his ipsis HS iccc, 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!

[12] Since these things are so, I ask from you why, concerning this money, about these very HS 1,300, on the faith of your account‑books you made a compromissum, and took an arbiter as to how much it would be more equitable and better to be given and to be re‑promised, if it should appear. Who was arbiter in this matter? Would that he indeed were at Rome!

Romae est. Vtinam adesset in iudicio! Adest.

He is at Rome. Would that he were present in court! He is present.

Vtinam sederet in consilio C. Pisonis! Ipse C. Piso est. Eundemne tu arbitrum et iudicem sumebas?

Would that he were sitting on the council of C. Piso! He is C. Piso himself. Were you taking the same man as arbiter and judge?

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.

to the same man you were remitting an infinite largess and enclosing that same man in the most narrow formula of a sponsio? Who ever, before an arbiter, carried off as much as he sought? No one; for he sought as much as it would be more equitable to be given to himself.

De quo nomine ad arbitrum adisti, de eo ad iudicem venisti!

On that same head of claim you went to an arbiter; on that same you came before a judge!

[13] Ceteri cum ad iudicem causam labefactari animadvertunt, 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.

[13] The others, when they observe their cause being made to totter before the judge, flee for refuge to an arbiter; this man dared to come from the arbiter to the judge! who, when he appointed an arbiter about this money on the faith of the account-books, adjudged that money was not owed to himself.

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. Stipulatus es—ubi, quo die, quo tempore, quo praesente?

Now two parts of the case have been completed; he denies that he has counted it out, he does not say that he has carried it as an expense, since he does not recite the account-books. It remains that he say that he stipulated; for besides this I do not find how he can claim a definite sum of money. You stipulated—where, on what day, at what time, in whose presence?

quis spopondisse me dicit? Nemo.

who says that I have promised? No one.

[14] 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.

[14] Here, if I should make an end of speaking, I would seem to have done enough for my good faith and diligence, enough for the cause and the controversy, enough for the formula and the sponsion, enough even for the judge as to why it ought to be adjudged in favor of Roscius. A definite sum of money has been sought; when the sponsion was made, it was for a third part. This money must necessarily either have been given, or carried into the account as an expense, or stipulated.

Datam non esse Fannius confitetur, expensam latam non esse codices Fanni confirmant, stipulatam non esse taciturnitas testium concedit.

That it was not given Fannius confesses, that it was not carried to expense the ledgers of Fannius confirm, that it was not stipulated the taciturnity of the witnesses concedes.

[15] Quid ergo est? 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.

[15] What then is it? That both the defendant is one to whom money has always been of the least weight and reputation most sacred, and the judge is one whom we would wish no less to think well of us than to judge in our favor, and the advocacy is such that, on account of its exceptional splendor, we ought to revere it as a single judge; accordingly we shall speak just as if into this formula all legitimate judgments, all honorary arbitrations, all domestic duties were enclosed and comprehended. That earlier speech was necessary, this will be voluntary; that to the judge, this to C. Piso; that on behalf of the defendant, this on behalf of Roscius; that prepared for victory, this prepared for good reputation.

[16] Pecuniam petis, Fanni, a Roscio. Quam? dic audacter et aperte.

[16] You demand money, Fannius, from Roscius. What amount? Speak boldly and openly.

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?

Whether what is owed to you from partnership, or what, from this man’s liberality, has been promised and ostentated? Of which the one is graver and more odious, the other lighter and easier. What is owed from partnership?

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.

What do you say? This now is neither to be borne lightly nor to be defended negligently. For if there are any private suits of the highest estimation—almost, I would say, capital—these three are they: of trust, of guardianship, of partnership.

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.

For it is equally perfidious and nefarious to break the faith that holds life together, and to defraud a ward who has come into tutelage, and to deceive a partner who has conjoined himself in business.

[17] Quae cum ita sint, 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?

[17] Since these things are so, let us consider who it is that defrauded and deceived his associate; for the life lived will now silently give us, to one side or the other, a firm and grave testimony. Q. Roscius? What say you?

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?

Is it not that, just as fire cast into water is immediately quenched and cooled, so a boiling-over false accusation, brought against the purest and chastest life, at once collapses and is extinguished? Roscius defrauded his partner! Can this sin adhere to this man?

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.

who, by Dius Fidius—I say it boldly—possesses in himself more fidelity than art, more verity than discipline; whom the Roman people judge to be a better man than an actor; who is so supremely worthy of the stage on account of his artistry that he is most worthy of the curia on account of his abstinence.

[18] 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?

[18] But why do I, inept, speak about Roscius before Piso? An unknown man, forsooth, I commend with more words. Is there anyone of all mortals about whom you judge better? Is there anyone who seems to you purer, more modest, more humane, more dutiful and more liberal?

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?

What? Do you, Saturius, who come against this man, think otherwise? Whenever, in the case, you have chanced upon this man’s name, have you not just so often said that he is a good man and addressed him as a mark of honor?

quod nemo nisi aut honestissimo aut amicissimo facere consuevit.

which no one is accustomed to do except either for one most honorable or most friendly.

[19] 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.

[19] In this matter you seemed to me ridiculously inconstant, who were both injuring and lauding the same man, and were saying that he was both an excellent man and a most reprobate fellow. The same man you were both addressing for honor’s sake and calling a foremost man, and you were accusing him of having defrauded an associate? But, as I suppose, you were attributing the praise to truth, conceding the charge to favor; about this man, as you thought, you were proclaiming, and you were conducting the case at Chaerea’s arbitration.

Fraudavit Roscius! Est hoc quidem auribus animisque omnium absurdum. Quid si tandem aliquem timidum, dementem, divitem, inertem nactus esset qui experiri non posset?

Roscius has defrauded! This indeed is absurd to the ears and minds of all. What if, after all, he had chanced upon someone timid, demented, wealthy, inert, who could not put it to the test?

[20] Tamen incredibile esset. Verum tamen quem fraudarit videamus. C. Fannium Chaeream Roscius fraudavit!

[20] Nevertheless it would be incredible. But still, let us see whom he defrauded. Roscius defrauded C. Fannius Chaerea!

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?

I beg and beseech you, you who know, compare the life of each; you who do not know, consider the face of each. Do not the very head and those eyebrows clean shaven to the quick seem to reek of malice and to cry out callidity? Does he not, from the lowest fingernails up to the topmost crown—if the silent form of the body brings any conjecture to men—seem altogether to consist of fraud, fallacies, and mendacities?

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.

who on that account always has his head and eyebrows shaved, lest he be said to have any hair of a good man; whose persona Roscius is accustomed to handle excellently on the stage, and yet equal gratitude is not returned to him for the benefit. For when he plays that most wicked and most perjured pimp Ballio, he plays Chaerea; that muddy, impure, odious persona has been expressed in this man’s morals, nature, and life. Why he judged Roscius like himself in fraud and malice seems to me <scarcely>, unless perhaps because he noticed that he imitates him excellently in the persona of the pimp.

[21] Quam ob rem etiam atque etiam considera, C. Piso, quis quem fraudasse dicatur. Roscius Fannium! Quid est hoc?

[21] Wherefore, again and again consider, C. Piso, who is said to have defrauded whom. Roscius Fannius! What is this?

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.

the upright the depraved, the modest the shameless, the chaste the perjured, the inexpert the crafty, the liberal the greedy? It is incredible. Just as, if it were said that Fannius had defrauded Roscius, both would seem probable from the persona of each—both that Fannius did it through malice and that Roscius was deceived through imprudence—so, when Roscius is charged with having defrauded Fannius, both are unbelievable, both that Roscius sought anything through avarice and that Fannius lost anything through goodness.

[22] Principia sunt huius modi; spectemus reliqua. HS iccc Q. Roscius fraudavit Fannium. Qua de causa?

[22] The principles are of this sort; let us look at the rest. Q. Roscius defrauded Fannius of 1,300 sesterces. For what cause?

Subridet Saturius, veterator, ut sibi videtur; ait propter ipsa HS iccc. Video; sed tamen cur ipsa HS iccc tam vehementer concupierit quaero; nam tibi, M. Perpenna, <tibi> C. Piso, certe tanti non fuissent ut socium fraudaretis. Roscio cur tanti fuerint causam requiro.

Saturius smirks, a veteran trickster, as he seems to himself; he says it was on account of those very 300 sesterces. I see; but still I ask why he so vehemently coveted those very 300 sesterces; for to you, M. Perpenna, C. Piso, certainly they would not have been worth so much that you would defraud a partner. I inquire what cause made them of such value to Roscius.

Egebat? Immo locuples erat. Debebat?

Was he needy? Nay rather, he was wealthy. Was he in debt?

Immo in suis nummis versabatur. Avarus erat? Immo etiam ante quam locuples <esset>, semper liberalissimus munificentissimusque fuit.

On the contrary, he dealt in his own money. Was he avaricious? On the contrary, even before he opulent, he was always most liberal and most munificent.

[23] Pro deum hominumque fidem! qui HS iccc ccciccc quaestus facere noluit—nam certe HS iccc ccciccc merere et potuit et debuit, si potest Dionysia HS ccciccc ccciccc merere—is per summam fraudem et malitiam et perfidiam HS iccc 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.

[23] O by the faith of gods and men! He who did not wish to make a profit of HS iccc ccciccc—for certainly he both could and ought to have earned HS iccc ccciccc, if Dionysia can earn HS ccciccc ccciccc—did he, through the height of fraud and malice and perfidy, aim at HS iccc? And that former sum was monstrous money, this one tiny; that one honorable, this sordid; that pleasant, this bitter; that one his own, this one placed in a cause and in a court of law.

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.

In these most recent ten years he could most honorably have obtained 6,000,000 sesterces; he did not wish to. He accepted the labor of gain, he rejected the gain of labor; he has not yet ceased to serve the Roman people, he long since ceased to serve himself.

[24] 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 iccc circumscriptum esse, qui tantas et tam infinitas pecunias non propter inertiam laboris sed propter magnificentiam liberalitatis repudiarit!

[24] Would you ever do this, Fannius? and if you were able to take in these profits, would you not at the same time be acting both your part and your life? Say now that you were overreached by Roscius to the amount of HS 1,300, he who has repudiated such great and so infinite monies not because of the inertia of labor but because of the magnificence of liberality!

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.

What am I now to say of those things which I am certain come into your minds? “Roscius was defrauding you in the partnership!” There are laws, there are formulae established concerning all matters, so that no one can err either in the kind of injury or in the form of action.

Expressae sunt enim ex unius cuiusque damno, dolore, incommodo, calamitate, iniuria publicae a praetore formulae, ad quas privata lis accommodatur.

For public formulae have been expressed by the praetor out of each and every individual’s damage, pain, incommodity, calamity, and injury, to which a private suit is accommodated.

[25] Quae cum ita sint, cur non arbitrum pro socio adegeris Q. Roscium quaero. Formulam non noras? Notissima erat.

[25] Since these things are so, I ask why you did not compel Q. Roscius before an arbiter under the “for a partner” action. Did you not know the formula? It was most well-known.

Iudicio gravi experiri nolebas? Quid ita? propter familiaritatem veterem?

Were you unwilling to make trial by a grave judgment? Why thus? Because of ancient familiarity?

Cur ergo laedis? Propter integritatem hominis? Cur igitur insimulas?

Why therefore do you injure? Because of the man’s integrity? Why then do you accuse?

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?

Because of the magnitude of the crime? Is it so, indeed? The one whom you could not circumvent through an arbiter—who did not have proper jurisdiction in that matter—will you condemn through a judge, who has no arbitral authority in <ea> matter?

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.

Why don’t you either bring this charge forward where it is permitted to bring an action, or else refrain from hurling it where it is not proper. Although, by your own testimony already, the charge has been removed. For at the time when you were unwilling to employ that formula, you indicated that this man had done nothing to enter into a partnership in fraud.

Dic enim, tabulas habes an non? Si non habes, quem ad modum pactio est? si habes, cur non nominas?

Say then, do you have the tablets or not? If you do not have them, in what manner is there a pact? if you do have them, why do you not name them?

[26] Dic nunc Roscium abs te petisse ut familiarem suum sumeres arbitrum! Non petiit. Dic pactionem fecisse ut absolveretur!

[26] Say now that Roscius asked you to take his familiar friend as arbiter! He did not ask. Say that he made a pact so that he might be acquitted!

Non pepigit. Quaere qua re sit absolutus! Quod erat summa innocentia et integritate.

He did not make a pact. Ask for what reason he was absolved! Because there was the highest innocence and integrity.

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.

For what, indeed, was done? You came to Roscius’s house of your own accord, you made satisfaction; for what you had rashly committed, instead of giving formal notice into court, you asked that he forgive; you denied that you would be present, you kept clamoring that nothing was owed to you from the partnership. This man gave formal notice to the judge; he was acquitted.

Tamen fraudis ac furti mentionem facere audes? Perstat in impudentia. 'Pactionem enim,' inquit, 'mecum fecerat.' Idcirco videlicet ne condemnaretur.

Yet do you dare to make mention of fraud and theft? He persists in impudence. 'For he had made a pact with me,' he says, 'he had made.' For that reason, no doubt, in order that he might not be condemned.

Quid erat causae cur metueret ne condemnaretur?—Res erat manifesta, furtum erat apertum.

What was the cause why he should fear lest he be condemned?—The matter was manifest, the theft was open.

[27] Cuius rei furtum factum erat? Exorditur magna cum exspectatione veteris histrionis exponere societatem. '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.

[27] Of what thing had a theft been committed? He begins, with great expectation, to set forth the partnership of a veteran actor. “Panurgus,” he says, “was Fannius’s; he is made common to him with Roscius.” Here first Saturius complained not lightly that he had been made common with Roscius for nothing, he who by a price would have been more properly Fannius’s.

Largitus est scilicet homo liberalis et dissolutus et bonitate adfluens Fannius Roscio. Sic puto.

Of course Fannius—the liberal and dissolute man, overflowing with goodness—bestowed largesse upon Roscius. So I suppose.

[28] Quoniam ille hic constitit paulisper, mihi quoque necesse est paulum commorari. Panurgum tu, Saturi, proprium Fanni dicis fuisse. At ego totum Rosci fuisse contendo.

[28] Since that man has halted here for a little while, I too must linger a little. You, Saturius, say that Panurgus was Fannius’s own property. But I contend that he was wholly Roscius’s.

Quid erat enim Fanni? Corpus. Quid Rosci?

For what was Fannius’s? The body. What was Roscius’s?

Disciplina. Facies non erat, ars erat pretiosa. Ex qua parte erat Fanni, non erat HS #, ex qua parte erat Rosci, amplius erat HS ccciccc iccc; 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 ccciccc iccc.

Discipline. It was not the face; the art was precious. In so far as it belonged to Fannius, it was not worth HS #; in so far as it belonged to Roscius, it was worth more, HS ccciccc iccc; for no one looked at him from the trunk of the body, but appraised him from his comic artifice; for those limbs by themselves could not earn more than 12 asses, whereas the discipline which had been handed down by this man leased itself out for not less than HS ccciccc iccc.

[29] O societatem captiosam et indignam, ubi alter HS #, alter ccciccc iccc quod sit in societatem adfert! nisi idcirco moleste pateris quod HS # tu ex arca proferebas, HS ccciccc iccc ex disciplina et artificio promebat . 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.

[29] O captious and unworthy partnership, where the one brings into the partnership HS #, the other brings HS ccciccc iccc!—unless for this reason you are vexed, that you were drawing HS # out of a coffer, while was producing HS ccciccc iccc from discipline and art. For what hope and expectation, what zeal and what favor did Panurgus bring with him onto the scene, because he was a disciple of Roscius! Those who loved this man favored that one; those who admired this man approved that one; finally, those who had heard this man’s name judged that that one was erudite and perfect (this man = Roscius; that one = Panurgus).

Sic est volgus; ex veritate pauca, ex opinione multa aestimat.

Such is the crowd; it estimates few things from truth, many from opinion.

[30] 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.

[30] Very few noticed what he knew; everyone asked where he had learned it; they supposed that nothing crooked and perverse could be produced by this man. If he were to come from Statilius, although he surpassed Roscius in skill, no one could bear to look at him; for no one would think that, just as an upright son is born from a depraved father, so from the worst actor a good comedian could be made. Because he came from Roscius, he seemed to know even more than he knew.

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.

Which likewise lately came to pass in the comedian Eros; who, after he was driven off from the stage not only by hisses but even by outcry and abuse, fled, as to an altar, for refuge to this man’s house, discipline, patronage, and name: and so in a very brief time he who was not even among the very last actors came to the first-rank comedians.

[31] 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.

[31] What raised him up? One single commendation from this man; who nevertheless received that Panurgus into his house, not only that he might be said to have been a disciple of Roscius, but also trained him with the utmost toil, irritation, and misery. For the more each person is more skillful and more ingenious, by so much the more angrily and more laboriously does he teach; for what he himself has swiftly seized, when he sees it being slowly perceived, he is racked.

Paulo longius oratio mea provecta est hac de causa ut condicionem societatis diligenter cognosceretis.

My oration has been carried a little farther for this cause, that you might diligently come to know the condition of the partnership.

[32] Quae deinde sunt consecuta? 'Panurgum,' inquit, 'hunc servum communem, Q. Flavius Tarquiniensis quidam interfecit. In hanc rem,' inquit, 'me cognitorem dedisti.

[32] What then followed? 'Panurgus,' he says, 'this common slave, was killed by a certain Q. Flavius of Tarquinii. For this matter,' he says, 'you appointed me cognitor.'

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.

‘With the lawsuit having been joined, and with a trial for wrongful damage established, you settled with Flavius without me.’ Whether for the half share or for the <re> whole? I will speak more plainly: whether on behalf of me, or both on behalf of me and of you? On behalf of me; I could by the example of many; it is licit; many have done it by right; I did you no injury in that matter. Seek your own, exact and carry off what is owed; let each person possess and pursue his own part of right.—‘But indeed you managed your own business well.’—Manage yours well too.—‘You settled your half share for a great price.’—For a great price do you settle your share too.—‘You carried off sesterces Q.’—Let this be so; but you carry off sesterces Q.

[33] 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.

[33] But although one may amplify this settlement by Roscius’s oration and opinion, in fact and in truth you will find it to be moderate and slight. For he received a field in those times when the prices of estates were lying low; which field had neither a villa nor was it in any part cultivated; which now is worth much more than it was then. Nor is that a marvel.

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.

Then indeed, on account of the calamities of the republic, everyone’s possessions were uncertain; now, by the benignity of the immortal gods, everyone’s fortunes are certain; then the field was uncultivated without a roof, now it is most cultivated with an excellent villa.

[34] 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.

[34] But nevertheless, since by nature you are so malevolent, I will never free you from that annoyance and care. Roscius has managed his own business excellently; he carried off a most fruitful estate—what is that to you? Your half-share, decide as you please. Here he turns the reckoning and tries to feign what he cannot prove.

'De tota re,' inquit, 'decidisti.'

'Concerning the whole matter,' he said, 'you have decided the whole thing.'

Ergo huc universa causa deducitur, utrum Roscius cum Flavio de sua parte an de tota societate fecerit pactionem.

Therefore the whole cause is deduced to this point: whether Roscius made a pact with Flavius concerning his own share, or concerning the whole partnership.

[35] Nam ego Roscium, 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?

[35] For I acknowledge that Roscius, if he touched anything under the common name, ought to make it good to the partnership.—He redeemed the suit of the partnership, not his own suit, when he received the estate from Flavius.—Why then did he not give surety that not a penny more would be sought by anyone? He who settles with respect to his own share leaves the action intact for the rest; he who transacts on behalf of the partners gives surety that none of them will seek thereafter. Why then did it not come into his mind to secure a safeguard for himself from Flavius?

nesciebat videlicet Panurgum fuisse in societate. Sciebat. Nesciebat Fannium Roscio esse socium.—Praeclare; nam iste cum eo litem contestatam habebat.

He did not know, evidently, that Panurgus had been in the society. He did know. He did not know that Fannius was a partner with Roscius.—Very good; for that fellow had a suit joined with him.

[36] 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?

[36] Why then does he settle, and not counter-stipulate that no one will henceforth bring a claim? why does he vacate the farm and not get absolved by a judgment? why does he act so unskillfully that he neither binds Roscius by stipulation nor gets himself absolved by judgment from Fannius?

[37] 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.

[37] This is, first, both by the condition of the law and by the consuetude of cautio, the most firm and the gravest argument, which I would embrace with more words, if I did not have other more certain and clearer testimonies in the case.

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.

And lest perhaps you declare that I have promised this in vain, I will rouse as a witness against you—you, you, I say, Fannius—from your benches. What is your crimination? That Roscius settled with Flavius concerning the partnership.

Quo tempore? Abhinc annis xv. Defensio mea quae est? Roscium pro sua parte cum Flavio transegisse.

At what time? 15 years ago. What is my defense? That Roscius settled with Flavius for his own share.

Repromittis tu abhinc triennium Roscio. Quid? recita istam restipulationem clarius.

You repromised to Roscius three years ago. What? Read out that re-stipulation more clearly.

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.

Attend, I beg, Piso; I compel Fannius, unwilling and dodging hither and thither, to give testimony against himself. For what does the restipulation cry out? That whatever I shall have taken from Flavius, I pledge that I will pay half thereof to Roscius.

Tua vox est, Fanni.

It is your voice, Fannius.

[38] 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?

[38] What can you take away from Flavius, if Flavius owes nothing? what, furthermore, is he now restipulating for, which he himself long ago exacted? and what, indeed, is Flavius going to give to you, who has discharged to Roscius everything that he owed?

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 ccciccc hac condicione ut, si quid ille exegisset a Flavio, partem eius dimidiam Roscio dissolveret.

Why, in a matter so old, in a business already completed, in a partnership dissolved, is this new restipulation interposed? Who is the drafter, witness, and arbiter of this restipulation? You, Piso; for you asked Quintus Roscius, for work and labor, because he had been cognitor, because he had attended the vadimonia, to give to Fannius HS ccciccc on this condition: that, if he should have exacted anything from Flavius, he should pay out to Roscius one half of that portion.

Satisne ipsa restipulatio dicere tibi videtur aperte Roscium pro se decidisse?

Does the restipulation itself seem to you to say openly enough that Roscius settled for himself?

[39] 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.

[39] But perhaps this may come into your mind: that Fannius repromised to Roscius, if he had exacted anything from Flavius, half of it, but that he in fact exacted nothing at all. What then? You ought to look not to the outcome of the exaction, but to the inception of the repromission.

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 ccciccc Fannium a. Q. Flavio Panurgi nomine abstulisse? tamen diutius inludere viri optimi existimationi, Q. Rosci, audebit?

Nor, if he judged that that was not to be pursued, did he not judge, so far as was in himself, that Roscius had redeemed lawsuits of his own, not of the partnership. What if at length I make it clear that after Roscius’s old settlement, after this recent repromise of Fannius of 699 sesterces, Fannius took it away from Q. Flavius in the name of Panurgus? will he nevertheless dare longer to mock the reputation of a most excellent man, Q. Roscius?

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

[40] A little before I was inquiring—something that strongly pertained to the matter—why it was that Flavius, when he made a settlement about the whole lawsuit, neither received satisfaction from Roscius nor was acquitted by judgment by Fannius; but now indeed, a thing which is marvelous and incredible, I ask: For what reason, when he had settled the whole matter with Roscius, did he pay separately to Fannius HS 399,000? At this point, Saturius, I am eager to know what you are prepared to answer: whether altogether that Fannius did not take away HS 399,000 from Flavius, or that he took it away under another name and for another reason.

[41] Si alia de causa, quae ratio tibi cum eo intercesserat? Nulla. Addictus erat tibi?

[41] If for another cause, what rationale had intervened between you and him? None. Had he been adjudged (addicted) to you?

Non. Frustra tempus contero. 'Omnino,' inquit, 'HS ccciccc a Flavio non abstulit neque Panurgi nomine neque cuiusquam.' Si planum facio post hanc recentem stipulationem Rosci HS ccciccc a Flavio te abstulisse, numquid causae est quin ab iudicio abeas turpissime victus?

No. I am wasting time in vain. “Altogether,” he says, “he did not take HS 699 from Flavius, neither under the name of Panurgus nor of anyone.” If I make it plain that after this recent stipulation of Roscius you took HS 699 from Flavius, is there any cause why you should not withdraw from the trial most disgracefully defeated?

Quo teste igitur hoc planum faciam?

By what witness, therefore, shall I make this plain?

[42] Venerat, ut opinor, haec res in iudicium. Certe. Quis erat petitor?

[42] This matter had come, as I suppose, into judgment. Certainly. Who was the petitioner?

Fannius. Quis reus? Flavius.

Fannius. Who was the defendant? Flavius.

Quis iudex? Cluvius. Ex his unus mihi testis est producendus qui pecuniam datam dicat.

Who is the judge? Cluvius. Of these, one witness must be produced by me to say that money was given.

Quis est ex his gravissimus? Sine controversia qui omnium iudicio comprobatus est iudex. Quem igitur ex his tribus a me testem exspectabis?

Who is the most grave among these? Without controversy, the one who by the judgment of all has been approved as judge. Whom, therefore, of these three will you expect from me as a witness?

petitorem? Fannius est; contra se numquam testimonium dicet. Reum?

The plaintiff? It is Fannius; he will never give testimony against himself. The defendant?

Flavius est. Is iam pridem est mortuus; si viveret, verba eius audiretis. Iudicem?

It is Flavius. He has long since died; if he were alive, you would hear his words. The judge?

Cluvius est. Quid is dicit? HS ccciccc Panurgi nomine Flavium Fannio dissolvisse.

Cluvius is. What does he say? That Flavius discharged to Fannius 699 sesterces in the name of Panurgus.

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.

Whom, if you regard him by census, is a Roman equestrian; if by life, he is a most illustrious man; if by faith, you chose him as a judge; if by truth, he said that which he could and ought to know.

[43] Nega, nega nunc equiti Romano, homini honesto, iudici tuo credi oportere! Circumspicit, aestuat, negat nos Cluvi testimonium recitaturos. Recitabimus.

[43] Deny, deny now that a Roman equestrian, an honorable man, your judge, ought to be believed! He looks around, he seethes; he denies that we will recite the testimony of Cluvius. We shall recite it.

Erras; inani et tenui spe te consolaris. Recita testimonium T. Manili et C. Lusci Ocreae, duorum senatorum, hominum ornatissimorum qui ex Cluvio audierunt. <Testimonivm T. Manili et C. Lvsci Ocreae.> Vtrum dicis Luscio et Manilio, an etiam Cluvio non esse credendum?

You are wrong; with empty and slight hope you console yourself. Read out the testimony of T. Manilius and C. Luscus Ocrea, two senators, most distinguished men, who heard it from Cluvius. <Testimony of T. Manilius and C. Luscus Ocrea.> Do you say that Luscus and Manilius are not to be believed, or even Cluvius?

Planius atque apertius dicam. Vtrum Luscius et Manilius nihil de HS ccciccc 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.

I will speak more plainly and more openly. Did Luscius and Manilius hear nothing from Cluvius about HS 600, or did Cluvius tell a falsehood to Luscius and Manilius? At this point I am of a relaxed and quiet mind, and I do not much labor over where your answer may fall; for by the most firm and most sacrosanct testimonies of the very best men the cause of Roscius has been fortified.

[44] 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.

[44] If now it is resolved for you whose the faith of the sworn oath you will abrogate, answer. Do you deny that Manilius and Luscius are to be believed? Say it, dare; it is the voice of your contumacy, arrogance, and your entire life.

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.

What are you waiting for—that forthwith I will say that Luscius and Manilius are senators in rank, advanced in years, by nature holy and religious, opulent and pecunious in the resources of their household estate? I will not do so; I shall detract nothing from myself, when I most sternly repay to those of completed age the fruit they have merited. My youth has more need of their good estimation than their most severe old age desires my praise.

[45] 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?

[45] You indeed, Piso, must long deliberate and digest whether you should rather trust Chaerea, unsworn, in his own suit, or Manilius and Luscius, sworn, in another’s judgment. It remains that he contend that Cluvius spoke falsely to Luscius and Manilius. But if he does this, with what impudence will he discredit as a witness the very man whom he has approved as a judge?

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?

Will he deny that credence ought to be given to him to whom he himself has given credence? Will he weaken, before the judge, the credit of that witness whom he procured precisely on account of the judge’s fidelity and conscientious scruple? The man whom, if I were proposing him as judge, he ought not to shrink from—when I bring him forward as a witness, will he dare to censure?

[46] 'Dicit enim,' inquit, 'iniuratus Luscio et Manilio.' Si diceret iuratus, crederes? At quid interest inter periurum et mendacem? Qui mentiri solet, peierare consuevit.

[46] 'For he says,' says he, 'unsworn to Luscius and Manilius.' If he were to say it sworn, would you believe? But what difference is there between a perjurer and a mendacious man? He who is wont to lie is accustomed to perjure himself.

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?

One whom I can induce to lie, I shall easily be able to prevail upon to forswear himself. For he who has once deflected from truth is accustomed to be led to perjury with no greater religious scruple than to mendacity. For who is moved by deprecation of the gods, and not by the fidelity of conscience?

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.

For this reason, the punishment from the immortal gods for a perjurer is this same one appointed for a liar; for not from the paction of words by which an oath is comprehended, but from the treachery and malice through which snares are stretched for someone, the immortal gods are wont to be angered at human beings and to be indignant.

[47] 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.

[47] But I, on the contrary, contend this: the authority of Cluvius would be lighter if he were to speak sworn, than it is now, when he speaks unsworn. For then perhaps to the unscrupulous he would seem too desirous, he who would be a witness concerning a matter of which he had been judge; now, to all who are not iniquitous, it must seem that he is most chaste and most constant who says to his intimates what he knows.

[48] 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.

[48] Say now, if you can, if the matter, if the cause permits, that Cluvius has lied! Has Cluvius lied? Truth itself has laid a hand on me and has compelled me to halt for a little and to linger.

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 iccc, petam a C. Cluvio, equite <Romano>, ornatissimo homine, ut mea causa mentiatur, dicat decisionem factam esse quae facta non est, HS ccciccc a Flavio data esse Fannio quae data non sunt.' Est hoc principium improbi animi, miseri ingeni, nullius consili.

Whence has this whole falsehood been drawn out and conflated? Roscius is, evidently, a cunning and wily man. At the outset he began to think thus: “since Fannius demands from me HS iccc, I will ask of Gaius Cluvius, an eques <Roman>, a most adorned man, that for my sake he lie, let him say that a settlement (decisio) was made which was not made, that HS ccciccc were given by Flavius to Fannius which were not given.” This is the beginning of a wicked spirit, a wretched ingenium, of no counsel.

[49] Quid deinde? Postea quam se praeclare confirmavit, venit ad Cluvium. Quem hominem?

[49] What then? After he had splendidly confirmed himself, he came to Cluvius. What a man?

levem? Immo gravissimum. Mobilem?

light? Rather, most weighty. mobile?

Immo constantissimum. Familiarem? Immo alienissimum.

Rather, most constant. Familiar? Rather, most alien.

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 ccciccc 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 greeted this man, he began to ask, coaxingly and neatly, to be sure: 'Lie for my sake, to the best of men, your intimates; in their presence say that Flavius came to a settlement with Fannius about Panurgus, who transacted nothing; say he gave 601 sesterces, who gave not a single as.' What did the other reply? 'Indeed I will eagerly and gladly lie for your sake, and, if ever you want me to perjure myself, so that you may make a little saving, know that I shall be ready; there was no reason why you should undertake so great a toil and come to me; through a messenger you could have settled this, which was so light.'

[50] 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.

[50] By the faith of gods and men! Would Roscius ever have asked this from Cluvius, if he had HS 100,000,000 in litigation, or would Cluvius have granted it to Roscius when he asked, if he were a participant in the entire booty? Scarcely, by Dius Fidius, you, Fannius, would dare to demand this from Ballio or someone like him, and be able to obtain it.

Quod cum est veritate falsum, tum ratione quoque est incredibile; obliviscor enim Roscium et Cluvium viros esse primarios; improbos temporis causa esse fingo.

Which, since it is false in truth, is also incredible by reason; for I forget that Roscius and Cluvius are principal men; I feign them to be wicked for the sake of the occasion.

[51] Falsum subornavit testem Roscius Cluvium! Cur tam sero? cur cum altera pensio solvenda esset, non tum cum prima?

[51] Roscius suborned a false witness against Cluvius! Why so late? why when the second installment had to be paid, not then when the first?

nam iam antea HS iccc dissolverat. Deinde, si iam persuasum erat Cluvio ut mentiretur, cur potius HS ccciccc quam ccciccc ccciccc ccciccc data dixit Fannio <a> Flavio, cum ex restipulatione pars eius dimidia Rosci esset? Iam intellegis, C. Piso, sibi soli, societati nihil Roscium petisse.

for already before this he had paid HS iccc. Then, if Cluvius had now been persuaded to lie, why did he say rather that HS ccciccc had been given to Fannius Flavius, than that ccciccc ccciccc ccciccc had been given, since by the re‑stipulation half of that was Roscius’s? By now you understand, Gaius Piso, that Roscius sought for himself alone, and nothing for the partnership.

Hoc quoniam sentit Saturius esse apertum, resistere et repugnare contra veritatem non audet, aliud fraudis et insidiarum in eodem vestigio deverticulum reperit.

Since Saturius realizes this to be manifest, he does not dare to resist and oppose the truth; he discovers, on the same track, another detour of fraud and insidiousness.

[52] '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?

[52] "He asked," he says, "I confess that Roscius sought his own share from Flavius; I concede that he left Fannius’s [share] vacant and untouched; but I contend that what he exacted for himself was made common to the partnership." Than which nothing more captious nor more unworthy can be said. For I ask whether Roscius could demand his own share out of the partnership or not. If he could not, in what way did he carry it off?

si potuit, quem ad modum non sibi exegit? nam quod sibi petitur, certe alteri non exigitur.

if he could, how did he not exact it for himself? for what is sought for oneself is certainly not exacted for another.

[53] 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? 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.

[53] Or is it thus: if he had claimed something which was of the entire partnership, that which had then been reduced would be divided equally among all; now, since he claimed what was of his own share, did he not exact for himself alone that which he then took away? What difference is there between the one who litigates on his own and the one who has been given as cognitor? He who on his own formally contests the suit claims for himself alone; for another, no one can, except one who has been made cognitor.

Itane vero? cognitor si fuisset tuus, quod vicisset iudicio, ferres tuum; <cum> suo nomine petiit, quod abstulit, tibi non sibi exegit?

Indeed, is it so? If the cognitor had been yours, you would take as yours what he had won in judgment; since he sued in his own name, what he carried off—did he exact it for you, not for himself?

[54] 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.

[54] But if anyone can petition on behalf of another who has not been made a cognitor, I ask why, when Panurgus had been slain and issue had been joined with Flavius for wrongful damage, you were made Roscius’s cognitor in that suit—especially since, by your own speech, whatever you were petitioning for yourself you were petitioning for this man, and whatever you were exacting for yourself would fall back into the partnership. And if nothing would come through to Roscius of what you had taken away from Flavius unless he had given you as cognitor in his own suit, nothing ought to come through to you of what Roscius exacted for his own share, since he was not made your cognitor.

[55] 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 ccciccc ab eo postea exegisti?

[55] What indeed will you be able to answer to this matter, Fannius? When Roscius, concerning his own share, settled with Flavius, did he leave his own action to you or not? If he did not leave it, how did you afterward exact from him HS 399,000?

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.

If he left it, what are you seeking from this man that you ought to pursue and claim by yourself? For the society (partnership) of inheritance is most similar and most twin: just as a partner in a society has a share, so an heir in an inheritance has a share. As an heir claims for himself alone, not for the coheirs, so a partner claims for himself alone, not for the partners; and as each claims for his own share, so he discharges for his own share—the heir from that part in which he has entered upon the inheritance, the partner from that by which he has entered into the society.

[56] 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? * * * * * * * * *

[56] Just as Roscius could, in his own name, condone/remit his own share to Flavius, so that you would not seek it, so too, when he exacted his own share and left to you an entire claim, he ought not to divide it with you, unless perhaps, by your perverse custom, what is this man’s—since you cannot extort it from another—you can snatch from him. Saturius persists in his opinion, that whatever a partner claims for himself becomes the partnership’s. But if that is so, what, for heaven’s sake, was the folly of Roscius, that, on the counsel and authority of jurists, he should take a counter‑stipulation from Fannius, carefully, that of what he had exacted from Flavius he would pay over to him one half—if indeed, without security and re‑promise, nonetheless Fannius owed that to the partnership, that is, to Roscius? * * * * * * * * *