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
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
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.
(
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.
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?
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.
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.
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