All these rights were not only thrown into disorder while that man was praetor, but indeed were openly taken away from both the Sicilians and from the Roman citizens. First of all, their own laws with reference to one another were disregarded. If a citizen had a dispute with another citizen, he either assigned any one as judge whom it was convenient to himself to assign, crier, soothsayer, or his own physician; or if a tribunal was established by the laws, and the parties had come before one of their fellow-citizens as the judge, that citizen was not allowed to decide without control. For, listen to the edict issued by this man, by which edict he brought every tribunal under his own authority: “If any one had given a wrong decision, he would examine into the matter himself; when he had examined, he would punish.” And when he did that, no one doubted that when the judge thought that some one else was doing to sit in judgment on his decision, and that he should be at the risk of his life in the matter, he would consider the inclination of the man who he expected would presently be judging in a matter affecting his down existence as a citizen.
Judges selected from the Roman settlers there were none; none even of the traders
in the cities were proposed as judges. The crowd of judges which I am speaking of
was the retinue, not of Quintus Scaevola, (who, however, did not make practice of
appointing judges from among his own followers,) but of Caius Verres. And what sort
of a retinue do you suppose it was when such a man as he was its chief? You see
announced in the edict, “If the senate gives an erroneous decision....” I will prove
that, if at any time a bench of judges was taken from the senate, that also gave its
decisions, through compulsion, on his part, contrary to their own opinions. There
never was any selection of the judges by lot, according to the Rupilian law, except
when he had no interest whatever in the case. The tribunals established in the case
of many disputes by the
Heraclius is the son of Hiero, a Syracusan; a man among the very first for
nobility of family, and, before Verres came as praetor, one of the most wealthy of
the Syracusans; now a very poor man, owing to no other calamity but the avarice and
injustice of that man. An inheritance of at least three millions of
Verres, too, hears this; and at first he tries by the tricks and maneuvers which he is so fond of, to get him to lend things to him to look at, which he means never to return. Afterwards he takes counsel from some Syracusans; and they were relations of his, whose wives too were not believed to be entirely strangers to him, by name Cleomenes and Aeschrio. What influence they had with him, and on what disgraceful reasons it was founded, you may understand from the rest of the accusation. These men, as I say, give Verres advice. They tell him that the property is a fine one, which in every sort of wealth; and that Heraclius himself is a man advancing in years, and not very active; and that he has no patron on whom he has any claim, or to whom he has any access except the Marcelli; that a condition was contained in the will in which he was mentioned as heir, that he was to erect some statues in the palaestra. We will contrive to produce people from the palaestra to assert that they have not been erected according to the terms of the will, and to claim the inheritance, because they say that it is forfeited to the palaestra. The idea pleased Verres.
For he foresaw that, when such an inheritance became disputed, and was claimed by
process of law, it was quite impossible for him not to get some plunder out of it
before it was done with. He approves of the plan; he advises them to begin to act as
speedily as possible, and to attack a man of that age, and disinclined to law-suits,
with as much bluster as possible.
He postponed appointing judges in all suits, and fixed the first day for appointing them that he legally could after the thirty days claimed by Heraclius in his action had elapsed. When the day arrived, he began to pretend that he was desirous to appoint the judges. Heraclius comes with his advocates, and claims to be allowed to have the cause between him and the men of the palaestra, that is to say, with the Syracusan people, tried by strict law. His adversaries demand that judges be appointed to decide on that matter of those cities which were in the habit of frequenting the Syracusan courts. Judges were appointed, whomsoever Verres chose. Heraclius demanded, on the other hand, that judges should be appointed according to the provisions of the Rupilian law; and that no departure should be made from the established usage of their ancestors, from the authority of the senate, and from the rights of all the Sicilians.
Why need I demonstrate the licentious wickedness of that Verres, in the
administration of justice? Who of you is not aware of it, from his administration in
this city? Who ever, while he was praetor, could obtain anything by law against the
will of Chelidon? The province did not corrupt that man, as it has corrupted some;
he was the same man that he had been at
What can you do with such a man as this? What punishment can you find worthy of
such licentiousness? Then it was prescribed to you by law, O most wicked and most
shameless man, in what way you were to appoint judges among the Sicilians; when the
authority of a general of the Roman people, when the dignity of ten commissioners,
men of the highest rank, when a positive resolution of the senate was against you,
in obedience to which resolution Publius Rupilius had established laws in
But, I was going to say, when these five judges had been appointed, by no law,
according to no use, with none of the proper ceremonies, with no drawing of lots,
according to his mere will, not to examine into the cause, but to give whatever
decision they were commanded, on that day nothing more was done; the parties are
ordered to appear on the day following.
In the meantime both Verres himself began to be uneasy, and his friends and counselors began also to be a good deal vexed at Heraclius' having fled. They thought that the condemnation of an absent man, especially in a matter involving so large a sum of money, would be a far more odious measure than if he had appeared in court, and had there been condemned. To this consideration was added the fact, that because the judges had not been appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Rupilian law, they saw that the affair would appear much more base and more iniquitous. And so, while he endeavours to correct this error, his covetousness and dishonesty are made more evident. For he declares that he will not use those five judges; he orders (as ought to have been done at first, according to the Rupilian law) Heraclius to be summoned, and those who had brought the action against him; he says that he is going to appoint the judges by lot, according to the Rupilian law. That which Heraclius the day before could not obtain from him, though he begged and entreated it of him with many tears, occurred to him the next day of his own accord, and he recollected that he ought to appoint judges according to the Rupilian law. He draws the names of three out of the urn: he commands them to condemn Heraclius in his absence. So they condemn him.
What was the meaning of that madness? Did you think that you would never have to give an account of your actions? Did you think that such men as these would never hear of these transactions? Is such an inheritance to be claimed without the slightest grounds for such a claim, in order to become the plunder of the praetor? is the name of the city to be introduced? is the base character of a false accuser to be fixed upon an honourable state? And not this only, but is the whole business to be conducted in such a matter that there is to be not even the least appearance of justice kept up? For, in the name of the immortal gods, what difference does it make whether the praetor commands and by force compels any one to abandon all his property, or passed a sentence by which, without any trial, he must lose all his fortune?
In truth you cannot deny that you ought to have appointed judges according to the provisions of the Rupilian law, especially when Heraclius demanded it. If you say that you departed from the law with the consent of Heraclius, you will entangle yourself, you will be hampered by the statement you make in your own defence. For if that was the case, why, in the first place, did he refuse to appear, when he might have had the judges chosen from the proper body which he demanded? Secondly, why, after his flight, did you appoint other judges by drawing lots, if you had appointed those who had been before appointed, with the consent of each party? Thirdly, Marcus Postumius, the quaestor, appointed as the other judges in the market-place; you appointed the judges in this case alone.
However, by these means, some one will say, he gave that inheritance to the
Syracusan people. In the first place, even if I were disposed to grant that, still
you must condemn him; for it is not permitted to us with impunity to rob one man for
the purpose of giving to another. But you will find that he despoiled that
inheritance himself without making much secret of his proceedings; that the
Syracusan people, indeed, had a great deal of the odium, a great deal of the infamy,
but that another had the profit; that a few Syracusans, those who now say that they
have come in obedience to the public command of their city, to bear testimony in his
favour, were then sharers in the plunder, and are come hither now, not for the
purpose of speaking in his favour, but to assist in the valuation of the damages
which they claim from him. After he was condemned in his absence, possession is
given to the palaestra of the Syracusans,—that is, to the Syracusan people,—not only
of that inheritance which was in question, and which was of the value of three
millions of
What sort of a partnership in that of yours? You take away a man's inheritance,
which had come to him from a relation, had come by will, had come in accordance with
the laws; all which property, he, who made the will, had made over to this Heraclius
to have and to use as he would, some time before he died,—of which inheritance, as
he had died some time before you became praetor, there had been no dispute, nor had
any one made any mention of it.