If Sthenius had been accused while present, if he had been detected in a manifest
crime, still, as his accuser did not appear, Sthenius ought not to have been
condemned. In truth, if a defendant could be condemned though his accuser did not
appear, I should not have come from Vibo to Velia in a little boat through the weapons of fugitive slaves, and
pirates, and through yours, at a time when all that haste of mine at the peril of my
life was to prevent your being taken out of the list of defendants if I did not
appear on the appointed day. If then in this trial of yours that was the most
desirable thing by you,—namely, for me not to appear when I was summoned, why did
you not think that it ought also to serve Sthenius that his accuser had not
appeared? He so managed the matter that the end entirely corresponded to the
beginning; the same man against whom he had received an accusation while he was
absent, he condemns now when the accuser is absent.
At the very outset news was brought to him that the matter had been agitated in
the senate, (which his father also had written him word of at great length,) that
also in the public assembly Marcus Palicanus, a tribune of the people, had made a
complaint to their of the treatment of Sthenius; lastly, that I myself had pleaded
the cause of Sthenius before this college of the tribunes of the people, as by their
edict no one was allowed to remain in Rome
who had been condemned on a capital A “capital charge” at
Rome does not necessarily mean one
affecting the life of the prisoner, but his status as a free citizen. A charge
which involved infamia, disfranchisement, was
res capitalis; though as it is impossible to
render caput when used in this sense so as to
give its accurate meaning, I have been forced occasionally to render it
“life.” charge; and that when I had explained the business as I have now
done to you, and had proved that this had no right to be considered a condemnation,
the tribunes of the people passed this resolution, and that it was unanimously
decreed by them, “That Sthenius did not appear to be prohibited by their edict from
remaining in Rome.”
When this news was brought to him, he for a while was alarmed and agitated; he
turned the blunt end of his pen To turn the pen was to erase
what had been written “At one end the stilus was sharpened to a point for
scratching the characters on the wax, while the other end, being fat and circular
served to render the surface of the tablets smooth again, and so to obliterate
what had been written. Thus vertere stilum means
to erase, and hence to correct”—Smith, Dict. Ant. in v. ... on to his
tablets, and by so doing he overturned the whole of his cause. For he left himself
nothing which could be defended by any means whatever. For if he were to urge in his
defence, “It is lawful to take a charge against an absent man, no law forbids this
being done in a province,” he would seem to be putting forth a faulty and worthless
defence, but still it would be some sort of a defence. Lastly, he might employ that
most desperate refuge, of saying, that he had acted ignorantly; that he had thought
that it was lawful. And although this is the worst defence of all, still he would
seem to have said something. He erases that from his tablets which he had put down,
and enters “that the charge was brought against Sthenius while he was present.”
Here consider in how many toils he involved himself; from which he could never
disentangle himself. In the first place, he had often and openly declared himself in
Sicily from his tribunal, and had
asserted to many people in private conversation, that it was lawful to take a charge
against an absent man; that he, for example, had done so himself—which he had. That
he was in the habit of constantly saying this, was stated at the former pleading by
Sextus Pompeius Chlorus, a man of whose virtue I have before spoken highly; and by
Cnaeus Pompeius Theodorus, a man approved of by the judgment of that most
illustrious man Cnaeus Pompeius in many most important affairs, and, by universal
consent, a most accomplished person; and by Posides Matro of Solentum, a man of the
highest rank, of the greatest reputation and virtue. And as many as you please will
tell you the same thing at this present trial, both men who have heard it from his
own mouth,—some of the leading men of our order,—and others too who were present
when the accusation was taken against Sthenius in his absence. Moreover at
Rome, when the matter was discussed in
the senate, all his friends, and among them his own father, defended him on the
ground of its being lawful so to act;—of its having been done constantly;—of his
having done what he had done according to the example and established precedent of
others.
Besides, all Sicily gives evidence of the
fact which in the common petitions of all the states has prescribed this request to
the consuls, “to beg and entreat of the conscript fathers, not to allow charges to
be received against the absent.” Concerning which matter you heard Cnaeus Lentulus,
the advocate of Sicily, and a most
admirable young man, say, that the Sicilians, when they were instructing him in
their case, and pointing out to him what matters were to be urged in their behalf
before the senate, complained much of this misfortune of Sthenius, and on account of
this injustice which had been done to Sthenius, resolved to make this demand which I
have mentioned.
And as this is the ease, were you endued with such insanity and audacity, as, in a
matter so clear, so thoroughly proved,—made so notorious even by you yourself, to
dare to corrupt the public records? But how did you corrupt them? Did you not do it
in such a way that, even if we all kept silence, still your own handwriting would be
sufficient to condemn you? Give me, it you please, the document. Take it round to
the judges; show it to them. Do you not see that the whole of this entry, where he
states that the charge was made against Sthenius in his presence, is a correction?
What was written there before? What blunder did he correct when he made that
erasure? Why, O judges, do you wait for proofs of this charge from us? We say
nothing; the books are before you, which cry out themselves that they have been
tampered with and amended.
Do you think you can possibly escape out of this business, when we are following
you up, not by any uncertain opinion, but by your own traces, which you have left
deeply printed and fresh in the public documents? Has he decided, (I should like to
know,) without hearing the cause, that Sthenius has tampered with the public
documents, who cannot possibly defend himself from the charge of having tampered
with the public documents in the case of that very Sthenius?
See now another instance of madness; see how, in trying to acquit himself; he
entangles himself still more. He assigns an advocate to Sthenius.—Whom? Any relation
or intimate friend? No.—Any citizen, any honourable and noble man of Florence? Not even that.—At least it was some
Sicilian, in whom there was some credit and dignity? Far from it.—Whom then did he
assign to him? A Roman citizen. Who can approve of this? When Sthenius was the man
of the highest rank in his city, a man of most extensive connections, with
numberless friends; when, besides, he was of the greatest influence all over
Sicily, by his own personal character and
popularity; could he find no Sicilian who was willing to be appointed his advocate?
Will you approve of this? Did he himself prefer a Roman citizen? Tell me what
Sicilian, when he was defendant in any action, ever had a Roman citizen assigned to
him as his advocate? Produce the records of all the praetors who preceded Verres;
open them. If you find one such instance, I will then admit to you that this was
done as you have entered it in your public documents.