A source-critical reading dossier · 10 September 2026

Cicero’s legal speeches: an annotated narrative and Latin–Chinese evidence dossier

Prepared 10 September 2026. Narrative and legal commentary in English; new translations of the selected Latin into Simplified Chinese. All dates are BCE unless stated otherwise.

This dossier explains the dispute, legal issue, decision-making authority, procedural posture, and historical setting of each work in the surviving forensic corpus. Its evidence chapters combine a connected account with substantial Latin passages, section-by-section Chinese translations, and annotations identifying what those passages support—and what they cannot establish.

Scope and how to use the dossier

The main corpus comprises 31 chapters and 62 passage units: 29 forensic or forensic-associated texts, plus two expressly marked institutional boundary cases, De domo sua and Pro Marcello. The six Verrine texts are counted separately because their subjects and evidentiary organization differ; they belong to one prosecution, not six independent trials. Divinatio in Caecilium concerns selection of the prosecutor. In Vatinium interrogates a witness in the Sestius proceedings. The five books of the Verrine second action are published prosecution texts that were not delivered. De domo addresses the pontiffs about the consecration of Cicero’s house; Pro Marcello addresses the senate following Caesar’s decision to spare Marcellus. Their inclusion does not make them ordinary jury defences.

“Surviving” does not mean intact. The transmitted texts of Pro Tullio, Pro Fonteio, and Pro Scauro, among others, are incomplete. Long passages can nevertheless be supplied where continuous stretches survive. Separately transmitted fragments and speeches known only from testimony require a different treatment. The supplement discusses Pro Cornelio I–II through Asconius and records other important fragmentary forensic titles. It does not invent continuous speeches from quotations or imply that this is a census of every advocacy engagement in Cicero’s lifetime.

The core excludes the deliberative and invective corpus merely concerned with law or constitutional conflict: De lege agraria, De imperio Cn. Pompei, the Catilinarians, the post-return addresses, De haruspicum responso, De provinciis consularibus, In Pisonem, and the Philippics. Their legal importance is considerable, but their inclusion as ordinary forensic speeches would obscure the distinction between courtroom advocacy and political speaking. The fragment supplement likewise distinguishes a speech’s title, reported occasion, surviving words, and later commentary.

Within each chapter, read the narrative first, then the two evidence units. References such as Q1, V23A, or MI2 point to the passages in that chapter. References to “speech §§…” identify additional sections of the same work; these can be checked in the archived full-text XML and the machine-readable section corpus. The dossier is a substantial selection of evidence, not a complete translation of every speech. A pair of passages is chosen to expose the legal argument and its evidentiary or historical stakes, rather than reproduce only the most famous rhetorical lines.

The source and translation controls

The Latin is extracted from the local Perseus canonical-latinLit TEI files, with the individual Clark or Peterson print edition recorded for each work. The exact XML files, their SHA-256 checksums, source repository URLs, edition metadata, section counts, and licence declarations are included in sources/manifest.json. The dossier also retains the 35 source XML files used to inventory the surrounding speech corpus; the main selections draw on a smaller, explicitly enumerated subset. File inventory and chapter count therefore measure different things.

The displayed text preserves the source’s section numbers and paragraph divisions. [LACUNA] marks an encoded textual gap; ⟨…⟩ marks material encoded as supplied or added; ⟦…⟧ marks deletion. The Chinese normally marks the corresponding interruption or supplement. Word spacing is normalized; editorial notes are excluded from the reading text, while the archived XML preserves its encoded apparatus. Where XML offers a choice or apparatus, the extraction rule selects the corrected/regularized/expanded form or lemma. These editorial operations are documented in extract_sources.py; the result should not be mistaken for a diplomatic transcription or a newly constituted critical edition.

The Chinese translations were prepared directly for this dossier from the selected Latin. They retain section labels, changes of speaker, quoted legal language, hypothetical statements, and the advocate’s assertions. They are working scholarly translations, not independently reviewed by a second Latin–Chinese translator. Roman names are transliterated; technical vocabulary is explained where a modern Chinese legal equivalent would be misleading. An encoded or transmitted numerical difficulty is identified rather than silently harmonized. Section boundaries may fall inside a sentence: the sentence is allowed to continue across the labels.

The Perseus XML declares Creative Commons Attribution–ShareAlike 4.0. Source attribution and that licence accompany the Latin-derived dossier and translations. No modern copyrighted translation has been reproduced. The supplementary Asconius passages derive from the public-domain Clark edition of 1907 as displayed by Attalus; they are expressly separated into Cicero’s quoted words and the ancient commentator’s account.

Greenidge’s The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (Oxford, 1901) supplies an older procedural framework, especially the commentaries on the four civil speeches at pp. 530–568. References use printed pages, not PDF-image numbers. The companion Greenidge annotated overview explains the whole volume. Greenidge is a reconstruction from evidence, not an independent ancient witness or an automatic statement of present scholarly consensus. A local copy of the 1901 volume was used; it is not duplicated in this package.

Four questions to keep separate

Legal: What conduct, status, obligation, or remedy is contested? A debt, inheritance, citizenship entitlement, violent act, election practice, or receipt of extorted money does not become the same kind of legal problem merely because Cicero discusses it before decision makers.

Juridical: What gives the decision maker authority, what rule is being interpreted, and what must follow if the asserted facts are accepted? The relevant authority may be a statute, edict, formula, treaty, religious rule, precedent, or Caesar’s personal power to pardon. Cicero often places several together. Their rhetorical association does not erase their different legal force.

Procedural: What stage has actually been reached, who may speak, and what question is presently to be decided? Choosing an accuser, granting possession, settling the wording of a formula, hearing a witness, trying a charge, and seeking restoration are different acts. Many apparent contradictions disappear when the immediate issue is distinguished from the larger dispute.

Historical: Why this accusation, these parties, and this audience at this moment? Proscriptions, provincial extraction, the Social War’s citizenship settlement, competition for office, organized violence, and civil war help explain the cases. But explanatory context does not establish the truth of a litigant’s version of an event.

Throughout the dossier, “Cicero says,” “the defence presents,” and “the prosecution alleges” identify evidence for an argumentative position. They do not certify the underlying occurrence. A speech may directly attest a legal formulation while strategically representing its application. The surviving text is usually advocacy prepared or revised for circulation; it is not a complete court file. The narrative states an outcome only where its evidentiary basis is supplied, and otherwise leaves the verdict unestablished rather than inferring victory from a persuasive text.

Corpus map

Chapter	Work / text unit	Date	Procedural classification
1	Pro Quinctio	81 BCE	Civil pleading
2	Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino	80 BCE	Criminal defence
3	Pro Roscio Comoedo	Usually dated to the later 70s BCE; exact year disputed	Civil pleading; incomplete transmission
4	Pro Tullio	Usually 72 or 71 BCE	Civil pleading; fragmentary
5	Divinatio in Caecilium	70 BCE	Preliminary selection of prosecutor
6	In Verrem, Actio prima	70 BCE	Prosecution: first hearing
7	In Verrem II.1: Verres’ earlier career	70 BCE; published second-action text	Undelivered prosecution text
8	In Verrem II.2: Sicilian jurisdiction and administration	70 BCE; published second-action text	Undelivered prosecution text
9	In Verrem II.3: Grain and taxation	70 BCE; published second-action text	Undelivered prosecution text
10	In Verrem II.4: Works of art and sacred property	70 BCE; published second-action text	Undelivered prosecution text
11	In Verrem II.5: Military claims and cruel punishments	70 BCE; published second-action text	Undelivered prosecution text
12	Pro Fonteio	Usually 69 BCE	Extortion defence; fragmentary
13	Pro Caecina	Usually 69 BCE; dating disputed	Civil pleading
14	Pro Cluentio	66 BCE	Criminal defence
15	Pro Rabirio perduellionis reo	63 BCE	Popular criminal proceeding; incomplete
16	Pro Murena	63 BCE	Electoral-corruption defence
17	Pro Sulla	62 BCE	Defence against conspiracy-related violence charge
18	Pro Archia	62 BCE	Citizenship defence
19	Pro Flacco	59 BCE	Extortion defence
20	De domo sua	57 BCE	Juridical boundary: pontifical adjudication
21	Pro Sestio	56 BCE	Public-violence defence
22	In Vatinium testem	56 BCE	Witness interrogation in Sestius’ trial
23	Pro Caelio	56 BCE	Public-violence defence
24	Pro Balbo	56 BCE	Citizenship defence
25	Pro Plancio	54 BCE	Electoral-association prosecution
26	Pro Scauro	54 BCE	Extortion defence; fragmentary
27	Pro Rabirio Postumo	54 BCE	Recovery of extorted money from a recipient
28	Pro Milone	52 BCE; surviving text revised for publication	Special criminal commission
29	Pro Marcello	46 BCE	Boundary comparator: senatorial thanksgiving for clemency
30	Pro Ligario	46 BCE	Defence and appeal for Caesarian clemency
31	Pro rege Deiotaro	45 BCE	Royal defence before Caesar

Reading the cases together

The four civil speeches reveal how profoundly procedure shapes substantive results. Pro Quinctio turns on possession under an edict and the consequences of alleged default. Pro Roscio Comoedo distinguishes a fixed monetary claim from a broader accounting or arbitral relationship. Pro Tullio makes the scope of a remedy for organized violence central. Pro Caecina asks whether an interdict’s purpose can be defeated by a narrow account of what counts as expulsion. The common problem is not a simple opposition between “technicality” and “justice.” It is how the legally authorized question channels what the judge can decide.

The Verrine corpus then carries adjudication into an empire of unequal relationships and plural jurisdictions. Governors, local institutions, tax contractors, allies, and Roman citizens meet within a prosecution for provincial misconduct. Statues, grain, money, appointments, archives, and punishments become evidence of an alleged pattern of abuse. Cicero’s selection and arrangement of episodes are themselves forensic acts: a compelling account of systemic wrongdoing remains the accuser’s case, requiring scrutiny of each witness and transaction.

Citizenship and membership emerge differently in Pro Archia and Pro Balbo. Archias’ defence connects conditions in a statute with damaged archives, personal testimony, and registration. Balbus’ defence concerns the scope of a commander’s grant and the relationship between Roman legislation and a treaty community. Their juxtaposition prevents “Roman citizenship” from becoming an undifferentiated status bestowed by prestige alone.

In the criminal defences, character and political history repeatedly supplement arguments about acts and evidence. Pro Cluentio disputes both an inherited narrative of corruption and the statutory reach of a prohibition. Pro Murena and Pro Plancio distinguish punishable electoral organization from practices represented as ordinary political sociability. Pro Caelio attacks the credibility and motives of the sources behind two material allegations. Pro Flacco and Pro Scauro expose how aggressively an advocate can discredit provincial witnesses through collective prejudice. The dossier translates those attacks as evidence of advocacy, not as judgments it endorses about the groups concerned.

The later corpus shows several responses to crisis rather than one linear replacement of law by force. Pro Sestio and Pro Milone argue about violence within legal proceedings shaped by political emergency. Pro Rabirio perduellionis reo revives an older constitutional form and contests its implications. De domo makes religious jurisdiction relevant to restoration of property after exile. The Caesarian speeches finally place legal argument beside a victor’s discretion: the relief sought in Pro Ligario and Pro rege Deiotaro cannot be understood by assuming the institutional independence of an ordinary republican jury. Pro Marcello makes that dependence explicit in a senatorial language of gratitude, counsel, and political obligation.

Pro Quinctio — when a debt dispute threatens civil standing

Chapter 1 · 81 BCE · Civil pleading

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon Press 1909. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

In 81 BCE Cicero defended Publius Quinctius in a dispute arising from the business partnership between Quinctius’ deceased brother Gaius and Sextus Naevius. The underlying relationship involved property and business in Gaul, obligations at Rome, and a family connection between the litigants. That background matters because a disagreement about accounts had become a contest over whether an absent man’s property could be seized and advertised. Cicero’s narrative makes Naevius’ social influence and Hortensius’ advocacy part of the danger. These are a party’s explanations of the inequality of the contest, not independent proof that every procedural decision was corrupt. The opening identifies the judge, Gaius Aquilius, and the advisers sitting with him; it also complains that Cicero must speak first despite performing the practical work of a defence. [Speech §§1–11, 14–30; Greenidge, pp. 531–541.]

Legally, the distinction between an alleged debt and the procedural consequences of default is decisive. The present proceeding is not simply an action for a final partnership account. As Cicero reports it, Naevius obtained permission from the praetor Burrienus to take possession under the edict. Quinctius’ representative Alfenus opposed the advertisements, protected his property, and offered to conduct litigation. Subsequently Dolabella required a sponsio, a formal wager whose issue was whether Quinctius’ property had been possessed for thirty days in accordance with Burrienus’ edict. That issue affected the demand for security that a judgment would be satisfied and threatened Quinctius’ reputation and economic position. A reader who treats “defendant” as an unchanging label misses why the defender of Quinctius’ interests complains about having to open the argument. [Q1; §§8–9.]

Juridically, the case asks what turns an apparently authorized possession into possession in accordance with the edict. Permission to proceed conditionally is not an adjudication that the conditions have actually been fulfilled. Cicero therefore reads the edict’s categories against the facts he asserts: Quinctius was not hiding to defraud creditors, and absence accompanied by an active representative was not abandonment of his legal defence. Alfenus’ concrete acts—answering a claim, promising an appearance, following a summons, and accepting litigation—supply Cicero’s positive account of what defending an absent person means. This is an argument about the operation of the edict, not a claim that mere appointment of any nominal agent must defeat every creditor’s remedy. [Q2.]

Procedurally, the narrative crosses several forums: the Roman praetor, tribunician intervention over security, and the provincial commander approached after forcible expulsion from the Gallic property. Those episodes do not constitute a modern ladder of appeals from one final judgment. They concern different acts and different powers. Historically, the speech shows how long-distance business, private enforcement, patronage, and a magistrate’s procedural choices could interact. It also illustrates why the threatened consequences of litigation could exceed the amount nominally disputed. Greenidge’s reconstruction helps connect those stages, but it does not supply a surviving judgment. Outcome control: this dossier does not convert the effectiveness of Cicero’s argument into a documented verdict. [Q1–Q2; Greenidge, pp. 531–541.]

Q1. Representation, seizure, security, and the preliminary wager

Source locator: Pro Quinctio, §§27-30. Stable passage ID: Q1.

Evidence claim C-Q1: Cicero identifies the immediate procedural dispute as a wager over whether Quinctius’ property had been possessed for thirty days in accordance with the praetor’s edict.

Latin

[27] libellos Sex. Alfenus, procurator P. Quincti, familiaris et propinquus Sex. Naevi, deicit, servolum unum quem iste prenderat abducit, denuntiat sese procuratorem esse, istum aequum esse famae fortunisque P. Quincti consulere et adventum eius exspectare; quod si facere nolit atque imbiberit eius modi rationibus illum ad suas condiciones perducere, sese nihil precari et, si quid agere velit, iudicio defendere.

[28] haec dum Romae geruntur, Quinctius interea contra ius, consuetudinem, edicta praetorum de saltu agroque communi a servis communibus vi detruditur.

existima, C. Aquili, modo et ratione omnia Romae Naevium fecisse, si hoc quod per litteras istius in Gallia gestum est recte atque ordine factum videtur. expulsus atque eiectus e praedio Quinctius accepta insigni iniuria confugit ad C. Flaccum imperatorem, qui tunc erat in provincia, quem, ut ipsius dignitas poscit, honoris gratia nomino. is eam rem quam vehementer vindicandam putarit ex decretis eius poteritis cognoscere.

[29] Alfenus interea Romae cum isto gladiatore vetulo cotidie pugnabat; utebatur populo sane suo, propterea quod iste caput petere non desinebat. iste postulabat ut procurator iudicatum solvi satis daret; negat Alfenus aequum esse procuratorem satis dare, quod reus satis dare non deberet, si ipse adesset. appellantur tribuni; a quibus cum esset certum auxilium petitum, ita tum disceditur ut Idibus Septembribus P. Quinctium sisti sex. Alfenus promitteret.

[30] venit Romam Quinctius, vadimonium sistit. iste, homo acerrimus, bonorum possessor, expulsor, ereptor, annum et sex mensis nihil petit, quiescit, condicionibus hunc quoad potest producit, a Cn. Dolabella denique praetore postulat ut sibi Quinctius iudicatum solvi satis det ex formula: quod ab eo petat quoivs ex edicto praetoris bona dies xxx possessa sint. non recusabat Quinctius quin ita satis dare iuberetur, si bona possessa essent ex edicto. decernit— quam aequum, nihil dico, unum hoc dico, novum; et hoc ipsum tacuisse mallem, quoniam utrumque quivis intellegere potuit—sed iubet P. Quinctium sponsionem cum Sex. Naevio facere: si bona sua ex edicto P. Burrieni praetoris dies xxx possessa non essent. recusabant qui aderant tum Quinctio, demonstrabant de re iudicium fieri oportere ut aut uterque inter se aut neuter satis daret; non necesse esse famam alterius in iudicium venire.

中文译文

[27] 普布利乌斯·昆克提乌斯的代理人塞克斯图斯·阿尔费努斯，同时也是塞克斯图斯·奈维乌斯的熟人和亲属，把告示揭下，带走了奈维乌斯扣住的一名小奴隶，并正式通知他说：自己是昆克提乌斯的代理人；奈维乌斯理当顾及昆克提乌斯的名誉与财产，等他回来。如果奈维乌斯不肯这样做，而一心想用这种手段迫使他接受自己的条件，那么自己也不再求情；无论奈维乌斯想提起什么诉讼，自己都会在审判中替昆克提乌斯应诉。

[28] 罗马发生这些事情的时候，昆克提乌斯却在另一边，被双方共有的奴隶以暴力赶出了双方共有的牧场和土地，违反了法律、惯例和裁判官的告示。阿奎利乌斯啊，倘若你认为奈维乌斯写信指使人在高卢所做的这件事正当而合乎程序，那就也认定他在罗马的一切作为都有分寸、有道理吧！昆克提乌斯遭到驱逐，被赶出庄园，蒙受了严重的不法侵害，便向当时在行省任职的统帅盖乌斯·弗拉库斯求助；我在此怀着敬意提到他，正与他的尊位相称。他认为这件事应受到多么严厉的纠正，你们可以从他的命令中了解。

[29] 与此同时，阿尔费努斯在罗马每天同那个老角斗士交锋；他着实需要支持他的人，因为对方始终在谋害昆克提乌斯的公民身份与名誉。对方要求代理人提供保证，确保将来判决得到履行。阿尔费努斯说，倘若当事人亲自在场，本来就不必提供这种保证，那么要求他的代理人提供便不公平。他们于是向保民官申诉；向保民官请求切实的保护之后，双方最后这样离去：阿尔费努斯承诺，普布利乌斯·昆克提乌斯将在九月十五日到场。

[30] 昆克提乌斯回到罗马，依约到场。那位精明无比的财产占有人、驱逐者和掠夺者，却有一年半没有提出任何请求，按兵不动，尽可能用商谈条件拖延昆克提乌斯。最后，他向裁判官格奈乌斯·多拉贝拉要求：依照有关规定，既然他向某人请求给付，而此人的财产已依据裁判官告示被占有三十日，就应命昆克提乌斯提供保证，确保判决履行。昆克提乌斯并不拒绝：如果财产确实依告示被占有，他就愿意接受这样的命令。裁判官于是作出决定（我不说它是否公平，只说一件事：它是前所未有的；其实连这一点我也宁愿不说，因为两点任何人都看得明白）命普布利乌斯·昆克提乌斯与塞克斯图斯·奈维乌斯订立诉讼赌约，争点是：“如果他的财产并未依据裁判官普布利乌斯·布里恩努斯的告示被占有三十日。”当时在场帮助昆克提乌斯的人提出反对，指出应当先就实体争议进行审判，使双方相互提供保证，或者双方都不提供；没有必要把一方的名誉先交付审判。

Annotation. The reported wager and security requirement are evidence for the immediate procedural issue. The passage does not prove that the underlying debt was nonexistent. “Civil standing” translates the practical force of caput here without suggesting that the proceeding sought execution of the person.

Q2. The edict and the defence of an absent party

Source locator: Pro Quinctio, §§60-62. Stable passage ID: Q2.

Evidence claim C-Q2: Cicero argues that Alfenus’ active conduct of Quinctius’ defence defeats the contention that the absent party was left undefended.

Latin

[60] docui quod primum pollicitus sum, C. Aquili, causam omnino cur postularet non fuisse, quod neque pecunia debebatur et, si maxime deberetur, commissum nihil esset qua re ad istam rationem perveniretur. attende nunc ex edicto praetoris bona P. Quincti possideri nullo modo potuisse. recita edictum. qui fraudationis causa latitarit. non est is Quinctius; nisi si latitant qui ad negotium suum relicto procuratore proficiscuntur. cui heres non exstabit. ne is quidem. qui exsili causa solum verterit. [LACUNA] quo tempore existimas oportuisse, Naevi, absentem Quinctium defendi aut quo modo? tum cum postulabas ut bona possideres? nemo adfuit; neque enim quisquam divinare poterat te postulaturum, neque quemquam attinebat id recusare quod praetor non fieri, sed ex edicto suo fieri iubebat.

[61] qui locus igitur absentis defendendi procuratori primus datus est? Cum proscribebas. ergo adfuit, non passus est, libellos deiecit Sex. Alfenus; qui primus erat offici gradus, servatus est a procuratore summa cum diligentia.

videamus quae deinde sint consecuta. hominem P. Quincti deprehendis in publico, conaris abducere; non patitur Alfenus, vi tibi adimit, curat ut domum reducatur ad Quinctium. hic quoque summe constat procuratoris diligentis officium. debere tibi dicis Quinctium, procurator negat; vadari vis, promittit; in ius vocas, sequitur; iudicium postulas, non recusat. quid aliud sit absentem defendi ego non intellego. at quis erat procurator?

[62] credo aliquem electum hominem egentem, litigiosum, improbum, qui posset scurrae divitis cotidianum convicium sustinere. nihil minus; eques Romanus locuples, sui negoti bene gerens, denique is quem, quotiens Naevius in Galliam profectus est, procuratorem Romae reliquit.

et audes, Sex. Naevi, negare absentem defensum esse Quinctium, cum eum defenderit idem qui te solebat? et, cum is iudicium acceperit pro Quinctio cui tu et rem et famam tuam commendare proficiscens et concredere solebas, conaris hoc dicere, neminem exstitisse qui Quinctium iudicio defenderet?

中文译文

[60] 阿奎利乌斯，我已经证明了最初答应证明的那一点：奈维乌斯根本没有理由提出这项请求，因为没有欠款；即便确实有欠款，也没有发生足以使他诉诸这种办法的事。现在请注意，普布利乌斯·昆克提乌斯的财产无论如何都不可能依照裁判官告示被占有。请宣读告示：“为欺诈而藏匿的人。”昆克提乌斯不是这种人；除非那些留下代理人、出门办理自己事务的人，也算藏匿。“没有继承人承继的人。”他也不是。“为流亡而迁离本土的人。”〔原文缺文〕奈维乌斯，你认为应该在什么时候、以什么方式替缺席的昆克提乌斯应诉？是在你请求占有财产的时候吗？当时没有人在场；因为没有人能够预知你会提出请求，而对裁判官并非命人无条件采取、只是命人依其告示采取的措施，也没有人有必要提出抗拒。

[61] 那么，代理人第一次有机会为缺席者进行辩护，是在什么时候？是在你张贴告示的时候。阿尔费努斯当时就在场；他不容此事进行，把告示揭下。代理人履行职责的第一步，已尽其最大的勤勉完成。再来看随后发生的事。你在公共场所抓住昆克提乌斯的一名奴隶，企图把他带走；阿尔费努斯不许你这样做，以强力从你手中夺回，安排把他送回昆克提乌斯家。在这件事上，勤勉代理人的职责也完全履行了。你说昆克提乌斯欠你的钱，代理人否认；你要他作出到场承诺，他便承诺；你传他到裁判官面前，他便跟随；你请求设立审判，他不拒绝。为缺席者应诉，除此之外还是什么意思，我实在不明白。那么，这个代理人究竟是什么人？

[62] 莫非特意挑了一个贫穷、好讼、不正派的人，好让他能够忍受那个富有丑角每天的辱骂？完全不是。他是一位富有的罗马骑士，善于料理自己的事务；总之，他正是奈维乌斯每次前往高卢时留在罗马的代理人。塞克斯图斯·奈维乌斯，你竟敢说，没有人替缺席的昆克提乌斯应诉，而替他应诉的正是过去经常替你应诉的那个人？当这个人在诉讼中承担了昆克提乌斯的辩护，而你自己出门时也惯于把财产和名誉托付给他，你还企图说，从来没有人出面在审判中保卫昆克提乌斯吗？

Annotation. The lacuna in §60 is inherited from the source, not an omission made to shorten the dossier. Cicero’s contrast between a conditional praetorian permission and satisfaction of its conditions supports the narrative’s central legal distinction.

Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino — parricide after the proscriptions

Chapter 2 · 80 BCE · Criminal defence

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon 1908. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The younger Sextus Roscius faced an accusation that he had caused his father’s murder. Cicero’s defence, conventionally dated to 80 BCE, belongs to the violent aftermath of Sulla’s victory. Its historical setting is not incidental atmosphere: the elder Roscius’ death, the disposal of his estate, and the activities of Chrysogonus and the two other Roscii supply Cicero’s explanation for why the surviving son has been placed on trial. Nevertheless, the speech is not itself an action to recover the estate. Cicero explicitly subordinates the property question to saving his client from the criminal allegation. That separation between the motive-story and the immediate legal issue must remain visible. [RA1–RA2; speech §§6–8, 15–23.]

The prosecution concerned parricide within the Republican machinery for trying homicide. It should not be assigned anachronistically to Pompey’s later parricide legislation. Cicero does not deny the elder Roscius’ killing; he contests attribution of responsibility to the son. Against Erucius he demands a persuasive account of motive, character, opportunity, and means. His claim that so exceptional a crime requires exceptionally strong explanation is an argumentative standard, not a verbatim statement of a modern statutory burden of proof. In RA1 the defendant’s age, lack of debts, and rural occupation answer a stereotype of the violent, dissipated young man. Rural life is made evidence of moral innocence. Its persuasive force depends on values shared with the jury; it is not an empirical rule that farmers cannot commit murder. [RA1.]

Juridically, Cicero uses a second distinction: a regime’s authority to proscribe and sell property does not establish the legality of every particular sale attributed to it. He asks whether the elder Roscius falls within the categories allegedly specified by the statute and whether the transaction occurred within its authorized period. His professed uncertainty whether the relevant law is “Valerian or Cornelian” must not be silently replaced with a confidence the passage does not possess. He also offers alternative allegations: perhaps the sale was never entered in the public records, or perhaps those records were falsified. Alternatives are not cumulative established findings. [RA2.]

Procedurally, the defence attempts to redirect suspicion toward people said to have benefited from the killing and confiscation while insisting that its own immediate task is narrower. Historically, its praise of Sulla and denunciation of Chrysogonus demonstrate a strategy of separating the ruler from abuses committed through the ruler’s system. That strategy cannot prove Sulla’s ignorance. Nor does the attack on the prosecution identify the real murderer beyond dispute. The speech is exceptionally valuable for the language of property seizure, patronage, and intimidation after civil war precisely because it is a dangerous partisan intervention. The surviving pleading contains no judgment; later traditions about its success must be distinguished from the evidence printed here. [RA2; §§21–23, 123–128.]

RA1. Parricide and an argument from character

Source locator: Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino, §§37-40. Stable passage ID: RA1.

Evidence claim C-RA1: Cicero contests the accusation of parricide by challenging the prosecution’s account of Roscius’ character and supposed motives.

Latin

[37] occidisse patrem Sex. Roscius arguitur. scelestum, di immortales! ac nefarium facinus atque eius modi quo uno maleficio scelera omnia complexa esse videantur! etenim si, id quod praeclare a sapientibus dicitur, voltu saepe laeditur pietas, quod supplicium satis acre reperietur in eum qui mortem obtulerit parenti? pro quo mori ipsum, si res postularet, iura divina atque humana cogebant.

[38] in hoc tanto, tam atroci, tam singulari maleficio, quod ita raro exstitit ut, si quando auditum sit, portenti ac prodigi simile numeretur, quibus tandem tu, Gaii Eruci, argumentis accusatorem censes uti oportere? nonne et audaciam eius qui in crimen vocetur singularem ostendere et mores feros immanemque naturam et vitam vitiis flagitiisque omnibus deditam, denique omnia ad perniciem profligata atque perdita? quorum tu nihil in Sex. Roscium ne obiciendi quidem causa contulisti.

[39] patrem occidit Sex. Roscius. qui homo? adulescentulus corruptus et ab hominibus nequam inductus? annos natus maior quadraginta. vetus videlicet sicarius, homo audax et saepe in caede versatus. at hoc ab accusatore ne dici quidem audistis. luxuries igitur hominem nimirum et aeris alieni magnitudo et indomitae animi cupiditates ad hoc scelus impulerunt. de luxuria purgavit Erucius, cum dixit hunc ne in convivio quidem ullo fere interfuisse. nihil autem umquam debuit. cupiditates porro quae possunt esse in eo qui, ut ipse accusator obiecit, ruri semper habitarit et in agro colendo vixerit? quae vita maxime disiuncta a cupiditate et cum officio coniuncta est.

[40] quae res igitur tantum istum furorem sex. Roscio obiecit? patri inquit non placebat. patri non placebat? quam ob causam? necesse est enim eam quoque iustam et magnam et perspicuam fuisse. nam ut illud incredibile est, mortem oblatam esse patri a filio sine plurimis et maximis causis, sic hoc veri simile non est, odio fuisse parenti filium sine causis multis et magnis et necessariis.

中文译文

[37] 塞克斯图斯·罗斯基乌斯被控杀死了自己的父亲。永生的诸神啊，这是多么罪恶、多么违背天理的行为！仿佛所有罪行都被包在这一桩恶行之内。贤哲说得好，一个人的神情往往就能伤害孝敬之道；那么，对于给父亲带来死亡的人，还能找到什么足够严厉的刑罚？倘若情势需要，神的法和人的法原本都会要求他自己为父亲而死。

[38] 面对这样重大、这样残酷、这样罕见的罪行（它如此少见，以至于一旦听说，人们便把它列为近乎怪异征兆的事件）盖乌斯·埃鲁基乌斯，你认为控告者究竟应当使用怎样的论据？难道不应证明被告具有异乎寻常的凶悍、野蛮的品性、残忍的天性，生活沉溺于一切恶习和丑行，总之，整个人已完全堕落到毁灭的地步吗？可是，这些东西你没有一件加在塞克斯图斯·罗斯基乌斯身上，甚至连为了控告而随口说说也没有。

[39] “塞克斯图斯·罗斯基乌斯杀死了父亲。”他是怎样的人？一个腐化、受坏人引诱的年轻人吗？他已经四十多岁了。那么，想必是个老练的杀手，是个凶悍、经常参与杀戮的人吧？但你们连控告者这样说也没听过。那么，当然是奢侈、巨额债务和无法约束的欲望，驱使他犯下这桩罪行。关于奢侈，埃鲁基乌斯自己已经替他洗清了，因为他说此人几乎从未参加过任何宴饮。他也从来没有负债。至于欲望，一个如控告者本人所指责的、一直住在乡间、以耕作为生的人，能有什么样的欲望？这种生活最远离贪欲，也最符合本分。

[40] 那么，究竟什么事情使塞克斯图斯·罗斯基乌斯陷入这样疯狂的念头？控告者说：“他不讨父亲喜欢。”不讨父亲喜欢？因为什么缘故？这个缘故也必须是正当、重大而明显的。正如一个儿子如果没有众多而重大的原因，竟使父亲死去，是难以置信的；同样，父亲若没有许多重大而迫切的原因，便憎恶自己的儿子，也不合情理。

Annotation. The passage preserves accusations, imagined answers, and Cicero’s rebuttals. The rural-life argument is part of the advocate’s construction of probability; the translation does not endorse it as a social fact.

RA2. The purported legal basis of the sale

Source locator: Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino, §§125-128. Stable passage ID: RA2.

Evidence claim C-RA2: Cicero challenges the legality of the sale of the elder Roscius’ property while distinguishing the property dispute from the immediate defence against parricide.

Latin

[125] primum hoc videamus: eius hominis bona qua ratione venierunt aut quo modo venire potuerunt? atque hoc non ita quaeram, iudices, ut id dicam esse indignum, hominis innocentis bona venisse — si enim haec audientur ac libere dicentur, non fuit tantus homo Sex. Roscius in civitate ut de eo potissimum conqueramur — verum ego hoc quaero: qui potuerunt ista ipsa lege quae de proscriptione est, sive Valeria est sive Cornelia — non enim novi nec scio — verum ista ipsa lege bona Sex. Rosci venire qui potuerunt?

[126] scriptum enim ita dicunt esse: VT AVT EORVM BONA VENEANT QVI PROSCRIPTI SVNT; quo in numero Sex. Roscius non est: AVT EORVM QVI IN ADVERSARIORVM PRAESIDIIS OCCISI SVNT. Dum praesidia ulla fuerunt, in Sullae praesidiis fuit; postea quam ab armis omnes recesserunt, in summo otio rediens a cena Romae occisus est. si lege, bona quoque lege venisse fateor. sin autem constat contra omnis non modo veteres leges verum etiam novas occisum esse, bona quo iure aut quo modo aut qua lege venierint quaero.

[127] in quem hoc dicam quaeris, Eruci? non in eum quem vis et putas; nam Sullam et oratio mea ab initio et ipsius eximia virtus omni tempore purgavit. ego haec omnia Chrysogonum fecisse dico, ut ementiretur, ut malum civem Sex. Roscium fuisse fingeret, ut eum apud adversarios occisum esse diceret, ut his de rebus a legatis Amerinorum doceri Lucium Sullam passus non sit. denique etiam illud suspicor, omnino haec bona non venisse; id quod postea, si per vos, iudices, licitum erit, aperietur.

[128] opinor enim esse in lege quam ad diem proscriptiones venditionesque fiant, nimirum Kalendas Iunias. aliquot post mensis et homo occisus est et bona venisse dicuntur. profecto aut haec bona in tabulas publicas nulla redierunt nosque ab isto nebulone facetius eludimur quam putamus, aut, si redierunt, tabulae publicae corruptae aliqua ratione sunt; nam lege quidem bona venire non potuisse constat. intellego me ante tempus, iudices, haec serutari et prope modum errare qui, cum capiti Sex. Rosci mederi debeam, reduviam curem. non enim laborat de pecunia, non ullius rationem sui commodi ducit; facile egestatem suam Sc laturum putat, si hac indigna suspicione et ficto crimine liberatus sit.

中文译文

[125] 首先让我们看看：这个人的财产究竟依据什么办法出售，又怎么可能出售？审判员们，我提出这个问题，并不是要说出售一个无辜者的财产令人不平：倘若这些事情可以被听取、可以自由议论，塞克斯图斯·罗斯基乌斯在国家中也还不是一个尊贵到我们非得特别替他抱不平的人。我所问的是：按照那项有关公敌名单的法律，不论它是瓦莱里乌斯法还是科尔奈利乌斯法（因为我没有研究过，也不知道）正是按照那项法律，罗斯基乌斯的财产究竟怎么可能出售？

[126] 据说法律是这样写的：“列入公敌名单者的财产可以出售”；但塞克斯图斯·罗斯基乌斯并不在其中。“或者，在敌方据点中被杀者的财产可以出售。”只要双方据点还存在，他就在苏拉一方的据点中；在所有人都放下武器之后，他却在完全和平的环境中，在罗马赴宴归途中被杀。如果他的被杀符合法律，我也承认他的财产依法出售；但如果确定他的被杀违反了一切法律，不仅违反旧法，而且违反新法，那么我就要问：他的财产是依据什么权利、用什么办法、根据哪项法律出售的？

[127] 埃鲁基乌斯，你问我这些话是冲着谁说的吗？不是冲着你希望、也以为的那个人。因为我的演说从一开始，以及苏拉本人始终表现出的卓越德行，都已使他免受责难。我说，这一切是克律索戈努斯做的：他捏造事实，虚构罗斯基乌斯是个坏公民，说他死在敌方阵地中，不让阿梅里亚的使者把这些事告诉卢基乌斯·苏拉。最后，我甚至怀疑，这份财产根本没有出售；审判员们，如果你们允许，今后这一点也会揭露出来。

[128] 因为我想，法律中规定了公敌名单登记和财产出售截止的日期，也就是六月一日。然而，这个人被杀以及据说他的财产被出售，都发生在几个月之后。因此，或者这些财产根本没有进入公共账册，而我们受这个无赖戏弄的程度比自己以为的还要厉害；或者，如果确实入了账，公共账册就以某种方式被篡改了。因为财产不可能依照法律出售，这一点是确定的。审判员们，我明白自己过早地追究这些事情，几乎是在犯错：我本该医治危及塞克斯图斯·罗斯基乌斯性命的大病，却在处理一块倒刺。他并不为钱财烦恼，也不计较自己的利益；只要能摆脱这不应有的嫌疑和虚构的罪名，他认为贫穷是容易忍受的。

Annotation. The supplied digital Latin has the anomalous token “Sc” in the last sentence of §128. The translation follows the intelligible sentence around it and treats “Sc” as unresolved transcription noise, not as a Latin word. The alternatives about public records remain alternatives. Cicero’s shielding of Sulla is a forensic position.

Pro Roscio Comoedo — the legal form of a disputed account

Chapter 3 · Usually dated to the later 70s BCE; exact year disputed · Civil pleading; incomplete transmission

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon Press 1909. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

This incomplete speech defends the actor Quintus Roscius in a monetary dispute with Gaius Fannius Chaerea. Its date is disputed; Greenidge’s proposed chronology should not be treated as an independently certain year. The commercial background concerns their interests in Panurgus, an enslaved performer whose training by Roscius made him much more valuable in Cicero’s assessment, and a settlement following Panurgus’ killing. These circumstances connect the language of partnership to a market in enslaved skill. Cicero’s division of value between Fannius’ contribution of the body and Roscius’ contribution of training is an advocate’s valuation argument, not a neutral recognition of Panurgus’ own rights. [Speech §§27–32; Greenidge, pp. 542–551.]

The immediate claim is for a determinate sum. Cicero organizes his technical response around the possible bases on which such a sum could be owed: actual payment or advance, an entry creating the relevant obligation in an account, or a formal verbal undertaking. RC1 attacks the documentary basis. The opponent’s informal assertion that money is owed is distinguished from production of the books in which a transaction of that size should appear. Cicero ostentatiously offers to accept even Fannius’ own books. This is a forensic challenge intended to make their nonproduction decisive; it is not a rule that a claimant’s unilateral entries always prove the claim. [RC1; RC2 §§13–14.]

RC2 then contrasts an exact claim before a iudex with a more flexible determination by an arbiter. In Cicero’s presentation, a plaintiff demanding too much in the fixed proceeding risks losing the whole claim, whereas the arbitral wording asks what is fair and better to give. The same Piso’s involvement in the earlier arbitration and present adjudication sharpens the argument: why move from an acknowledged open assessment to a tightly framed demand? Yet “judge versus arbitrator” should not be generalized into a comprehensive taxonomy of all Roman courts. Cicero is exploiting the wording and procedural history of this particular dispute. [RC2.]

The narrative therefore has to hold apart partnership dealings, damages or settlement after the slave’s death, private accounting, arbitration, and the action presently being heard. An equitable account of who contributed most does not by itself establish the precise sum due under the present formula. Conversely, failure to prove that sum does not necessarily settle every equitable question between the partners. The surviving text also exposes an editorial difficulty: it mentions 100,000 sesterces in §4 but 50,000 in the formula discussion. This dossier translates the transmitted figures instead of harmonizing them without argument. Its incomplete beginning and ending limit reconstruction; the speech does not supply a securely recoverable verdict. [RC1–RC2; Greenidge, pp. 542–551.]

RC1. The account-books

Source locator: Pro Roscio Comoedo, §§1-4. Stable passage ID: RC1.

Evidence claim C-RC1: Cicero subjects the claimant’s private account records and the absence of corresponding formal entries to an evidentiary challenge.

Latin

[1] [LACUNA] 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. erit in illius tabulis hoc nomen, at ⟨in⟩ huius non erit.

[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. 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.

[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?

[4] non conficit tabulas? immo diligentissime. non refert parva nomina in codices? immo omnis summas. leve et tenue hoc nomen est? HS ccciↄↄↄ sunt. quo modo tibi tanta pecunia extraordinaria iacet? quo modo HS ccciↄↄↄ 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!

中文译文

[1] 〔原文缺文〕……人们会相信那是天性中的恶意。这个当然是极其正派、诚信非凡的人，却企图在自己的诉讼中，让自己的账簿替自己作证。那些借助一个诚实人的账簿把款项记为支出的人，通常会说：“难道我能收买这样的人，让他为了我在总账中作假？”我等着看凯瑞阿什么时候也来用这套话：“难道我能驱使这只满是欺诈的手和我自己的这些手指，记下一笔虚假的债权吗？”可是，如果他拿出自己的账簿，罗斯基乌斯也会拿出自己的。他的账簿中会有这笔债，而罗斯基乌斯的账簿中却没有。

[2] 为什么宁可相信他的，而不相信罗斯基乌斯的？“倘若不是得到罗斯基乌斯的指示而记作支出，他怎么会写下来？”那么，罗斯基乌斯既然指示人把这笔款记作自己的负担，怎么会不写下来？因为，把并不存在的债写下来是可耻的；同样，自己负债而不记账，也是不正派的。没有记载实情的账簿，与记载虚假事项的账簿，同样应受责难。不过，我相信本案的证据充分有力；请看，我愿意让到何种地步：如果盖乌斯·范尼乌斯拿出自己的收支账册，即便那是为他自己的事情、凭他自己的意思写的，我也不反对你们据此判他胜诉。

[3] 哪个兄弟会给兄弟这样的权利，哪个父亲会给儿子这样的权利，把对方记录的一切都认作有效？罗斯基乌斯就会认。拿出来吧！你所相信的，他也会相信；你所认可的，他也会认可。刚才我们还在索取马尔库斯·佩尔佩尔纳和普布利乌斯·萨图里乌斯的账簿；现在，盖乌斯·范尼乌斯·凯瑞阿，我们只要求你一个人的账簿，也不反对按它们判定争议。你为什么不拿出来？

[4] 他不做账吗？不，他做得极为仔细。他不把小额债权记入总账吗？不，一切数额他都记。这是一笔小得微不足道的债吗？这是十万塞斯特尔提乌斯！这么大一笔钱，怎么会躺在正规账目之外？十万塞斯特尔提乌斯怎么会不在收支总账里？永生的诸神啊！竟然有人胆大到这种地步：自己不敢把一笔债记入账册，却敢在诉讼中索要；自己没有宣誓时不愿写进总账，却毫不迟疑地在诉讼中为它宣誓；连自己都无法证实的事情，竟想使别人相信！

Annotation. The opening is genuinely defective. The argument concerns the evidential and obligational force of accounts; it should not be paraphrased as a modern requirement that every enforceable debt be written down.

RC2. A fixed claim and an equitable assessment

Source locator: Pro Roscio Comoedo, §§10-14. Stable passage ID: RC2.

Evidence claim C-RC2: Cicero distinguishes the determinate claim in the present judgment from the wider discretion allowed in an arbitration.

Latin

[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. ei rei ipsa verba formulae testimonio sunt.

[11] quid est in iudicio? derectum, asperum, simplex: si paret HS iↄↄↄ dari—. hic nisi planum facit HS iↄↄↄ ad libellam sibi deberi, causam perdit. quid est in arbitrio? 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.

[12] quae cum ita sint, quaero abs te quid ita de hac pecunia, de his ipsis HS iↄↄↄ, 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! Romae est. Vtinam adesset in iudicio! adest. Vtinam sederet in consilio C. Pisonis! ipse C. Piso est. eundemne tu arbitrum et iudicem sumebas? 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. de quo nomine ad arbitrum adisti, de eo ad iudicem venisti! ceteri cum ad iudicem causam labefactari animadvertunt,

[13] 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.

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?

[14] quis spopondisse me dicit? nemo. 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. datam non esse Fannius confitetur, expensam latam non esse codices Fanni confirmant, stipulatam non esse taciturnitas testium concedit. quid ergo est?

中文译文

[10] 你说，有一笔确定数额的钱欠着你，而现在正通过审判员索取；就这笔钱，双方还订立了以法定比例金额为内容的诉讼赌约。在这里，如果你比实际应得的多请求一个塞斯特尔提乌斯，你就败诉了，因为审判与仲裁不是一回事。审判针对确定的钱额，仲裁针对未确定的钱额。我们走进这种审判，是准备要么取得全部请求，要么全部丧失；我们参加仲裁，则预期既不至于一无所获，也不会取得所请求的全部。程式本身的措辞就可以为此作证。

[11] 审判中是什么措辞？直接、严厉而单纯：“如果查明应当给付五万塞斯特尔提乌斯……”在这里，除非他证明欠他的确实是五万，分毫不差，他就败诉。仲裁中是什么措辞？温和而有节制：“应给付较为公平、较为妥善的数额。”那个人实际上承认，自己所请求的超过了应得的钱，但又说，只要得到仲裁人判给的，自己便充分满足，甚至绰绰有余。所以，前一种人相信自己的请求，后一种人则对自己的请求没有把握。

[12] 既然如此，我问你：为什么就这笔钱、正是这五万塞斯特尔提乌斯，就你账簿的可信性，订立仲裁协议，选择仲裁人，要求他在“若查明属实”的条件下，决定“较为公平、较为妥善的给付和相应承诺”？这件事的仲裁人是谁？但愿他现在在罗马！他就在罗马。但愿他在这次审判现场！他就在现场。但愿他坐在盖乌斯·皮索的顾问席上！他就是盖乌斯·皮索本人。你竟选同一个人既作仲裁人，又作审判员？你一方面把不受固定数额限制的裁量交给他，另一方面又把他关进最狭窄的诉讼赌约程式之中？谁曾从仲裁人那里得到自己请求的全部？没有人；因为他请求的，是公平地应当给他的数额。就同一笔债，你既然诉诸仲裁人，怎么又来到审判员面前？别人发现自己在审判员面前的案情动摇时，

[13] 才转而投向仲裁人；这个人却敢从仲裁人那里转到审判员面前！他既然就这笔钱、就账簿的可信性选择了仲裁人，就已经表明自己不能坚持这笔确定的钱必然欠给他。现在，本案已有两个部分处理完毕。他否认自己交付过款项；既然不宣读账簿，也没有主张作过支出记账。剩下的，只能是说自己取得过正式口头允诺；除此之外，我找不到他还有什么办法能够请求这一确定钱额。你取得过允诺：在哪里，哪一天，什么时间，谁在场？

[14] 谁说我作过正式承诺？没有人。如果我在此结束演说，我似乎已经充分履行自己的诚信和勤勉，充分说明案情与争议，充分回应程式和赌约，也充分向审判员交代了为什么应判罗斯基乌斯胜诉。对方请求的是一笔确定数额的钱；诉讼赌约以这笔钱的三分之一为额。这笔钱必定或者实际交付过，或者正式记作支出，或者通过口头要式约定而成立。没有实际交付，范尼乌斯自己承认；没有正式记作支出，范尼乌斯的账册证明；没有通过口头要式约定，证人的沉默表明。那么，还剩下什么？

Annotation. The sentence crossing §§12–13 is retained. The 100,000/50,000 difference between the two extracts is present in the source; it is not silently corrected. Sponsio, stipulatio, and the account entry are distinct legal acts, even though Chinese paraphrase can easily make all three sound like an ordinary “promise.”

Pro Tullio — a civil remedy for organized armed damage

Chapter 4 · Usually 72 or 71 BCE · Civil pleading; fragmentary

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon 1911. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The fragmentary Pro Tullio, usually placed in 72 or 71 BCE, concerns an attack on Marcus Tullius’ property and slaves attributed to the household of Publius Fabius. Cicero speaks for the claimant before recuperatores. The surviving opening refers to an earlier hearing, and his complaint about the opponent’s prolonged speech makes the practical management of time part of the record. Although the alleged events include killings, the proceeding before us is a pecuniary action. Calling it simply a murder trial would obscure both the formula and the measure of recovery. [Speech §§3–7; T1; Greenidge, pp. 551–556.]

The formula asks about damage caused by malicious conduct associated with Fabius’ household through armed or assembled men. Cicero says the action is given for fourfold recovery: the claimant has stated a valuation or limit, while assessment belongs to the panel. This is a private penal remedy. Its punitive multiplication does not turn it into a public criminal prosecution. The magistrate’s intervention, attributed to Marcus Lucullus, responds to organized violence by rural slave groups and makes household control a concern of the legal order. Cicero connects its introduction with the habits produced by prolonged civil war. That is his explanation of institutional development, not a complete independent history of the edict. [T1.]

Juridically, two formulations matter: dolus malus, malicious design or intent, and the absence of iniuria as an additional qualifying word. Cicero argues that the new remedy should not allow defendants to justify an armed expedition by presenting it as lawful self-help. He contrasts its design with the Aquilian action for damage. In T2, he then resists an attempt to use dolus malus as a refuge: planning, taking weapons, choosing concealment, breaking in, killing, and demolition each disclose the required wrongdoing. The argument is cumulative and purposive. It is not an abstract pronouncement that all force in every circumstance is unlawful. [T1–T2.]

The historical significance lies in the transformation of private conflict into coercive collective action. The law’s answer, in Cicero’s account, is to require even people who have been provoked to seek legal protection rather than arm their dependants. But the dossier must not supply details lost with the manuscripts. T1 has an explicit gap in the explanation of the older remedy, and the speech as a whole cannot be reconstructed continuously. The formula is exceptionally valuable direct evidence; Greenidge’s account of the entire procedural arrangement remains an interpretation of it. No surviving verdict is contained in the extracts. [T1–T2; Greenidge, pp. 551–556.]

T1. The action and its institutional purpose

Source locator: Pro Tullio, §§7-12. Stable passage ID: T1.

Evidence claim C-T1: Cicero presents the praetorian remedy for malicious damage by an organized or armed household as authorizing quadruple recovery in the specified circumstances.

Latin

[7] iudicium vestrum est, recuperatores, Qvantae pecvniae paret dolo malo familiae P. Fabi vi hominibvs armatis coactisve damnvm datvm esse M. Tvllio. eius rei taxationem nos fecimus; aestimatio vestra est; iudicium datum est in quadruplum.

[8] Cum omnes leges omniaque iudicia quae paulo graviora atque asperiora videntur esse ex improborum iniquitate et iniuria nata sunt, tum hoc iudicium paucis hisce annis propter hominum malam consuetudinem nimiamque licentiam constitutum est. nam cum multae familiae dicerentur in agris longinquis et pascuis armatae esse caedisque facere, cumque ea consuetudo non solum ad res privatorum sed ad summam rem publicam pertinere videretur, M. Lucullus, qui summa aequitate et sapientia ius dixit, primus hoc iudicium composuit et id spectavit ut omnes ita familias suas continerent ut non modo armati damnum nemini darent verum etiam lacessiti iure se potius quam armis defenderent;

[9] et cum sciret de damno legem esse Aquiliam, tamen hoc ita existimavit, apud maiores nostros cum et res et cupiditates minores essent et familiae non magnae magno metu continerentur ut perraro fieret ut homo occideretur, idque nefarium ac singulare facinus putaretur, nihil opus fuisse iudicio de vi coactis armatisque hominibus; quod enim usu non veniebat, de eo si quis legem aut iudicium constitueret, non tam prohibere videretur quam admonere.

[10] his temporibus cum ex bello diuturno atque domestico res in eam consuetudinem venisset ut homines minore religione armis uterentur, necesse putavit esse et in universam familiam iudicium dare, quod a familia factum diceretur, et recuperatores dare,

[11] ut quam primum res iudicaretur, et poenam graviorem constituere, ut metu comprimeretur audacia, et illam latebram tollere: damnum iniuria. quod in aliis causis debet valere et valet lege Aquilia, id ex huius modi damno quod vi per servos armatos datum esset [LACUNA 7 lines]

[12] ipsi statuerent quo tempore possent suo iure arma capere, manum cogere, homines occidere. Cum iudicium ita daret ut hoc solum in iudicium veniret, videreturne vi hominibus coactis armatisve damnum dolo malo familiae datum, neque illud adderet inivria, putavit se audaciam improborum sustulisse, cum spem defensionis nullam reliquisset.

中文译文

[7] 审理员们，你们所受理的审判是：“如果查明，由于普布利乌斯·法比乌斯之家属的恶意，通过持械或聚集的人众，使马尔库斯·图利乌斯遭受了损害，该损害价值多少。”我们已经就此提出估值限额；具体估定属于你们；所授予的诉讼以四倍为赔偿额。

[8] 一切显得较为严厉、较为苛刻的法律和审判办法，都是由坏人的不公与侵害引起的；这项诉讼尤其如此，它是在最近几年，为了应对人们的恶习和过度放纵而设立的。因为据说，许多奴隶群体在偏远的田地和牧场上持械活动、实施杀戮，而这种风气看来不仅危及私人事务，也关系整个国家。马尔库斯·卢库卢斯以极大的公正和智慧行使司法职权，首先制定了这项诉讼。他的用意是让所有人严加约束自己的奴隶，使他们不仅不持械损害他人，而且即使受到挑衅，也宁可依法自卫，而不用武器；

[9] 他明知已有阿奎利乌斯法处理损害，却作如下考虑：在祖先时代，财产和欲望都较小，奴隶群体不大，又受到严厉威慑，杀人极少发生，并被视为邪恶而异常的事件，因此无须另设针对纠集持械人众施暴的诉讼。因为，对一种实际并不发生的行为，如果有人制定法律或诉讼办法，看起来与其说是在禁止，不如说是在提示人们可以这样做。

[10] 但在我们这个时代，经历长期内战之后，习惯已变成这样：人们使用武器时顾忌较少。他认为，必须针对整个奴隶群体授予诉讼，以处理被指为该群体实施的行为；必须指定审理员，

[11] 使案件尽快判定；必须制定更严厉的惩罚，用恐惧压制凶悍；还必须取消那个藏身之处：“不法造成的损害”。在其他案件中应当有效、并依阿奎利乌斯法确实有效的这一点，对于这种由持械奴隶以暴力造成的损害，〔原文缺七行〕

[12] ……由他们自己决定，什么时候可以合法拿起武器、纠集人众、杀死他人。他这样授予诉讼，使交付审判的只有这一点：是否因奴隶群体的恶意，通过聚集或持械的人众，以暴力造成了损害；而没有再加上“不法地”这个词。他认为，既然不给这种辩护留下希望，便已消除了坏人的凶悍。

Annotation. “Household” here centrally includes enslaved dependants; it does not mean only a modern nuclear family. The lacuna interrupts the explanation of iniuria. The translation marks the interruption rather than inventing the lost transition.

T2. Malicious intent in the act’s component parts

Source locator: Pro Tullio, §§31-34. Stable passage ID: T2.

Evidence claim C-T2: Cicero argues that the organized violent conduct he describes carries the malicious intent required by the remedy.

Latin

[31] hoc persimile atque adeo plane idem est in hoc iudicio, recuperatores. quaero enim abs te, si ita iudicium datum esset: Qvantae pecvniae paret a familia P. Fabii ⟨vi⟩ hominibvs armatis damnvm M. Tvllio datvm, quid haberes quod diceres? nihil, opinor. fateris enim omnia et familiam P. Fabi fecisse et vi hominibus armatis fecisse. quod additum est dolo malo, id te adiuvare putas in quo opprimitur et excluditur omnis tua defensio?

[32] nam si additum id non esset ac tibi libitum esset ita defendere, tuam familiam non fecisse, vinceres, si id probare potuisses. nunc, sive illa defensione uti voluisses sive hac qua uteris, condemneris necesse est; nisi putamus eum ⟨in iudi⟩cium venire qui consilium inierit, illum qui fecerit non venire, cum consilium sine facto intellegi possit, factum sine consilio non possit. an, quod factum eius modi est ut sine occulto consilio, sine nocte, sine vi, sine damno alterius, sine armis, sine caede, sine maleficio fieri non potuerit, id sine dolo malo factum iudicabitur? an, qua in re praetor illi improbam defensionem tolli voluit, in ea re mihi difficiliorem actionem factam putabitis?

[33] hic mihi isti singulari ingenio videntur esse qui et id quod mihi contra illos datum est ipsi adripiunt et scopulo atque saxis pro portu stationeque utuntur. nam in dolo malo volunt delitiscere, in quo, non modo cum omnia ipsi fecerunt quae fatentur, verum etiam si per alios id fecissent, haererent ac tenerentur.

[34] ego non in una re sola, quod mihi satis est, neque in universa re solum, sed singillatim in omnibus dolum malum exstare dico. consilium capiunt ut ad servos M. Tulli veniant; dolo malo faciunt. arma capiunt; dolo malo faciunt. tempus ad insidiandum atque celandum idoneum eligunt; dolo malo faciunt. vi in tectum inruunt; in ipsa vi dolus est. occidunt homines, tectum diruunt; nec homo occidi nec consulto alteri damnum dari sine dolo malo potest. ergo si omnes partes sunt eius modi ut in singulis dolus malus haereat, universam rem et totum facinus sine dolo malo factum iudicabitis?

中文译文

[31] 审理员们，本案与此极为相似，甚至完全相同。我问你：如果授予的诉讼这样写（“如果查明，普布利乌斯·法比乌斯的奴隶群体通过持械者⟨以暴力⟩给马尔库斯·图利乌斯造成了价值多少的损害”）你还有什么话可说？我想没有。因为这一切你都承认：是法比乌斯的奴隶群体做的，是通过持械的人以暴力做的。加上“出于恶意”之后，你以为这几个字能帮助你吗？恰恰是在这里，你的全部辩护都被压倒、被排除了。

[32] 因为，如果没有加上这些字，而你愿意这样辩护，说不是你的奴隶群体做的，只要证明得了，你便能胜诉。现在，无论你想用那种辩护，还是使用眼下这种辩护，都必然应受判赔；除非我们以为，谋划此事的人要受审，实际做的人却不受审，而谋划可以没有行动，行动却不可能没有谋划。难道一件事，不经过秘密策划，不利用夜间，不使用暴力，不损害他人，不动武器，不杀人，不作恶，就不可能完成，我们却会判定它不是出于恶意？难道裁判官本想取消对方不正当辩护的地方，你们反倒认为使我的诉讼更难成立了吗？

[33] 这些人在我看来真是才智超群：他们竟把授予我用来对付他们的武器抢去自己使用，把礁石和岩块当作港口与停泊处。他们想藏在“恶意”这个词里；可是在这个词之下，不仅他们亲自做了自己承认的一切会被网住，即便通过别人做，也同样会被扣住、被追究。

[34] 我不只在一个足以支持我的环节上，也不只就事件整体来说，而是逐项指出，各个环节都有恶意。他们谋划去袭击马尔库斯·图利乌斯的奴隶：这是恶意。他们拿起武器：这是恶意。他们选择适于设伏和隐蔽的时机：这是恶意。他们以暴力冲入房屋：这种暴力本身就有恶意。他们杀死人，拆毁房屋：杀人、故意使别人遭受损害，都不可能没有恶意。那么，如果所有组成部分都是如此，每一项都带着恶意，你们还会判定整件事、整个罪行不是出于恶意吗？

Annotation. Angle brackets preserve editorial supplements. Cicero’s inference from the character of the acts to malicious intent is precisely the inference under debate; it is not presented here as a finding already made by the panel.

Divinatio in Caecilium — deciding who may prosecute Verres

Chapter 5 · 70 BCE · Preliminary selection of prosecutor

Latin source: William Peterson; Oxford Clarendon 1917. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The Divinatio belongs to the prosecution of Verres in 70 BCE, but Verres’ guilt is not its immediate issue. Cicero and Quintus Caecilius compete for the conduct of the extortion prosecution. The tribunal must choose the prosecutor before the principal case can proceed. The title therefore refers to a procedural selection, not to religious divination and not to Cicero’s philosophical De divinatione. Caecilius’ former service as Verres’ quaestor makes him both a potential insider and, in Cicero’s argument, a compromised candidate. [D1–D2; speech §§18–22, 59–64.]

The legal object is pecuniae repetundae, money to be recovered for provincial wrongs through a public court. It requires a private individual to act as prosecutor, creating a problem of representation and fidelity. D1 proposes two tests: the preference of the injured provincials and the aversion of the accused. These are Cicero’s criteria for the choice, not a fully preserved statutory checklist. His claim to the Sicilians’ confidence draws on prior service and personal ties; he calls himself defender, avenger, legal representative, and prosecutor. The multiplicity of terms matters: public prosecution is presented as an obligation arising from patronal fides, while the actual right to direct proceedings is conferred by the court. [D1.]

Juridically, the speech examines what makes an accuser suitable: genuine antagonism rather than collusion, independence, command of the facts, and forensic ability. It also makes advocacy itself an issue of justice. A prosecutor who cannot investigate, organize evidence, or answer Hortensius may fail the injured communities even without express corruption. Cicero’s extensive presentation of his own competence should therefore be read as part of the application for conduct of the case. It is neither disinterested criticism of legal education nor direct proof that Caecilius had already agreed to betray the prosecution. [Speech §§27–46, 58–59.]

The Agonis episode provides a concentrated procedural example. On Cicero’s account, Caecilius turned a freedwoman’s appeal to Venus’ protection into a formula testing only whether she had said that she and her property belonged to Venus. A literally true answer then produced confiscation and enslavement. This is the danger of framing the wrong legal question: proof of the utterance does not establish the legal consequence imposed. Yet the story is deployed against a rival, and Cicero’s subsequent praise of Verres is deliberately temporary and ironic, overturned by the allegation that he kept part of the restitution. The episode supports an analysis of Cicero’s procedural criticism, not independent acceptance of every transaction it narrates. The existence of Cicero’s subsequent Verrine prosecution establishes that he secured the role; the Divinatio itself remains the advocacy leading to that selection. [D2; In Verrem I.1–3.]

D1. The criteria for selecting the prosecutor

Source locator: Divinatio in Caecilium, §§10-13. Stable passage ID: D1.

Evidence claim C-D1: Cicero treats the wishes and interests of the injured Sicilians as reasons to select him to conduct the prosecution.

Latin

[10] nunc quoniam quibus rebus adductus ad causam accesserim demonstravi, dicendum necessario est de contentione nostra, ut in constituendo accusatore quid sequi possitis habeatis. ego sic intellego, iudices: cum de pecuniis repetundis nomen cuiuspiam deferatur, si certamen inter aliquos sit cui potissimum delatio detur, haec duo in primis spectari oportere, quem maxime velint actorem esse ii quibus factae esse dicantur iniuriae, et quem minime velit is qui eas iniurias fecisse arguatur.

[11] in hac causa, iudices, tametsi utrumque esse arbitror perspicuum, tamen de utroque dicam, et de eo prius quod apud vos plurimum debet valere, hoc est de voluntate eorum quibus iniuriae factae sunt; quorum causa iudicium de pecuniis repetundis est constitutum.

Siciliam provinciam C. Verres per triennium depopulatus esse, Siculorum civitates vastasse, domos exinanisse, fana spoliasse dicitur. adsunt, queruntur Siculi universi; ad meam fidem, quam habent spectatam iam et cognitam, confugiunt; auxilium sibi per me a vobis atque a populi Romani legibus petunt; me defensorem calamitatum suarum, me ultorem iniuriarum, me cognitorem iuris sui, me actorem causae totius esse voluerunt.

[12] Vtrum, Q. Caecili, hoc dices, me non Siculorum rogatu ad causam accedere, an optimorum fidelissimorumque sociorum voluntatem apud hos gravem esse non oportere? si id audebis dicere, quod C. Verres, cui te inimicum esse simulas, maxime existimari vult, Siculos hoc a me non petisse, primum causam inimici tui sublevabis, de quo non praeiudicium, sed plane iudicium iam factum putatur, quod ita percrebruit, Siculos omnis actorem suae causae contra illius iniurias quaesisse.

[13] hoc si tu, inimicus eius, factum negabis, quod ipse, cui maxime haec res obstat, negare non audet, videto ne nimium familiariter inimicitias exercere videare. deinde sunt testes viri clarissimi nostrae civitatis, quos omnis a me nominari non est necesse: eos qui adsunt appellabo, quos, si mentirer, testis esse impudentiae meae minime vellem. scit is qui est in consilio, C. Marcellus, scit is quem adesse video, Cn. Lentulus Marcellinus; quorum fide atque praesidio Siculi maxime nituntur, quod omnino Marcellorum nomini tota illa provincia adiuncta est.

中文译文

[10] 现在，我既已说明自己受哪些事情推动而参与此案，就必须谈谈我们之间的竞争，使你们在确定控告者时有所依据。审判员们，我的理解是：当有人就追索被侵夺的钱财提出控告，而几个人争执究竟由谁提出正式控告时，首先应当考察两件事：那些据说受到不法侵害的人，最希望谁作他们的诉讼代表；被指控实施侵害的人，最不希望谁来控告。

[11] 审判员们，在本案中，我认为这两点都很明白，不过两点我都会说明；首先说明在你们这里理当最有分量的一点，即受害者的意愿，因为追索侵夺款项的审判，正是为他们而设立的。据指控，盖乌斯·维勒斯三年间劫掠了西西里行省，摧残西西里人的城邦，掏空他们的家宅，洗劫神庙。西西里人全体来到这里申诉；他们投奔我那已经过他们考验、为他们所熟知的诚信；他们请求通过我，从你们和罗马人民的法律那里取得援助。他们希望我保卫他们免受灾难，替他们追究侵害，代表他们的权利，承办整个诉讼。

[12] 昆图斯·凯基利乌斯，你要说哪一种话：说我并非应西西里人的请求而来，还是说这些最优秀、最忠诚的盟友的意愿，在审判员面前不应当有分量？如果你竟敢说西西里人没有向我提出这种请求（而这正是你佯称与之为敌的维勒斯最希望别人相信的话）那么，首先你就在帮助你的敌人。人们普遍认为，由于“全体西西里人都在寻找一个代表，控告他的侵害”这件事已经传遍四方，对他已经作出的不只是预断，简直是判决了。

[13] 这件事对他最为不利，连他自己都不敢否认；你这个自称是他敌人的人如果反而否认，就当心人们觉得，你同他为敌的方式实在过分亲密。再说，我们国家还有一些极显赫的人可以作证；我不必把他们全列出来，只称呼在场者。如果我说谎，我最不愿让他们成为我厚颜无耻的见证。坐在顾问席中的盖乌斯·马尔凯卢斯知道此事；我看见在场的格奈乌斯·伦图卢斯·马尔凯利努斯也知道。西西里人尤其依靠他们的诚信和保护，因为整个行省同马尔凯卢斯家族的名字都有联系。

Annotation. The assertion that provincial opinion has already “judged” Verres is rhetorical anticipation, not an actual verdict of the extortion court.

D2. Agonis and a distorted issue for adjudication

Source locator: Divinatio in Caecilium, §§55-59. Stable passage ID: D2.

Evidence claim C-D2: Cicero uses Caecilius’ alleged treatment of Agonis to question his fitness to prosecute Verres on behalf of provincials.

Latin

[55] at eam tibi C. Verres fecit iniuriam quae ceterorum quoque animos possit alieno incommodo commovere. minime; nam id quoque ad rem pertinere arbitror, qualis iniuria dicatur quae causa inimicitiarum proferatur. cognoscite ex me; nam iste eam profecto, nisi plane nihil sapit, numquam proferet. Agonis quaedam est Lilybitana, liberta Veneris Erycinae, quae mulier ante hunc quaestorem copiosa plane et locuples fuit. ab hac praefectus Antoni quidam symphoniacos servos abducebat per iniuriam, quibus se in classe uti velle dicebat. tum illa, ut mos in Sicilia est omnium Veneriorum et eorum qui a Venere se liberaverunt, ut praefecto illi religionem Veneris nomine obiceret, dixit et se et sua Veneris esse.

[56] Vbi hoc quaestori Caecilio, viro optimo et homini aequissimo, nuntiatum est, vocari ad se Agonidem iubet; iudicium dat statim, SI PARET EAM SE ET SVA VENERIS ESSE DIXISSE. iudicant recuperatores id quod necesse erat; neque enim erat cuiquam dubium quin illa dixisset. iste in possessionem bonorum mulieris intrat, ipsam Veneri in servitutem adiudicat; deinde bona vendit, pecuniam redigit. ita dum pauca mancipia Veneris nomine Agonis ac religione retinere vult, fortunas omnis libertatemque suam istius iniuria perdidit. Lilybaeum Verres venit postea; rem cognoscit, factum improbat, cogit quaestorem suum pecuniam, quam ex Agonidis bonis redegisset, eam mulieri omnem adnumerare et reddere.

[57] est adhuc, id quod vos omnis admirari video, non Verres, sed Q. Mucius. quid enim facere potuit elegantius ad hominum existimationem, aequius ad levandam mulieris calamitatem, vehementius ad quaestoris libidinem coercendam? summe haec omnia mihi videntur esse laudanda. sed repente e vestigio ex homine tamquam aliquo Circaeo poculo factus est Verres; rediit ad se atque ad mores suos; nam ex illa pecunia magnam partem ad se vertit, mulieri reddidit quantulum visum est.

[58] hic tu si laesum te a Verre esse dicis, patiar et concedam; si iniuriam tibi factam quereris, defendam et negabo; denique de iniuria quae tibi facta sit neminem nostrum graviorem iudicem esse oportet quam te ipsum, cui facta dicitur. si tu cum illo postea in gratiam redisti, si domi illius aliquotiens fuisti, si ille apud te postea cenavit, utrum te perfidiosum an prevaricatorem existimari mavis? video esse necesse alterutrum, sed ego tecum in eo non pugnabo quo minus utrum velis eligas.

[59] quodsi ne iniuriae quidem, quae tibi ab illo facta sit, causa remanet, quid habes quod possis dicere quam ob rem non modo mihi, sed cuiquam anteponare? nisi forte illud, quod dicturum te esse audio, quaestorem illius fuisse. quae causa gravis esset, si certares mecum uter nostrum illi amicior esse deberet: in contentione suscipiendarum inimicitiarum ridiculum est putare causam necessitudinis ad inferendum periculum iustam videri oportere.

中文译文

[55] 可是，维勒斯对你施加的侵害，是否严重到能使旁人也为你的遭遇而愤慨？完全没有。我认为，所声称的侵害究竟是什么性质，既然它被用作敌意的理由，也与本案有关。请听我说明；只要这人不是毫无头脑，他自己一定不会讲。莉莉拜翁有个叫阿戈尼斯的女人，是厄律克斯山维纳斯的获释女奴；在这位财务官到来以前，她很有钱，财产丰厚。安东尼乌斯手下一名军官，非法要从她那里带走一些乐师奴隶，说要让他们在舰队服役。于是，她依照西西里一切属于维纳斯的人，以及由维纳斯获得自由者的习惯，为了借女神的名义使军官有所敬畏，便说自己和自己的财产都属于维纳斯。

[56] 这件事报告给财务官凯基利乌斯（这个最好、最公正的人）之后，他命人把阿戈尼斯叫来，立即授予审判：“如果查明她说过自己和自己的财产属于维纳斯。”审理员作出了他们不得不作出的判断，因为没有人怀疑她说过这话。他便占有女人的财产，把她本人判归维纳斯为奴，然后卖掉财产，收取价款。阿戈尼斯本来只想借维纳斯的名号和宗教保护保住几个奴隶，却因这人的不法行为失去了全部财产和自己的自由。后来维勒斯来到莉莉拜翁，了解事情，认为这种做法不对，命自己的财务官把出售阿戈尼斯财产取得的全部款项，一文不少地还给她。

[57] 到这里，他还不是维勒斯，而是昆图斯·穆基乌斯：我看你们全都感到惊讶。还有什么做法，在博取人们好评方面更得体，在减轻女人灾难方面更公平，在压制财务官任性方面更有力呢？这些事情在我看来都应受到最高赞扬。可是突然，就像喝了喀耳刻的魔药，他从一个人变成了“公猪维勒斯”；他恢复本性，回到自己的习惯：他把那笔钱的大部分转进自己口袋，只把自己认为合适的一点还给女人。

[58] 如果你说自己因此受到维勒斯的损害，我可以容忍，也可以承认；如果你抱怨他对你实施了不法侵害，我就要替他辩护，予以否认。总之，对于据说施加在你身上的侵害，我们中没有人应比你本人判断得更严。如果你后来同他和好，几次到过他家，而他后来也到你家吃过饭，那么你宁愿被认为是个背信的人，还是串通对方、背叛控告职责的人？我看你必居其一；不过，在这点上我不与你争，你愿意选哪个就选哪个。

[59] 如果连所谓受他侵害的理由也不再存在，你还能说出什么，说明你为什么不只应优先于我，甚至应优先于任何其他人？除非是我听说你准备提出的那一点：你曾作过他的财务官。如果你同我争的是谁更应当作他的朋友，这倒是一个有分量的理由；可是在争取承担敌对角色时，把亲近关系当作应当优先给对方带来危险的正当依据，岂不可笑？

Annotation. The change into “Verres” plays on the Latin word for a boar and the Circe story. The translation makes the pun visible. The reported formula proves only an utterance; the juridical criticism concerns the consequences attached to that utterance.

In Verrem, Actio prima — making the evidence arrive before the calendar defeats the case

Chapter 6 · 70 BCE · Prosecution: first hearing

Latin source: William Peterson; Oxford Clarendon 1917. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

Cicero’s first speech against Verres, delivered in 70 BCE after he secured the prosecution, introduces a public extortion case arising chiefly from Verres’ government of Sicily. Its subject is both the defendant’s conduct and the credibility of the senatorial jury. Cicero opens with the damaging belief that wealth makes conviction impossible. He therefore offers the court a chance to vindicate its authority by condemning a defendant presented as conspicuously guilty. That framing turns a particular prosecution into a demonstration about institutional integrity. It does not authorize the historian to treat the opening’s declaration of guilt as the jury’s judgment. [V1A.]

Legally, the forum is the permanent court for recovery of extorted money, presided over by Glabrio. The wider allegations—misuse of office, theft, violence, administrative injustice—are organized within that prosecution. They are not evidence that each narrative episode generated a separate trial on a separate indictment. Cicero’s position as prosecutor also differs from his customary role as defender. His account of diligence in collecting records and witnesses presents this departure as service to provincials and to Rome’s legal reputation. [V1A; speech §§16–20, 33–34.]

The central procedural decision is to abbreviate continuous opening oratory and introduce documents and witnesses promptly. The court calendar makes that decision rational. V1B names impending games and interruptions, the danger of cooling the accusation, and the prospect of the case passing into the next praetorian year. Cicero distinguishes Metellus as a sworn juror from Metellus as the future presiding magistrate. These are different roles, not merely the same man with a different title. His target is a second hearing before the first games rather than an answer from the defence only after successive festivals. The point of the passage is the interaction of legally available time with political advantage. [V1B.]

The historical result must be stated at the appropriate level. The prosecution led to Verres’ withdrawal and exile, and Cicero published the extensive second action instead of delivering its five surviving books in court. Those books can preserve evidence gathered for litigation and refer back to actual testimony, but their dramatic address to the jury does not make them transcripts of five hearings. Here the first action supports the narrative of an actual procedural intervention: shortening the speech to prevent delay. The later texts disclose the prosecutor’s completed public presentation of the case. [Compare In Verrem II.1.1–2; Greenidge, pp. 476–483, 500–504.]

V1A. The reputation of the court

Source locator: In Verrem, Actio prima, §§1.1.1-1.1.3. Stable passage ID: V1A.

Evidence claim C-V1A: Cicero makes the jury’s response to Verres a test of the credibility of the senatorial courts.

Latin

[1.1.1] quod erat optandum maxime, iudices, et quod unum ad invidiam vestri ordinis infamiamque iudiciorum sedandam maxime pertinebat, id non humano consilio sed prope divinitus datum atque oblatum vobis summo rei publicae tempore videtur. inveteravit enim iam opinio perniciosa rei publicae vobisque periculosa, quae non modo apud nos sed apud exteras nationes omnium sermone percrebruit, his iudiciis quae nunc sunt pecuniosum hominem, quamvis sit nocens, neminem posse damnari.

[1.1.2] nunc in ipso discrimine ordinis iudiciorumque vestrorum, cum sint parati qui contionibus et legibus hanc invidiam senatus inflammare conentur, reus in iudicium adductus est C. Verres, homo vita atque factis omnium iam opinione damnatus, pecuniae magnitudine sua spe et praedicatione absolutus. huic ego causae, iudices, cum summa voluntate et exspectatione populi Romani actor accessi, non ut augerem invidiam ordinis, sed ut infamiae communi succurrerem. adduxi enim hominem in quo reconciliare existimationem iudiciorum amissam, redire in gratiam cum populo Romano, satis facere exteris nationibus possetis, depeculatorem aerari, vexatorem Asiae atque Pamphyliae, praedonem iuris urbani, labem atque perniciem provinciae Siciliae.

[1.1.3] de quo si vos severe ac religiose iudicaveritis, auctoritas ea quae in vobis remanere debet haerebit; sin istius ingentes divitiae iudiciorum religionem veritatemque perfregerint, ego hoc tamen adsequar, ut iudicium potius rei publicae quam aut reus iudicibus aut accusator reo defuisse videatur.

equidem ut de me confitear, iudices, cum multae mihi a C. Verre insidiae terra marique factae sint, quas partim mea diligentia devitarim, partim amicorum studio officioque reppulerim, numquam tamen neque tantum periculum mihi adire visus sum neque tanto opere pertimui ut nunc in ipso iudicio.

中文译文

[1.1.1] 审判员们，我们最希望发生、也最有助于平息对你们阶层的怨恨和法庭恶名的事情，看来并非出于人的谋划，而几乎是神意在国家的紧要关头赐给你们、送到你们面前的。因为，一种有害于国家、也使你们处境危险的看法，已经根深蒂固；不仅在我们这里，而且在外国各族之间都广为流传：在现有的这些法庭上，任何有钱人，不论怎样有罪，都不可能被判罪。

[1.1.2] 现在，正当你们的阶层与审判制度面临抉择，而有人准备通过公众集会和立法激起人们对元老院的怨恨时，盖乌斯·维勒斯被带到了法庭。他的生平和行为，早已使所有人在心中判他有罪；但凭着巨额财富，他在自己的希望和夸口中，却已经获得开释。审判员们，我在罗马人民极大的赞同和期待下承担此案，不是为了增加对这个阶层的怨恨，而是为了补救大家共同的恶名。我带来了这样一个人：通过审理他，你们可以恢复法庭已经失去的声誉，重新与罗马人民取得和谐，向外国各族作出交代。他侵吞国库，蹂躏亚细亚和潘菲利亚，劫掠罗马城的司法，给西西里行省带来污染和毁灭。

[1.1.3] 如果你们严正、虔敬地审判他，本应留在你们手中的权威便会稳固；如果他的巨额财富冲破审判的誓约与真实，我至少也能使人看清：辜负国家的是审判制度，而不是被告没有交到审判员手中，或控告者没有尽力追究被告。说到我自己，我承认，虽然维勒斯在海上和陆上为我设下许多圈套，其中一些被我的警惕避开，一些被朋友的热心与协助击退，我却从未觉得自己面临如此大的危险，也从未像此刻身在法庭时这样恐惧。

Annotation. The court’s threatened reputational judgment is part of the prosecutor’s pressure on the jury. The passage is direct evidence for that strategy, not statistical evidence that no wealthy person could ever be convicted.

V1B. The calendar and the order of proof

Source locator: In Verrem, Actio prima, §§1.1.31-1.1.34. Stable passage ID: V1B.

Evidence claim C-V1B: Cicero explains his decision to proceed rapidly to documentary and witness evidence through the danger of delay within the trial calendar.

Latin

[1.1.31] Nonae sunt hodie Sextiles; hora viii convenire coepistis; hunc diem iam ne numerant quidem. decem dies sunt ante ludos votivos, quos Cn. Pompeius facturus est; hi ludi dies quindecim auferent; deinde continuo Romani consequentur. ita prope xl diebus interpositis tum denique se ad ea quae a nobis dicta erunt responsuros esse arbitrantur; deinde se ducturos et dicendo et excusando facile ad ludos victoriae; cum his plebeios esse coniunctos, secundum quos aut nulli aut perpauci dies ad agendum futuri sunt: ita defessa ac refrigerata accusatione rem integram ad M. Metellum praetorem esse venturam. quem ego hominem, si eius fidei diffisus essem, iudicem non retinuissem;

[1.1.32] nunc tamen hoc animo sum ut eo iudice quam praetore hanc rem transigi malim, et iurato suam quam iniurato aliorum tabellas committere.

nunc ego, iudices, iam vos consulo quid mihi faciendum putetis; id enim consili mihi profecto taciti dabitis quod egomet mihi necessario capiendum intellego. si utar ad dicendum meo legitimo tempore, mei laboris industriae diligentiaeque capiam fructum, et hac accusatione perficiam ut nemo umquam post hominum memoriam paratior, vigilantior, compositior ad iudicium venisse videatur. sed in hac laude industriae meae reus ne elabatur summum periculum est. quid est igitur quod fieri possit? non obscurum, opinor, neque absconditum.

[1.1.33] fructum istum laudis, qui ex perpetua oratione percipi potuit, in alia tempora reservemus: nunc hominem tabulis, testibus, privatis publicisque litteris auctoritatibusque accusemus. res omnis mihi tecum erit, Hortensi. dicam aperte. si te mecum dicendo ac diluendis criminibus in hac causa contendere putarem, ego quoque in accusando atque in explicandis criminibus operam consumerem: nunc quoniam pugnare contra me instituisti non tam ex tua natura quam ex istius tempore et causa ⟦malitiose⟧, necesse est istius modi rationi aliquo consilio obsistere.

[1.1.34] tua ratio est ut secundum binos ludos mihi respondere incipias, mea ut ante primos ludos comperendinem. ita fiet ut tua ista ratio existimetur astuta, meum hoc consilium necessarium.

verum illud quod institueram dicere, mihi rem tecum esse, huius modi est. ego cum hanc causam Siculorum rogatu recepissem, idque mihi amplum et praeclarum existimassem, eos velle meae fidei diligentiaeque periculum facere qui innocentiae abstinentiaeque fecissent, tum suscepto negotio maius quiddam mihi proposui, in quo meam in rem publicam voluntatem populus Romanus perspicere posset.

中文译文

[1.1.31] 今天是八月五日；你们在第八时开始集合；他们连今天都不再计算了。距离格奈乌斯·庞培即将举办的还愿竞技只有十天，那些竞技又会占去十五天；接着就是罗马竞技。这样，中间隔了将近四十天，他们才打算回答我们的陈述；然后，再靠讲话和请求宽限，轻易拖到胜利竞技。平民竞技又与之相连；这些结束之后，能够审案的日子不是没有，就是极少。如此一来，控告已经疲惫、冷却，整件事就会原封不动地来到裁判官马尔库斯·梅特鲁斯手中。如果我不信任这个人的诚信，当初便不会把他留作审判员；

[1.1.32] 不过，我现在仍宁愿在他作审判员时，而不是作裁判官时，把此案办完；宁愿把他自己的一张票交给宣过誓的他，也不愿把别人的票交给未以审判员身份宣誓的他。现在，审判员们，我请你们想想，你们认为我该怎么办；你们默默给我的意见，必定就是我自己明白不得不采取的决定。如果我用足法律准许我的发言时间，我会收获自己的劳苦、勤奋和细致所应得的成果，并使这次控告显示：有史以来，没有人比我准备更充分、更警觉、更有条理地来到法庭。但在这种对我勤勉的赞扬中，被告逃脱的危险却极大。那么，有什么办法？我想，它既不隐晦，也不难找。

[1.1.33] 让我们把连贯长篇演说可能带来的赞誉留到以后；现在，用账簿、证人、私人和公共文书以及可信的凭证来控告这个人。霍尔滕西乌斯，我将同你直接较量。我明说吧：如果我认为你会通过演说和逐项消解指控来同我争辩，我也会用功展开控告、解释各项罪状。但现在，你决定同我作战的方式，不是依你自己的本性，而是依这个人的时势与案情，〔校勘者删疑：狡诈地〕行事，我便必须想一个办法，阻止这样的策略。

[1.1.34] 你的计划，是等两轮竞技过去后才开始回答我；我的计划，是在第一轮竞技以前便使案件进入第二次审理。这样，人们会认为你的计划是机巧的，而我的办法是必要的。不过，我刚才说，我要同你直接较量，意思如下：当我应西西里人的请求接手此案时，我认为这是重大而光荣的事，因为这些人已经检验过我的清廉和节制，如今又愿意检验我的诚信与勤勉。承担事务以后，我还给自己规定了更大的目标，使罗马人民能够看清我对国家的用心。

Annotation. Comperendinare concerns the second action of this trial structure; it is not simply “postpone indefinitely.” The source marks malitiose as deleted or suspect, and that status is retained.

In Verrem II.1 — public office turned into a means of private gain

Chapter 7 · 70 BCE; published second-action text · Undelivered prosecution text

Latin source: William Peterson; Oxford Clarendon 1917. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The first book of the published second action moves through Verres’ earlier public career, including his quaestorship, service in the eastern Mediterranean, and urban praetorship. It supplies an antecedent history for the Sicilian prosecution. The organizing allegation is continuity of abuse: Verres supposedly learned to convert public resources, delegated authority, and control of legal proceedings into personal advantage. Cicero’s explicit division of the career into successive offices demonstrates that this continuity is constructed as an accusatory narrative. It is not a neutral administrative biography. [II.1.32–35.]

V21A illustrates the legal mechanism through an inheritance. Annius Asellus had appointed his daughter heir in circumstances Cicero describes as lawful. Verres is accused of using a new edict, framed retrospectively, to redirect the estate toward a substitute heir and to extract money from those responsible for the child. The issue is not merely whether female inheritance was restricted under the Voconia legislation. It is whether a magistrate may use the supposed principle of that legislation to unsettle an already lawful disposition. The guardians’ difficulty in accounting for a bribe gives the passage a practical documentary dimension: paying the magistrate would itself expose them to responsibility. [V21A.]

Juridically, Cicero argues that an annual edict cannot claim a broader retrospective reach than a statute. He differentiates the establishment of new civil rules from legislation dealing with conduct already inherently criminal. That distinction is a sophisticated argument about temporal authority, but it should not be translated into the claim that Rome possessed a single modern constitutional prohibition on all retroactive law. The accusation depends on the particular edict, testament, statutory category, and timing. [V21A §§107–109.]

V21B supplies a different boundary: a Roman official visiting allied communities cannot treat access gained through office as permission to strip sanctuaries for his private house. Cicero contrasts this conduct with victorious generals who deposited spoils in public monuments. The contrast defends a Roman hierarchy of legitimate appropriation; it does not reject conquest or endorse a modern universal property regime. Procedurally, both episodes belong to an expansive written accusation in the extortion case. They help establish a pattern and answer possible justifications, but are not records of separate convictions. Historically, the book reveals how jurisdiction, provincial mobility, and elite collecting could be made mutually reinforcing. Its second-action form remains undelivered. [V21A–V21B.]

V21A. An inheritance and a retrospective edict

Source locator: In Verrem II.1: Verres’ earlier career, §§2.1.104-2.1.109. Stable passage ID: V21A.

Evidence claim C-V21A: Cicero alleges that Verres manipulated an inheritance rule retrospectively to disadvantage an existing testamentary beneficiary.

Latin

[2.1.104] nam ut praetor factus est, qui auspicato a Chelidone surrexisset, sortem nactus est urbanae provinciae magis ex sua Chelidonisque quam ex populi Romani voluntate. qui principio qualis in edicto constituendo fuerit cognoscite.

P. Annius asellus mortuus est C. Sacerdote praetore. is cum haberet unicam filiam neque census esset, quod eum natura hortabatur, lex nulla prohibebat, fecit ut filiam bonis suis heredem institueret. Heres erat filia. faciebant omnia cum pupilla, legis aequitas, voluntas patris, edicta praetorum, consuetudo iuris eius quod erat tum cum asellus est mortuus.

[2.1.105] iste praetor designatus—utrum admonitus an temptatus an, qua est ipse sagacitate in his rebus, sine duce ullo, sine indice pervenerit ad hanc improbitatem, nescio: vos tantum hominis audaciam amentiamque cognoscite—appellat heredem L. Annium, qui erat institutus secundum filiam (non enim mihi persuadetur istum ab illo prius appellatum); dicit se posse ei condonare edicto hereditatem; docet hominem quid possit fieri. illi bona res, huic vendibilis videbatur. iste, tametsi singulari est audacia, tamen ad pupillae matrem submittebat; malebat pecuniam accipere, ne quid novi ediceret, quam ut hoc edictum tam improbum et tam inhumanum interponeret.

[2.1.106] tutores pecuniam praetori si pupillae nomine dedissent, grandem praesertim, quem ad modum in rationem inducerent, quem ad modum sine periculo suo dare possent, non videbant; simul et istum fore tam improbum non arbitrabantur; saepe appellati pernegaverunt. iste ad arbitrium eius cui condonabat hereditatem ereptam a liberis quam aequum edictum conscripserit, quaeso, cognoscite. cvm intellegam legem Voconiam—. quis umquam crederet mulierum adversarium Verrem futurum? an ideo aliquid contra mulieres fecit ne totum edictum ad Chelidonis arbitrium scriptum videretur? cupiditati hominum ait se obviam ire. quis potius non modo his temporibus, sed etiam apud maiores nostros? quis tam remotus fuit a cupiditate? dic, quaeso, cetera; delectat enim me hominis gravitas, scientia iuris praetorii auctoritas. recita. qvi ab A. Postvmio Q. Fulvio censoribvs postve ea — — fecit fecerit.

[2.1.107] fecit fecerit? quis umquam edixit isto modo? quis umquam eius rei fraudem aut periculum proposuit edicto, quae neque post edictum reprehendi neque ante edictum provideri potuit?

iure, legibus, auctoritate omnium qui consulebantur, testamentum P. Annius fecerat non improbum, non inofficiosum, non inhumanum: quodsi ita fecisset, tamen post illius mortem nihil de testamento illius novi iuris constitui oporteret. Voconia lex te videlicet delectabat. imitatus esses ipsum illum C. Voconium, qui lege sua hereditatem ademit nulli neque virgini neque mulieri: sanxit in posterum, qui post eos censores census esset, ne quis heredem virginem neve mulierem faceret.

[2.1.108] in lege Voconia non est fecit fecerit, neque in ulla praeteritum tempus reprehenditur nisi eius rei quae sua sponte tam scelerata et nefaria est ut, etiamsi lex non esset, magnopere vitanda fuerit. atque in his ipsis rebus multa videmus ita sancta esse legibus ut ante facta in iudicium non vocentur; Cornelia testamentaria, nummaria, ceterae complures, in quibus non ius aliquod novum populo constituitur, sed sancitur ut, quod semper malum facinus fuerit, eius quaestio ad populum pertineat ex certo tempore.

[2.1.109] de iure vero civili si quis novi quid instituit, is non omnia quae ante acta sunt rata esse patietur? cedo mihi leges Atinias, Furias, Fusias, ipsam, ut dixi, Voconiam, omnis praeterea de iure civili: hoc reperies in omnibus statui ius quo post eam legem populus utatur. qui plurimum tribuunt edicto, praetoris edictum legem annuam dicunt esse: tu edicto plus amplecteris quam lege. si finem edicto praetoris adferunt Kalendae Ianuariae, cur non initium quoque edicti nascitur a Kalendis Ianuariis? an in eum annum progredi nemo poterit edicto quo praetor alius futurus est, in illum quo alius praetor fuit regredietur?

中文译文

[2.1.104] 他当上裁判官之后（仿佛刚从凯莉冬那里带着吉兆起身）抽中了罗马城的职掌，与其说符合罗马人民的意愿，不如说符合他和凯莉冬的意愿。先来了解他制定告示时是什么样子。普布利乌斯·安尼乌斯·阿塞卢斯在盖乌斯·萨凯尔多斯任裁判官时去世。他只有一个女儿，而自己并未列入有关财产登记；出于自然亲情的劝告，又没有法律禁止，他便指定女儿继承财产。女儿是继承人。一切都支持这个受监护的女孩：法律的公平、父亲的意愿、历任裁判官的告示，以及阿塞卢斯去世时通行的法律惯例。

[2.1.105] 这个候任裁判官（究竟是有人提醒、有人试探，还是凭他在这种事情上的敏锐，无须向导和告密者便自行发现了这桩恶事，我不知道；你们只须了解他的大胆和疯狂）找到排在女儿之后、被指定为继承人的卢基乌斯·安尼乌斯。我无法相信，是对方先来找他。他说，自己可以借一项告示把遗产送给安尼乌斯，并教他事情可以怎样办理。对那个人，这是一笔好产业；对维勒斯，这是一件可出售的商品。然而，尽管他大胆异常，仍派人暗中接触女孩的母亲；比起插入这样邪恶、不近人情的告示，他宁愿收钱，作为不作新规定的条件。

[2.1.106] 监护人看不出，如果以女孩的名义给裁判官钱，尤其是大笔钱，该如何记账，又怎么能不使自己承担风险；同时，他们也不相信他真会坏到这种程度。因此，多次被接触之后，他们始终拒绝。请听，他如何依照那个将从孩子手中夺得遗产者的意思，写出一项“公平”的告示：“鉴于我理解沃科尼乌斯法……”谁会相信维勒斯竟会成为女人的敌人？莫非他故意做一件反对女人的事，免得整份告示看起来都由凯莉冬决定？他说自己要阻止人的贪欲。除了他还有谁更合适，不只在如今，即使在祖先时代也是如此？谁比他更远离贪欲？请继续读；这个人的庄重、对裁判官法的知识和权威，真使我愉快。“凡在奥卢斯·波斯图米乌斯与昆图斯·富尔维乌斯任监察官时，或此后……已经指定或将来指定……”

[2.1.107] “已经指定或将来指定”？谁曾这样发布告示？谁曾以告示使人因一种事情遭到损失或危险，而这种事情既不能在告示以后加以补救，也不能在告示以前预先防备？普布利乌斯·安尼乌斯依照法律、法规和所有法律顾问的权威制定遗嘱；它并不邪恶、不违反家庭义务，也不缺乏人情。即使他真这样做了，也不应在他死后，为他的遗嘱另立新法。你当然喜爱沃科尼乌斯法；那么，你本该效法盖乌斯·沃科尼乌斯本人。他没有以自己的法律剥夺任何少女或妇女已经得到的遗产，而是面向将来规定：在那些监察官之后登记财产者，不得指定少女或妇女为继承人。

[2.1.108] 沃科尼乌斯法中没有“已经指定或将来指定”；其他法律也不追究过去的事情，除非行为本身如此罪恶、如此违背天理，以至于即使没有法律，也应极力避免。即便在这些事情上，我们仍看到许多法律规定，不把先前做过的事交付审判：例如关于遗嘱、货币的科尔奈利乌斯法，以及许多其他法律。它们并非为人民创设一种新权利，而是规定，从某个确定时间起，某种一向属于恶行的事情，应由公共审判追究。

[2.1.109] 至于市民法，谁要创设新规则，难道不应让以前已经完成的行为保持有效吗？把阿提尼乌斯法、富里乌斯法、富西乌斯法，以及我所说的沃科尼乌斯法和其他一切市民法拿给我看；你会发现，它们都在规定人民此后应当适用的法律。最推重裁判官告示的人，也不过称它为一年的法律；你却让告示包揽了法律都不包揽的范围。如果一月一日给裁判官告示划定了终点，为什么告示的起点不也从一月一日开始？难道没有人能把告示延伸到另一位裁判官将要任职的那一年，却可以倒退到另一位裁判官曾经任职的年份吗？

Annotation. Sarcastic praise is translated as praise whose irony is evident in context. The excerpted wording of the edict is incomplete in Cicero’s presentation; the dossier does not supply a complete lost instrument.

V21B. Allied sanctuaries and private spoils

Source locator: In Verrem II.1: Verres’ earlier career, §§2.1.53-2.1.55. Stable passage ID: V21B.

Evidence claim C-V21B: Cicero distinguishes the public dedication of captured art from the private appropriation he attributes to Verres.

Latin

[2.1.53] Aspendum vetus oppidum et nobile in Pamphylia scitis esse, plenissimum signorum optimorum. non dicam illinc hoc signum ablatum esse et illud: hoc dico, nullum te Aspendi signum, Verres, reliquisse, omnia ex fanis, ex locis publicis, palam, spectantibus omnibus, plaustris evecta exportataque esse. atque etiam illum Aspendium citharistam, de quo saepe audistis id quod est Graecis hominibus in proverbio, quem omnia intus canere dicebant, sustulit et in intimis suis aedibus posuit, ut etiam illum ipsum suo artificio superasse videatur.

[2.1.54] Pergae fanum antiquissimum et sanctissimum Dianae scimus esse: id quoque a te nudatum ac spoliatum esse, ex ipsa Diana quod habebat auri detractum atque ablatum esse dico.

quae, malum, est ista tanta audacia atque amentia! quas enim sociorum atque amicorum urbis adisti legationis iure et nomine, si in eas vi cum exercitu imperioque invasisses, tamen, opinor, quae signa atque ornamenta ex iis urbibus sustulisses, haec non in tuam domum neque in suburbana amicorum, sed Romam in publicum deportasses.

[2.1.55] quid ego de M. Marcello loquar, qui Syracusas, urbem ornatissimam, cepit? quid de L. Scipione, qui bellum in Asia gessit Antiochumque, regem potentissimum, vicit? quid de Flaminino, qui regem Philippum et Macedoniam subegit? quid de L. Paulo, qui regem Persen vi ac virtute superavit? quid de L. Mummio, qui urbem pulcherrimam atque ornatissimam, Corinthum, plenissimam rerum omnium, sustulit, urbisque Achaiae Boeotiaeque multas sub imperium populi Romani dicionemque subiunxit? quorum domus, cum honore ac virtute florerent, signis et tabulis pictis erant vacuae; at vero urbem totam templaque deorum omnisque Italiae partis illorum donis ac monumentis exornatas videmus.

中文译文

[2.1.53] 你们知道，潘菲利亚的阿斯彭多斯是一座古老而著名的城市，最优秀的雕像极其丰富。我不说你从那里拿走了这一尊、那一尊；维勒斯，我说你没有在阿斯彭多斯留下一尊雕像。所有雕像，都在众目睽睽之下，被公开从神庙和公共场所搬上大车，运走了。甚至那个你们常听说的阿斯彭多斯琴师（希腊人用一句谚语说他“凡事都向里弹”）也被你拿走，放在自己住宅的最深处，仿佛你连他的本领也超过了。

[2.1.54] 我们知道，佩尔盖有一座极古老、极神圣的狄安娜神庙。我说，那座神庙也被你搬空、洗劫；狄安娜神像自身所有的黄金，也被剥下拿走。真见鬼，这是什么样的大胆与疯狂！你以使节的权利和名义进入盟友和朋友的城市；即使你带着军队和统帅权，以暴力攻入那些城市，我想，你从那里拿走的雕像和装饰品，也该运到罗马归公，而不是送进你自己的家，或朋友的郊外别墅。

[2.1.55] 我何必说攻占了装饰极其华美的叙拉古的马尔库斯·马尔凯卢斯？何必说在亚细亚作战、击败强大的安条克王的卢基乌斯·西庇阿？何必说征服腓力王与马其顿的弗拉米尼努斯？何必说凭力量与勇武战胜珀尔修斯王的卢基乌斯·保卢斯？何必说摧毁那座最美、装饰最华丽、万物充盈的科林斯，并使阿凯亚与玻奥提亚许多城市归于罗马人民统治的卢基乌斯·穆米乌斯？他们的家因荣誉与德行而显耀，却没有雕像与绘画；我们所见的，反而是整座罗马城、诸神的庙宇和意大利各地，都被他们的馈赠和纪念物装饰起来。

Annotation. The contrast is public dedication versus private enrichment within Roman imperial values. It should not be cited as Cicero’s condemnation of all removal of artworks through conquest.

In Verrem II.2 — provincial government as control of legal access

Chapter 8 · 70 BCE; published second-action text · Undelivered prosecution text

Latin source: William Peterson; Oxford Clarendon 1917. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The second book of the published second action examines the government of Sicily through lawsuits, inheritances, civic institutions, and the governor’s manipulation of people seeking remedies. Its importance is juridical as well as accusatory. Before describing particular abuses, Cicero explains that Sicily contains several legally distinct relationships: litigation between citizens of the same community, between Sicilians of different communities, between a person and a civic body, and between Romans and Sicilians. The applicable law and selection of judges vary accordingly. The often-cited “Rupilian law” is presented as part of this arrangement, not as a code that makes every Sicilian court identical. [V22A.]

Cicero alleges that Verres destroyed these distinctions by imposing favourites as judges and threatening to investigate and punish people who judged incorrectly. The critical step is the anticipation of personal danger: a judge who expects the governor to decide his own fate will try to discover the governor’s wishes. Thus an ostensibly corrective supervisory power becomes a means of directing judgments. This is evidence for Cicero’s analysis of compromised adjudication; it does not prove that all review of provincial judgments was inherently unlawful. His examples of inheritance exploitation then give the institutional allegation practical consequences. [V22A; II.2.35–50.]

The municipal material extends the argument from courts to civic membership. In V22B, rules about age, occupation, property qualification, and the balance between old inhabitants and colonists are said to have been displaced by payment. Their juridical authority derives from a mixture of local arrangements and Roman enactment or authorization. Cicero particularly stresses that a Roman commander acting with public authorization does not make merely personal rules. Bribing a governor to evade them therefore injures both the community and the authority of Rome. [V22B.]

Procedurally, these passages serve a Roman extortion prosecution, rather than a Sicilian constitutional appeal. Provincial plaintiffs and witnesses are brought into a Roman forensic narrative whose promised outcome is punishment and recovery against the governor. Historically, the book preserves unusually detailed evidence for the differentiated legal geography of an empire. It must nevertheless be read through the prosecutor’s desire to contrast an orderly inherited system with one destructive officeholder. Neither that idealized baseline nor the charges of universal corruption should become an unqualified description of every year of Roman rule. This is an undelivered second-action book, not a separate judgment on each municipal dispute. [V22A–V22B.]

V22A. Jurisdiction and judicial dependence

Source locator: In Verrem II.2: Sicilian jurisdiction and administration, §§2.2.32-2.2.34. Stable passage ID: V22A.

Evidence claim C-V22A: Cicero describes several different jurisdictional arrangements within Sicily and alleges that Verres displaced their operation.

Latin

[2.2.32] verum ut totum genus amplectamini iudiciorum, prius iura Siculorum, deinde istius instituta cognoscite.

Siculi hoc iure sunt ut, quod civis cum cive agat, domi certet suis legibus, quod Siculus cum Siculo non eiusdem civitatis, ut de eo praetor iudices ex P. Rupili decreto, quod is de decem legatorum sententia statuit, quam illi legem Rupiliam vocant, sortiatur. quod privatus a populo petit aut populus a privato, senatus ex aliqua civitate qui iudicet datur, cum alternae civitates reiectae sunt; quod civis Romanus a Siculo petit, Siculus iudex, quod Siculus a civi Romano, civis Romanus datur; ceterarum rerum selecti iudices ex conventu civium Romanorum proponi solent. inter aratores et decumanos lege frumentaria, quam Hieronicam appellant, iudicia fiunt.

[2.2.33] haec omnia isto praetore non modo perturbata, sed plane et Siculis et civibus Romanis erepta sunt. primum suae leges: quod civis cum civi ageret, aut eum iudicem quem commodum erat,—praeconem, haruspicem, medicum suum,—dabat, aut si legibus erat iudicium constitutum et ad civem suum iudicem venerant, libere civi iudicare non licebat. edictum enim hominis cognoscite, quo edicto omnia iudicia redegerat in suam potestatem, si qvi perperam ivdicasset, se cognitvrvm; cvm cognosset, animadversvrvm. Idque cum faciebat, nemo dubitabat quin, cum iudex alium de suo iudicio putaret iudicaturum seque in eo capitis periculum aditurum, voluntatem spectaret eius quem statim de capite suo putaret iudicaturum.

[2.2.34] selecti ex conventu aut propositi ex negotiatoribus iudices nulli: haec copia, quam dico, iudicum cohors non Q. Scaevolae, qui tamen de cohorte sua dare non solebat, sed C. Verris. cuius modi cohortem putatis hoc principe fuisse? sicubi videtis edictum, sl qvi perperam ivdicarit senatvs, eum quoque ostendam, si quando sit datus, coactu istius quod non senserit iudicasse. ex lege Rupilia sortitio nulla, nisi cum nihil intererat istius; lege Hieronica iudicia plurimarum controversiarum sublata uno nomine omnia; de conventu ac negotiatoribus nulli iudices. quantam potestatem habuerit videtis, quas res gesserit cognoscite.

中文译文

[2.2.32] 为了使你们掌握各类审判的整体情况，先了解西西里人的法律，再了解此人的制度。西西里人的法律是这样：同一城邦公民彼此诉讼，在本地依自己的法律争讼；一个西西里人与另一城邦的西西里人争讼，裁判官应依普布利乌斯·鲁皮利乌斯经十名使节同意而制定的规定（他们称为鲁皮利乌斯法）抽签指定审判员。私人向城邦请求，或城邦向私人请求，在轮流排除候选城邦之后，由某一城邦的议事会审判。罗马公民向西西里人请求，指定西西里人为审判员；西西里人向罗马公民请求，指定罗马公民。其他事项，通常从罗马公民会聚团体中公布选定的审判员。耕作者和什一税承包人之间，则依据称为希耶罗法的粮食法律进行审判。

[2.2.33] 此人任裁判官时，这一切不仅被扰乱，而且完全从西西里人和罗马公民手中剥夺了。首先是他们自己的法律：同城公民彼此诉讼时，他要么指定一个对自己方便的审判员（自己的传令员、占卜师或医生）要么即使依法设立审判、来到本城公民任审判员的法庭，那个公民也不能自由裁断。请听他的告示；他用这项告示把所有审判收归自己的权力：“如果有人判得不当，我将调查；查明之后，我将惩处。”他这样做时，没有人怀疑：一个审判员既然认为另有人将审查自己的判决，自己会因此面临危及身份乃至生命的危险，他便会看那个人的意愿行事，因为他相信，对方马上就会审判自己的命运。

[2.2.34] 不再从公民会聚团体中选择审判员，也不从商人中公布人选；我所说的这批审判员，就是随从班子。它不是昆图斯·斯凯沃拉的班子（他甚至不习惯从自己的随从中指定审判员）而是维勒斯的班子。有这样一个首领，你们想那是怎样的一群人？如果你们看到告示说，“如果某个议事会判得不当”，我也会指出：只要这种议事会曾被指定审案，它就被他强迫，作出违背自身判断的裁决。除非此人没有利害关系，否则就没有依据鲁皮利乌斯法进行的抽签；依据希耶罗法处理众多争议的审判，全被一举取消；公民会聚团体和商人中也不再有人作审判员。你们已看见他拥有多大权力；现在再了解他做了什么。

Annotation. The passage is a source for the distinctions Cicero reports, not a complete provincial jurisdiction statute. Conventus is retained as a citizen gathering or association here rather than silently equated with a modern court district.

V22B. Civic rules sold for money

Source locator: In Verrem II.2: Sicilian jurisdiction and administration, §§2.2.121-2.2.123. Stable passage ID: V22B.

Evidence claim C-V22B: Cicero alleges that Verres sold access to municipal office in disregard of the different qualifications prescribed by local constitutions.

Latin

[2.2.121] quicumque senator voluerit fieri, quamvis puer, quamvis indignus, quamvis ex eo loco ex quo non liceret, si is pretio apud istum ⟦idoneus⟧ vinceret, factum esse semper; non modo Siculorum nihil in hac re valuisse leges, sed ne ab senatu quidem populoque Romano datas. quas enim leges sociis amicisque dat is qui habet imperium a populo Romano, auctoritatem legum dandarum ab senatu, eae debent et populi Romani et senatus existimari.

[2.2.122] Halaesini pro multis ac magnis suis maiorumque suorum in rem publicam nostram meritis atque beneficiis suo iure nuper, L. Licinio Q. Mucio consulibus, cum haberent inter se controversias de senatu cooptando, leges ab senatu nostro petiverunt. decrevit senatus honorifico senatus consulto ut iis C. Claudius Appi filius pulcher praetor de senatu cooptando leges conscriberet. C. Claudius, adhibitis omnibus Marcellis qui tum erant, de eorum sententia leges Halaesinis dedit, in quibus multa sanxit de aetate hominum, ne qui minor xxx annis natus, de quaestu, quem qui fecisset ne legeretur, de censu, de ceteris rebus: quae omnia ante istum praetorem et nostrorum magistratuum auctoritate et Halaesinorum summa voluntate valuerunt. ab isto et praeco, qui voluit, illum ordinem pretio mercatus est, et pueri annorum senum septenumque denum senatorium nomen nundinati sunt; et quod Halaesini, antiquissimi et fidelissimi socii atque amici, Romae impetrarant, ut apud se ne suffragiis quidem fieri liceret, id pretio ut fieri posset effecit.

[2.2.123] Agrigentini de senatu cooptando Scipionis leges antiquas habent, in quibus et illa eadem sancta sunt et hoc amplius: cum Agrigentinorum duo genera sint, unum veterum, alterum colonorum quos T. Manlius praetor ex senatus consulto de oppidis Siculorum deduxit Agrigentum, cautum est in Scipionis legibus ne plures essent in senatu ex colonorum numero quam ex vetere Agrigentinorum. iste, qui omnia iura pretio exaequasset omniumque rerum dilectum atque discrimen pecunia sustulisset, non modo illa quae erant aetatis ordinis quaestusque permiscuit, sed etiam in his duobus generibus civium novorum veterumque turbavit.

中文译文

[2.2.121] 不论谁想成为议事员，哪怕是少年、不配任职，或属于不准入选的类别，只要在此人面前以价钱胜出，就总能如愿。在这件事上，不仅西西里人的法律毫无效力，连罗马元老院和人民授予的法律也一样。因为，一个从罗马人民那里取得统帅权、从元老院那里取得立法授权的人，授给盟友和朋友的法律，应当被视为罗马人民和元老院的法律。

[2.2.122] 哈莱萨人自己及其祖先曾对我国立下许多重大功劳，给予许多帮助。不久前，在卢基乌斯·李锡尼乌斯与昆图斯·穆基乌斯任执政官时，他们因增补议事员发生内部争议，依据自己的地位向我国元老院请求法律。元老院作出一项表示尊重的决议，命阿庇乌斯之子、裁判官盖乌斯·克劳狄乌斯·普尔凯尔为他们制定增补议事员的法律。克劳狄乌斯召集当时所有马尔凯卢斯家族成员，听取他们的意见后颁法，其中规定了任职年龄，不许三十岁以下者入选；规定职业资格，从事某些职业者不得当选；还规定财产资格及其他事项。这一切在此人任职以前，既凭我国官员的权威，也凭哈莱萨人的高度赞同而有效。此人却让愿意付钱的传令员买到席位，让十六七岁的孩子购买议事员称号。哈莱萨人作为极古老、极忠诚的盟友和朋友，曾在罗马争取到某些事即使经当地投票也不得实行；此人却使它们能靠价钱实现。

[2.2.123] 阿格里根图姆人在增补议事员方面，有西庇阿制定的旧法；其中有同类规定，还另外规定：当地居民分为两类，一类是旧居民，一类是裁判官提图斯·曼利乌斯依据元老院决议，从西西里其他城镇迁来的殖民者；议事会中的殖民者人数，不得多于旧居民人数。此人用价钱抹平一切权利，用金钱取消一切选择和区别，不只搅乱年龄、身份和职业的规定，也把新旧这两类公民之间的安排一并扰乱。

Annotation. The named qualifications should not be generalized to all Sicilian councils. The accusation is precisely that several different civic constitutions were overridden.

In Verrem II.3 — taxation and the cost of obtaining a remedy

Chapter 9 · 70 BCE; published second-action text · Undelivered prosecution text

Latin source: William Peterson; Oxford Clarendon 1917. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The grain book explains how Rome’s demand for revenue and food could be exploited through collection rules, procurement, and monetary assessment. Cicero announces three divisions: tithe grain, purchased grain, and grain converted into an assessed monetary obligation. The distinction prevents an apparently simple story of “tax theft” from erasing different legal titles to the grain. His introduction also differentiates the fiscal position of Sicilian communities. Some arrangements concern public land; some cities have treaty or immunity privileges; much of the land is subject to tithe arrangements associated with Hiero. These categories are part of the evidence, not decorative background. [V23A.]

The governing accusation is that Verres converted established revenue machinery into private extraction through favoured collectors, especially Apronius. Cicero’s idealized account of the inherited arrangements combines two claims: they secured the public revenue carefully, yet did not permit a collector to take more than the tithe from an unwilling cultivator. The alleged innovation breaks that balance. It changes who initially controls the produce and who bears the burden of going to law. [II.3.20–27; V23B.]

V23B is a particularly clear juridical analysis of a nominal remedy that may be practically ineffective. The farmer must first deliver what the collector declares due; an eightfold action is then offered if too much has been taken. Cicero refuses to treat the multiplier as sufficient protection. The farmer must leave agricultural work, travel to a forum, and litigate against the governor’s favourite after losing possession of the disputed goods. A large theoretical recovery can coexist with an oppressive allocation of immediate advantage. The legal question is therefore not just what damages the law promises, but who must initiate proceedings, where, with what resources, and under whose supervision. [V23B.]

Procedurally, Cicero invokes edicts and accounts as documents that can be read out and distinguishes his own presentation from the defence’s demand that the whole provision be quoted. Historically, his argument connects metropolitan subsistence, provincial production, contractors, and magistrates. He is defending provincial cultivators in part because Sicily feeds Rome; he is not arguing against all imperial taxation. The book’s extended examples and calculations remain elements of an undelivered accusation, and claims of total devastation should be treated as prosecutorial assessments rather than audited agricultural statistics. [V23A–V23B.]

V23A. The three grain headings and fiscal differentiation

Source locator: In Verrem II.3: Grain and taxation, §§2.3.11-2.3.15. Stable passage ID: V23A.

Evidence claim C-V23A: Cicero distinguishes forms of grain exaction and the different fiscal statuses of Sicilian communities.

Latin

[2.3.11] in hac causa frumentaria cognoscenda haec vobis proponite, iudices, vos de rebus fortunisque Siculorum omnium, de civium Romanorum qui arant in Sicilia bonis, de vectigalibus a maioribus traditis, de vita victuque populi Romani cognituros: quae si magna atque adeo maxima vobis videbuntur, quam varie et quam copiose dicantur exspectare nolite.

neminem vestrum praeterit, iudices, omnem utilitatem opportunitatemque provinciae Siciliae, quae ad commoda populi Romani adiuncta sit, consistere in re frumentaria maxime; nam ceteris rebus adiuvamur ex illa provincia, hac vero alimur ac sustinemur.

[2.3.12] ea causa tripertita, iudices, erit in accusatione; primum enim de decumano, deinde de empto dicemus frumento, postremo de aestimato.

inter Siciliam ceterasque provincias, iudices, in agrorum vectigalium ratione hoc interest, quod ceteris aut impositum vectigal est certum, quod stipendiarium dicitur, ut Hispanis et plerisque Poenorum quasi victoriae praemium ac poena belli, aut censoria locatio constituta est, ut Asiae lege Sempronia: Siciliae civitates sic in amicitiam fidemque accepimus ut eodem iure essent quo fuissent, eadem condicione populo Romano parerent qua suis antea paruissent.

[2.3.13] perpaucae Siciliae civitates sunt bello a maioribus nostris subactae; quarum ager cum esset publicus populi Romani factus, tamen illis est redditus; is ager a censoribus locari solet. foederatae civitates duae sunt, quarum decumae venire non soleant, Mamertina et Tauromenitana, quinque praeterea sine foedere immunes ⟦civitates⟧ ac liberae, Centuripina, Halaesina, Segestana, Halicyensis, Panhormitana; praeterea omnis ager Siciliae civitatum decumanus est, itemque ante imperium populi Romani ipsorum Siculorum voluntate et institutis fuit.

[2.3.14] videte nunc maiorum sapientiam, qui cum Siciliam tam opportunum subsidium belli atque pacis ad rem publicam adiunxissent, tanta cura Siculos tueri ac retinere voluerunt ut non modo eorum agris vectigal novum nullum imponerent, sed ne legem quidem venditionis decumarum neve vendundi aut tempus aut locum commutarent, ut certo tempore anni, ut ibidem in Sicilia, denique ut lege Hieronica venderent. voluerunt eos in suis rebus ipsos interesse, eorumque animos non modo lege nova sed ne nomine quidem legis novo commoveri.

[2.3.15] itaque decumas lege Hieronica semper vendundas censuerunt, ut iis iucundior esset muneris illius functio, si eius regis qui Siculis carissimus fuit non solum instituta commutato imperio, verum etiam nomen maneret. hoc iure ante Verrem praetorem Siculi semper usi sunt: hic primus instituta omnium, consuetudinem a maioribus traditam, condicionem amicitiae, ius societatis convellere et commutare ausus est.

中文译文

[2.3.11] 审判员们，在审理这部分粮食案情时，请记住：你们将审查的，是全体西西里人的财产与命运，是在西西里耕作的罗马公民的产业，是祖先传下的税收，也是罗马人民的生活与食粮。如果你们觉得这些事情重大，甚至最为重大，就不要期待我讲得花样繁多、词采丰赡。你们没有人不知道，西西里行省对于罗马人民利益所具有的一切用途和便利，主要在于粮食；我们从这个行省得到其他帮助，但正是靠粮食得到养育和维持。

[2.3.12] 这部分控告分为三项：先谈什一税粮，再谈购入的粮食，最后谈折价估征的粮食。西西里与其他行省在土地税收方面，有如下区别：其他地方或者被征以固定贡税，称为贡赋，例如西班牙人和大部分迦太基地区居民，仿佛作为胜利的报偿和战争的惩罚；或者建立由监察官承包税收的制度，例如依据塞姆普罗尼乌斯法的亚细亚。我们接纳西西里各城邦为朋友、给予保护时，却使他们保有原来的法律地位，依照从前服从本地统治者的条件服从罗马人民。

[2.3.13] 西西里只有极少数城邦是祖先以战争征服的；它们的土地虽然成为罗马人民的公地，仍被交还给它们；这种土地通常由监察官出租。另有两个结盟城邦，其什一税通常不拍卖承包权，即马梅尔提尼和陶罗梅尼乌姆。此外，还有五个没有条约而享有免税与自由地位的〔校勘者删疑：城邦〕：肯图里帕、哈莱萨、塞盖斯塔、哈利基艾和潘霍尔穆姆。除此之外，西西里各城邦的土地都缴纳什一税；在罗马人民统治以前，依西西里人自己的意愿和制度也如此。

[2.3.14] 请看祖先的智慧：他们把西西里这样适于支持战争与和平的地区纳入国家后，极其用心地保护并维系西西里人，不仅没有给土地增加新税，甚至不改变什一税承包权的出售规则，不改变出售的时间和地点，而是让它在一年中的固定时节、就在西西里、依希耶罗法出售。他们希望当地人亲自参与自己的事务，不仅不以新法，甚至不以一个新的法律名称扰乱他们的心情。

[2.3.15] 因此，他们决定始终依希耶罗法出售什一税承包权，使当地人更愿意承担这项义务：政权虽然改变，那位为西西里人深爱的国王，不仅其制度，连名字也保留下来。在维勒斯任职以前，西西里人始终使用这种法律。此人第一个胆敢破坏并改变大家的制度、祖先传下的习惯、友好关系的条件和盟约的权利。

Annotation. This is Cicero’s account of the fiscal settlement, including his praise of continuity. It does not prove that every earlier governor administered the arrangements without abuse.

V23B. Pay first, sue afterwards

Source locator: In Verrem II.3: Grain and taxation, §§2.3.24-2.3.27. Stable passage ID: V23B.

Evidence claim C-V23B: Cicero argues that procedural conditions imposed by Verres made the cultivator’s nominal remedy against a tithe collector practically ineffective.

Latin

[2.3.24] hunc, uti dicere institui, principem Verres ad fortunas aratorum vexandas diripiendasque esse voluit: huius audaciae nequitiae crudelitati fidelissimos socios optimosque civis scitota hoc praetore traditos, iudices, atque addictos fuisse novis institutis et edictis, tote Hieronica lege, quem ad modum antea dixi, reiecta ac repudiata.

[2.3.25] primum edictum, iudices, audite praeclarum: quantum decumanus edidisset aratorem sibi decumae dare oportere, ut tantum arator decumano dare cogeretur. quo modo? quantum poposcerit Apronius, dato. quid est hoc? utrum praetoris institutum in socios an in hostis victos insani edictum atque imperium tyranni? ego tantundem dabo quantum ille poposcerit? poscet omne quantum exaravero. quid omne? plus immo etiam, inquit, si volet. quid tum? quid censes? aut dabis aut contra edictum fecisse damnabere. per deos immortalis, quid est hoc? veri enim simile non est.

[2.3.26] sic mihi persuadeo, iudices, tametsi omnia in istum hominem convenire putetis, tamen hoc vobis falsum videri. ego enim, cum hoc tota Sicilia diceret, tamen adfirmare non auderem, si haec edicta non ex ipsius tabulis totidem verbis recitare possem, sicuti faciam. da, quaeso, scribae, recitet ex codice professionem. recita. edictvm de professione. negat me recitare totum; nam id significare nutu videtur. quid praetereo? an illud, ubi caves tamen Siculis et miseros respicis aratores? dicis enim te in decumanum, si plus abstulerit quam debitum sit, in octuplum iudicium daturum. nihil mihi placet praetermitti; recita hoc quoque quod postulat totum. recita. edictvm de ivdicio in octvplvm. Iudicio ut arator decumanum persequatur? miserum atque iniquum! ex agro homines traducis in forum, ab aratro ad subsellia, ab usu rerum rusticarum ad insolitam litem atque iudicium?

[2.3.27] cum omnibus in aliis vectigalibus, Asiae Macedoniae Hispaniae Galliae Africae Sardiniae, ipsius Italiae quae vectigalia sunt —cum in his, inquam, rebus omnibus publicanus petitor ac pignerator, non ereptor neque possessor soleat esse, tu de optimo, de iustissimo, de honestissimo genere hominum, hoc est de aratoribus, ea iura constituebas quae omnibus aliis essent contraria? Vtrum est aequius, decumanum petere an aratorem repetere? iudicium integra re an perdita fieri? eum qui manu quaesierit, an eum qui digito sit licitus possidere? quid? qui singulis iugis arant, qui ab opere ipsi non recedunt,—quo in numero magnus ante te praetorem numerus ac magna multitudo Siculorum fuit,— quid facient cum dederint Apronio quod poposcerit? relinquent arationes, relinquent Larem familiarem suum? venient Syracusas, ut te praetore videlicet aequo iure Apronium, delicias ac vitam tuam, iudicio recuperatorio persequantur?

中文译文

[2.3.24] 正如我开始要说的，维勒斯让这个人成为骚扰、掠夺耕作者财产的首领。审判员们，你们要知道，在这位裁判官任内，那些最忠诚的盟友和最优秀的公民，通过新制度和新告示，被交付、被束缚在此人的凶悍、邪恶和残酷之下；整个希耶罗法，正如我先前说的，都被抛弃了。

[2.3.25] 首先请听这项高明的告示：“什一税承包人申报耕作者应交多少什一税，耕作者就必须交给承包人多少。”怎么回事？阿普罗尼乌斯要多少，你就交多少！这究竟是什么？是裁判官为盟友制定的规则，还是疯狂暴君对战败敌人发布的命令？他要多少，我就交多少？他会把我耕出来的一切都要去。“何止一切，”他说，“只要他愿意，还可以更多。”那又怎么办？你以为呢？要么交，要么因违反告示被判罪。永生的诸神啊，这算什么？简直难以相信。

[2.3.26] 审判员们，我相信，尽管你们觉得此人什么事都做得出来，这件事仍会让你们以为是假的。即使整个西西里都这样说，如果我不能从他自己的文书中逐字宣读这些告示，我也不敢断言；而我正要这样做。请交给书记员，让他从册子里宣读申报规定。读吧。〔宣读有关申报的告示。〕他好像在点头示意，说我没有读全。我漏了什么？莫非是你还替西西里人设下保护、顾念可怜耕作者的那一项？你说，如果承包人拿走的超过应得之数，你将授予八倍追偿的诉讼。我不愿漏掉任何东西；把他要求的这一项也全部读出来。〔宣读有关八倍诉讼的告示。〕让耕作者通过诉讼追究承包人？这是多么悲惨、多么不公平！你把人从田里拖到广场，从犁边拖到诉讼席，从熟悉的农事拖进陌生的争讼和审判！

[2.3.27] 在其他一切税收中，无论亚细亚、马其顿、西班牙、高卢、阿非利加、撒丁，还是意大利本身，包税人惯常是请求者和取抵押者，而不是掠夺者和占有人。你却为最优秀、最公正、最诚实的一类人，也就是耕作者，制定与所有其他地方相反的规则？究竟哪一种更公平：让承包人请求给付，还是让耕作者追回已失之物？在东西尚完整时审判，还是在失去以后？让亲手劳作取得它的人占有，还是让拍卖时举一根手指的人占有？那些只有一套耕畜、自己无法离开农活的人（在你任职以前，西西里有很多很多这样的人）把阿普罗尼乌斯所要的交出之后，该怎么办？放下田地，离开家庭的守护神吗？来到叙拉古，在你这位“公平”的裁判官面前，通过审理员之诉，追究那个你心爱的、视同生命的阿普罗尼乌斯吗？

Annotation. The document-reading cues are part of the speech, not surviving copies of the exhibits. The eightfold remedy is acknowledged before Cicero attacks its practical accessibility.

In Verrem II.4 — when an official’s “purchase” is not a free transaction

Chapter 10 · 70 BCE; published second-action text · Undelivered prosecution text

Latin source: William Peterson; Oxford Clarendon 1917. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The fourth book is often remembered as the speech about statues, but its legal subject is the acquisition of objects through provincial power. Cicero begins by setting competing descriptions against one another: Verres’ cultivated interest, his friends’ diagnosis of obsession, and the Sicilians’ allegation of robbery. He then asks the jury to judge the thing done rather than its label. Private collections, civic monuments, and sacred objects all enter the prosecution, but their ownership and religious status are not interchangeable. [II.4.1–2; V24A–V24B.]

The Heius episode makes the juridical question unusually explicit. Verres’ supposed answer is “I bought them.” Cicero first challenges official purchasing itself, then provisionally accepts a narrower test: was the thing genuinely for sale, did the owner freely consent, and did the price correspond to his valuation? The temporary concession is an argumentative device. It lets Cicero demonstrate that even under a more favourable standard the transaction cannot be justified. Heius’ wealth, absence of a forced sale, and inherited religious attachment are marshalled to make voluntary disposal improbable. These are arguments about consent under unequal power, not merely complaints about a bargain price. [V24A.]

The Henna material adds collective religious injury. A sacred image’s meaning cannot be reduced to its market value or workmanship. Cicero represents the local community as prioritizing the restoration of its relationship with Ceres over other grievances. He also places himself in the scene as investigator and witness to the reception by priests and citizens. That gives a transmission chain—local complaint, Cicero’s investigation, published accusation—rather than direct access to an unmediated Sicilian voice. [V24B.]

Procedurally, the art and sanctuary narratives supply allegations and valuation contexts within the extortion prosecution. They are not a separate international restitution proceeding. Historically, they show elite collecting operating through conquest, hospitality, official purchase, coercion, and patronal relations. Cicero condemns Verres by comparison with Roman norms of public dedication and restraint, while using stereotypes about slaves and “barbarians” in his moral contrasts. Those derogatory terms are translated as his rhetoric, not adopted by the dossier. The work remains an undelivered second-action text; the richness of its object descriptions does not turn every attribution of artist or motive into a verified catalogue entry. [V24A–V24B; compare II.1.53–55.]

V24A. “I bought them”

Source locator: In Verrem II.4: Works of art and sacred property, §§2.4.7-2.4.11. Stable passage ID: V24A.

Evidence claim C-V24A: Cicero challenges the characterization of Heius’ transfer of artworks to Verres as a genuinely voluntary purchase.

Latin

[2.4.7] haec omnia quae dixi signa, iudices, ab Heio e sacrario Verres abstulit; nullum, inquam, horum reliquit neque aliud ullum tamen praeter unum pervetus ligneum, bonam Fortunam, ut opinor; eam iste habere domi suae noluit.

pro deum hominumque fidem! quid hoc est? quae haec causa est, quae ista impudentia? quae dico signa, antequam abs te sublata sunt, Messanam cum imperio nemo venit quin viserit. tot praetores, tot consules in Sicilia cum in pace tum etiam in bello fuerunt, tot homines cuiusque modi—non loquor de integris, innocentibus, religiosis —tot cupidi, tot improbi, tot audaces, quorum nemo sibi tam vehemens, tam potens, tam nobilis visus est qui ex illo sacrario quicquam poscere aut tollere aut attingere auderet: Verres quod ubique erit pulcherrimum auferet? nihil habere cuiquam praeterea licebit? tot domus locupletissimas istius domus una capiet? idcirco nemo superiorum attigit ut hic tolleret? ideo C. Claudius pulcher rettulit ut C. Verres posset auferre? at non requirebat ille Cupido lenonis domum ac meretriciam disciplinam; facile illo sacrario patrio continebatur; Heio se a maioribus relictum esse sciebat in hereditate sacrorum, non quaerebat meretricis heredem.

[2.4.8] sed quid ego tam vehementer invehor? verbo uno repellar. emi, inquit. di immortales, praeclaram defensionem! mercatorem in provinciam cum imperio ac securibus misimus, omnia qui signa, tabulas pictas, omne argentum, aurum, ebur, gemmas coemeret, nihil cuiquam relinqueret! haec enim mihi ad omnia defensio patefieri videtur, emisse. primum, si id quod vis tibi ego concedam, ut emeris,—quoniam in toto hoc genere hac una defensione usurus es,— quaero cuius modi tu iudicia Romae putaris esse, si tibi hoc quemquam concessurum putasti, te in praetura atque imperio tot res tam pretiosas, omnis denique res quae alicuius preti fuerint, tota ex provincia coemisse?

[2.4.9] videte maiorum diligentiam, qui nihildum etiam istius modi suspicabantur, verum tamen ea quae parvis in rebus accidere poterant providebant. neminem qui cum potestate aut legatione in provinciam esset profectus tam amentem fore putaverunt ut emeret argentum, dabatur enim de publico; ut vestem, praebebatur enim legibus; mancipium putarunt, quo et omnes utimur et non praebetur a populo: sanxerunt ne quis emeret nisi in demortui locum. si qui Romae esset demortuus? immo, si quis ibidem; non enim te instruere domum tuam voluerunt in provincia, sed illum usum provinciae supplere.

[2.4.10] quae fuit causa cur tam diligenter nos in provinciis ab emptionibus removerent? haec, iudices, quod putabant ereptionem esse, non emptionem, cum venditori suo arbitratu vendere non liceret. in provinciis intellegebant, si is qui esset cum imperio ac potestate quod apud quemque esset emere vellet, idque ei liceret, fore uti quod quisque vellet, sive esset venale sive non esset, quanti vellet auferret.

dicet aliquis: noli isto modo agere cum Verre, noli eius facta ad antiquae religionis rationem exquirere; concede ut impune emerit, modo ut bona ratione emerit, nihil pro potestate, nihil ab invito, nihil per iniuriam. sic agam: si, quod venale habuit Heius, id quanti aestimabat tanti vendidit, desino quaerere cur emeris.

[2.4.11] quid igitur nobis faciendum est? num argumentis utendum in re eius modi? quaerendum, credo, est Heius iste num aes alienum habuerit, num auctionem fecerit; si fecit, num tanta difficultas eum rei nummariae tenuerit, tanta egestas, tanta vis presserit ut sacrarium suum spoliaret, ut deos patrios venderet. at hominem video auctionem fecisse nullam, vendidisse praeter fructus suos nihil umquam, non modo in aere alieno nullo, sed in suis nummis multis esse et semper fuisse; si haec contra ac dico essent omnia, tamen illum haec, quae tot annos in familia sacrarioque maiorum fuissent, venditurum non fuisse. quid, si magnitudine pecuniae persuasum est? veri simile non est ut ille homo tam locuples, tam honestus, religioni suae monumentisque maiorum pecuniam anteponeret.

中文译文

[2.4.7] 审判员们，我刚才说的那些雕像，维勒斯全都从赫伊乌斯的家内圣所拿走了。我说，一尊也没留下；事实上，除了一尊极古老的木像（我想是好运女神）之外，什么也没有留下，那一尊他不愿放在自己家里。神与人作证！这算什么？这是什么案情，什么厚颜无耻？在这些雕像被你拿走以前，没有一个带着统帅权来到墨萨纳的人不去参观。如此多裁判官、执政官，在和平与战争中到过西西里；如此多各式各样的人（我不说廉洁、无辜、敬神的人）如此多贪婪、邪恶、大胆的人，却没有谁觉得自己强横、有权势、尊贵到敢从那座圣所索取、拿走，甚至触碰任何东西。维勒斯却要把每个地方最美的东西拿走吗？别人从此什么都不许有吗？他一所住宅要容纳那么多富人的住宅吗？前人不碰，就是为了让他拿走？盖乌斯·克劳狄乌斯·普尔凯尔把东西归还，就是为了让维勒斯搬走？那尊爱神并不向往皮条客的住宅和娼妓的教养；祖传圣所足以安置他。他知道，祖先把他留给赫伊乌斯，是作为祭祀传承的一部分；他并不寻找娼妓的继承人。

[2.4.8] 但我为什么这样激烈地抨击？一句话就会把我挡回来。他说：“我买的。”永生的诸神啊，多么精彩的辩护！我们把一个商人连同统帅权和斧钺派到行省，让他把所有雕像、绘画、银器、黄金、象牙、宝石都买光，什么也不给人留下！我看，“买的”仿佛已经成了他回答一切的办法。首先，即使我承认你所希望的这一点，承认你确实买了（既然你在这整类事情中只打算使用这一种辩护）我仍要问：你把罗马的法庭想成什么样，才会以为有人会容许你，在任裁判官、掌握统帅权时，从整个行省购买如此多珍贵物品，简直所有值钱的东西？

[2.4.9] 请看祖先的谨慎。他们尚未想到这种情形，却已防备可能从小事中发生的弊端。他们不认为一个带着职权或使节身份前往行省的人会疯狂到购买银器，因为公家会提供；也不认为他会购买衣服，因为法律规定会供应。他们想到奴隶，因为我们都使用奴隶，而国家不提供；于是规定，除非补替一个死去的奴隶，否则不得购买。如果死者是在罗马死的呢？不，必须是在当地死的。他们不愿让你在行省装备自己的家庭，而只许补足行省公务所需。

[2.4.10] 为什么他们如此仔细地使我们远离行省中的购买？审判员们，原因是：当卖方不能凭自己的决定出售时，他们认为这叫夺取，不叫购买。他们明白，在行省，如果握有统帅权和职权的人想买谁的东西，而法律又容许，结果就是：不论物品是否待售，他都能以自己愿出的价钱拿走自己想要的东西。有人会说：“不要这样对待维勒斯；不要依古代那种严谨标准审问他的行为。可以容许他购买而不受处罚，只要购买正当，不凭权势，不违背主人意愿，也没有侵害。”我就这样办：如果赫伊乌斯确实把东西拿出来卖，并按自己估定的价钱卖出，我就不再追问你为什么购买。

[2.4.11] 那么，我们该怎么办？这种事情需要推论吗？我想，得问问赫伊乌斯是否负债，是否举行过拍卖；如果有，是否被如此严重的资金困难、贫困和压力逼迫，以至于剥空自己的圣所，出售祖传神像。但我看见，这个人没有举行过拍卖，除了自家出产，从未出售任何东西；他不仅毫无债务，而且现在及过去始终自有大量金钱。即便这些情况全与我所说相反，他也不会卖掉那些多年保存在家族和祖先圣所中的东西。那么，会不会是巨额金钱说服了他？这样富有、这样正派的人，把金钱置于自己的宗教和祖先纪念物之上，是不合情理的。

Annotation. The purchaser’s official power and the owner’s ability to refuse are the legal centre of the extract. Cicero’s idealization of Heius and the ancestors remains part of the proof he is attempting to construct.

V24B. Henna’s complaint

Source locator: In Verrem II.4: Works of art and sacred property, §§2.4.110-2.4.112. Stable passage ID: V24B.

Evidence claim C-V24B: Cicero presents the removal of sacred objects at Henna as an injury to a community’s religious life.

Latin

[2.4.110] ante aedem Cereris in aperto ac propatulo loco signa duo sunt, Cereris unum, alterum Triptolemi, pulcherrima ac perampla. pulchritudo periculo, amplitudo saluti fuit, quod eorum demolitio atque asportatio perdifficilis videbatur. insistebat in manu Cereris dextra grande simulacrum pulcherrime factum victoriae; hoc iste e signo Cereris avellendum asportandumque curavit.

qui tandem istius animus est nunc in recordatione scelerum suorum, cum ego ipse in commemoratione eorum non solum animo commovear verum etiam corpore perhorrescam? venit enim mihi fani, loci, religionis illius in mentem; versantur ante oculos omnia, dies ille quo, cum ego Hennam venissem, praesto mihi sacerdotes Cereris cum infulis ac verbenis fuerunt, contio conventusque civium, in quo ego cum loquerer tanti gemitus fletusque fiebant ut acerbissimus tota urbe luctus versari videretur.

[2.4.111] non illi decumarum imperia, non bonorum direptiones, non iniqua iudicia, non importunas istius libidines, non vim, non contumelias quibus vexati oppressique erant conquerebantur; Cereris numen, sacrorum vetustatem, fani religionem istius sceleratissimi atque audacissimi supplicio expiari volebant; omnia se cetera pati ac neglegere dicebant. hic dolor erat tantus ut Verres alter Orcus venisse Hennam et non Proserpinam asportasse sed ipsam abripuisse Cererem videretur. etenim urbs illa non urbs videtur, sed fanum Cereris esse; habitare apud sese Cererem Hennenses arbitrantur, ut mihi non cives illius civitatis, sed omnes sacerdotes, omnes accolae atque antistites Cereris esse videantur.

[2.4.112] Henna tu simulacrum Cereris tollere audebas, Henna tu de manu Cereris victoriam eripere et deam deae detrahere conatus es? quorum nihil violare, nihil attingere ausi sunt in quibus erant omnia quae sceleri propiora sunt quam religioni. tenuerunt enim P. Popilio P. Rupilio consulibus illum locum servi, fugitivi, barbari, hostes; sed neque tam servi illi dominorum quam tu libidinum, neque tam fugitivi illi ab dominis quam tu ab iure et ab legibus, neque tam barbari lingua et natione illi quam tu natura et moribus, neque tam illi hostes hominibus quam tu dis immortalibus. quae deprecatio est igitur ei reliqua qui indignitate servos, temeritate fugitivos, scelere barbaros, crudelitate hostes vicerit?

中文译文

[2.4.110] 刻瑞斯神庙前的开阔地，有两尊雕像，一尊刻瑞斯，一尊特里普托勒摩斯，都极美而高大。美丽给它们带来危险，高大却救了它们，因为拆卸和运走似乎极难。刻瑞斯右手上立着一尊很大的胜利女神像，制作极其精美；此人命人把它从刻瑞斯像上扯下，运走。现在他回想自己的罪行时，心里究竟会怎样？我只是在叙述，便不仅心情震动，而且浑身发抖。因为我想起那座神庙、那个地方和它的神圣性；一切都浮现在眼前：我到亨纳的那一天，刻瑞斯的祭司戴着圣带、持着圣枝迎接我；公民举行集会，我讲话时，叹息和哭泣如此强烈，仿佛整座城市都沉浸在最惨痛的哀伤里。

[2.4.111] 他们抱怨的不是什一税的强制，不是财产被抢，不是不公的审判，也不是此人无耻的欲望、他们遭受的暴力和侮辱。他们希望通过惩罚这个最邪恶、最大胆的人，平复刻瑞斯的神威，洗除对古老祭祀和神庙神圣性的冒犯；他们说，其他一切都可以忍受、都可以不计。痛苦如此巨大，以至于维勒斯仿佛第二个冥王来到亨纳，带走的不是普罗塞耳皮娜，而是劫走了刻瑞斯本人。那座城看起来简直不是城市，而是刻瑞斯的神庙。亨纳人认为刻瑞斯住在他们中间；所以在我看来，他们与其说是那座城的公民，不如说全是刻瑞斯的祭司、邻居和守护者。

[2.4.112] 你竟敢从亨纳拿走刻瑞斯的神像？你竟企图从亨纳的刻瑞斯手里夺走胜利女神，从一位女神身上拆走另一位女神？那些身上具备一切更接近罪恶而非虔敬特征的人，也不敢侵犯、不敢触碰这些东西。普布利乌斯·波皮利乌斯和普布利乌斯·鲁皮利乌斯任执政官时，占据那里的曾是奴隶、逃亡者、异族和敌人；但他们受主人奴役，还不如你受欲望奴役；他们逃离主人，还不如你逃离法律与法规；他们在语言和族属上被称为野蛮，还不如你在天性和习惯上野蛮；他们与人为敌，还不如你与永生的诸神为敌。那么，一个卑劣胜过奴隶、鲁莽胜过逃亡者、罪恶胜过异族、残酷胜过敌人的人，还能提出什么求情？

Annotation. The local response is mediated through Cicero’s reported visit. The final ethnic and servile comparisons are hostile rhetorical categories, not the dossier’s assessment of the groups mentioned.

In Verrem II.5 — military pretensions and the insecurity of citizenship

Chapter 11 · 70 BCE; published second-action text · Undelivered prosecution text

Latin source: William Peterson; Oxford Clarendon 1917. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The fifth book answers the possibility that Verres’ administrative or military achievements might outweigh the prosecution’s charges. Its larger movement passes through naval and security matters to punishments represented as cruel and unlawful. The Gavius episode becomes its best-known culmination, but it must remain within that larger argument: Cicero contests the use of provincial command as a justification for exceptional coercion. He also depicts local officials at Messana as collaborators, showing how a governor’s power could operate through a community’s authorities. [II.5.1–5, 160–163.]

Legally, Gavius’ claim to Roman citizenship matters because it invokes protections against degrading corporal and capital punishment. Cicero names the Porcian and Sempronian laws and tribunician protection. He does not merely insist that a Roman life is socially valuable; he charges that the governor’s conduct contradicts legal protections associated with citizenship. Nevertheless, the dossier must not construct a complete jurisdictional rule from the cry civis Romanus sum alone. Provincial coercion, proof of status, security allegations, and the availability of intervention all complicate the case. [V25A.]

V25B makes that complexity explicit. Cicero argues in the alternative: even if Verres did not know the man’s identity, the assertion of citizenship should at least have produced delay and investigation. Gavius allegedly named Raecius at Panormus as someone who could identify him. Cicero therefore proposes custody while that recognition was obtained. The argument does not require immediate unconditional release on an unsupported claim. Its juridical centre is the irreversibility of execution before a status claim can be tested. The appeal to ordinary travellers extends the case from one victim to the practical functioning of citizenship across distance. [V25B.]

Procedurally, the published text refers to testimony in the first action and to Glabrio’s interruption of proceedings when the public response became dangerous. That is evidence for Cicero’s representation of the earlier hearing; the actual words of every witness are not preserved here. Historically, the speech exposes both the reach and fragility of Roman privilege abroad. It is a defence of Roman civic protection rather than a universal equal-rights argument. Cicero’s narrative of Gavius’ torture and death is an accusation supported by named evidential claims, not a surviving official execution record. The second-action book itself was not delivered. [V25A–V25B.]

V25A. Gavius’ identification and punishment

Source locator: In Verrem II.5: Military claims and cruel punishments, §§2.5.160-2.5.163. Stable passage ID: V25A.

Evidence claim C-V25A: Cicero alleges that Gavius was punished despite his claim to Roman citizenship and the possibility of identifying him through a named witness.

Latin

[2.5.160] Gavius hic quem dico, Consanus, cum in illo numero civium Romanorum ab isto in vincla coniectus esset et nescio qua ratione clam e lautumiis profugisset Messanamque venisset, qui tam prope iam Italiam et moenia Reginorum, civium Romanorum, videret et ex illo metu mortis ac tenebris quasi luce libertatis et odore aliquo legum recreatus revixisset, loqui Messanae et queri coepit se civem Romanum in vincla coniectum, sibi recta iter esse Romam, Verri se praesto advenienti futurum. non intellegebat miser nihil interesse utrum haec Messanae an apud istum in praetorio loqueretur; nam, ut antea vos docui, hanc sibi iste urbem delegerat quam haberet adiutricem scelerum, furtorum receptricem, flagitiorum omnium consciam. itaque ad magistratum Mamertinum statim deducitur Gavius, eoque ipso die casu Messanam Verres venit. res ad eum defertur, esse civem Romanum qui se Syracusis in lautumiis fuisse quereretur; quem iam ingredientem in navem et Verri nimis atrociter minitantem ab se retractum esse et adservatum, ut ipse in eum statueret quod videretur.

[2.5.161] agit hominibus gratias et eorum benivolentiam erga se diligentiamque conlaudat. ipse inflammatus scelere et furore in forum venit; ardebant oculi, toto ex ore crudelitas eminebat. exspectabant omnes quo tandem progressurus aut quidnam acturus esset, cum repente hominem proripi atque in foro medio nudari ac deligari et virgas expediri iubet. clamabat ille miser se civem esse Romanum, municipem Consanum; meruisse cum L. Raecio, splendidissimo equite Romano, qui Panhormi negotiaretur, ex quo haec Verres scire posset. tum iste, se comperisse eum speculandi causa in Siciliam a ducibus fugitivorum esse missum; cuius rei neque index neque vestigium aliquod neque suspicio cuiquam esset ulla; deinde iubet undique hominem vehementissime verberari.

[2.5.162] caedebatur virgis in medio foro Messanae civis Romanus, iudices, cum interea nullus gemitus, nulla vox alia illius miseri inter dolorem crepitumque plagarum audiebatur nisi haec, civis Romanus sum. hac se commemoratione civitatis! omnia verbera depulsurum cruciatumque a corpore deiecturum arbitrabatur; is non modo hoc non perfecit, ut virgarum vim deprecaretur, sed cum imploraret saepius usurparetque nomen civitatis, crux,—crux, inquam,—infelici et aerumnoso, qui numquam istam pestem viderat, comparabatur.

[2.5.163] nomen dulce libertatis! o ius eximium nostrae civitatis! o lex Porcia legesque Semproniae! o graviter desiderata et aliquando reddita plebi Romanae tribunicia potestas! hucine tandem haec omnia reciderunt ut civis Romanus in provincia populi Romani, in oppido foederatorum, ab eo qui beneficio populi Romani fascis et securis haberet deligatus in foro virgis caederetur? quid? cum ignes ardentesque laminae ceterique cruciatus admovebantur, si te illius acerba imploratio et vox miserabilis non inhibebat, ne civium quidem Romanorum qui tum aderant fletu et gemitu maximo commovebare? in crucem tu agere ausus es quemquam qui se civem Romanum esse diceret? nolui tam vehementer agere hoc prima actione, iudices, nolui; vidistis enim ut animi multitudinis in istum dolore et odio et communis periculi metu concitarentur. statui egomet mihi tum modum et orationi meae et C. Numitorio, equiti Romano, primo homini, testi meo; et Glabrionem id quod sapientissime fecit facere laetatus sum, ut repente consilium in medio testimonio dimitteret. etenim verebatur ne populus Romanus ab isto eas poenas vi repetisse videretur, quas veritus esset ne iste legibus ac vestro iudicio non esset persoluturus.

中文译文

[2.5.160] 我所说的这位孔萨人加维乌斯，本是被此人投入牢狱的罗马公民之一。他不知用什么办法暗中逃出石牢，来到墨萨纳。看到意大利和罗马公民雷吉乌姆人的城墙已经如此接近，仿佛自由的光芒和法律的一丝气息，使他从死亡恐惧与黑暗中重新振作、恢复生命，他便在墨萨纳说起并抱怨：自己是罗马公民，却被投入监狱；他要直接去罗马，在维勒斯回来时等着追究他。可怜人不明白，在墨萨纳说这些，与在维勒斯的官邸里说，毫无区别。正如我先前向你们说明的，维勒斯选择这座城作为罪行的帮手、赃物的接收处和一切丑行的共谋。加维乌斯于是立刻被带到马梅尔提尼的官员面前；恰好当天维勒斯来到墨萨纳。事情便报告给他：有个罗马公民抱怨自己曾被关在叙拉古石牢里；他们在此人即将登船、又严厉威胁维勒斯时，把他拉回来扣住，等维勒斯亲自决定如何处置。

[2.5.161] 维勒斯向他们道谢，称赞他们对自己的好意与勤勉。他本人则被罪恶和狂怒点燃，来到广场；眼睛冒火，整个脸上都显出残酷。大家等着看他会走到哪一步、究竟要做什么，忽然他命人把那人拖出来，在广场中央剥去衣服，绑起来，准备棍棒。可怜人高喊自己是罗马公民，是孔萨的自治市民；他曾同一位极显赫的罗马骑士卢基乌斯·赖基乌斯一起服役，此人正在潘霍尔穆姆经商，维勒斯可以向他查明。维勒斯却说，自己已经查知，此人是逃亡奴隶首领派到西西里侦察的；但这件事没有告发者，没有任何痕迹，也没有任何人怀疑的根据。随后，他命人从各个方向狠狠抽打。

[2.5.162] 审判员们，一个罗马公民就在墨萨纳广场中央挨棍打。其间，在痛苦和棍棒噼啪声中，听不到那可怜人任何呻吟，听不到别的话，只有一句：“我是罗马公民。”他以为提醒人们自己的公民身份，便能挡开一切鞭打，使酷刑离开身体。然而，他不仅没能借此免受棍棒，反而在反复呼求、反复说出公民身份的同时，人们正为这个不幸而苦难的人（他从未见过这种灾难）准备十字架；我说，是十字架。

[2.5.163] 啊，自由这个甜美的名字！啊，我们公民身份卓越的权利！啊，波尔基乌斯法和塞姆普罗尼乌斯诸法！啊，罗马平民曾深切怀念、终于重新获得的保民官权力！这一切竟沦落到如此地步：在罗马人民的行省，在盟友的城市，一个罗马公民竟被那个凭罗马人民恩惠掌握束棒与斧钺的人，绑在广场上用棍棒抽打？而当火、烧红的铁片和其他刑具逼近时，如果他痛苦的呼求、悲惨的声音不能阻止你，在场罗马公民极其强烈的哭泣和呻吟，也不能使你动心吗？你竟敢把一个宣称自己是罗马公民的人送上十字架？审判员们，在第一轮审理中，我不愿如此激烈地讲这件事，确实不愿；因为你们看到，群众因痛苦、仇恨以及对共同危险的恐惧，情绪怎样被激起。我当时主动限制了自己的演说，也限制了我的证人、罗马骑士中的杰出人物盖乌斯·努米托里乌斯。我很高兴格拉布里奥极明智地在证言中途突然解散法庭；因为他担心，罗马人民会以暴力向此人追索惩罚，唯恐此人不能通过法律和你们的审判受到惩处。

Annotation. The cry of citizenship is embedded in an extended allegation with a proposed identifying witness and a retrospective account of courtroom testimony. It is not quoted as a freestanding guarantee of automatic release.

V25B. Recognition before irreversible punishment

Source locator: In Verrem II.5: Military claims and cruel punishments, §§2.5.166-2.5.168. Stable passage ID: V25B.

Evidence claim C-V25B: Cicero argues that inability immediately to verify citizenship far from home does not justify the punishments alleged in the Gavius episode.

Latin

[2.5.166] hoc teneo, hic haereo, iudices, hoc sum contentus uno, omitto ac neglego cetera; sua confessione induatur ac iuguletur necesse est. qui esset ignorabas, speculatorem esse suspicabare; non quaero qua suspicione, tua te accuso oratione: civem Romanum se esse dicebat. si tu apud Persas aut in extrema India deprensus, Verres, ad supplicium ducerere, quid aliud clamitares nisi te civem esse Romanum? et si tibi ignoto apud ignotos, apud barbaros, apud homines in extremis atque ultimis gentibus positos, nobile et inlustre apud omnis nomen civitatis tuae profuisset, ille, quisquis erat, quem tu in crucem rapiebas, qui tibi esset ignotus, cum civem se Romanum esse diceret, apud te praetorem si non effugium ne moram quidem mortis mentione atque usurpatione civitatis adsequi potuit?

[2.5.167] homines tenues, obscuro loco nati, navigant, adeunt ad ea loca quae numquam antea viderunt, ubi neque noti esse iis quo venerunt, neque semper cum cognitoribus esse possunt. hac una tamen fiducia civitatis non modo apud nostros magistratus, qui et legum et existimationis periculo continentur, neque apud civis solum Romanos, qui et sermonis et iuris et multarum rerum societate iuncti sunt, fore se tutos arbitrantur, sed, quocumque venerint, hanc sibi rem praesidio sperant futuram.

[2.5.168] tolle hanc spem, tolle hoc praesidium civibus Romanis, constitue nihil esse opis in hac voce, civis Romanus sum, posse impune praetorem aut alium quempiam supplicium quod velit in eum constituere qui se civem Romanum esse dicat, quod qui sit ignoret: iam omnis provincias, iam omnia regna, iam omnis liberas civitates, iam omnem orbem terrarum, qui semper nostris hominibus maxime patuit, civibus Romanis ista defensione praecluseris. quid? si L. Raecium, equitem Romanum, qui tum erat in Sicilia, nominabat, etiamne id magnum fuit, Panhormum litteras mittere? adservasses hominem custodiis Mamertinorum tuorum, vinctum clausum habuisses, dum Panhormo Raecius veniret; cognosceret hominem, aliquid de summo supplicio remitteres; si ignoraret, tum, si ita tibi videretur, hoc iuris in omnis constitueres, ut, qui neque tibi notus esset neque cognitorem locupletem daret, quamvis civis Romanus esset, in crucem tolleretur.

中文译文

[2.5.166] 审判员们，我就抓住这一点，停在这里；我满足于这一件事，其他都放下不管。他必定会被自己的承认套住、击倒。你不知道他是谁，怀疑他是侦察者；我不问根据什么怀疑，我就用你自己的说法控告你：他声称自己是罗马公民。维勒斯，如果你在波斯人那里，或在印度最遥远的地方被捕，被带去处死，你还会呼喊什么，除了“我是罗马公民”？如果你的公民身份，那个在所有人中尊贵显赫的名字，在你不认识的人那里，在异族那里，在最偏远民族那里，能保护一个无人认识的你，那么，这个人，不论他是谁，虽为你所不识，你正把他拖上十字架，而他声称自己是罗马公民，难道在你这位裁判官面前，他反复提到公民身份，即使不能逃脱死亡，连争取延缓也不可能吗？

[2.5.167] 地位低微、出身不显的人远航，到从未见过的地方；在那里，当地人不认识他们，他们也不可能总带着能够证明身份的人。他们却凭着公民身份这一点信赖，认为自己会安全：不只在我国官员面前（官员受到法律责任和名誉风险的约束）也不只在共同语言、共同法律和许多共同关系联结起来的罗马公民面前；他们希望，无论走到哪里，这一点都能成为保护。

[2.5.168] 取消这项希望，取消这层保护，规定“我是罗马公民”这句话毫无用处；规定裁判官或其他任何人，只因为不知道一个自称罗马公民者究竟是谁，便可以不受惩罚地对他施加任何刑罚：凭这种辩护，你就向罗马公民关闭了所有行省、所有王国、所有自由城邦，以及一向最大程度向我国人民开放的整个世界。再说，如果他点出了当时正在西西里的罗马骑士卢基乌斯·赖基乌斯，向潘霍尔穆姆送封信，难道也是难事？你本可以让你那些马梅尔提尼人看守他，把他锁住关押，等赖基乌斯从潘霍尔穆姆来；如果认得此人，你就减免极刑；如果不认识，那么，假使你仍觉得应该如此，再为所有人制定这样一种法律：凡不为你所识，又不能提供一个有身家者证明身份的人，即使是罗马公民，也送上十字架！

Annotation. The final supposed “law” is a sarcastic exposure of the defence’s consequences, not Cicero’s recommendation. The proposed interim detention is crucial to the argument’s actual scope.

Pro Fonteio — provincial complaints tested against an imperial hierarchy of credibility

Chapter 12 · Usually 69 BCE · Extortion defence; fragmentary

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon 1911. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The fragmentary defence of Marcus Fonteius, usually dated to 69 BCE, concerns alleged extortion during his government in Transalpine Gaul. Its historical circumstances include Roman military demands, the position of Narbo, the relationship with Massilia, and support for operations in Spain. Cicero presents levies of cavalry, money, and grain as obligations imposed for Roman public purposes. That does not by itself establish that every collection was lawful or that no private profit was extracted. The forensic problem is to separate authorized burdens of empire from the alleged abuses of the governor administering them. [F1.]

Cicero’s documentary challenge is striking. If large payments were made through Roman businessmen, he asks why their accounts or testimony are not produced. His claim that no money in Gaul moves without a Roman citizen’s books is sweeping rhetorical generalization, not a census of commercial practice. Nevertheless, the demand identifies a potentially testable evidential question: can the alleged transfer to Fonteius be traced through a record or a participant? It also shifts attention from the provincials’ experience to the kinds of witnesses most authoritative to a Roman jury. [F1 §§11–12.]

The juridical inequality becomes explicit in F2. Cicero attacks the credibility of Gallic witnesses by contrasting them with Roman habits of qualified testimony and oath-bound restraint. His defence of the Roman word arbitror, “I think,” represents careful formulation as a sign of honesty; the Gallic witness’s claim to know becomes a sign of recklessness. This is a technique for destroying credit, not a formal proof that the testimony is false. The ethnic argument is still more aggressive: imagined ancestral attacks on sacred places are used to cast doubt on contemporary witnesses’ religious scruples. The dossier preserves this prejudice because it is part of the speech’s forensic operation, not because it is an acceptable account of Gallic character. [F2.]

Procedurally, the case reveals the public extortion court’s dependence on the evaluation of competing testimonial communities. Roman colonists, allied Massiliots, traders, and complaining Gauls are made to stand for different relationships to Roman rule. Historically, the defence can be read beside the Verrines: the advocate who there amplifies provincial grievances here explains them as hostility toward necessary government. This is a change of forensic position, not sufficient proof that one whole provincial dossier is true and the other false. The surviving fragments do not provide a continuous reconstruction of all charges or a judgment, and their gaps remain visible in the evidence below. [F1–F2.]

F1. Records, levies, and interested communities

Source locator: Pro Fonteio, §§11-14. Stable passage ID: F1.

Evidence claim C-F1: Cicero contrasts the distribution of provincial complaints with the demands made on Gaul and the absence of supporting Roman financial evidence.

Latin

[11] [LACUNA] hoc praetore oppressam esse aere alieno Galliam. A quibus versuras tantarum pecuniarum factas esse dicunt? a Gallis? nihil minus. A quibus igitur? A civibus Romanis qui negotiantur in Gallia. cur eorum verba ⟨non⟩ audimus? cur eorum tabulae nullae proferuntur? insector ultro atque insto accusatori, iudices; insector, inquam, et flagito testis. plus ego in hac causa laboris et operae consumo in poscendis testibus quam ceteri defensores in refutandis. audaciter hoc dico, iudices, non temere confirmo. Referta Gallia negotiatorum est, plena civium Romanorum. nemo Gallorum sine cive Romano quicquam negoti gerit, nummus in Gallia nullus sine civium Romanorum tabulis commovetur.

[12] videte quo descendam, iudices, quam longe videar ab consuetudine mea et cautione ac diligentia discedere. Vnae tabulae proferantur, in quibus vestigium sit aliquod quod significet pecuniam ⟨M.⟩ Fonteio datam, unum ex tot negotiatorum, colonorum, publicanorum, aratorum, pecuariorum numero testem producant; vere accusatum esse concedam. pro di immortales! quae haec est causa, quae defensio? provinciae Galliae M. Fonteius praefuit, quae constat ex eis generibus hominum et civitatum qui, ut vetera mittam, partim nostra memoria bella cum populo Romano acerba ac diuturna gesserunt, partim modo ab nostris imperatoribus subacti, modo bello domiti, modo triumphis ac monumentis notati, modo ab senatu agris urbibusque multati sunt, partim qui cum ipso M. Fonteio ferrum ac manus contulerunt multoque eius sudore ac labore sub populi Romani imperium dicionemque ceciderunt.

[13] est in eadem provincia Narbo Martius, colonia nostrorum civium, specula populi Romani ac propugnaculum istis ipsis nationibus oppositum et obiectum; est item urbs Massilia, de qua ante dixi, fortissimorum fidelissimorumque sociorum, qui Gallicorum bellorum pericula praecipuis ⟨populi Romani⟩ praemiis compensarunt; est praeterea ⟨maximus⟩ numerus civium Romanorum atque ⟨equitum,⟩ hominum honestissimorum. huic provinciae quae ex hac generum varietate constaret M. Fonteius, ut dixi, praefuit; qui erant hostes, subegit, qui proxime fuerant, eos ex eis agris quibus erant multati decedere coegit, ceteris qui idcirco magnis saepe erant bellis superati ut semper populo Romano parerent, magnos equitatus ad ea bella quae tum in toto orbe terrarum a populo Romano gerebantur, magnas pecunias ad eorum stipendium, maximum frumenti numerum ad Hispaniense bellum tolerandum imperavit.

[14] is qui gessit in iudicium vocatur, vos qui in re non interfuistis causam una cum populo Romano cognoscitis, dicunt contra quibus invitissimis imperatum est, dicunt qui ex agris ex Cn. Pompei decreto decedere sunt coacti, dicunt qui ex belli caede et fuga nunc primum audent contra M. Fonteium inermem consistere. quid? coloni Narbonenses quid volunt, quid existimant? hunc per vos ⟨salvum⟩ volunt, se per hunc incolumis existimant esse. quid Massiliensium civitas? hunc praesentem eis adfecit honoribus quos habuit amplissimos; vos autem absens orat atque obsecrat ut sua religio, laudatio, auctoritas aliquid apud vestros animos momenti habuisse videatur.

中文译文

[11] 〔原文缺文〕……高卢在他任裁判官时被债务压垮了。他们说，如此大笔的借款是从谁那里筹到的？从高卢人那里？完全不是。那么从谁那里？从在高卢经商的罗马公民那里。为什么我们⟨没有⟩听见他们的话？为什么一份他们的账簿也不拿出来？审判员们，我反过来追逼控告者，紧紧逼问；我说，我追逼他，要求证人。我在本案中花在索取证人上的劳力，比其他辩护人花在反驳证人上的还多。我这样说是大胆，但断言并不鲁莽。高卢遍布商人，充满罗马公民。没有一个高卢人不通过罗马公民办理任何生意；高卢没有一枚钱不经过罗马公民的账簿而转手。

[12] 请看我让到什么地步，审判员们，仿佛离开了自己通常的谨慎和勤勉有多远。只要拿出一本账簿，其中留有一点迹象，表明钱曾交给⟨马尔库斯⟩·丰泰乌斯；只要从如此众多商人、殖民者、包税人、耕作者、牧业经营者中提出一个证人，我就承认控告属实。永生的诸神啊，这是什么案情，什么辩护？丰泰乌斯治理高卢行省，其中的人群和城邦，有些（且不说远古）在我们记忆中还曾同罗马人民进行激烈而长期的战争；有些刚被我国统帅征服，刚被战争击败，刚成为凯旋与纪念物的题材，刚被元老院没收土地和城市；有些曾亲自同丰泰乌斯刀兵相接，经过他的汗水和努力才归于罗马人民的统治。

[13] 同一行省中还有我国公民的殖民城纳尔波·马尔提乌斯，是罗马人民面对这些民族设置的瞭望台和堡垒；还有我先前说过的马西利亚，那座属于最勇敢、最忠诚盟友的城市，他们在高卢战争中承担的危险，获得了⟨罗马人民⟩特别的报偿。此外，还有⟨极多⟩罗马公民和⟨骑士⟩，都是极正派的人。正如我说的，丰泰乌斯治理的，就是由这样多种人群组成的行省。他征服敌人，迫使刚刚与我们为敌者离开被没收的土地；至于其他人，他们屡次在大战中被击败，目的就是始终服从罗马人民，他命他们为罗马人民当时在各地进行的战争提供大量骑兵、支付骑兵军饷的大笔金钱，以及支持西班牙战争的巨量粮食。

[14] 做这些事的人如今被告上法庭；你们当时不在现场，现在与罗马人民一起听取案情。反对他说话的，是最不愿接受这些命令的人，是依格奈乌斯·庞培命令被迫离开土地的人，是从战场杀戮中逃走后，如今才第一次敢面对手无寸铁的丰泰乌斯的人。那么，纳尔波殖民者希望什么，怎样看？他们希望通过你们使他⟨平安⟩，认为自己正是因他而得到保全。马西利亚城邦呢？他在场时，他们授予最高荣誉；他不在时，他们恳求你们，使他们的郑重态度、赞词和权威，在你们心中多少有些分量。

Annotation. The universal claim about Roman accounting is an advocate’s challenge. It is not independently verified evidence for complete Roman control of Gallic finance.

F2. The construction of an “unreliable” provincial witness

Source locator: Pro Fonteio, §§27-30. Stable passage ID: F2.

Evidence claim C-F2: Cicero attempts to undermine the Gallic witnesses’ credibility through hostile generalizations about their collective character and religion.

Latin

[27] si, qui ob aliquod emolumentum suum cupidius aliquid dicere videntur, eis credi non convenit, credo maius emolumentum Caepionibus et Metellis propositum fuisse ex Q. Pompei damnatione, cum studiorum suorum obtrectatorem sustulissent, quam cunctae Galliae ex M. Fontei calamitate, in qua illa provincia prope suam immunitatem ac libertatem positam esse arbitratur. an, si homines ipsos spectare convenit, id quod in teste profecto valere plurimum debet, non modo cum summis civitatis nostrae viris sed cum infimo cive Romano quisquam amplissimus Galliae comparandus est? scit Indutiomarus quid sit testimonium dicere? movetur eo timore quo nostrum unus quisque, cum in eum locum productus est?

[28] recordamini, iudices, quanto opere laborare soleatis non modo quid dicatis pro testimonio sed etiam quibus verbis utamini, ne quod minus moderate positum, ne quod ab aliqua cupiditate prolapsum verbum esse videatur; voltu denique laboratis ne qua significari possit suspicio cupiditatis, ut et, cum proditis, existimatio sit quaedam tacita de vobis pudoris ac religionis et, cum disceditis, ea diligenter conservata ac retenta videatur.

[29] credo haec eadem Indutiomarum in testimonio timuisse aut cogitavisse, qui primum illud verbum consideratissimum nostrae consuetudinis arbitror, quo nos etiam tunc utimur cum ea dicimus iurati quae comperta habemus, quae ipsi vidimus, ex toto testimonio suo sustulit atque omnia se scire dixit. verebatur enim videlicet ne quid apud vos populumque Romanum de existimatione sua deperderet, ne qua fama consequeretur eius modi, Indutiomarum, talem virum, tam cupide, tam temere dixisse; non intellegebat se in testimonio nihil praeter vocem et os et audaciam neque civibus suis neque accusatoribus nostris praestare debere.

[30] an vero istas nationes religione iuris iurandi ac metu deorum immortalium in testimoniis dicendis commoveri arbitramini? quae tantum a ceterarum gentium more ac natura dissentiunt, quod ceterae pro religionibus suis bella suscipiunt, istae contra omnium religiones; illae in bellis gerendis ab dis immortalibus pacem ac veniam petunt, istae cum ipsis dis immortalibus bella gesserunt. hae sunt nationes quae quondam tam longe ab suis sedibus Delphos usque ad Apollinem Pythium atque ad oraculum orbis terrae vexandum ac spoliandum profectae sunt. ab isdem gentibus sanctis et in testimonio religiosis obsessum Capitolium est atque ille Iuppiter cuius nomine maiores nostri vinctam testimoniorum fidem esse voluerunt.

中文译文

[27] 如果一个人看来为了自己的利益而说得过分热切，便不应相信他，那么我想，凯皮奥家和梅特鲁斯家从昆图斯·庞培被判罪中得到的利益（除去一个阻挠他们政治意图的人）想必比整个高卢从丰泰乌斯的灾难中得到的还大；而那个行省几乎认为，自己的免除负担与自由，就寄托在他的失败上。又或者，如果应该考察证人本人（而这当然最应决定证言分量）那么，高卢最显赫的人，别说与我国最优秀者相比，难道能同最普通的罗马公民相比吗？因杜提奥马鲁斯知道作证是什么意思吗？他被带到那个位置时，会像我们每个人一样感到畏惧吗？

[28] 审判员们，请想想，你们通常多么在意，不只在意作证时说什么，还在意用什么词，免得有一个词显得不够克制，或由某种偏向冲口而出。你们甚至留心表情，不让它流露一丝偏向的嫌疑；这样，当你们出场时，人们会默默认为你们有羞耻心、敬重誓约，而当你们离开时，这种声誉也显得得到仔细维护和保存。

[29] 我想，因杜提奥马鲁斯作证时也一定害怕、考虑过同样的事情吧！首先，我们习惯中最谨慎的词“我认为”，即使在宣誓陈述我们已查明、亲眼见过的事情时也会使用，他却从整篇证言中删去了，什么都说自己“知道”。他当然是担心，在你们和罗马人民面前损失自己的声誉，担心随后传出这样的议论：“因杜提奥马鲁斯这样的人，竟如此偏激、如此鲁莽地作证。”他竟不知道，自己在作证中向本国人和我们的控告者提供的，只须是一副嗓子、一张嘴和大胆而已。

[30] 难道你们真认为，那些民族在作证时，会受到誓言的神圣性和对永生诸神的畏惧所约束？他们同其他民族的习惯和性情如此不同：其他民族为自己的宗教发动战争，他们却反对所有人的宗教；其他民族在战争中向诸神请求和解与宽恕，他们却同诸神本身作战。正是这些民族，曾从遥远的家乡一直来到德尔斐，要蹂躏和洗劫皮提亚阿波罗以及全世界的神谕。他们这些“神圣、作证时敬神”的民族，还曾围攻卡皮托利乌姆，围攻那位朱庇特；而祖先正是希望用朱庇特的名义，把证言的可信性牢牢约束起来。

Annotation. The sustained ethnic denigration is Cicero’s strategy. The passage is evidence for unequal forensic credibility, not for the alleged moral properties of Gauls.

Pro Caecina — possession, threatened force, and the reach of an interdict

Chapter 13 · Usually 69 BCE; dating disputed · Civil pleading

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon Press 1909. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The dispute arose around property associated with Caesennia, her inheritance arrangements, and competing claims advanced by Aulus Caecina and Sextus Aebutius. Cicero’s account of purchase, agency, marriage, and inheritance explains how the parties came into conflict, but the immediate proceeding is possessory. It concerns the effect of an armed confrontation when Caecina attempted an entry associated with a conventional assertion of rights. The distinction matters: an order restoring possession does not itself finally determine ownership. The usual date, approximately 69 BCE, should not conceal the uncertainties of the speech’s chronology. [Speech §§10–23; Greenidge, pp. 556–568.]

Cicero appears before recuperatores following an interdict involving armed force. The surviving speech refers to earlier inconclusive consideration. The opponent’s defence, as Cicero presents it, is not that no men were assembled or no danger existed; it is that Caecina was prevented from entering rather than expelled from somewhere he occupied. The legal issue thus turns partly on the scope of deicere, “to eject.” Cicero argues that armed exclusion belongs to the conduct the remedy was meant to prevent. The dramatic threat, as quoted by the advocate, makes waiting for actual bodily expulsion seem absurd. [C1.]

The juridical argument is broader than a dictionary dispute. C2 asks how wills, statutes, agreements, and praetorian edicts could function if their words were detached from purpose and authority. The famous inheritance example involving Manius Curius supports interpretation by intention, while other examples show the absurdity of mechanically literal readings. These analogies are offered in aid of a disputed remedy. They do not establish an unlimited judicial power to ignore legal language. Cicero still has to connect the disputed conduct with a legally available action. [C2.]

C1’s ending makes the remedial distinction particularly clear. An actio iniuriarum might obtain a penalty for the affront to a person’s freedom without restoring possession. Consequently, “some action is available” does not answer the question whether the appropriate possessory relief is available. Historical interpretation also has to account for rural coercion and the use of agents, dependants, and armed groups in property disputes. Cicero’s later discussion of citizenship and Sulla’s treatment of communities introduces another possible attack on his client’s legal position. It is a distinct issue, not proof that this possessory hearing was a general citizenship trial. Greenidge emphasizes the difficulty of reconstructing the precise formula and possession history. The argument’s rhetorical confidence should not be mistaken for a preserved verdict in Caecina’s favour. [C1–C2; speech §§95–102; Greenidge, pp. 556–568.]

C1. Armed exclusion and the appropriate remedy

Source locator: Pro Caecina, §§31-35. Stable passage ID: C1.

Evidence claim C-C1: Cicero argues that preventing access by an organized threat of force can fall within the protection supplied against violent ejection.

Latin

[31] Vtrum, recuperatores, his testibus non credidistis, cum quid liqueret non habuistis? at controversia non erat quin verum dicerent. an in coacta multitudine, in armis, in telis, in praesenti metu mortis perspicuoque periculo caedis dubium vobis fuit inesse vis aliqua videretur necne? quibus igitur in rebus vis intellegi potest, si in his non intellegetur? an vero illa defensio vobis praeclara visa est: non deieci, sed obstiti; non enim sum passus in fundum ingredi, sed armatos homines opposui, ut intellegeres, si in fundo pedem posuisses, statim tibi esse pereundum? quid ais? is qui armis proterritus, fugatus, pulsus est, non videtur esse deiectus?

[32] posterius de verbo videbimus; nunc rem ipsam ponamus quam illi non negant et eius rei ius actionemque quaeramus.

est haec res posita quae ab adversario non negatur, Caecinam, cum ad constitutam diem tempusque venisset ut vis ac deductio moribus fieret, pulsum prohibitumque esse vi coactis hominibus et armatis. Cum hoc constet, ego, homo imperitus iuris, ignarus negotiorum ac litium, hanc puto me habere actionem, ut per interdictum meum ius teneam atque iniuriam tuam persequar. fac in hoc errare me nec ullo modo posse per hoc interdictum id adsequi quod velim; te uti in hac re magistro volo.

[33] quaero sitne aliqua huius rei actio an nulla. convocari homines propter possessionis controversiam non oportet, armari multitudinem iuris retinendi causa non convenit; nec iuri quicquam tam inimicum quam vis nec aequitati quicquam tam infestum est quam convocati homines et armati. quod cum ita sit resque eius modi sit ut in primis a magistratibus animadvertenda videatur, iterum quaero sitne eius rei aliqua actio an nulla. nullam esse dices? audire cupio, qui in pace et otio, cum manum fecerit, copias pararit, multitudinem hominum coegerit, armarit, instruxerit, homines inermos qui ad constitutum experiendi iuris gratia venissent armis, viris, terrore periculoque mortis reppulerit, fugarit, averterit, hoc dicat:

[34] feci equidem quae dicis omnia, et ea sunt et turbulenta et temeraria et periculosa. quid ergo est? impune feci; nam quid agas mecum ex iure civili ac praetorio non habes. itane vero? recuperatores, hoc vos audietis et apud vos dici patiemini saepius? Cum maiores nostri tanta diligentia prudentiaque fuerint ut omnia omnium non modo tantarum rerum sed etiam tenuissimarum iura statuerint persecutique sint, hoc genus unum vel maximum praetermitterent, ut, si qui me exire domo mea coegisset armis, haberem actionem, si qui introire prohibuisset, non haberem? nondum de Caecinae causa disputo, nondum de iure possessionis nostrae loquor; tantum de tua defensione, C.

[35] Piso, quaero. quoniam ita dicis et ita constituis, si Caecina, cum in fundo esset, inde deiectus esset, tum per hoc interdictum eum restitui oportuisse; nunc vero deiectum nullo modo esse inde ubi non fuerit; hoc interdicto nihil nos adsecutos esse: quaero, si te hodie domum tuam redeuntem coacti homines et armati non modo limine tectoque aedium tuarum sed primo aditu vestibuloque prohibuerint, quid acturus sis. monet amicus meus te, L. Calpurnius, ut idem dicas quod ipse antea dixit, iniuriarum. quid ad causam possessionis, quid ad restituendum eum quem oportet restitui, quid denique ad ius civile, aut ad praetoris notionem atque animadversionem? ages iniuriarum. plus tibi ego largiar; non solum egeris verum etiam condemnaris licet; num quid magis possidebis? actio enim iniuriarum non ius possessionis adsequitur sed dolorem imminutae libertatis iudicio poenaque mitigat.

中文译文

[31] 审理员们，你们先前未能形成明确判断，是因为不相信这些证人吗？但他们说的是否属实，并没有争议。还是说，面对纠集的人众、武器、投掷兵器、眼前的死亡恐惧和明显的杀戮危险，你们竟怀疑其中是否存在暴力？如果这些事情还不算，暴力又能在什么事情中得到理解？莫非你们觉得那种辩护极其高明：“我没有把他赶出去，我只是挡住他；我不让他进入土地，而是把武装人员摆在面前，使他明白，只要踏进土地一步，就会立刻死去。”你说什么？一个被武器吓退、驱走、击退的人，竟不算被逐出吗？

[32] 关于字眼，我们稍后再谈。现在先确定他们并不否认的事实，再寻找对这件事适用的权利与诉讼。对方不否认的事实是：凯基纳在约定的日期和时间来到那里，要按照惯例进行象征性的用力与带离，却被纠集的武装人员以暴力击退、阻止。既然这一点确定，我这个不懂法律、不熟悉事务与诉讼的人便以为，自己有这样一项救济：借禁令维护我的权利，并追究你的侵害。假定我在这里错了，根本不能通过这项禁令达到目的；那么，我愿意在此事上请你作老师。

[33] 我问，这件事究竟有没有诉讼救济？不应为占有争议而召集人众，也不应为维护权利而武装群众。没有什么比暴力更敌视法律，没有什么比纠集的武装人众更仇视公平。既然如此，这件事看来又尤其应由官员加以制止，我再问：有没有救济？你会说没有吗？我倒想听听，一个人在和平安宁之时组织队伍、准备力量、纠集人众、武装和部署他们，用武器、人力、恐吓和死亡危险，把按约前来依法试验权利的无武装者击退、驱散、赶走，然后这样说：

[34] “你所说的，我确实都做了；这些事也确实扰乱秩序、鲁莽而危险。但又怎样？我做了也不受惩罚，因为依市民法和裁判官法，你没有任何诉讼可以对付我。”真是这样吗？审理员们，你们竟能听这种话，还容许它在你们面前反复说下去？祖先如此勤勉、审慎，不只为重大的事情，而且连最细微的事情也为所有人规定并落实权利，难道会独独遗漏这一类尤其重大的事件，使我被人持械强迫离开自己的家时有救济，被人阻止进入时却没有？我还没有讨论凯基纳本案，还没有谈我们占有的权利；盖乌斯，

[35] 皮索啊，我只是追问你的辩护。你这样主张和规定：如果凯基纳原来在土地上，后来被从那里驱逐，便应依据这项禁令恢复；但他原来不在那里，就根本不可能被从那里驱逐，我们因而不能通过禁令取得什么。那么我问：今天你回家时，一群纠集的持械者不只把你挡在门槛和屋顶之外，甚至不让你接近入口与门廊，你打算怎么办？我的朋友卢基乌斯·卡尔普尔尼乌斯正在提醒你，叫你说他先前说过的答案：“提起侵辱诉讼。”可是，这对占有问题、对恢复应当恢复的人、对市民法、对裁判官的审查和干预，又有什么关系？你会提起侵辱诉讼。我还可以让得更多：不只让你起诉，就算你胜诉吧！你会因此更能占有吗？侵辱诉讼并不取得占有权，而只是通过审判和惩罚，减轻自由受损所造成的痛苦。

Annotation. The split vocative at §§34–35 is preserved. This passage supports the difference between personal penal relief and possessory restitution. It does not establish title to the land.

C2. Why legal words require interpretation

Source locator: Pro Caecina, §§51-54. Stable passage ID: C2.

Evidence claim C-C2: Cicero uses legal examples to argue that literal wording must be interpreted in relation to the intention and operation of the instrument.

Latin

[51] an hoc dubium est quin neque verborum tanta copia sit non modo in nostra lingua, quae dicitur esse inops, sed ne in alia quidem ulla, res ut omnes suis certis ac propriis vocabulis nominentur, neque vero quicquam opus sit verbis, cum ea res cuius causa verba quaesita sint intellegatur? quae lex, quod senatus consultum, quod magistratus edictum, quod foedus aut pactio, quod, ut ad privatas res redeam, testamentum, quae iudicia aut stipulationes aut pacti et conventi formula non infirmari ac convelli potest, si ad verba rem deflectere velimus, consilium autem eorum qui scripserunt et rationem et auctoritatem relinquamus?

[52] sermo hercule familiaris et cotidianus non cohaerebit, si verba inter nos aucupabimur; denique imperium domesticum nullum erit, si servolis hoc nostris concesserimus ut ad verba nobis oboediant, non ad id quod ex verbis intellegi possit obtemperent. exemplis nunc uti videlicet mihi necesse est harum rerum omnium; non occurrit uni cuique vestrum aliud alii in omni genere exemplum quod testimonio sit non ex verbis aptum pendere ius; sed verba servire hominum consiliis et auctoritatibus.

[53] ornate et copiose L. Crassus, homo longe eloquentissimus, paulo ante quam nos in forum venimus, iudicio cvirali hanc sententiam defendit et facile, cum contra eum prudentissimus homo, Q. Mucius, diceret, probavit omnibus, M’. Curium, qui heres institutus esset ita: mortvo postvmo filio, cum filius non modo non mortuus sed ne natus quidem esset, heredem esse oportere. quid? verbis hoc satis erat cautum? minime. quae res igitur valuit? voluntas, quae si tacitis nobis intellegi posset, verbis omnino non uteremur; quia non potest, verba reperta sunt, non quae impedirent sed quae indicarent voluntatem.

[54] lex usum et auctoritatem fundi iubet esse biennium; at utimur eodem iure in aedibus, quae in lege non appellantur. si via sit immunita, iubet qua velit agere iumentum; potest hoc ex ipsis verbis intellegi, licere, si via sit in Bruttiis immunita, agere si velit iumentum per M. Scauri Tusculanum. Actio est in auctorem praesentem his verbis: qvandoqve te in ivre conspicio. hac actione Appius ille Caecus uti non posset, si ita in iure homines verba consectarentur ut rem cuius causa verba sunt non considerarent. testamento si recitatus heres esset pupillus Cornelius isque iam annos xx haberet, vobis interpretibus amitteret hereditatem.

中文译文

[51] 这一点难道还有疑问吗：不仅我们的语言（据说它词汇贫乏）即使任何其他语言，词语也没有多到能用确定而专有的名称称呼所有事情；而如果人们已经理解当初为之寻找词语的那件事，也就无须词语了？哪一项法律、哪一道元老院决议、哪一道官员告示、哪一个条约或约定（再回到私人事务）哪一份遗嘱、哪一种审判程式或要式口约、哪一项协议的形式，不会被削弱和推翻，如果我们非要使事情屈从字面，却抛弃起草者的意图、理由和权威？

[52] 赫拉克勒斯作证！如果我们彼此挑字眼，连日常熟人的谈话都无法维持；总之，如果容许自家的小奴隶只服从我们的字面，而不服从从字面能够理解的意思，家内命令也就不存在了。现在，难道还必须由我为这一切逐一举例吗？你们每个人难道不会在各种事情上各自想到一个例子，证明法律并非依附词语而悬着，而是词语服务于人的意图和权威？

[53] 在我们进入广场从事公共活动以前不久，那位远比众人雄辩的卢基乌斯·克拉苏，在百人法庭上华美而充分地维护了这种见解，并且虽然对方是极精通法律的昆图斯·穆基乌斯，他仍轻易使所有人信服：马尼乌斯·库里乌斯被这样指定为继承人（“在遗腹子死亡之后”）即使那个儿子不仅没有死，甚至根本没有出生，他也应当继承。那么，字面上已经充分规定了吗？完全没有。起作用的是什么？是意愿。倘若我们不说话，人们也能理解意愿，我们根本不会使用词语；因为不能，所以才发明词语，用来表达，而不是阻碍意愿。

[54] 法律规定，土地的取得时效及相关保证期间为两年；但对于法律没有点名提到的房屋，我们也适用同一规则。如果道路没有修治，法律准许从愿意走的地方驱赶牲畜。照字面理解，如果布鲁提乌姆的一条路失修，一个人便可以随意从马尔库斯·斯考鲁斯在图斯库卢姆的产业上赶牲畜过去。向在场的权利前手提起诉讼，有这样的措辞：“既然我在法庭上看见你。”如果人们在法律上只追逐字眼，而不考虑词语要表达的事情，那么盲人阿庇乌斯就不能使用这种诉讼了。如果遗嘱中宣读的继承人是“受监护的科尔奈利乌斯”，而他如今已经二十岁，依你们的解释，他就会丧失遗产。

Annotation. The examples deliberately test literal interpretation. The translation of the two-year rule remains close to the paired legal terms rather than collapsing the whole sentence into a modern rule of ownership registration.

Pro Cluentio — an old bribery scandal inside a poisoning prosecution

Chapter 14 · 66 BCE · Criminal defence

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon Press 1908. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

In 66 BCE Aulus Cluentius faced a prosecution associated with poisoning, but Cicero identifies the earlier trial of Oppianicus and the belief that its jury had been corrupted as the major obstacle to his defence. The speech therefore has two intertwined stories: the matters falling under the present poisoning inquiry and the damaging reputation inherited from earlier proceedings. The family history involving Sassia, Oppianicus, and Cluentius supplies motives and counter-motives. Because Cicero narrates it adversarially, the elaborate reconstruction of household crimes must not be mistaken for an impartial family chronicle. [CL1; speech §§11–18, 27–61.]

The opening makes a procedural claim about relevance: popular controversy over the old judgment should not displace the present court’s lawful subject. Yet Cicero spends a very large part of the defence on that controversy because its psychological force cannot simply be excluded by declaring it extraneous. This difference between formal relevance and practical prejudice explains the speech’s proportions. He offers to rebut specific accusations with argument but asks the jury’s protection against entrenched invidia. The distinction is itself rhetorical; it is his proposed organization of what the judges should consider. [CL1.]

The major juridical passage, CL2, distinguishes clauses within the statute. The poisoning provisions reach broadly, while the clause about combining to secure condemnation is said to identify specified magistrates and senators. Cluentius’ equestrian status therefore matters to Cicero’s argument about the reach of that latter prohibition. “We are servants of the laws so that we may be free” is not an isolated constitutional slogan here. It answers the prosecution’s objection that it is unfair to punish a senator for conduct that an equestrian might escape under the clause’s wording. Cicero insists that dissatisfaction with that distinction cannot authorize the court to enlarge the statute. [CL2.]

Historically, the case reveals the entanglement of jury composition, senatorial status, popular agitation, and lasting scandal. Procedurally, it also demonstrates a layered defence: contest the facts in detail while reserving a limitation on statutory liability. Cicero says the client preferred a defence on the merits to reliance on that limitation. That representation should not be read as proof that the statutory objection was irrelevant, nor should success on a legal objection be equated with historical innocence. The surviving speech gives the defence’s account of the earlier corruption, the present charges, and the law; it does not preserve the opposing pleading or a reasoned judgment. [CL1–CL2.]

CL1. Separating the accusation from inherited hostility

Source locator: Pro Cluentio, §§1-4. Stable passage ID: CL1.

Evidence claim C-CL1: Cicero separates the prejudice associated with an earlier corruption narrative from the accusation the present court must decide.

Latin

[1] animum adverti, iudices, omnem accusatoris orationem in duas divisam esse partis, quarum altera mihi niti et magno opere confidere videbatur invidia iam inveterata iudici Iuniani, altera tantum modo consuetudinis causa timide et diffidenter attingere rationem venefici criminum, qua de re lege est haec quaestio constituta. itaque mihi certum est hanc eandem distributionem invidiae et criminum sic in defensione servare ut omnes intellegant nihil me nec subterfugere voluisse reticendo nec obscurare dicendo.

[2] sed cum considero quo modo mihi in utraque re sit elaborandum, altera pars et ea quae propria est iudici vestri et legitimae venefici quaestionis per mihi brevis et non magnae in dicendo contentionis fore videtur, altera autem quae procul ab iudicio remota est, quae contionibus seditiose concitatis accommodatior est quam tranquillis moderatisque iudiciis, perspicio quantum in agendo difficultatis et quantum laboris sit habitura.

[3] sed in hac difficultate illa me res tamen, iudices, consolatur quod vos de criminibus sic audire consuestis ut eorum omnium dissolutionem ab oratore quaeratis, ut non existimetis plus vos ad salutem reo largiri oportere quam quantum defensor purgandis criminibus consequi et dicendo probare potuerit. de invidia autem sic inter nos disceptare debetis ut non quid dicatur a nobis sed quid oporteat dici consideretis. agitur enim in criminibus A.Auli Cluenti proprium periculum, in invidia causa communis. quam ob rem alteram partem causae sic agemus ut vos doceamus, alteram sic ut oremus; in altera diligentia vestra nobis adiungenda est, in altera fides imploranda. nemo est enim qui invidiae sine vestro ac sine talium virorum subsidio possit resistere.

[4] equidem quod ad me attinet, quo me vertam nescio. negem fuisse illam infamiam iudici corrupti? negem esse illam rem agitatam in contionibus, iactatam in iudiciis, commemoratam in senatu? evellam ex animis hominum tantam opinionem, tam penitus insitam, tam vetustam? non est nostri ingeni, vestri auxili est, iudices, huius innocentiae sic in hac calamitosa fama quasi in aliqua perniciosissima flamma atque in communi incendio subvenire.

中文译文

[1] 审判员们，我注意到，控告者的整个演说分为两部分。一部分看来依靠并极有把握地利用，人们对尤尼乌斯主持的那次审判早已积累的怨恨；另一部分则只是循例，胆怯而缺乏信心地触及投毒的指控，而本法庭正是依法为此设立的。因此，我决定在辩护中也保持这种区分，把成见与罪状分别处理，使所有人明白：我既不想用沉默逃避任何事，也不想用言辞把任何事弄暗。

[2] 但当我考虑两方面各要怎样努力时，那一部分（真正属于你们的审判、属于依法设立的投毒调查的部分）在我看来会很简短，不需要很激烈的口头争论。另一部分则远离本次审判，更适合煽动性的公众集会，而不是平静有节制的法庭；我看得出，它将给辩护带来多大困难、多大劳苦。

[3] 然而，在这种困难中，有一点仍使我得到安慰：你们听取罪状时，向来要求辩护人逐项解释，不认为应给被告的安全超过辩护人通过澄清指控、言辞证明所能取得的范围。但是，关于成见，你们应当这样裁断我们之间的争论：不只看我们说了什么，还要考虑什么才是应当说的。因为，罪状关系奥卢斯·克卢恩提乌斯个人的危险，成见则涉及共同的处境。所以，一部分案情，我们将用来向你们说明；另一部分，我们将用来恳求你们。在前一部分，我们需要你们细心审查；在后一部分，我们要呼求你们的诚信。因为没有人能不依靠你们和同样正直者的帮助，抵挡成见。

[4] 就我自己而言，我不知道该转向哪里。我能否认那次审判受贿的恶名曾经存在吗？能否认这件事曾在公众集会中被鼓动，在法庭中被抛来抛去，在元老院中被提起吗？我能从人们心中拔掉如此深、如此牢固、如此古老的看法吗？这不在我的才力范围内；审判员们，必须靠你们援助，在这种灾难性的恶名中，像在最危险的火焰和共同的大火中一样，救助这个无辜者。

Annotation. “Innocent” in the final sentence is Cicero’s characterization of his client. The dossier does not treat it as the court’s finding.

CL2. The statute’s subjects and the limits of judicial extension

Source locator: Pro Cluentio, §§145-148. Stable passage ID: CL2.

Evidence claim C-CL2: Cicero argues that the personal categories specified in a penal clause do not include his client merely because the alleged conduct is condemned in general terms.

Latin

[145] morem homini gessi et tamen idcirco feci — neque enim id semper facere debemus — quod videbam per se ipsam causam sine lege copiosissime posse defendi. videbam in hac defensione qua iam sum usus plus dignitatis, in illa qua me hic uti noluit minus laboris futurum. quod si nihil aliud esset actum nisi ut hanc causam obtineremus, lege recitata perorassem.

neque me illa oratio commovet, quod ait Attius indignum esse facinus, si senator iudicio quempiam circumvenerit, legibus eum teneri; si eques Romanus hoc idem fecerit, non teneri.

[146] Vt tibi concedam hoc indignum esse quod cuius modi sit iam videro, tu mihi concedas necesse est multo esse indignius in ea civitate quae legibus contineatur discedi ab legibus. hoc enim vinculum est huius dignitatis qua fruimur in re publica, hoc fundamentum libertatis, hic fons aequitatis; mens et animus et consilium et sententia civitatis posita est in legibus. Vt corpora nostra sine mente, sic civitas sine lege suis partibus ut nervis ac sanguine et membris uti non potest. legum ministri magistratus, legum interpretes iudices, legum denique idcirco omnes servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.

[147] quid est, Q.Quinto Naso, cur tu in isto loco sedeas? quae vis est qua abs te hi iudices tali dignitate praediti coerceantur? vos autem, iudices, quam ob rem ex tanta multitudine civium tam pauci de hominum fortunis sententiam fertis? quo iure Attius quae voluit dixit? cur mihi tam diu potestas dicendi datur? quid sibi autem illi scribae, quid lictores, quid ceteri quos apparere huic quaestioni video volunt? opinor haec omnia lege fieri totumque hoc iudicium, ut ante dixi, quasi mente quadam regi legis et administrari. quid ergo? haec quaestio sola ita gubernatur? quid M.Marci Plaetori et C. Flamini inter sicarios, quid C.Gaii Orchivi peculatus, quid mea de pecuniis repetundis, quid C.Gaii Aquili apud quem nunc de ambitu causa dicitur, quid reliquae quaestiones? circumspicite omnis rei publicae partis; omnia legum imperio et praescripto fieri videbitis.

[148] si quis apud me, T.Titi Atti, te reum velit facere, clames te lege pecuniarum repetundarum non teneri; neque haec tua recusatio confessio sit captae pecuniae sed laboris et periculi non legitimi declinatio. nunc quid agatur et quid abs te iuris constituatur vide. iubet lex ea, qua lege haec quaestio constituta est, iudicem quaestionis, hoc est Q.Quintum Voconium, cum eis iudicibus qui ei obvenerint — vos appellat, iudices — quaerere de veneno. in quem quaerere? infinitum est. quicumque fecerit, vendiderit, emerit, habuerit, dederit. quid eadem lex statim adiungit? recita. deque eius capite quaerito. cuius? qui coierit, convenerit? non ita est. quid ergo est? dic. qui tribunus militum legionibus quattuor primis, quive quaestor, tribunus plebis — deinceps omnis magistratus nominavit — quive in senatu sententiam dixit, dixerit. quid tum? qui eorum coiit, coierit, convenit, convenerit quo quis iudicio publico condemnaretur. qui eorum? quorum? videlicet qui supra scripti sunt. quid intersit utro modo scriptum sit, etsi est apertum, ipsa tamen lex nos docet. Vbi enim omnis mortalis adligat, ita loquitur: qui venenum malum fecit, fecerit. omnes viri, mulieres, liberi, servi in iudicium vocantur. si idem de coitione voluisset, adiunxisset: quive coierit. nunc ita est: qeque eius capite quaerito qui magistratum habuerit quive in senatu sententiam dixerit, qui eorum coiit, coierit. num is est Cluentius?

中文译文

[145] 我顺从了他的意思；我之所以这样做（因为我们并非总应如此）是因为我看见，本案即使不依靠这项法律，也能得到极充分的辩护。我看见，已经采用的辩护更有尊严，而他不愿让我使用的那一种则更省力。如果目的仅仅是打赢此案，我宣读法律之后，就可以结束演说了。阿提乌斯的那番话也不能动摇我。他说：如果元老通过审判陷害某人，法律就能约束他；如果罗马骑士做同样的事，却不能约束，这实在不公。

[146] 姑且让我承认，这一点不公（它究竟如何，我马上会考虑）你也必须承认，在一个由法律维系的国家，偏离法律是更加不公的。法律是我们在国家中享有尊严的纽带，是自由的基础，是公平的源泉；国家的理智、精神、谋划和判断都存在于法律之中。正如身体没有心智便无法使用各部分，国家没有法律，也就无法使用自己的筋络、血液和肢体。官员是法律的执行者，审判员是法律的解释者；总之，我们所有人正是为了能够自由，才作法律的仆人。

[147] 昆图斯·纳索，你为什么坐在那个位置？你凭什么力量统摄这些有如此尊位的审判员？而你们，审判员们，为什么能从如此众多的公民中，以这样少的人决定别人的命运？阿提乌斯凭什么权利说了他想说的话？为什么我获得如此长的发言时间？那些书记员、扈从，以及我看见为这项审判服务的其他人，又是为何而来？我想，这一切都依法进行，整个审判也像我先前说的，被法律这个心智支配和管理。那么，只有这一项审判如此吗？普莱托里乌斯和弗拉米尼乌斯主持的杀人案，奥尔基乌斯的侵吞公款案，我自己的追索侵夺款项案，阿奎利乌斯那里如今正在审理的贿选案，以及其他法庭呢？环视国家的各个部分，你们会看见，一切都依法律的命令和规定进行。

[148] 提图斯·阿提乌斯，如果有人想在我主持的法庭上控告你，你会大声说，追索侵夺款项的法律不适用于你；这种异议并不是承认收了钱，而是拒绝不合法的劳苦和危险。现在请看，眼下在做什么，你在建立什么法律。设立本法庭的那项法律，命负责审判者，也就是昆图斯·沃科尼乌斯，与分配给他的审判员（它说的就是你们）调查毒物。调查谁？这里没有限定：“无论谁制造、出售、购买、持有、给予。”同一法律随后加上什么？读吧：“并应审问下列人的生命案件。”谁？“曾经结党、达成协议的人”吗？不是。那么是什么？说出来：“曾在前四个军团任军事保民官者，或任财务官、保民官者”（接着列出所有官职）“或曾在元老院发表意见者。”随后呢？“上述人员中，曾经或将来结党、达成协议，使某人在公共审判中被判罪者。”哪些人员中的？显然是上文列出的那些人。两种写法的区别虽然明显，法律本身仍教我们理解：它要约束所有人时，便说：“凡制造过或将制造有害毒物者。”男人、女人、自由人、奴隶，全都可被告上法庭。如果它对串通也想这样规定，便会加上“或者串通过的人”。现在却是：“并应审问曾任官职或在元老院发表意见者的生命案件，即上述人员中曾经或将来串通者。”克卢恩提乌斯是这类人吗？

Annotation. The argument concerns the personal scope of a particular statutory clause. It should not be generalized into immunity of all equestrians from every form of judicial corruption liability. The transcription sometimes prints abbreviated names beside their expansions; the Chinese renders each name once.

Pro Rabirio perduellionis reo — an old killing and the authority to defend the state

Chapter 15 · 63 BCE · Popular criminal proceeding; incomplete

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon Press 1909. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

In 63 BCE the prosecution of Gaius Rabirius revived responsibility for the suppression of Saturninus in 100 BCE. The interval is essential: a decades-old killing became a contemporary test of the authority under which citizens had armed themselves at the consuls’ call. Labienus’ prosecution involved the archaic category perduellio and duumviral proceedings. Cicero’s surviving address is to the Roman people, not a speech to an ordinary permanent criminal jury. It is also incomplete. Greenidge’s reconstruction of the relation between the proceedings and the popular stage should therefore be distinguished from what the surviving address itself says. [RP1–RP2; Greenidge, pp. 349–359.]

Legally, the defence is not exhausted by identifying who struck Saturninus. Cicero contests the punishment and procedure revived against a Roman citizen, invokes protections associated with the Porcian law and Gaius Gracchus, and presents the executioner and archaic formula as incompatible with civic liberty. His account polemically strips Labienus of the title “popular” by contrasting the protection of citizens with the prosecution’s machinery. The text’s arbor infelix and its rhetoric of the cross should not be harmonized into an exact modern reconstruction of the apparatus of execution without further evidence. [RP1.]

The second juridical question concerns public authorization in an emergency. Cicero recites the array of magistrates and leading citizens who answered the consular call and asks what Rabirius ought to have done. The defence thus makes participation with the recognized authorities a civic duty. But the argument that citizens should assist the consuls does not by itself settle the legality of every killing after an opponent has surrendered. The distinction between taking up arms and the precise circumstances of Saturninus’ death remains necessary. [RP2; speech §§18–20.]

Historically, the case belongs to the same consulship in which Cicero would act against the Catilinarians. Its retrospective constitutional argument therefore had present force. Procedurally, the later account that the popular meeting was interrupted is distinct from acquittal after a completed vote. Greenidge discusses that interruption and the uncertain institutional reconstruction. The dossier treats this as an unusually revealing contest over popular sovereignty, capital coercion, and emergency obedience, while retaining the limits of the surviving speech. [Greenidge, pp. 354–359; RP1–RP2.]

RP1. Punishment and popular liberty

Source locator: Pro Rabirio perduellionis reo, §§10-13. Stable passage ID: RP1.

Evidence claim C-RP1: Cicero attacks the proceeding’s capital-punishment implications through a constitutional language of popular liberty.

Latin

[10] nam de perduellionis iudicio, quod a me sublatum esse criminari soles, meum crimen est, non Rabiri. quod utinam, Quirites, ego id aut primus aut solus ex hac re publica sustulissem! utinam hoc, quod ille crimen esse volt, proprium testimonium meae laudis esset. quid enim optari potest quod ego mallem quam me in consulatu meo carnificem de foro, crucem de campo sustulisse? sed ista laus primum est maiorum nostrorum, Quirites, qui expulsis regibus nullum in libero populo vestigium crudelitatis regiae retinuerunt, deinde multorum virorum fortium qui vestram libertatem non acerbitate suppliciorum infestam sed lenitate legum munitam esse voluerunt.

[11] quam ob rem uter nostrum tandem, Labiene, popularis est, tune qui civibus Romanis in contione ipsa carnificem, qui vincla adhiberi putas oportere, qui in campo Martio comitiis centuriatis auspicato in loco crucem ad civium supplicium defigi et constitui iubes, an ego qui funestari contionem contagione carnificis veto, qui expiandum forum populi Romani ab illis nefarii sceleris vestigiis esse dico, qui castam contionem, sanctum campum, inviolatum corpus omnium civium Romanorum, integrum ius libertatis defendo servari oportere?

[12] popularis vero tribunus pl. custos defensorque iuris et libertatis! Porcia lex virgas ab omnium civium Romanorum corpore amovit, hic misericors flagella rettulit; Porcia lex libertatem civium lictori eripuit, Labienus, homo popularis, carnifici tradidit; C. Gracchus legem tulit ne de capite civium Romanorum iniussu vestro iudicaretur, hic popularis a iiviris iniussu vestro non iudicari de cive Romano sed indicta causa civem Romanum capitis condemnari coegit.

[13] tu mihi etiam legis Porciae, tu C. Gracchi, tu horum libertatis, tu cuiusquam denique hominis popularis mentionem facis, qui non modo suppliciis invisitatis sed etiam verborum crudelitate inaudita violare libertatem huius populi, temptare mansuetudinem, commutare disciplinam conatus es? namque haec tua, quae te, hominem clementem popularemque, delectant, i, lictor, conliga manvs, non modo huius libertatis mansuetudinisque non sunt sed ne Romuli quidem aut Numae Pompili; Tarquini, superbissimi atque crudelissimi regis, ista sunt cruciatus carmina quae tu, homo lenis ac popularis, libentissime commemoras: capvt obnvbito, arbori infelici svspendito, quae verba, Quirites, iam pridem in hac re publica non solum tenebris vetustatis verum etiam luce libertatis oppressa sunt.

中文译文

[10] 至于你惯常指责被我取消的那项叛国审判，那是对我的控告，不是对拉比里乌斯的。罗马公民们，但愿是我第一个、或我独自把它从国家中除去！但愿他想当作罪状的这件事，真能成为只属于我的光荣证明。我还会希望什么，比在自己任执政官时把刽子手从广场、把十字架从战神广场赶走更好？但这份荣耀首先属于祖先；他们驱逐国王之后，没有在自由人民中保留任何王政残酷的痕迹。其次，它属于许多勇敢的人，他们愿意用法律的宽缓保护你们的自由，而不是用惩罚的严酷威胁它。

[11] 因此，拉比恩努斯，我们两个究竟谁才是“人民的朋友”？是你，认为在人民集会上就该对罗马公民使用刽子手和绳索，命人在战神广场、百人队大会举行占卜认可的地点，竖起十字架惩罚公民？还是我，禁止刽子手的污秽使集会沾染死亡，主张罗马人民的广场必须清除那些邪恶罪行的痕迹，并坚持集会应当洁净、战神广场应当神圣、每个罗马公民的身体应当不可侵犯、自由的权利应当完整保存？

[12] 真是一位亲民的保民官，权利与自由的守护者、保卫者！波尔基乌斯法使棍棒远离所有罗马公民的身体，这个慈悲的人却把鞭子带回来；波尔基乌斯法从扈从手中夺回公民自由，这个亲民的拉比恩努斯却把它交给刽子手；盖乌斯·格拉古立法，未经你们命令不得审判罗马公民的生命案件，这个亲民者却强迫两名审判官在未经你们命令时，不是审理一个罗马公民，而是不听案情就把一个罗马公民判处死刑。

[13] 你竟还向我提波尔基乌斯法、盖乌斯·格拉古、这些人的自由，乃至任何一个亲民之士？你不仅用前所未见的刑罚，而且用闻所未闻的残酷措辞，企图侵犯人民的自由，挑战人民的温和，改变人民的制度。因为你这个仁慈、亲民的人所喜爱的命令（“扈从，去，绑住他的手”）不仅不属于如今的自由与温和，甚至也不属于罗穆卢斯或努马·庞皮利乌斯。你最乐于念诵的那些折磨人的套语，是最傲慢、最残酷的国王塔尔奎尼乌斯的：“蒙住他的头，把他悬在不祥之树上。”罗马公民们，这些话在我国早已不只被古老时代的黑暗，也被自由的光芒压下去了。

Annotation. Cicero’s constitutional history is polemical. The extract demonstrates how he contests the proceeding’s legitimacy, not that every detail of his account of early Republican punishment is independently secure.

RP2. The consul’s call and the citizen’s choice

Source locator: Pro Rabirio perduellionis reo, §§21-23. Stable passage ID: RP2.

Evidence claim C-RP2: Cicero represents action under the consuls against Saturninus as obedience shared by an extensive body of respected citizens.

Latin

[21] de te ipso, inquam, Labiene, quaero. Cum ad arma consules ex senatus consulto vocavissent, cum armatus M. Aemilius, princeps senatus, in comitio constitisset, qui cum ingredi vix posset, non ad insequendum sibi tarditatem pedum sed ad fugiendum impedimento fore putabat, cum denique Q. Scaevola confectus senectute, perditus morbo, mancus et membris omnibus captus ac debilis, hastili nixus et animi vim et infirmitatem corporis ostenderet, cum L. Metellus, Ser. Galba, C. Serranus, P. Rutilius, C. Fimbria, Q. Catulus omnesque qui tum erant consulares pro salute communi arma cepissent, cum omnes praetores, cuncta nobilitas ac iuventus accurreret, Cn. et L. Domitii, L. Crassus, Q. Mucius, C. Claudius, M. Drusus, cum omnes Octavii, Metelli, Iulii, Cassii, Catones, Pompeii, cum L. Philippus, L. Scipio, cum M. Lepidus, cum D. Brutus, cum hic ipse P. Servilius, quo tu imperatore, Labiene, meruisti, cum hic Q. Catulus, admodum tum adulescens, cum hic C. Curio, cum denique omnes clarissimi viri cum consulibus essent: quid tandem C. Rabirium facere convenit? utrum inclusum atque abditum latere in occulto atque ignaviam suam tenebrarum ac parietum custodiis tegere, an in Capitolium pergere atque ibi se cum tuo patruo et ceteris ad mortem propter vitae turpitudinem confugientibus congregare, an cum Mario, Scauro, Catulo, Metello, Scaevola, cum bonis denique omnibus coire non modo salutis verum etiam periculi societatem?

[22] tu denique, Labiene, quid faceres tali in re ac tempore? Cum ignaviae ratio te in fugam atque in latebras impelleret, improbitas et furor L. Saturnini in Capitolium arcesseret, consules ad patriae salutem ac libertatem vocarent, quam tandem auctoritatem, quam vocem, cuius sectam sequi, cuius imperio parere potissimum velles? patruus, inquit, meus cum Saturnino fuit. quid? pater quicum? quid? propinqui vestri, equites Romani? quid? omnis praefectura, regio, vicinitas vestra? quid? ager Picenus universus utrum tribunicium furorem, an consularem auctoritatem secutus est?

[23] equidem hoc adfirmo quod tu nunc de tuo patruo praedicas, neminem umquam adhuc de se esse confessum; nemo est, inquam, inventus tam profligatus, tam perditus, tam ab omni non modo honestate sed etiam simulatione honestatis relictus, qui se in Capitolio fuisse cum Saturnino fateretur. at fuit vester patruus. fuerit, et fuerit ⟨nulla⟩ vi, nulla desperatione rerum suarum, nullis domesticis volneribus coactus; induxerit eum L. Saturnini familiaritas ut amicitiam patriae praeponeret; idcircone oportuit C. Rabirium desciscere a re publica, non comparere in illa armata multitudine bonorum, consulum voci atque imperio non oboedire?

中文译文

[21] 拉比恩努斯，我问的就是你本人。当执政官依据元老院决议号召人们拿起武器，当元老院首席马尔库斯·埃米利乌斯持械站在会场中（他几乎不能行走，却认为脚步迟缓会妨碍逃跑，而不是妨碍追击）当昆图斯·斯凯沃拉衰老、重病、手足不便、全身软弱，却倚着矛杆，同时显出精神的力量和身体的脆弱；当卢基乌斯·梅特鲁斯、塞尔维乌斯·加尔巴、盖乌斯·塞拉努斯、普布利乌斯·鲁提利乌斯、盖乌斯·芬布里亚、昆图斯·卡图卢斯以及当时所有前执政官，都为共同安全拿起武器；当所有裁判官、全体贵族和青年都赶来，格奈乌斯与卢基乌斯·多米提乌斯、卢基乌斯·克拉苏、昆图斯·穆基乌斯、盖乌斯·克劳狄乌斯、马尔库斯·德鲁苏，以及奥克塔维乌斯家、梅特鲁斯家、尤利乌斯家、卡西乌斯家、加图家、庞培家所有人，连同卢基乌斯·腓力普斯、卢基乌斯·西庇阿、马尔库斯·雷必达、德基穆斯·布鲁图斯，还有你曾在他麾下服役的这位普布利乌斯·塞尔维利乌斯，当时还很年轻的这位昆图斯·卡图卢斯，以及这位盖乌斯·库里奥；总之，当所有最显赫的人都同执政官站在一起，拉比里乌斯究竟应该做什么？把自己关起来，躲在暗处，用黑暗和墙壁掩护懦弱？还是前往卡皮托利乌姆，同你叔父以及其他因生活败坏而逃向死亡的人聚在一起？还是与马略、斯考鲁斯、卡图卢斯、梅特鲁斯、斯凯沃拉，总之与所有正直者，不只共保安全，而且共担危险？

[22] 拉比恩努斯，处在这样的局面和时刻，你自己究竟会做什么？懦弱催你逃跑藏匿，萨图尔尼努斯的邪恶和疯狂召你上卡皮托利乌姆，执政官却召你保卫祖国的安全与自由；你究竟愿意首先追随哪一种权威、哪一种声音、哪一方，服从谁的命令？你说：“我叔父同萨图尔尼努斯在一起。”那么，你父亲同谁在一起？你们那些罗马骑士亲属呢？你们整个地方行政区、地区和邻里呢？整个皮凯努姆究竟追随了保民官的疯狂，还是执政官的权威？

[23] 我断言：你如今夸耀叔父做过的事，至今没有人愿意承认自己做过。我说，还没有发现一个人堕落、败坏到连正派的外表都完全抛弃，竟承认自己曾在卡皮托利乌姆同萨图尔尼努斯在一起。“但你叔父在那里。”让他在那里吧！也让我们承认，他不是被暴力、不是被绝望的处境、不是被家庭灾难所迫；而是同萨图尔尼努斯的友谊使他把朋友置于祖国之上。难道因此拉比里乌斯就该背离国家，不出现在那群持械的正直者中，不服从执政官的召唤与命令吗？

Annotation. The long roll of names is retained because it is the mechanism of the argument from collective authority. It establishes Cicero’s model of obedience, not the legality of every act committed during the suppression.

Pro Murena — electoral corruption, custom, and political necessity

Chapter 16 · 63 BCE · Electoral-corruption defence

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon 1908. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

Lucius Licinius Murena, consul-elect for 62 BCE, was prosecuted for electoral corruption in 63. Cicero’s participation was vulnerable to an obvious objection: as consul he had promoted legislation against ambitus, yet now defended an accused beneficiary of electoral misconduct. Cato’s role as prosecutor sharpened that challenge. Cicero answers by distinguishing defence of an innocent person from approval of bribery and by presenting protection of the incoming consul as a responsibility of the incumbent. His sailing metaphor joins personal experience of office to anticipation of the state’s coming dangers. [MUR1.]

Legally, the case concerns whether particular campaign conduct falls under the prohibited forms of electoral corruption. The speech’s famous comparisons of military achievement with legal expertise and its humour about Stoic severity are not digressions without forensic purpose: they reshape the jury’s assessment of the candidates, prosecutors, and standards of conduct. But neither popularity nor usefulness to the state is formally identical with innocence of ambitus. Cicero must also challenge the connection between observable electoral sociability and prohibited payment. [Speech §§21–30, 60–66; MUR2.]

MUR2 draws that connection carefully. A senatorial declaration that paid attendance, hired followers, and certain distributions violate the law does not prove that Murena committed those acts. A crowd meeting a returning candidate or following him is consistent, Cicero argues, with voluntary assistance by friends, clients, fellow tribesmen, and soldiers. The decisive missing term is “for payment.” This is a juridical argument about specifying the prohibited act and a procedural demand for proof of its occurrence. It does not establish that elite networks were free from coercion or exchange merely because no wage is admitted. [MUR2.]

Historically, Cicero also invokes the Catilinarian emergency to argue that Rome needs both consuls in office on 1 January. That is a public-interest appeal superimposed on legal defence. The speech shows how personal obligation, legal distinction, customary campaign behaviour, and anticipated crisis can operate together before a criminal jury. Its tone toward Cato is strategic rather than a comprehensive philosophical refutation of Stoicism. The verdict is not narrated in the speech itself; the evidence quoted here supports the structure of the defence, not a retrospective claim that every disputed campaign act was lawful. [MUR1–MUR2; speech §§78–85.]

MUR1. Why the anti-bribery legislator may defend

Source locator: Pro Murena, §§3-5. Stable passage ID: MUR1.

Evidence claim C-MUR1: Cicero defends the compatibility of his role as author of an anti-bribery law with his advocacy for a consul-elect accused under election law.

Latin

[3] et primum M.Marco Catoni vitam ad certam rationis normam derigenti et diligentissime perpendenti momenta officiorum omnium de officio meo respondebo. negat fuisse rectum Cato me et consulem et legis ambitus latorem et tam severe gesto consulatu causam L.Lucii Murenae attingere. cuius reprehensio me vehementer movet, non solum ut vobis, iudices, quibus maxime debeo, verum etiam ut ipsi Catoni, gravissimo atque integerrimo viro, rationem facti mei probem. A quo tandem, M.Marce Cato, est aequius consulem defendi quam a consule? quis mihi in re publica potest aut debet esse coniunctior quam is cui res publica a me iam traditur sustinenda magnis meis laboribus et periculis sustentata? quod si in eis rebus repetendis quae mancipi sunt is periculum iudici praestare debet qui se nexu obligavit, profecto etiam rectius in iudicio consulis designati is potissimum consul qui consulem declaravit auctor benefici populi Romani defensorque periculi esse debebit.

[4] ac si, ut non nullis in civitatibus fieri solet, patronus huic causae publice constitueretur, is potissimum summo honore adfecto defensor daretur qui eodem honore praeditus non minus adferret ad dicendum auctoritatis quam facultatis. quod si e portu solventibus ei qui iam in portum ex alto invehuntur praecipere summo studio solent et tempestatum rationem et praedonum et locorum, quod natura adfert ut eis faveamus qui eadem pericula quibus nos perfuncti sumus ingrediantur, quo tandem me esse animo oportet prope iam ex magna iactatione terram videntem in hunc cui video maximas rei publicae tempestates esse subeundas? qua re si est boni consulis non solum videre quid agatur verum etiam providere quid futurum sit, ostendam alio loco quantum salutis communis intersit duos consules in re publica Kalendis Ianuariis esse.

[5] quod si ita est, non tam me officium debuit ad hominis amici fortunas quam res publica consulem ad communem salutem defendendam vocare. nam quod legem de ambitu tuli, certe ita tuli ut eam quam mihimet ipsi iam pridem tulerim de civium periculis defendendis non abrogarem. etenim si largitionem factam esse confiterer idque recte factum esse defenderem, facerem improbe, etiam si alius legem tulisset; cum vero nihil commissum contra legem esse defendam, quid est quod meam defensionem latio legis impediat?

中文译文

[3] 首先，我要回答马尔库斯·加图对我职责的指责。他把生活导向理性的确定标准，极仔细地衡量一切义务。加图说，我身为执政官，又是贿选法的提出者，而且以如此严厉的方式履行执政官职务，不应接触穆雷纳的案件。他的责备使我深受触动；我不仅要向你们这些我最负有责任的审判员说明行为的理由，也要向加图本人，这位极庄重、极正直的人说明。加图啊，还有谁比执政官更适合保卫一位执政官？在国家事务中，还有谁能、或应当同我更密切地联系，超过那个即将从我手中接过国家的人？这个国家是我以巨大劳苦和危险支撑下来的，他现在要继续承担它。若在某些要式财产被追索时，以法律纽带承担保证的人应负责诉讼风险，那么，在候任执政官受审时，宣布他当选的现任执政官，就更应该维护人民给予的恩惠，保卫他免受危险。

[4] 如果像某些城邦的惯例那样，由公家为此案指定辩护人，那么，给一个获得最高荣誉的人配备辩护人，最应选择同样具有这种荣誉、既有发言能力又有相应权威的人。正如从远海驶入港口者，通常极热心地向即将出港者说明风暴、海盗和地形，因为自然使我们关心那些将进入自己刚经历过的危险的人；那么，我刚从巨大颠簸中几乎看到陆地，面对这个我看见即将遭遇国家最猛烈风暴的人，又该怀着怎样的心情？所以，如果好执政官不只要看见正在发生什么，还要预见将来，我将在别处说明：一月一日国家中有两位执政官，对共同安全何等重要。

[5] 如果这样，那么，召唤我来保卫一位朋友命运的，与其说是私人义务，不如说是国家召唤执政官保卫共同安全。至于我提出了反贿选法，我提出它时，当然没有废除自己早已给自己立下的另一条准则：保卫公民免受危险。如果我承认发生了贿选，却辩称它做得对，那么即使法律是别人提出的，我也在作恶；但我现在辩称，没有发生任何违反法律的行为，那么，提出法律这件事，为什么应当妨碍我的辩护？

Annotation. The private-law analogy is an argumentative comparison, not a rule making the presiding consul legally liable for the consul-elect’s defence.

MUR2. A crowd does not itself prove hired attendance

Source locator: Pro Murena, §§67-69. Stable passage ID: MUR2.

Evidence claim C-MUR2: Cicero distinguishes paid electoral attendance from the customary attendance and obligations he characterizes as voluntary.

Latin

[67] qua re, ut ad id quod institui revertar, tolle mihi e causa nomen Catonis, remove vim, praetermitte auctoritatem quae in iudiciis aut nihil valere aut ad salutem debet valere, congredere mecum criminibus ipsis. quid accusas, Cato, quid adfers ad iudicium, quid arguis? ambitum accusas; non defendo. me reprehendis, quod idem defendam quod lege punierim. punivi ambitum, non innocentiam; ambitum vero ipsum vel tecum accusabo, si voles. dixisti senatus consultum me referente esse factum, si mercede obviam candidatis issent, si conducti sectarentur, si gladiatoribus volgo locus tributim et item prandia si volgo essent data, contra legem Calpurniam factum videri. ergo ita senatus iudicat, contra legem facta haec videri, si facta sint; decernit quod nihil opus est, dum candidatis morem gerit. nam factum sit necne vehementer quaeritur; sin factum sit, quin contra legem sit dubitare nemo potest.

[68] est igitur ridiculum, quod est dubium, id relinquere incertum, quod nemini dubium potest esse, id iudicare. atque id decernitur omnibus postulantibus candidatis, ut ex senatus consulto neque cuius intersit, neque contra quem sit intellegi possit. qua re doce ab L.Lucio Murena illa esse commissa; tum egomet tibi contra legem commissa esse concedam.

multi obviam prodierunt de provincia decedenti. consulatum petenti solet fieri; eccui autem non proditur revertenti? quae fuit ista multitudo? primum, si tibi istam rationem non possim reddere, quid habet admirationis tali viro advenienti, candidato consulari, obviam prodisse multos? quod nisi esset factum, magis mirandum videretur.

[69] quid? si etiam illud addam quod a consuetudine non abhorret, rogatos esse multos, num aut criminosum sit aut mirandum, qua in civitate rogati infimorum hominum filios prope de nocte ex ultima saepe urbe deductum venire soleamus, in ea non esse gravatos homines prodire hora tertia in campum Martium, praesertim talis viri nomine rogatos? quid? si omnes societates venerunt quarum ex numero multi sedent iudices; quid? si multi homines nostri ordinis honestissimi; quid? si illa officiosissima quae neminem patitur non honeste in urbem introire tota natio candidatorum, si denique ipse accusator noster Postumus obviam cum bene magna caterva sua venit, quid habet ista multitudo admirationis? omitto clientis, vicinos, tribulis, exercitum totum Luculli qui ad triumphum per eos dies venerat; hoc dico, frequentiam in isto officio gratuitam non modo dignitati nullius umquam sed ne voluntati quidem defuisse. at sectabantur multi. doce mercede; concedam esse crimen.

中文译文

[67] 因此，回到我开始讨论的事情：请从案情中拿掉加图的名字，移开它的压力，放下那种权威（在法庭上，它要么不应起作用，要么只应帮助保全一个人）同我就指控本身交锋。加图，你控告什么，提交什么，指责什么？你控告贿选；我不替贿选辩护。你责备我，说我在保卫自己立法惩罚的东西。我惩罚的是贿选，不是清白；如果你愿意，我甚至可以同你一起控告贿选。你说，元老院根据我的提议作出决议：如果有人收钱迎接候选人，如果雇人跟随，如果按部落普遍分配角斗表演座位，又普遍提供宴食，就应认为违反卡尔普尔尼乌斯法。因此，元老院判断的是：这些事如果发生，就违法。它顺从候选人的请求，决定了一件本来无须决定的事。因为争得厉害的，是事情发生没有；如果确实发生，谁也不会怀疑它违法。

[68] 所以，把有疑问的事情留而不决，却对任何人都不可能怀疑的事情作判断，是可笑的。而这项决议是所有候选人共同请求的，因此不能从决议看出它有利于谁、针对谁。所以，你先证明穆雷纳做了那些事；那时我自己也会承认它们违法。“他从行省回来时，许多人出去迎接。”竞选执政官的人，通常会遇到这种事；再说，谁回来时没有人迎接？那是什么样的人群？首先，即便我不能向你解释，像他这样一个人回来，一个竞选执政官的人，有许多人迎接，又有什么奇怪？如果没有，反倒更值得惊讶。

[69] 如果我再加一点并不违背惯例的说明，说许多人是被邀请来的，这难道就有罪、就奇怪吗？在我们的国家，人们受邀之后，常常近乎天未亮便从城市最远处赶来，为地位最卑微者的儿子送行；那么，人们在第三时到战神广场迎接，尤其是应这样一个人的名义之邀，又有什么不情愿？如果许多社团都来了，其中不少人如今就在审判席；如果我们阶层中许多极正派的人来了；如果那群最热心履行礼节、不让任何人失体面地入城的候选人全来了；最后，如果控告我们的波斯图穆斯本人也带着相当大一群人来迎接，这样的人群有什么奇怪？我还不说门客、邻居、同部落者，以及那些天为凯旋来到的卢库卢斯全军。我只说，这种礼节中的无偿聚集，从来不缺少对任何人身份、甚至愿望的响应。“可是，很多人跟着他。”证明他们是拿钱来的；我就承认构成罪状。

Annotation. The distinction is between attendance and remunerated attendance under the alleged prohibition. Cicero’s account of “voluntary” social obligation should not be mistaken for proof that Roman electoral networks lacked material interests.

Pro Sulla — separating one defendant from a conspiracy

Chapter 17 · 62 BCE · Defence against conspiracy-related violence charge

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxonii e Typographeo Clarendoniano 1911. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

Publius Sulla’s earlier electoral disgrace and the subsequent Catilinarian crisis form the background to his defence in 62 BCE. Cicero presents him as a man already punished and now exposed to opponents whose hostility remains unsatisfied. The current allegation concerns participation in conspiracy and public violence; it must not be merged with the earlier electoral conviction. The speech also concerns Cicero’s own consistency: how can the consul who exposed the conspiracy defend someone accused of involvement? Torquatus’ attack on the advocate’s authority makes the defender’s political conduct a subsidiary issue in the trial. [SU1.]

Cicero answers by insisting on discrimination between defendants. Knowledge that a conspiracy existed does not establish that every accused person belonged to it. His defence therefore combines an argument about Sulla’s conduct with an argument about Cicero’s entitlement to defend him. The former consul’s authority is useful but dangerous: it risks replacing proof with his personal assurance. The speech repeatedly negotiates that boundary rather than eliminating it. [SU1; speech §§4–10.]

SU2 brings the procedural issue into focus through the evidence of the Allobroges and the record of the inquiry. Cicero says that what matters is whether Sulla is implicated, not whether someone has furnished an affirmative certificate of innocence. He then interprets Cassius’ profession of ignorance as particularly significant because Cassius allegedly knew the other conspirators. The movement from “he did not know” to an exculpatory inference is Cicero’s reasoning, not the witness’s explicit statement. Torquatus’ counter-charge that the public record was altered leads Cicero to explain why he arranged for senators to write down statements, questions, and answers. [SU2.]

Historically, the speech is a source for the political afterlife of the consulship and for attempts to fix a contested emergency in documentary form. A written record can preserve the authority of an investigation, but its production under Cicero’s direction also makes its fidelity a legitimate subject of dispute. The dossier consequently distinguishes a recorded deposition, an advocate’s interpretation of silence, and an allegation about the record’s accuracy. The surviving defence is neither the complete senate dossier nor a modern evidentiary transcript. [SU2; speech §§42–43.]

SU1. The defender’s authority is also contested

Source locator: Pro Sulla, §§1-3. Stable passage ID: SU1.

Evidence claim C-SU1: Cicero frames the defence around the objection that his prior action against conspirators is inconsistent with defending Sulla.

Latin

[1] maxime vellem, iudices, ut P. Sulla et antea dignitatis suae splendorem obtinere et post calamitatem acceptam modestiae fructum aliquem percipere potuisset. sed quoniam ita tulit casus infestus ut in amplissimo honore cum communi ambitionis invidia tum singulari Autroni odio everteretur, et in his pristinae fortunae reliquiis miseris et adflictis tamen haberet quosdam quorum animos ne supplicio quidem suo satiare posset, quamquam ex huius incommodis magnam animo molestiam capio, tamen in ceteris malis facile patior oblatum mihi tempus esse in quo boni viri lenitatem meam misericordiamque, notam quondam omnibus, nunc quasi intermissam agnoscerent, improbi ac perditi cives domiti atque victi praecipitante re publica vehementem me fuisse atque fortem, conservata mitem ac misericordem faterentur.

[2] et quoniam L. Torquatus, meus familiaris ac necessarius, iudices, existimavit, si nostram in accusatione sua necessitudinem familiaritatemque violasset, aliquid se de auctoritate meae defensionis posse detrahere, cum huius periculi propulsatione coniungam defensionem offici mei. quo quidem genere non uterer orationis, iudices, hoc tempore, si mea solum interesset; multis enim locis mihi et data facultas est et saepe dabitur de mea laude dicendi; sed, ut ille vidit, quantum de mea auctoritate deripuisset, tantum se de huius praesidiis deminuturum, sic hoc ego sentio, si mei facti rationem vobis constantiamque huius offici ac defensionis probaro, causam quoque me P. Sullae probaturum.

[3] ac primum abs te illud, L. Torquate, quaero, cur me a ceteris clarissimis viris ac principibus civitatis in hoc officio atque in defensionis iure secernas. quid enim est quam ob rem abs te Q. Hortensi factum, clarissimi viri atque ornatissimi, non reprehendatur, reprehendatur meum? nam, si est initum a P. Sulla consilium inflammandae huius urbis, exstinguendi imperi, delendae civitatis, mihi maiorem hae res dolorem quam Q. Hortensio, mihi maius odium adferre debent, meum denique gravius esse iudicium, qui adiuvandus in his causis, qui oppugnandus, qui defendendus, qui deserendus esse videatur? ita, inquit; tu enim investigasti, tu patefecisti coniurationem.

中文译文

[1] 审判员们，我最希望的，是普布利乌斯·苏拉既能在从前保有尊位的光彩，也能在遭受灾难之后，从克制退让中得到一点成果。然而，敌对的命运使他在最高荣誉的位置上，既因人们对竞选普遍的怨恨，又因人们特别憎恶奥特罗尼乌斯而倒下；即使他如今只剩下昔日命运那些悲惨、破败的残余，仍有一些人的心连他的受罚都不能满足。虽然他的不幸使我深感痛苦，在其他灾祸之外，我仍愿意接受这个机会：让正直者重新认识我那从前人人知道、如今仿佛中断了的温和与怜悯；也让已经被制服、被击败的邪恶公民承认，国家倾危时我坚强严厉，国家保全之后，我温和而仁慈。

[2] 审判员们，我的朋友、关系密切的卢基乌斯·托尔夸图斯认为，如果在控告中破坏我们之间的关系与友谊，便能削弱我辩护的权威。因此，我将把替此人排除危险，同维护我自己的职责结合起来。如果只关系我本人，我此刻不会采用这种说法，因为我过去已有、以后也常会有机会谈自己的功绩。但正如他看出，从我的权威中削去多少，就等于削去苏拉的保护多少；我也认为，如果向你们证明我的行为有理由、这次履职与辩护前后一贯，我也就能使苏拉的案情获得你们认可。

[3] 首先，托尔夸图斯，我问你：为什么在履行这一职责、行使辩护权利时，要把我同其他最显赫、最重要的国家人物分开？为什么你不责备那位极显赫、极有声望的昆图斯·霍尔滕西乌斯，却责备我？如果苏拉真的参加了烧毁城市、摧毁统治、毁灭国家的阴谋，难道这些事给我的痛苦、仇恨，就应超过给霍尔滕西乌斯的？对于这类案件中谁该帮助、谁该反对、谁该辩护、谁该放弃，难道我的判断就应更严厉？他说：“是的，因为是你调查、是你揭露了阴谋。”

Annotation. The extract ends with the objection Cicero is about to answer. It states the charge against the advocate’s consistency, not an admission that Sulla participated.

SU2. Implication, ignorance, and the written record

Source locator: Pro Sulla, §§39-41. Stable passage ID: SU2.

Evidence claim C-SU2: Cicero invokes the production and circulation of a written record of the Allobroges’ evidence to resist the alleged implication of Sulla.

Latin

[39] sed ego in iudiciis et in quaestionibus non hoc quaerendum arbitror, num purgetur aliquis, sed num arguatur. etenim cum se negat scire Cassius, utrum sublevat Sullam an satis probat se nescire? sublevat apud Gallos. quid ita? ne indicent. quid ? si periculum esse putasset ne illi umquam indicarent, de se ipse confessus esset? nesciit videlicet. credo celatum esse Cassium de Sulla uno; nam de ceteris certe sciebat; etenim domi eius pleraque conflata esse constabat. qui negare noluit esse in eo numero Sullam quo plus spei Gallis daret, dicere autem falsum non ausus est, se nescire dixit. atque hoc perspicuum est, cum is qui de omnibus scierit de Sulla se scire negarit, eandem vim esse negationis huius quam si extra coniurationem hunc esse se scire dixisset. nam cuius scientiam de omnibus constat fuisse, eius ignoratio de aliquo purgatio debet videri. sed iam non quaero purgetne Cassius Sullam; illud mihi tantum satis est contra Sullam nihil esse in indicio.

[40] exclusus hac criminatione Torquatus rursus in me inruit, me accusat; ait me aliter ac dictum sit in tabulas publicas rettulisse. O di immortales!—vobis enim tribuo quae vestra sunt, nec vero possum meo tantum ingenio dare ut tot res tantas, tam varias, tam repentinas in illa turbulentissima tempestate rei publicae mea sponte dispexerim—vos profecto animum meum tum conservandae patriae cupiditate incendistis, vos me ab omnibus ceteris cogitationibus ad unam salutem rei publicae convertistis, vos denique in tantis tenebris erroris et inscientiae clarissimum lumen menti meae praetulistis.

[41] vidi ego hoc, iudices, nisi recenti memoria senatus auctoritatem huius indici monumentis publicis testatus essem, fore ut aliquando non Torquatus neque Torquati quispiam similis—nam id me multum fefellit—sed ut aliquis patrimoni naufragus, inimicus oti, bonorum hostis, aliter indicata haec esse diceret, quo facilius vento aliquo in optimum quemque excitato posset in malis rei publicae portum aliquem suorum malorum invenire. itaque introductis in senatum indicibus constitui senatores qui omnia indicum dicta, interrogata, responsa perscriberent.

中文译文

[39] 但我认为，在审判和调查中，应当问的不是某人是否被证明清白，而是他是否受到有根据的指控。卡西乌斯说自己不知道时，究竟是在替苏拉开脱，还是充分表明自己不知道？“他是在高卢人面前替苏拉开脱。”为什么？“免得他们揭发。”那么，如果他认为有被他们揭发的危险，还会承认自己的事情吗？显然，他不知道。我想，他偏偏不知道苏拉这一人的情况；因为其他人的事他肯定知道，而且许多计划是在他家里酝酿的，这一点已经确定。他不愿否认苏拉在其中，免得减少高卢人的希望，却又不敢撒谎，于是说自己不知道。很明显：一个知道所有其他人情况的人，却说不知道苏拉，这种否认的力量，就相当于他说自己知道苏拉不在阴谋之中。因为，一个确定了解所有人的人，对某一人无所知，应当被看作替那个人开脱。不过，我现在不再问卡西乌斯是否替苏拉开脱；只要告发材料中没有任何不利于苏拉的东西，就已足够。

[40] 托尔夸图斯在这项指责中受阻，便再次冲向我，控告我，说我把不同于原话的内容写入公共记录。永生的诸神啊！我把属于你们的功劳归给你们；我实在不能把那么多、那么重大、那么纷繁、那么突然的事情，在国家最动荡的风暴中被辨明，全归给自己的才智。必定是你们以保卫祖国的热望点燃我的心，使我从其他一切考虑转向国家安全这一件事；也正是你们，在迷误与无知的巨大黑暗中，为我的心智举起最明亮的光。

[41] 审判员们，我当时看出：如果不趁记忆新鲜，以公共文书为这项告发保存元老院的权威，将来就会有人（我原以为不是托尔夸图斯或同他类似的人，这一点我大大料错了）某个破产者、安宁的敌人、正直者的仇人，说当初告发的内容并非如此，以便煽起一阵针对优秀者的风，在国家的灾难中为自己的灾难找到港湾。因此，我把告发者带入元老院之后，指定了若干元老，把告发者说的话、所受的问题以及回答全部记录下来。

Annotation. Cassius’ ignorance is transformed into an exculpatory inference by Cicero. The public-record claim has an identifiable production process, but this extract cannot independently verify the record’s fidelity.

Pro Archia — citizenship proved through a combination of legal conditions and evidence

Chapter 18 · 62 BCE · Citizenship defence

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon 1911. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The defence of the poet Archias in 62 BCE is a citizenship case, not simply a celebration of literature. Cicero relates the Greek poet’s movement through Italy, reception by Roman aristocrats, and enrolment at Heraclea. Those facts are relevant because citizenship acquired through the legislation of Silvanus and Carbo depends on specified conditions: prior enrolment in an allied community, residence in Italy at the relevant time, and registration before a praetor within sixty days. Heraclean membership and Roman residence therefore do different legal work. Patronage helps explain how the first was obtained; it is not itself a substitute for the statute. [A1–A2.]

The evidentiary problem is the destruction of Heraclea’s archive during the Italian war. Cicero responds with Lucullus’ direct participation and the city’s public testimony. He also distinguishes the reliability of the praetorian registers and emphasizes the absence of an erasure in Archias’ entry under his Roman name, Aulus Licinius. The contrast is not “oral evidence always outranks documents.” It is an argument that missing documents should not automatically defeat available personal and institutional testimony, particularly when the opposing side also claims documents can be corrupted. [A2.]

The census raises a separate juridical question. Cicero argues that census enrolment indicates someone’s public conduct as a citizen rather than constituting the legal basis of citizenship. He supplies explanations for Archias’ absence and points to wills, inheritances, and an official report of benefits as other evidence of civic standing. These indicators do not replace the statutory conditions; they reinforce his assertion that Archias had long acted and been treated as a Roman. [A2 §11.]

The famous later defence of poetry then gives the jury reasons to value the person whose status has supposedly already been proved. Its relation to the legal argument is supplementary: Cicero moves from “he is a citizen under the law” toward “such a person deserves civic protection and honour.” Historically, the speech links Greek culture, Italian citizenship, elite sponsorship, military commemoration, and Roman prestige. The aesthetic encomium should neither erase the case’s technical core nor be treated as evidence that literary merit independently conferred citizenship. The surviving speech does not contain the court’s judgment; the dossier’s strongest direct evidence concerns Cicero’s legal and documentary case. [A1–A2; speech §§12–32.]

A1. Mobility and Heraclean enrolment

Source locator: Pro Archia, §§5-6. Stable passage ID: A1.

Evidence claim C-A1: Cicero links Archias’ mobility and elite sponsorship to his enrolment in an allied community.

Latin

[5] erat Italia tum plena Graecarum artium ac disciplinarum, studiaque haec et in Latio vehementius tum colebantur quam nunc isdem in oppidis, et hic Romae propter tranquillitatem rei publicae non neglegebantur. itaque hunc et Tarentini ⟨et Locrenses⟩ et Regini et Neapolitani civitate ceterisque praemiis donarunt, et omnes qui aliquid de ingeniis poterant iudicare cognitione atque hospitio dignum existimarunt. hac tanta celebritate famae cum esset iam absentibus notus, Romam venit Mario consule et Catulo. nactus est primum consules eos quorum alter res ad scribendum maximas, alter cum res gestas tum etiam studium atque auris adhibere posset. statim Luculli, cum praetextatus etiam tum Archias esset, eum domum suam receperunt. dedit etiam hoc non solum ⟨lumen⟩ ingeni ac litterarum verum etiam naturae atque virtutis ut domus, quae huius adulescentiae prima favit, eadem esset familiarissima senectuti.

[6] erat temporibus illis iucundus Q. Metello illi Numidico et eius Pio filio, audiebatur a M. Aemilio, vivebat cum Q. Catulo et patre et filio, a L. Crasso colebatur, Lucullos vero et Drusum et Octavios et Catonem et totam Hortensiorum domum devinctam consuetudine cum teneret, adficiebatur summo honore, quod eum non solum colebant qui aliquid percipere atque audire studebant verum etiam si qui forte simulabant. interim satis longo intervallo, cum esset cum M. Lucullo in Siciliam profectus et cum ex ea provincia cum eodem Lucullo decederet, venit Heracleam. quae cum esset civitas aequissimo iure ac foedere, ascribi se in eam civitatem voluit idque, cum ipse per se dignus putaretur, tum auctoritate et gratia Luculli ab Heracliensibus impetravit.

中文译文

[5] 当时，意大利充满希腊的艺术和学问；拉丁姆那些同样的城镇，对这些研究的重视比今天更强烈；罗马也因为国家安宁而没有忽视它们。因此，塔伦图姆人、⟨洛克里人⟩、雷吉乌姆人和那不勒斯人，都授予他公民身份和其他奖赏；凡能判断才华的人，都认为他值得结识和款待。他的名声如此显著，未到之地的人已经认识他；在马略与卡图卢斯任执政官时，他来到罗马。他最初遇到的两位执政官，一个能提供最伟大的写作题材，另一个既能提供事迹，也有兴趣和鉴赏的耳朵。阿尔基阿斯还穿着紫边袍时，卢库卢斯家便立刻接纳他。以下一点不只显示其才智与学问，也显示其品性与德行：最先支持他青年时代的那一家，到他老年时仍与他最亲密。

[6] 当时，他为那位努米底库斯·梅特鲁斯和他的儿子庇乌斯所喜爱；马尔库斯·埃米利乌斯愿意听他朗诵；他同卡图卢斯父子交往，受到卢基乌斯·克拉苏敬重；卢库卢斯家、德鲁苏、奥克塔维乌斯家、加图，以及整个霍尔滕西乌斯家，都因亲近而与他牢牢相连。他受到极高尊敬，因为不只是那些真想学习、真愿听讲的人礼遇他，连偶尔装作爱好文学的人也如此。过了相当长一段时间，他曾同马尔库斯·卢库卢斯前往西西里，从那里随同返回时，来到赫拉克利亚。这座城邦拥有极公平的法律地位与条约；他希望登记为该城公民。赫拉克利亚人既认为他本人值得，又顾及卢库卢斯的权威和情面，准许了他的请求。

Annotation. The social network explains access and credibility. It does not itself prove compliance with every condition of Roman citizenship.

A2. The statute, the lost archive, and the census

Source locator: Pro Archia, §§7-11. Stable passage ID: A2.

Evidence claim C-A2: Cicero distinguishes the statutory conditions for citizenship from the evidentiary role of archives, registration and the census.

Latin

[7] data est civitas Silvani lege et Carbonis: si qui foederatis civitatibus ascripti fuissent, si tum cum lex ferebatur in Italia domicilium habuissent et si sexaginta diebus apud praetorem essent professi. Cum hic domicilium Romae multos iam annos haberet, professus est apud praetorem

[8] Q. Metellum, familiarissimum suum. si nihil aliud nisi de civitate ac lege dicimus, nihil dico amplius; causa dicta est. quid enim horum infirmari, Gratti, potest? Heracleaene esse tum ascriptum negabis? adest vir summa auctoritate et religione et fide, M. Lucullus; qui se non opinari sed scire, non audisse sed vidisse, non interfuisse sed egisse dicit. adsunt Heraclienses legati, nobilissimi homines, huius iudici causa cum mandatis et cum publico testimonio venerunt; qui hunc ascriptum Heracliae esse dicunt. hic tu tabulas desideras Heracliensium publicas, quas Italico bello incenso tabulario interisse scimus omnes? est ridiculum ad ea quae habemus nihil dicere, quaerere quae habere non possumus, et de hominum memoria tacere, litterarum memoriam flagitare et, cum habeas amplissimi viri religionem, integerrimi municipi ius iurandum fidemque, ea quae depravari nullo modo possunt repudiare, tabulas quas idem dicis solere corrumpi desiderare.

[9] an domicilium Romae non habuit is qui tot annis ⟨ante⟩ civitatem datam sedem omnium rerum ac fortunarum suarum Romae conlocavit? an non est professus? immo vero eis tabulis professus quae solae ex illa professione conlegioque praetorum obtinent publicarum tabularum auctoritatem. nam, cum Appi tabulae neglegentius adservatae dicerentur, Gabini, quam diu incolumis fuit, levitas, post damnationem calamitas omnem tabularum fidem resignasset, Metellus, homo sanctissimus modestissimusque omnium, tanta diligentia fuit ut ad L. Lentulum praetorem et ad iudices venerit et unius nominis litura se commotum esse dixerit. his igitur ⟨in⟩ tabulis nullam lituram in nomine A. Licini videtis.

[10] quae cum ita sint, quid est quod de eius civitate dubitetis, praesertim cum aliis quoque in civitatibus fuerit ascriptus? etenim cum mediocribus multis et aut nulla aut humili aliqua arte praeditis gratuito civitatem in Graecia homines impertiebant, Reginos credo aut Locrensis aut Neapolitanos aut Tarentinos, quod scaenicis artificibus largiri solebant, id huic summa ingeni praedito gloria noluisse! quid? cum ceteri non modo post civitatem datam sed etiam post legem Papiam aliquo modo in eorum municipiorum tabulas inrepserunt, hic qui ne utitur quidem illis in quibus est scriptus, quod semper se Heracliensem esse voluit, reicietur?

[11] census nostros requiris. scilicet ; est enim obscurum proximis censoribus hunc cum clarissimo imperatore L. Lucullo apud exercitum fuisse, superioribus cum eodem quaestore fuisse in Asia, primis Iulio et Crasso nullam populi partem esse censam. sed, quoniam census non ius civitatis confirmat ac tantum modo indicat eum qui sit census ita se iam tum gessisse, pro cive, eis temporibus ⟨is⟩ quem tu criminaris ne ipsius quidem iudicio in civium Romanorum iure esse versatum et testamentum saepe fecit nostris legibus, et adiit hereditates civium Romanorum, et in beneficiis ad aerarium delatus est a L. Lucullo pro consule.

quaere argumenta, si quae potes; numquam enim hic neque suo neque amicorum iudicio revincetur.

中文译文

[7] 西尔瓦努斯和卡尔博的法律这样授予公民权：“凡已登记为结盟城邦公民者，在法律提出时以意大利为住所，并在六十日内向裁判官申报。”此人在罗马已有多年住所，于是向与自己极熟悉的裁判官

[8] 昆图斯·梅特鲁斯申报。如果我们只谈公民身份和法律，我就不再多说；案情已经说明。格拉提乌斯，这些条件中哪一个能被推翻？你会否认他当时已登记在赫拉克利亚吗？具有最高权威、敬重誓约而诚信的马尔库斯·卢库卢斯就在场。他说，自己不是猜想，而是知道；不是听说，而是看见；不是仅仅在场，而是亲自办理。赫拉克利亚的使者也在场，都是极显赫的人，带着正式委托和公共证言，为这次审判而来，证明此人确已登记为赫拉克利亚公民。你却在这里索取赫拉克利亚的公共账册，而我们都知道，档案馆在意大利战争中焚毁，账册也毁了。对我们已有的证据无话可说，却寻找我们不可能拥有的东西；不谈人的记忆，却强求文字的记忆；眼前已有显赫人物的郑重保证、极正直自治市的誓言与诚信，却拒绝这些不会被篡改的东西，反而要求你自己也说常被篡改的账册，岂不可笑？

[9] 一个人在获得公民权⟨以前⟩多年，就把全部事务和财产的中心安置在罗马，难道不算在罗马有住所？还是他没有申报？恰恰相反，他的申报所在的账册，是那次申报和那批裁判官的登记中，唯一仍保有公共档案权威的。因为据说阿庇乌斯的账册保管疏忽；加比尼乌斯在未失势时的轻率，以及定罪后的灾难，又毁掉了其账册的全部信用。梅特鲁斯却是最正直、最克制的人，细心到曾来到裁判官卢基乌斯·伦图卢斯和审判员面前，说自己因一个姓名处有涂改而不安。你们看到，在这些账册中，奥卢斯·李锡尼乌斯的名字没有任何涂改。

[10] 既然如此，为什么还怀疑他的公民身份，尤其是他还曾登记于其他城邦？希腊人把公民身份无偿授给许多才华普通、甚至没有技艺或只有低微技艺的人，难道雷吉乌姆、洛克里、那不勒斯或塔伦图姆人，平日肯赐给舞台艺人的东西，却不肯给这个才华声名卓著的人？而且，当其他人不只在罗马公民权授予之后，甚至在帕皮乌斯法之后，还设法挤入那些自治市的账册时，此人却因为始终愿意作为赫拉克利亚人，连已经登记的其他身份都不使用；这样的人反倒要被排除吗？

[11] 你要求我国的人口财产登记。当然了！难道最近一次监察官登记时，他随著名统帅卢基乌斯·卢库卢斯在军中；上一次随同一人任财务官时在亚细亚；最早尤利乌斯和克拉苏任监察官时，根本没有完成任何部分的人民登记：这些都是不明白的吗？不过，登记本身并不确立公民权，只表明被登记者在当时已以公民身份行事。你指责他，仿佛连他自己也不认为自己属于罗马公民之列；但在那些时候，他常依我国法律立遗嘱，继承罗马公民的遗产，也被总督卢基乌斯·卢库卢斯列入受惠名单，呈报国库。你尽可寻找论据；无论按他本人还是朋友们对他的认定，都无法把他驳倒。

Annotation. The sentence crossing §§7–8 is retained without omission. The archive’s destruction, the witness’s claimed first-hand participation, and the register’s physical integrity are three different evidential supports.

Pro Flacco — public exaction, private theft, and the discrediting of provincial witnesses

Chapter 19 · 59 BCE · Extortion defence

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon Press 1909. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

Lucius Valerius Flaccus’ defence in 59 BCE concerns his provincial administration in Asia and an extortion prosecution supported by provincial testimony. His earlier association with Cicero’s response to the Catilinarian conspiracy gives the case a political dimension. Yet political service cannot itself answer the legality of particular financial transactions. Cicero’s practical response therefore combines personal standing, attacks on witness credibility, and detailed distinctions about the destination of money. [Speech §§1–8; FL1–FL2.]

FL1 exposes the structure of the testimonial attack. Cicero professes admiration for Greek learning while denying Greeks, as a collective category, the Roman understanding of sworn evidence. He contrasts supposedly unrestrained Greek accusers with Roman witnesses whose hostility is checked by conscience. This is not a neutral ethnography or a valid inference from ethnicity to truthfulness. It is an attempt to induce a Roman jury to weigh testimony through unequal cultural standards. The passage’s admission that many Greeks are good and learned does not undo the sweeping exclusion that follows. [FL1.]

The Jewish gold episode has a more specific juridical structure. Flaccus is said to have prohibited export of gold from Asia, and Cicero argues that the gold seized under that edict was weighed publicly and deposited in the treasury. He asks where the allegation of theft can stand if private appropriation is not shown. Public custody, legality of the edict, and the propriety of interfering with religious remittances remain distinct questions, even though Cicero tries to make the absence of theft dispose of the complaint. His appeal to earlier senatorial policy supports the defence’s claim to public purpose. [FL2.]

Procedurally, the speech also makes the courtroom audience relevant: Cicero describes the place of trial, the crowd, and his own lowered voice. Such staging attempts to distinguish the judges’ reasoned scrutiny from external pressure. Historically, the passages illuminate diaspora remittances, Roman financial regulation, provincial elite testimony, and the ideological defence of imperial rule. Cicero’s derogatory descriptions of Jewish religion and his use of military defeat as a religious argument are retained as evidence of his hostility, not endorsed. The reported amounts and deposits are forensic assertions; the dossier does not possess the treasury accounts needed to verify them independently. [FL1–FL2.]

FL1. Admiration for Greek culture used alongside distrust of Greek witnesses

Source locator: Pro Flacco, §§9-11. Stable passage ID: FL1.

Evidence claim C-FL1: Cicero attempts to discredit Greek witnesses by contrasting their alleged testimonial practices with his preferred standard of Roman seriousness.

Latin

[9] de quibus vos aliis testes esse debetis, de eis ipsi alios testis audietis? at quos testis? primum dicam, id quod est commune, Graecos; non quo nationi huic ego unus maxime fidem derogem. nam si quis umquam de nostris hominibus a genere isto studio ac voluntate non abhorrens fuit, me et esse arbitror et magis etiam tum cum plus erat oti fuisse. sed sunt in illo numero multi boni, docti, pudentes, qui ad hoc iudicium deducti non sunt, multi impudentes, inliterati, leves, quos variis de causis video concitatos. verum tamen hoc dico de toto genere Graecorum: tribuo illis litteras, do multarum artium disciplinam, non adimo sermonis leporem, ingeniorum acumen, dicendi copiam, denique etiam, si qua sibi alia sumunt, non repugno; testimoniorum religionem et fidem numquam ista natio coluit, totiusque huiusce rei quae sit vis, quae auctoritas, quod pondus, ignorant.

[10] Vnde illud est: da mihi testimonium mutuum? num Gallorum, num Hispanorum putatur? totum istud Graecorum est, ut etiam qui Graece nesciunt hoc quibus verbis a Graecis dici soleat sciant. itaque videte quo voltu, qua confidentia dicant; tum intellegetis qua religione dicant. numquam nobis ad rogatum respondent, semper accusatori plus quam ad rogatum, numquam laborant quem ad modum probent quod dicunt, sed quem ad modum se explicent dicendo. iratus Flacco dixit M. Lurco quod, ut ipse aiebat, libertus erat eius turpi iudicio condemnatus. nihil dixit quod laederet eum, cum cuperet; impediebat enim religio; tamen id quod dixit quanto cum pudore, quo tremore et pallore dixit!

[11] quam promptus homo P. Septimius, quam iratus de iudicio et de vilico! tamen haesitabat, tamen eius iracundiae religio non numquam repugnabat. inimicus M. Caelius quod, cum in re manifesta putasset nefas esse publicanum iudicare contra publicanum, sublatus erat e numero recuperatorum, tamen tenuit se neque attulit in iudicium quicquam ad laedendum nisi voluntatem. hi si Graeci fuissent, ac nisi nostri mores ac disciplina plus valeret quam dolor ac simultas, omnes se spoliatos, vexatos, fortunis eversos esse dixissent. Graecus testis cum ea voluntate processit ut laedat, non iuris iurandi, sed laedendi verba meditatur; vinci, refelli, coargui putat esse turpissimum; ad id se parat, nihil curat aliud. itaque non optimus quisque nec gravissimus, sed impudentissimus loquacissimusque deligitur.

中文译文

[9] 对于那些本该由你们向别人作证说明的人，你们反而要听别人来为他们作证吗？而且是什么证人？首先我要说一个共同点：他们是希腊人。这并不是说，我偏偏最要剥夺这个民族的信用。如果我国有人在爱好与意愿上不疏远希腊人，我想自己就是，而且在空闲更多的时候尤其如此。不过，那一类人中有许多正派、博学、有羞耻心者，他们没有被带来参加这次审判；也有许多无耻、无知、轻浮者，我看见他们因各种原因被煽动起来。然而，对于整个希腊人群体，我仍这样说：我承认他们有文学，承认他们精通许多技艺，不剥夺他们语言的魅力、才智的敏锐、演说的丰富；总之，如果他们还自许其他优点，我也不争。但这个民族从来没有培养证言的神圣性和诚信，也不知道整件事情有什么效力、权威和分量。

[10] “你给我作证，我给你作证”这句话从哪里来？人们以为它属于高卢人或西班牙人吗？这完全是希腊人的，以至于连不懂希腊语的人，也知道希腊人通常怎样说它。所以，请看他们作证时是什么表情、多么自信；你们就会明白，他们怀着怎样的敬畏作证。他们从不直接回答我们的问题，却总向控告者提供超过问题所问的内容；他们从不努力证明自己的话，而只努力在言辞上脱身。马尔库斯·卢尔科因自己的获释奴隶（据他自己说）被一次可耻的审判定罪，对弗拉库斯怀有愤怒；可即使他想伤害弗拉库斯，也没有说出真正伤害他的话，因为誓言的约束阻止了他。他说出那些话时，带着多大的羞怯、颤抖和苍白！

[11] 普布利乌斯·塞普提米乌斯多么爽利，又因那次审判和自己的管事多么愤怒！但他仍然迟疑，他的敬畏有时仍与愤怒相抗。马尔库斯·凯利乌斯敌视弗拉库斯，因为他认为即使事情明白，包税人也不该判另一个包税人败诉，因而被从审理员名单中撤去；可他仍约束自己，没有把任何能伤害对方的东西带到法庭，除了伤害的意愿。如果这些人是希腊人，如果我国的习惯与教养不比痛苦和敌意更有力量，他们就会说自己全都遭到掠夺、虐待、毁掉家产。希腊证人一旦怀着伤害别人的意愿出场，他预先琢磨的不是宣誓之词，而是伤人之词；他认为被击败、被驳倒、被揭穿是最可耻的，所以只为避免这些而准备，别的什么也不管。因此，被选出的不是最好、最庄重的人，而是最无耻、最多嘴的人。

Annotation. The translation reproduces Cicero’s prejudicial generalizations. Their evidential use here is to show how he attacks credibility, not to validate the attack.

FL2. Gold, the edict, and the treasury

Source locator: Pro Flacco, §§66-69. Stable passage ID: FL2.

Evidence claim C-FL2: Cicero uses public deposit and accounting to defend Flaccus’ seizure of Jewish gold against an implication of private appropriation.

Latin

[66] equidem mihi iam satis superque dixisse videor de Asiatico genere testium; sed tamen vestrum est, iudices, omnia quae dici possunt in hominum levitatem, inconstantiam, cupiditatem, etiam si a me minus dicuntur, vestris animis et cogitatione comprendere.

sequitur auri illa invidia Iudaici. hoc nimirum est illud quod non longe a gradibus Aureliis haec causa dicitur. ob hoc crimen hic locus abs te, Laeli, atque illa turba quaesita est; scis quanta sit manus, quanta concordia, quantum valeat in contionibus. sic submissa voce agam tantum ut iudices audiant; neque enim desunt qui istos in me atque in optimum quemque incitent; quos ego, quo id facilius faciant, non adiuvabo.

[67] Cum aurum Iudaeorum nomine quotannis ex Italia et ex omnibus nostris provinciis Hierosolymam exportari soleret, Flaccus sanxit edicto ne ex Asia exportari liceret. quis est, iudices, qui hoc non vere laudare possit? exportari aurum non oportere cum saepe antea senatus tum me consule gravissime iudicavit. huic autem barbarae superstitioni resistere severitatis, multitudinem Iudaeorum flagrantem non numquam in contionibus pro re publica contemnere gravitatis summae fuit. at Cn. Pompeius captis Hierosolymis victor ex illo fano nihil attigit.

[68] in primis hoc, ut multa alia, sapienter; in tam suspiciosa ac maledica civitate locum sermoni obtrectatorum non reliquit. non enim credo religionem et Iudaeorum et hostium impedimento praestantissimo imperatori, sed pudorem fuisse. Vbi igitur crimen est, quoniam quidem furtum nusquam reprehendis, edictum probas, iudicatum fateris, quaesitum et prolatum palam non negas, actum esse per viros primarios res ipsa declarat? Apameae manifesto comprehensum ante pedes praetoris in foro expensum est auri pondo c paulo minus per Sex. Caesium, equitem Romanum, castissimum hominem atque integerrimum, Laodiceae xx pondo paulo amplius per hunc L. Peducaeum, iudicem nostrum, Adramytii ⟨c⟩ per Cn. Domitium legatum, Pergami non multum.

[69] Auri ratio constat, aurum in aerario est; furtum non reprehenditur, invidia quaeritur; a iudicibus oratio avertitur, vox in coronam turbamque effunditur. Sua cuique civitati religio, Laeli, est, nostra nobis. stantibus Hierosolymis pacatisque Iudaeis tamen istorum religio sacrorum a splendore huius imperi, gravitate nominis nostri, maiorum institutis abhorrebat; nunc vero hoc magis, quod illa gens quid de nostro imperio sentiret ostendit armis; quam cara dis immortalibus esset docuit, quod est victa, quod elocata, quod serva facta.

中文译文

[66] 我觉得，关于亚细亚证人这一类人，自己已经说得足够多，甚至过多。但审判员们，关于人的轻浮、反复和偏私，一切可以说的话，即使我没有充分说出，也该由你们在心中思考、掌握。接下来，是那项有关犹太黄金、用来激起怨恨的事情。原来，这就是本案在离奥勒利乌斯台阶不远处审理的缘故。莱利乌斯，你为了这项指控选择这个地点和那群人；你知道他们人数多、团结紧，在集会中有多大力量。我将压低声音，只让审判员听见，因为并不缺少煽动他们反对我和所有优秀者的人；我不会帮助那些人，使他们更容易得手。

[67] 犹太人通常每年从意大利和我国各行省把黄金送往耶路撒冷；弗拉库斯以告示禁止从亚细亚运出。审判员们，谁不能真诚地赞扬这一点？元老院从前多次、在我任执政官时又极郑重地认定，不应出口黄金。抵制这种“异族迷信”，在我看来是严正；为了国家而不顾犹太人有时在集会中激烈聚集的人数，是最大的坚定。“可是格奈乌斯·庞培攻占耶路撒冷之后，以胜利者身份进入，却没有碰那座圣所里的任何东西。”

[68] 这一点，像他的许多其他行为一样，极其明智。在一个如此多疑、如此好讥议的国家，他没有给诋毁者留下话柄。我不认为，阻止这位卓越统帅的是犹太人、也是敌人的宗教，而是他顾惜自己的清誉。那么，罪状在哪里？你并没有指出盗窃，认可告示，承认经过裁定，不否认黄金曾公开查获并提出；事实本身又表明，执行者都是重要人物。在阿帕米亚，由极清白、极正直的罗马骑士塞克斯图斯·凯西乌斯查获并在广场、裁判官脚前称量的黄金，略少于一百磅；在劳迪凯亚，由我们这位审判员卢基乌斯·佩杜凯乌斯处理的，略多于二十磅；在阿德拉米提乌姆，由副将格奈乌斯·多米提乌斯处理的，有⟨一百磅⟩；在佩尔伽蒙则不多。

[69] 黄金的账目清楚，黄金就在国库；没有指出盗窃，只是在制造怨恨。话语被从审判员那里引开，声音被倾倒向旁听者和群众。莱利乌斯，每个城邦有自己的宗教，我们也有我们的。即使耶路撒冷还完整、犹太人还和平时，他们的宗教仪式也与我国统治的光辉、我国名号的尊严和祖先制度不合；现在更是如此，因为那个民族已用武器表明它对我国统治的态度，而它被击败、被承包处置、被置于奴役的事实，也表明了它在永生诸神那里受到怎样的喜爱。

Annotation. The amount at Adramyttium is an editorial supplement. The final hostile inference from conquest to divine disfavour is Cicero’s rhetoric. Public deposit and lawful confiscation are separate propositions, despite his effort to make them reinforce one another.

De domo sua — public authorization and the religious status of a confiscated home

Chapter 20 · 57 BCE · Juridical boundary: pontifical adjudication

Latin source: William Peterson; Oxford Clarendon Press 1909. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

This speech of 57 BCE is included as a juridical boundary case. Cicero addresses the pontiffs over the site of his Palatine house after his return from exile. Clodius’ measures against him and the dedication of part of the property to Liberty meant that political restoration did not automatically remove the religious obstacle to recovering the site. The relevant body is a priestly college exercising authority over religious law, not a jury hearing an ordinary private ownership action. [DO1–DO2; Greenidge, pp. 373–380.]

Cicero opens by praising the Roman combination of civic prominence and priestly responsibility. That praise establishes why a decision over one house may affect all citizens’ homes, property, and freedom. His central accusation is that political violence is being protected by a manufactured religious barrier. The pontiffs are asked to prevent an abusive magistrate’s acts from acquiring divine immunity merely because a dedication has been performed. This is a contest over the legal conditions of consecration, not a simple dismissal of religion as irrelevant. [DO1.]

DO2 formulates the juridical test through three questions: who dedicates, what is dedicated, and how the act is performed. Cicero invokes the Papirian prohibition on consecration without authorization of the plebs and asks for the words authorizing Clodius’ act. He also distinguishes ius publicum from the pontifical rules governing a valid dedication. The point is that ritual correctness cannot create a public competence that was never granted. Conversely, his alternative reading of the statute should not be mistaken for an admission that every private house was available for consecration if the ritual happened to be correct. [DO2.]

Historically, the speech belongs to Cicero’s struggle to reverse the material and symbolic effects of exile. It also contains a sweeping attack on Clodius’ legislation, associates, and political bargains. The rapid catalogue of wrongdoing in §129 explains away a supposed drafting failure while portraying an entire period as constitutional collapse. Each allegation requires its own evidence if used as historical fact. Procedurally, the pontifical question, subsequent political decisions, and physical rebuilding belong to distinct stages. The dossier therefore includes this speech because it is centrally juridical, while explicitly distinguishing it from the ordinary forensic corpus. [DO1–DO2.]

DO1. Why the pontiffs’ decision matters beyond one house

Source locator: De domo sua, §§1-3. Stable passage ID: DO1.

Evidence claim C-DO1: Cicero presents the pontiffs’ consideration of his house as an exercise with both religious and civic consequences.

Latin

[1] Cum multa divinitus, pontifices, a maioribus nostris inventa atque instituta sunt, tum nihil praeclarius quam quod eosdem et religionibus deorum immortalium et summae rei publicae praeesse voluerunt, ut amplissimi et clarissimi cives rem publicam bene gerendo religiones, religiones sapienter interpretando rem publicam conservarent. quod si ullo tempore magna causa in sacerdotum populi Romani iudicio ac potestate versata est, haec profecto tanta est ut omnis rei publicae dignitas, omnium civium salus, vita, libertas, arae, foci, di penates, bona, fortunae, domicilia vestrae sapientiae, fidei, potestati commissa creditaque esse videantur.

[2] vobis hodierno die constituendum est utrum posthac amentis ac perditos magistratus improborum ac sceleratorum civium praesidio nudare, an etiam deorum immortalium religione armare malitis. nam si illa labes ac flamma rei publicae suum illum pestiferum et funestum tribunatum, quem aequitate humana tueri non potest, divina religione defenderit, aliae caerimoniae nobis erunt, alii antistites deorum immortalium, alii interpretes religionum requirendi; sin autem vestra auctoritate sapientiaque, pontifices, ea quae furore improborum in re publica ab aliis oppressa, ab aliis deserta, ab aliis prodita gesta sunt rescinduntur, erit causa cur consilium maiorum in amplissimis viris ad sacerdotia deligendis iure ac merito laudare possimus.

[3] sed quoniam ille demens, si ea quae per hos dies ego in senatu de re publica sensi vituperasset, aliquem se aditum ad auris vestras esse habiturum putavit, omittam ordinem dicendi meum: respondebo hominis furiosi non orationi, qua ille uti non potest, sed convicio, cuius exercitationem cum intolerabili petulantia tum etiam diuturna impunitate munivit.

ac primum illud a te, homine vesano ac furioso, requiro, quae te tanta poena tuorum scelerum flagitiorumque vexet ut hos talis viros,—qui non solum consiliis suis sed etiam specie ipsa dignitatem rei publicae sustinent,—quod ego in sententia dicenda salutem civium cum honore Cn. Pompei coniunxerim mihi esse iratos, et aliud de summa religione hoc tempore sensuros ac me absente senserint arbitrere?

中文译文

[1] 祭司们，祖先凭近乎神意的智慧发明、设立了许多制度，其中没有什么比这一点更卓越：他们愿意让同一批人既主持永生诸神的宗教，也主持国家最高事务，使最尊贵、最显赫的公民，通过良好治理国家来保存宗教，又通过明智解释宗教来保存国家。如果罗马人民的祭司所作的判断与行使的权力，曾经涉及重大案件，那么眼前这件事确实重大到这样的程度：整个国家的尊严、全体公民的安全、生命、自由、祭坛、炉灶、家神、财产、命运和住所，仿佛都交托给了你们的智慧、诚信和权力。

[2] 你们今天必须决定：今后，是要使疯狂败坏的官员失去邪恶公民的保护，还是甚至用永生诸神的宗教给他们武装？因为，如果那个国家的祸害和火焰，能以神圣宗教来维护他那毁灭性、充满死亡的保民官任期（它在人间的公平原则下无法得到维护）那么，我们就必须寻找另一套仪式、另一批诸神的祭司、另一批宗教解释者。反之，祭司们，如果凭你们的权威和智慧，撤销那些在国家中因坏人疯狂而发生、有人压制、有人弃守、有人出卖国家时完成的事情，我们便有理由公正而恰当地赞扬祖先从最显赫人物中选择祭司的决定。

[3] 不过，那个疯人以为，只要攻击我这几天在元老院关于国家事务所表达的意见，就能进入你们的耳朵。因此，我将放下原定的演说次序，回答这个狂人的（不是演说，他不会演说）而是辱骂；他以不可容忍的放肆和长期不受惩罚，练熟了这种本领。首先，我要问你这个疯狂的人：你自己的罪行和丑事究竟带来怎样的惩罚，折磨你到如此程度，使你竟以为，这些不只凭谋议、甚至凭仪表本身就维护国家尊严的人，会因为我在发表意见时，把公民安全同庞培的荣誉联系起来而恼怒我；并会在今天这项重大宗教问题上，改变他们在我不在时所持的判断？

Annotation. Cicero’s opening enlarges a personal restoration dispute into a test of civic and religious order. That enlargement is part of the advocacy.

DO2. Who had power to consecrate?

Source locator: De domo sua, §§127-129. Stable passage ID: DO2.

Evidence claim C-DO2: Cicero argues that valid consecration requires competent public authorization as well as a purported religious act.

Latin

[127] dedicatio magnam, inquit, habet religionem. nonne vobis Numa Pompilius videtur loqui? discite orationem, pontifices, et vos, flamines; etiam tu, rex, disce a gentili tuo, quamquam ille gentem istam reliquit, sed tamen disce ab homine religionibus dedito ius totum omnium religionum. quid? in dedicatione nonne et quis dedicet et quid et quo modo quaeritur? an tu haec ita confundis et perturbas ut, quicumque velit, quod velit quo modo velit possit dedicare? quis eras tu qui dedicabas? quo iure? qua lege? quo exemplo? qua potestate? Vbi te isti rei populus Romanus praefecerat? video enim esse legem veterem tribuniciam quae vetet iniussu plebis aedis, terram, aram consecrari; neque tum hoc ille Q. Papirius, qui hanc legem rogavit, sensit, neque suspicatus est fore periculum ne domicilia aut possessiones indemnatorum civium consecrarentur. neque enim id fieri fas erat, neque quisquam fecerat, neque erat causa cur prohibendo non tam deterrere videretur quam admonere.

[128] sed quia consecrabantur aedes, non privatorum domicilia, sed quae sacrae nominantur, consecrabantur agri, non ita ut nostra praedia, si qui vellet, sed ut imperator agros de hostibus captos consecraret, statuebantur arae, quae religionem adferrent ipsi ⟨ei⟩ loco ⟨quo⟩ essent consecratae, haec nisi plebs iussisset fieri vetuit. quae si tu interpretaris de nostris aedibus atque agris scripta esse, non repugno; sed quaero quae lex lata sit ut tu aedis meas consecrares, ubi tibi haec potestas data sit, quo iure feceris. neque ego nunc de religione sed de bonis omnium nostrum, nec de pontificio sed de iure publico disputo. lex Papiria vetat aedis iniussu plebis consecrari. sit sane hoc de nostris aedibus ac non de publicis templis: unum ostende verbum consecrationis in ipsa tua lege, si illa lex est ac non vox sceleris et crudelitatis tuae.

[129] quod si tibi tum in illo rei publicae naufragio omnia in mentem venire potuissent, aut si tuus scriptor in illo incendio civitatis non syngraphas cum Byzantiis exsulibus et cum legatis Brogitari faceret, sed vacuo animo tibi ista non scita sed portenta conscriberet, esses omnia, si minus re, at verbis legitimis consecutus. sed uno tempore cautiones fiebant pecuniarum, foedera feriebantur provinciarum, regum appellationes venales erant, servorum omnium vicatim celebrabatur tota urbe discriptio, inimici in gratiam reconciliabantur, imperia scribebantur nova iuventuti, Q. Seio venenum misero parabatur, de Cn. Pompeio, propugnatore et custode imperi, interficiendo consilia inibantur, senatus ne quid esset, ut lugerent semper boni, ut capta res publica consulum proditione vi tribunicia teneretur. haec cum tot tantaque agerentur, non mirum est, praesertim in furore animi et caecitate, multa illum et te fefellisse.

中文译文

[127] 他说：“奉献具有极大的神圣性。”你们难道不觉得，是努马·庞皮利乌斯在说话吗？祭司们，弗拉门祭司们，请学习他的演说；祭祀王，你也向自己的同宗学习吧，尽管他已经离开那个氏族，还是向这个献身宗教的人学习全部宗教法吧！怎么？在奉献中，难道不应问是谁奉献、奉献什么、怎样奉献？还是你把这些事混淆扰乱到任何人都能随意、以任何方式奉献任何东西？你当时以什么身份奉献？凭什么权利、什么法律、什么先例、什么职权？罗马人民在哪里把这项事务交给了你？因为我知道，有一项古老的保民官法律，禁止未经平民命令便将建筑、土地或祭坛奉为神圣。提出这项法律的昆图斯·帕皮里乌斯，当时并未想到、也不曾怀疑，将来会出现未被定罪公民的住所或产业遭到奉献的危险。因为这本不合神法，也从未有人做过；没有理由通过禁止它，显得与其说是在吓阻，不如说是在提示人们可以如此。

[128] 当时被奉献的建筑，不是私人的住宅，而是称为神庙的建筑；土地被奉献，也不是说任何人想要便可拿我们的田产，而是统帅奉献从敌人那里夺来的土地；祭坛被设立，会使其所在之地承担宗教性质。因此，他禁止未经平民命令便做这些事。如果你解释说，这项规定也适用于我们的住宅和土地，我不反对；但我要问，哪一项法律通过了，准许你奉献我的住宅？哪里授予你这种权力？你凭什么法律这样做？我现在谈的不是宗教，而是我们所有人的财产；不是祭司法，而是公法。帕皮里乌斯法禁止未经平民命令便奉献建筑。就算它说的是我们的住宅，而不是公共神庙吧：那么，请在你自己的那项法律中，指出一个有关奉献的字；如果那东西是法律，而不是你罪恶和残酷的叫喊。

[129] 如果当国家遭遇那场海难时，你能想到一切；或者你的代笔人，在国家燃烧时，不忙着同拜占庭流亡者和布罗吉塔鲁斯的使者订金钱契约，而能静下心替你写那些不是法令、而是怪物般的文字，那么，你即使不能在实质上，也会在合法措辞上取得一切。但同一时刻，人们正在订金钱保证，缔结有关行省的交易，出售国王称号，在全城逐区登记奴隶，使敌人和解，为年轻人写下新的统治权，给可怜的昆图斯·塞伊乌斯准备毒药，谋划杀害帝国的捍卫者庞培；目的在于使元老院不复存在，让正直者永远哀悼，使因执政官背叛而被俘的国家，掌握在保民官的暴力之下。当如此众多、如此重大的事情一起进行时，尤其又处在疯狂和盲目中，你和他漏掉许多事，也就不足为奇了。

Annotation. The catalogue in §129 is accusatory background. The legal point supported by the preceding paragraphs is the need for competent public authorization, in addition to the claimed religious act.

Pro Sestio — armed protection presented as the defence of civil order

Chapter 21 · 56 BCE · Public-violence defence

Latin source: William Peterson; Oxford Clarendon Press 1909. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

Publius Sestius was prosecuted for public violence in 56 BCE after his tribunate and his involvement in the campaign for Cicero’s recall. The historical narrative therefore necessarily includes Clodius’ street forces, assaults on magistrates, and the organization of countervailing protection. Cicero’s personal debt to Sestius is explicit in the speech’s purpose. It helps explain the defence’s intensity, but it is not evidence that every act attributed to Sestius was lawful. [Speech §§1–5, 71–81.]

The legal problem is how a defendant associated with armed organization can be defended under a law against vis. Cicero’s answer is not simply to deny that armed protection existed. He reconstructs the conditions in which ordinary legal safeguards failed, depicts Sestius as first relying on the sanctity of his office, and presents his nearly fatal assault as the explanation for subsequent defensive precautions. SE1 uses the defendant’s surviving body as evidence of victimhood and turns the prosecution into the paradox of punishing a man because he failed to die. That is an emphatic argument, not a literal account of the statutory charge. [SE1.]

SE2 gives the juridical rationale: law and force are rival means of regulating conflict; if courts cease to work, force will dominate. Cicero presents Milo as first seeking legal action and then using force necessarily, and extends the reasoning to Sestius’ protection of his own life. This argument differs from the absolute rejection of armed self-help in the civil property speeches. The difference is contextual and forensic: Cicero alleges a breakdown of public protection. His claim of necessity must still be examined rather than turned into an unrestricted right of political groups to arm themselves. [SE2.]

The long discussion of the optimates and civic consensus situates this defence within a political programme. It identifies the defendant’s party with stability and the public good, while portraying opponents as enemies of the legal order. Procedurally, the speech is advocacy in a violence trial, not a neutral constitutional treatise or a judicial declaration of who counts as a good citizen. Historically, it is especially valuable for the way emergency reasoning, patronage, collective identity, and criminal liability converge. The evidence below supports that convergence while preserving the partisan status of the narrated assaults and the asserted necessity of retaliation. [SE1–SE2; speech §§96–105.]

SE1. The wounded tribune

Source locator: Pro Sestio, §§79-81. Stable passage ID: SE1.

Evidence claim C-SE1: Cicero represents the violence suffered by Sestius as the context that made armed protection necessary.

Latin

[79] atqui ne ex eo quidem tempore id egit Sestius ut a suis munitus tuto in foro magistratum gereret, rem publicam administraret. itaque fretus sanctitate tribunatus, cum se non modo contra vim et ferrum sed etiam contra verba atque interfationem legibus sacratis esse armatum putaret, venit in templum Castoris, obnuntiavit consuli: cum subito manus illa Clodiana, in caede civium saepe iam victrix, exclamat, incitatur, invadit; inermem atque imparatum tribunum alii gladiis adoriuntur, alii fragmentis saeptorum et fustibus; a quibus hic multis vulneribus acceptis ac debilitato corpore et contrucidato se abiecit exanimatus, neque ulla alia re ab se mortem nisi opinione mortis depulit. quem cum iacentem et concisum plurimis vulneribus extremo spiritu exsanguem et confectum viderent, defetigatione magis et errore quam misericordia et modo aliquando caedere destiterunt.

[80] et causam dicit Sestius de vi? quid ita? quia vivit. at id non sua culpa: plaga una illa extrema defuit, quae si accessisset reliquum spiritum exhausisset. accusa Lentidium; non percussit locum; male dic Titio, Sabino homini Reatino, cur tam temere exclamarit occisum. ipsum vero quid accusas? num defuit gladiis? num repugnavit? num, ut gladiatoribus imperari solet, ferrum non recepit?

an haec ipsa vis est, non posse emori? an illa, quod tribunus plebis templum cruentavit? an quod, cum esset ablatus primumque resipisset, non se referri iussit? ubi est crimen? quid reprehenditis?

[81] hic quaero, iudices: si illo die gens ista Clodia quod facere voluit effecisset, si P. Sestius, qui pro occiso relictus est, occisus esset, fuistisne ad arma ituri? fuistisne vos ad patrium illum animum maiorumque virtutem excitaturi? fuistisne aliquando rem publicam a funesto latrone repetituri? an etiam tum quiesceretis, cunctaremini, timeretis, cum rem publicam a facinerosissimis sicariis et a servis esse oppressam atque conculcatam videretis? cuius igitur mortem ulcisceremini, si quidem liberi esse et habere rem publicam cogitaretis, de eius virtute vivi quid vos loqui, quid sentire, quid cogitare, quid iudicare oporteat, dubitandum putatis?

中文译文

[79] 然而，即使从那时起，塞斯提乌斯也没有安排由自己的人保护，使自己能够安全地在广场履行官职、处理国家事务。他依靠保民官职位的神圣性，认为神圣法律不只使自己免受暴力与刀剑，也使自己免受言语和打断的侵犯，便来到卡斯托尔神庙，向执政官报告不利征兆。突然，那群已多次在杀戮公民中取胜的克洛迪乌斯党徒，呼喊、激动、冲上来；有人用剑，有人用围栏碎片和棍棒，攻击这个毫无武装、毫无准备的保民官。他受了许多伤，身体衰弱、被砍得残破，失去知觉倒下；唯一使他摆脱死亡的，是别人以为他已经死了。他们看见他倒在那里，满身伤口，只剩最后一口气，失血而濒死，终于停止砍打，与其说出于怜悯和节制，不如说出于疲倦和误判。

[80] 塞斯提乌斯竟还要为暴力罪受审？为什么？因为他活着。但这并不是他的过错：只是缺了最后那一击，如果补上，就会耗尽他剩余的生命。去控告伦提迪乌斯吧，他没打中要害；去责骂那个雷阿特的萨宾人提提乌斯吧，问他为什么鲁莽地喊“已经杀死了”。可是，你为什么控告塞斯提乌斯本人？他躲开刀剑了吗？他抵抗了吗？他难道没有像人们命令角斗士那样，把身体迎向刀锋吗？所谓暴力，难道就是不能死去？还是说，他身为保民官，使神庙染了血？又或者，他被抬走、刚醒来时，没有命人把自己送回去？罪状在哪里？你们责备什么？

[81] 审判员们，我在这里问：如果那天克洛迪乌斯一伙完成了他们想做的事，如果被当作死人留下的塞斯提乌斯确实死了，你们会拿起武器吗？会激起祖先的精神与勇气吗？终于会从那个带来死亡的强盗手中夺回国家吗？还是在看见国家被最凶恶的刺客和奴隶压倒、践踏时，仍然安坐、犹豫、害怕？如果你们真想保持自由、保有国家，便会为他的死报仇；那么，对活着的他的勇气，应当怎样谈论、怎样看待、怎样思考、怎样判定，你们还觉得有疑问吗？

Annotation. The sarcastic “charge” of surviving is Cicero’s recasting. It must not replace identification of the actual public-violence prosecution.

SE2. Law and force

Source locator: Pro Sestio, §§91-92. Stable passage ID: SE2.

Evidence claim C-SE2: Cicero connects the exclusion of force from civil society with the availability of effective institutions for adjudication and protection.

Latin

[91] quis enim nostrum, iudices, ignorat ita naturam rerum tulisse ut quodam tempore homines nondum neque naturali neque civili iure descripto fusi per agros ac dispersi vagarentur, tantumque haberent quantum manu ac viribus per caedem ac vulnera aut eripere aut retinere potuissent? qui igitur primi virtute et consilio praestanti exstiterunt, ii perspecto genere humanae docilitatis atque ingeni dissupatos unum in locum congregarunt eosque ex feritate illa ad iustitiam atque ad mansuetudinem transduxerunt. tum res ad communem utilitatem, quas publicas appellamus, tum conventicula hominum, quae postea civitates nominatae sunt, tum domicilia coniuncta, quas urbis dicimus, invento et divino iure et humano moenibus saepserunt.

[92] atque inter hanc vitam perpolitam humanitate et illam immanem nihil tam interest quam ius atque vis. Horum utro uti nolumus, altero est utendum. vim volumus exstingui, ius valeat necesse est, id est iudicia, quibus omne ius continetur; iudicia displicent aut nulla sunt, vis dominetur necesse est. hoc vident omnes: Milo et vidit et fecit, ut ius experiretur, vim depelleret. altero uti voluit, ut virtus audaciam vinceret; altero usus necessario est, ne virtus ab audacia vinceretur. eademque ratio fuit Sesti, si minus in accusando—neque enim per omnis fuit idem fieri necesse—at certe in necessitate defendendae salutis suae praesidioque contra vim et manum comparando.

中文译文

[91] 审判员们，我们谁不知道，自然的进程曾经使人处于这样的状态：自然法和市民法尚未被规定，人们分散在田野间游荡，只能拥有靠双手与力量、通过杀戮和伤害夺取或保住的东西？最早以卓越德行和谋略脱颖而出的人，看出人类能够受教、具有才智，便把分散的人聚集到一处，使他们从野蛮走向正义与温和。于是，他们建立供共同利益使用的事务，我们称为公共事务；建立人的集合，后来称为城邦；建立连接的住所，我们称为城市；发明神法与人法，并以城墙保护这些共同体。

[92] 这种经文明精炼的生活，与那种野蛮生活之间，最大的区别，就是法律与暴力。两者中，如果不愿使用一个，就必须使用另一个。我们希望暴力消失，法律就必须有力量，也就是法庭必须有力量，因为一切法律都以审判维系。如果不喜欢审判，或者根本没有审判，暴力便必然统治。人人都看见这一点；米洛不仅看见，而且照此行动：他寻求法律，抵御暴力。他本想使用前者，使勇气战胜凶悍；后来不得不使用后者，免得勇气被凶悍击败。塞斯提乌斯的道理也一样；即使不是在提出控告方面（因为没有必要人人做同样的事）至少在必须保卫自己的生命、准备力量抵御暴力和武装团伙方面，确实如此。

Annotation. The origin story is a philosophical-rhetorical construction. Its forensic application is the claim of defensive necessity under failed public protection, not a general historical account of the actual founding of Rome.

In Vatinium testem — attacking the credibility of a prosecution witness

Chapter 22 · 56 BCE · Witness interrogation in Sestius’ trial

Latin source: William Peterson; Oxford Clarendon Press 1909. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The In Vatinium belongs to Sestius’ trial in 56 BCE. Its procedural title matters: it is an interrogation of a witness, not a separate criminal prosecution in which Vatinius is the defendant. Cicero uses the opportunity to attack Vatinius’ character, political conduct, and alleged assistance to Sestius’ accusers. The resulting text has the shape of a sustained hostile address, but the actual sequence of every question and answer is not preserved as a modern transcript. [VA1.]

The most immediate evidentiary point is an alleged contradiction. Cicero says Vatinius denied dealings with Albinovanus, yet subsequently admitted conversations, advice, a visit, and provision of written speeches for use in the prosecution. Those acts, if established, would connect the witness to the preparation of the case and could affect the assessment of his independence. Cicero immediately intensifies the inference into charges of subornation and perjury. The dossier distinguishes the reported inconsistent statements from the advocate’s characterization of their legal and moral meaning. [VA1 §§2–3.]

The wider juridical attack concerns Vatinius’ tribunate: auspices, legislative proceedings, colleagues, and the use of authority against constitutional restraints. In VA2 Cicero asks whether adverse religious observation ever caused him to postpone a meeting or law. That makes public procedure a means of evaluating the witness’s respect for obligation. It is not direct proof that his testimony about Sestius is false. Cicero’s effort to separate Vatinius from Caesar also shows how the examination is calibrated to current political relationships. An apparently general constitutional principle is applied through a highly personal distinction. [VA2.]

Historically, the text is evidence for the overlap between courtroom credibility and political reputation. Personal abuse, religious accusations, bodily caricature, and questions about public acts work together to make the witness unworthy of belief. The extreme allegation concerning rites with children’s entrails is translated as Cicero’s allegation, not accepted as an event. The inherited lacuna at the end of VA1 further reminds the reader that even this vivid attack is not continuously preserved. The immediate objective is to weaken evidence against Sestius; no verdict on a supposed separate trial of Vatinius can be inferred from this speech. [VA1–VA2.]

VA1. An alleged contradiction about preparing the prosecution

Source locator: In Vatinium testem, §§1-4. Stable passage ID: VA1.

Evidence claim C-VA1: Cicero uses the interrogation of Vatinius to attack the witness’s credibility and consistency.

Latin

[1] si tantum modo, Vatini, quid indignitas postularet spectare voluissem, fecissem id quod his vehementer placebat, ut te, cuius testimonium propter turpitudinem vitae sordisque domesticas nullius momenti putaretur, tacitus dimitterem; nemo enim horum aut ita te refutandum ut gravem adversarium aut ita rogandum ut religiosum testem arbitrabatur. sed fui paulo ante intemperantior fortasse quam debui; odio enim tui, in quo etsi omnis propter tuum in me scelus superare debeo, tamen ab omnibus paene vincor, sic sum incitatus ut, cum te non minus contemnerem quam odissem, tamen vexatum potius quam despectum vellem dimittere.

[2] qua re ne tibi hunc honorem a me haberi forte mirere, quod interrogem quem nemo congressu, nemo aditu, nemo suffragio, nemo civitate, nemo luce dignum putet, nulla me causa impulisset nisi ut ferocitatem istam tuam comprimerem et audaciam frangerem et loquacitatem paucis meis interrogationibus inretitam retardarem. etenim debuisti, Vatini, etiam si falso venisses in suspicionem P. Sestio, tamen mihi ignoscere, si in tanto hominis de me optime meriti periculo et tempori eius et voluntati parere voluissem.

[3] sed ⟨te⟩ hesterno ⟨die⟩ pro testimonio esse mentitum, cum adfirmares nullum tibi omnino cum Albinovano sermonem non modo de Sestio accusando, sed nulla umquam de re fuisse, paulo ante imprudens indicasti, qui et T. Claudium tecum communicasse et a te consilium P. Sesti accusandi petisse, et Albinovanum, quem antea vix tibi notum esse dixisses, domum tuam venisse, multa tecum locutum dixeris, denique contiones P. Sesti scriptas, quas neque nosset neque reperire posset, te Albinovano dedisse easque in hoc iudicio esse recitatas. in quo alterum es confessus, a te accusatores esse instructos et subornatos, in altero inconstantiam tuam cum levitate tum etiam periurio implicatam refellisti, cum, quem a te alienissimum esse dixisses, eum domi tuae fuisse, quem praevaricatorem esse ab initio iudicasses, ei te quos rogasset ad accusandum libros dixeris dedisse.

[4] nimium es vehemens feroxque natura: non putas fas esse verbum ex ore exire cuiusquam quod non iucundum et honorificum ad auris tuas accidat. venisti iratus omnibus; quod ego, simul ac te aspexi, prius quam loqui coepisti, cum ante Gellius, nutricula seditiosorum omnium, testimonium diceret, sensi atque providi. repente enim te tamquam serpens e latibulis oculis eminentibus, inflato collo, tumidis cervicibus intulisti, ut mihi renovatus ille tuus in to[LACUNA]

中文译文

[1] 瓦提尼乌斯，如果我只考虑你的卑劣应当受到怎样的对待，我就会照在座诸位强烈赞同的办法做：一言不发地让你退下，因为你生活的丑恶和家中的污秽，使你的证言被认为毫无分量。他们没有人觉得，应把你当作重要对手来反驳，或当作敬重誓约的证人来询问。不过，我刚才也许比应有的程度更缺乏节制。由于憎恨你（虽说因你对我犯下的罪，我本应超过所有人，实际上却几乎被所有人超过）我被激动到这样的程度：尽管我轻视你不亚于憎恨你，我仍宁愿使你受尽盘问而退下，而不是仅仅被鄙视地打发走。

[2] 因此，不要奇怪，我竟给你这种“荣誉”，询问一个没有人认为值得同他交往、接近、给他投票，甚至不配享有公民身份和日光的人。没有别的原因推动我，除了压下你的凶横，打断你的大胆，用我几个问题缠住、遏止你的多嘴。瓦提尼乌斯，即使你无辜地引起塞斯提乌斯怀疑，你也该原谅我：一个对我有大恩的人面临如此危险，我愿意顺应他的处境和意愿。

[3] 但你⟨昨天⟩作证时撒谎，说自己同阿尔比诺瓦努斯不仅没有谈过控告塞斯提乌斯，甚至从未谈过任何事；你刚才却无意中把谎言暴露了。你说提图斯·克劳狄乌斯曾同你商量，向你请教控告塞斯提乌斯；还说阿尔比诺瓦努斯（你先前称为几乎不认识的人）到过你家，同你谈了许多；最后，你把他不知道、也找不到的塞斯提乌斯公众演说书面稿交给他，而这些稿子已在本次审判中宣读。在一方面，你承认控告者受到你的指点和布置；在另一方面，你揭穿了自己混合轻浮与伪誓的反复：你先说与那个人极其疏远，后又说他到过你家；你从一开始把他看作会背叛控告职责的人，后来却给了他所要求的控告材料。

[4] 你的天性实在过分猛烈、凶横：你认为，任何人嘴里说出一句不能使你听得愉快、不能尊重你的话，都是不容许的。你怀着对所有人的愤怒来到这里；我一看见你，在你开口以前，当一切煽动者的小保姆盖利乌斯正在作证时，就已察觉并预见。因为你忽然像蛇从洞中钻出，眼睛突出，颈项鼓胀，脖子肿起，使我仿佛又看见你当初在……〔原文缺文〕

Annotation. The statement about perjury is Cicero’s legal-moral inference from his account of inconsistent testimony. The bodily caricature does not add probative evidence.

VA2. A witness’s public conduct as a credibility issue

Source locator: In Vatinium testem, §§14-16. Stable passage ID: VA2.

Evidence claim C-VA2: Cicero turns allegations concerning ritual, auspices and magisterial conduct into hostile questions about Vatinius’ constitutional behavior.

Latin

[14] et quoniam omnium rerum magnarum ab dis immortalibus principia ducuntur, volo ut mihi respondeas tu, qui te Pythagoreum soles dicere et hominis doctissimi nomen tuis immanibus et barbaris moribus praetendere, quae te tanta pravitas mentis tenuerit, qui tantus furor ut, cum inaudita ac nefaria sacra susceperis, cum inferorum animas elicere, cum puerorum extis deos manis mactare soleas, auspicia quibus haec urbs condita est, quibus omnis res publica atque imperium tenetur, contempseris, initioque tribunatus tui senatui denuntiaris tuis actionibus augurum responsa atque eius conlegi adrogantiam impedimento non futura?

[15] secundum ea quaero servarisne in eo fidem? num quando tibi moram attulerit quo minus concilium advocares legemque ferres, quod eo die scires de caelo esse servatum? et quoniam hic locus est unus quem tibi cum Caesare communem esse dicas, seiungam te ab illo, non solum rei publicae causa verum etiam Caesaris, ne qua ex tua summa indignitate labes illius dignitati adspersa videatur. primum quaero num tu senatui causam tuam permittas, quod facit Caesar? deinde, quae sit auctoritas eius qui se alterius facto, non suo defendat? deinde,— erumpet enim aliquando ex me vera vox et dicam sine cunctatione quod sentio,—si iam violentior aliqua in re C. Caesar fuisset, si eum magnitudo contentionis, studium gloriae, praestans animus, excellens nobilitas aliquo impulisset, quod in illo viro et tum ferendum esset et maximis rebus quas postea gessit oblitterandum, id tu tibi, furcifer, sumes, et Vatini latronis ac sacrilegi vox audietur hoc postulantis, ut idem sibi concedatur quod Caesari?

[16] sic enim ex te quaero. tribunus plebis fuisti,—seiunge te a consule: conlegas habuisti viros fortis novem. ex iis tres erant quos tu cotidie sciebas servare de caelo, quos inridebas, quos privatos esse dicebas; de quibus duos praetextatos sedentis vides,—te aediliciam praetextam togam, quam frustra confeceras, vendidisse!—tertium scis ex illo obsesso atque adflicto tribunatu consularem auctoritatem hominem esse adulescentem consecutum. reliqui sex fuerunt, e quibus partim plane tecum sentiebant, partim medium quendam cursum tenebant: omnes habuerunt leges promulgatas, in iis multas meus necessarius, etiam de mea sententia, C. Cosconius, iudex noster, quem tu dirumperis cum aedilicium vides.

中文译文

[14] 一切重大事情都从永生诸神开始，因此我要你回答：你惯常自称毕达哥拉斯信徒，用一个极博学者的名字掩饰自己野蛮残忍的习惯；究竟怎样的心智败坏、怎样的疯狂支配你，使你一面从事闻所未闻、违背天理的祭仪，惯于召唤亡魂、用儿童内脏祭献亡灵诸神，一面却轻视这座城市赖以建立、整个国家与统治赖以维系的鸟占，并在保民官任期开始时通知元老院：鸟占官的答复和那个团体的“傲慢”，不会妨碍你的行动？

[15] 接着我问：你是否守了这个诺言？你知道当天有人观察天象时，这件事是否曾使你延迟召集会议、提出法律？既然你说，这一点是你同凯撒共有的，我就要把你同他分开，不只为了国家，也为了凯撒，免得你极端的卑劣给他的尊严溅上污点。首先，我问，你是否像凯撒那样，把自己的事情交给元老院？其次，一个不用自己的行为、而用别人的行为替自己辩护的人，有什么权威？再者（真实的声音总有一天会从我口中冲出，我将毫不犹豫地说出所想）即使盖乌斯·凯撒在某事上稍显强硬，即使竞争的激烈、追求荣耀、卓越精神和高贵出身曾推动他走得过远，那在当时对这样的人尚可容忍，也可由他后来最伟大的功业冲淡；你这个该上刑架的人，也要把它据为自己的借口吗？难道还要听瓦提尼乌斯这个强盗和亵渎者要求：给他与凯撒一样的宽容？

[16] 我这样问你。你是保民官（先把自己同执政官分开）你有九位勇敢的同僚。其中三人，你知道他们每天都在观察天象；你嘲笑他们，说他们不过是私人。那三人中，你看见两位如今穿着紫边袍坐在那里；而你白做了一件营造官紫边袍，最后只好卖掉！第三人，你知道他从那场被围困、被压迫的保民官任期出来，年纪轻轻便获得执政官级的权威。其余六人，有些完全同意你，有些走中间道路；他们全都公布过法律草案。其中，我的朋友、也是我们这位审判员盖乌斯·科斯科尼乌斯，还依我的意见公布过许多；你看见他具有营造官身份，气得要炸裂。

Annotation. The ritual accusation and the constitutional questions are both instruments of hostile examination. The passage does not establish the alleged rites as historical fact, and the exception made for Caesar exposes political calibration within the argument.

Pro Caelio — a public-violence prosecution recast as personal revenge

Chapter 23 · 56 BCE · Public-violence defence

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon 1908. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

Marcus Caelius’ trial in 56 BCE was heard during public games under the exceptional timetable associated with a prosecution for vis. Cicero opens by imagining an outsider who would expect an offence so grave that ordinary holidays could not interrupt its trial. He then substitutes his own account: a talented young man attacked through personal hostility and a woman’s influence. That substitution is the opening strategy, not an accurate neutral description of the formal charge. The wider background includes the Alexandrian embassy, Dio’s death, and disputes connected with the restoration of the Egyptian king. [CA1–CA2; speech §§23–24.]

The defence first repairs character. Caelius’ family standing, his father’s attitude, and his associations are used to answer a portrait of a dissolute and dangerous young man. Cicero’s indulgence toward youthful behaviour and his attacks on Clodia are calibrated to this task. The speech’s comedy and sexual insinuation should therefore be read as mechanisms for altering credibility and motive. They do not independently establish Clodia’s conduct, and they should not erase the allegations involving serious violence. [CA1; speech §§30–50.]

CA2 identifies two matters linked to Clodia: gold allegedly obtained to bribe Lucceius’ slaves to kill Dio, and poison allegedly prepared against Clodia herself. Cicero first attacks the gold story through a dilemma about her knowledge. If she knew the purpose, she was implicated; if Caelius was not intimate enough to disclose it, Cicero asks why she supplied the gold. The dilemma is rhetorically forceful but not logically exhaustive: deception and misplaced trust are possible, as the defence’s opponent explicitly suggests. Cicero then demands a traceable chain of contact, opportunity, intermediaries, and concealment. [CA2.]

Procedurally, the surviving speech is part of a multi-advocate defence and does not reproduce the whole prosecution. The later discussion of the poison plot tests a supposed delivery and attempted detection, again using narrative plausibility as an evidentiary tool. Historically, the case connects Roman criminal courts with foreign royal politics, elite households, slaves as alleged intermediaries, and the use of sexual reputation against a woman central to the accusation. The dossier treats these as the structures of the case, while reserving judgment on Cicero’s personal allegations and refusing to turn his courtroom reconstruction into an unmediated account of events. [CA1–CA2; speech §§56–69.]

CA1. The holiday court and the reframing of the accusation

Source locator: Pro Caelio, §§1-4. Stable passage ID: CA1.

Evidence claim C-CA1: Cicero reframes the public-violence prosecution of Caelius as a proceeding driven by personal hostility.

Latin

[1] si quis, iudices, forte nunc adsit ignarus legum iudiciorum consuetudinisque nostrae, miretur profecto quae sit tanta atrocitas huiusce causae, quod diebus festis ludisque publicis, omnibus forensibus negotiis intermissis, unum hoc iudicium exerceatur, nec dubitet quin tanti facinoris reus arguatur ut eo neglecto civitas stare non possit. idem cum audiat esse legem quae de seditiosis consceleratisque civibus qui armati senatum obsederint, magistratibus vim attulerint, rem publicam oppugnarint cotidie quaeri iubeat: legem non improbet, crimen quod versetur in iudicio requirat; cum audiat nullum facinus, nullam audaciam, nullam vim in iudicium vocari, sed adulescentem inlustri ingenio, industria, gratia accusari ab eius filio quem ipse in iudicium et vocet et vocarit, oppugnari autem opibus meretriciis: Atratini ipsius pietatem non reprehendat, libidinem muliebrem comprimendam putet, vos laboriosos existimet quibus otiosis ne in communi quidem otio liceat esse.

[2] etenim si attendere diligenter atque existimare vere de omni hac causa volueritis, sic constituetis, iudices, nec descensurum quemquam ad hanc accusationem fuisse cui utrum vellet liceret nec, cum descendisset, quicquam habiturum spei fuisse, nisi alicuius intolerabili libidine et nimis acerbo odio niteretur. sed ego Atratino, humanissimo atque optimo adulescenti, meo necessario, ignosco, qui habet excusationem vel pietatis vel necessitatis vel aetatis. si voluit accusare, pietati tribuo, si iussus est, necessitati, si speravit aliquid, pueritiae. ceteris non modo nihil ignoscendum sed etiam acriter est resistendum.

[3] ac mihi quidem videtur, iudices, hic introitus defensionis adulescentiae Marci Caeli maxime convenire, ut ad ea quae accusatores deformandi huius causa et detrahendae spoliandaeque dignitatis gratia dixerunt primum respondeam. obiectus est pater varie, quod aut parum splendidus ipse aut parum pie tractatus a filio diceretur. de dignitate Marcus Caelius notis ac maioribus natu etiam sine mea oratione tacitus facile ipse respondet; quibus autem propter senectutem, quod iam diu minus in foro nobiscumque versatur, non aeque est cognitus, hi sic habeant, quaecumque in equite Romano dignitas esse possit, quae certe potest esse maxima, eam semper in Marco Caelio habitam esse summam hodieque haberi non solum a suis sed etiam ab omnibus quibus potuerit aliqua de causa esse notus.

[4] equitis autem Romani esse filium criminis loco poni ab accusatoribus neque his iudicantibus oportuit neque defendentibus nobis. nam quod de pietate dixistis, est ista quidem nostra existimatio sed iudicium certe parentis. quid nos opinemur audietis ex iuratis; quid parentes sentiant lacrimae matris incredibilisque maeror, squalor patris et haec praesens maestitia quam cernitis luctusque declarat.

中文译文

[1] 审判员们，如果此刻偶然有一个不懂我国法律、审判和习惯的人在场，他必定会惊讶：这件案情究竟严重到什么程度，竟在节日和公共竞技期间、所有其他司法事务停止时，只有这一个法庭仍在审理。他一定不会怀疑，被告被指控的罪行如此重大，若不追究，国家便无法维持。可是，当他听说，有一项法律命人每天都可审问那些持械围困元老院、向官员施暴、攻击国家的叛乱罪犯，他不会反对法律，而会追问本案的罪状；当他又听说，交付审判的并非什么暴行、凶悍或武力，而是一个才智、勤勉、人缘出众的年轻人，被自己已经或正在控告的那个人之子起诉，又受到娼妓势力的攻击，他便不会责备阿特拉提努斯本人的孝心，却会认为女人的任性应被压制，并觉得你们十分辛苦：连大家共同休息时，也不得休息。

[2] 因为，如果你们愿意仔细注意、公正衡量整个案情，就会这样认定：没有一个真正能够自由选择的人，会自行承担这次控告；即使承担，也不会有任何成功希望，除非依靠某个人不可容忍的欲望和过分刻毒的仇恨。不过，我原谅阿特拉提努斯，这位极有教养、极优秀、又与我亲近的年轻人；他可以用孝心、不得已或年龄来解释。如果他愿意控告，我归因于孝心；如果奉命而来，我归因于不得已；如果抱有希望，我归因于年幼。至于其他人，不仅不应原谅，而且必须坚决抵抗。

[3] 审判员们，在我看来，替年轻的马尔库斯·凯利乌斯辩护，最合适的开头，是先回答控告者为了丑化他、贬损并剥夺其尊严而说的那些话。他们从不同方面攻击他的父亲：或者说父亲不够显贵，或者说儿子对父亲不够孝敬。关于身份，老凯利乌斯面对熟人和年长者，即使没有我的演说，保持沉默也足以回答。另一些人因为他年老、很久少来广场和我们中间而不熟悉他，应当知道：罗马骑士所能具有的尊严（它当然可以极高）在凯利乌斯身上始终达到最高程度；今天也是如此，不只亲近者这样认为，一切因任何缘故认识他的人也这样认为。

[4] 至于把“罗马骑士之子”当作罪状，控告者既不该在这样的审判员面前，也不该在我们作辩护人时提出。你们谈孝敬，那固然是我们可以评价的事，但最有权判断的当然是父母。我们怎样想，你们将从宣誓证言中听见；父母怎样想，母亲的眼泪和难以置信的哀伤、父亲的憔悴，以及你们眼前所见的悲痛和哀悼，都已表明。

Annotation. Cicero’s claim that “no violence” is at issue is a rhetorical displacement of a legally serious prosecution. The family’s grief is offered as character evidence, not as direct proof of the alleged events.

CA2. Gold, knowledge, and the chain of an alleged plot

Source locator: Pro Caelio, §§51-53. Stable passage ID: CA2.

Evidence claim C-CA2: Cicero organizes the material accusations around the gold and poison episodes and demands a plausible, evidentially supported account of their connection.

Latin

[51] sed quoniam emersisse iam e vadis et scopulos praetervecta videtur esse oratio mea, perfacilis mihi reliquus cursus ostenditur. duo sunt enim crimina una in muliere summorum facinorum, auri quod sumptum a Clodia dicitur, et veneni quod eiusdem Clodiae necandae causa parasse Caelium criminantur. aurum sumpsit, ut dicitis, quod L. Luccei servis daret, per quos Alexandrinus Dio qui tum apud Lucceium habitabat necaretur. Magnum crimen vel in legatis insidiandis vel in servis ad hospitem domini necandum sollicitandis, plenum sceleris consilium, plenum audaciae!

[52] quo quidem in crimine primum illud requiro, dixeritne Clodiae quam ob rem aurum sumeret, an non dixerit. si non dixit, cur dedit? si dixit, eodem se conscientiae scelere devinxit. tune aurum ex armario tuo promere ausa es, tune venerem illam tuam spoliare ornamentis, spoliatricem ceterorum, cum scires quantum ad facinus aurum hoc quaereretur, ad necem legati, ad Lucii Luccei, sanctissimi hominis atque integerrimi, labem sceleris sempiternam? huic facinori tanto tua mens liberalis conscia, tua domus popularis ministra, tua denique hospitalis illa Venus adiutrix esse non debuit.

[53] vidit hoc Balbus; celatam esse Clodiam dixit, atque ita Caelium ad illam attulisse, se ad ornatum ludorum aurum quaerere. si tam familiaris erat Clodiae quam tu esse vis cum de libidine eius tam multa dicis, dixit profecto quo vellet aurum; si tam familiaris non erat, non dedit. ita si verum tibi Caelius dixit, o immoderata mulier, sciens tu aurum ad facinus dedisti; si non est ausus dicere, non dedisti.

quid ego nunc argumentis huic crimini, quae sunt innumerabilia, resistam? possum dicere mores Marci Caeli longissime a tanti sceleris atrocitate esse disiunctos; minime esse credendum homini tam ingenioso tamque prudenti non venisse in mentem rem tanti sceleris ignotis alienisque servis non esse credendam. possum etiam alia et ceterorum patronorum et mea consuetudine ab accusatore perquirere, ubi sit congressus cum servis Luccei Caelius, qui ei fuerit aditus; si per se, qua temeritate! si per alium, per quem? possum omnis latebras suspicionum peragrare dicendo; non causa, non locus, non facultas, non conscius, non perficiendi, non occultandi malefici spes, non ratio ulla, non vestigium maximi facinoris reperietur.

中文译文

[51] 现在，我的演说看来已经浮出浅滩、驶过礁石，剩下的航程便十分容易。有两项重大罪行的指控，都集中在同一个女人身上：一项是据说从克洛迪娅那里取得的黄金，另一项是据控告凯利乌斯为了杀死同一位克洛迪娅而准备的毒药。按照你们的说法，他拿黄金，是为了给卢基乌斯·卢克凯乌斯的奴隶，让他们杀死当时住在卢克凯乌斯家中的亚历山大人狄翁。这是重大指控，无论设伏谋害使者，还是煽动奴隶杀害主人的客人，都是充满罪恶、充满凶悍的计划！

[52] 对这项指控，我首先要问：他有没有告诉克洛迪娅为什么拿黄金？如果没说，她为什么给？如果说了，她便使自己同样卷入知情参与的罪恶。你竟敢从柜子里取出黄金，竟敢剥下你那位维纳斯的装饰（那位本来剥夺别人装饰的维纳斯）而明知这些黄金将用于怎样的罪行：杀害使者，使极正直、极清白的卢克凯乌斯永远蒙上罪污？你那慷慨的心不该知情参与这样的大罪，你那广迎宾客的家不该为它效力，你那好客的维纳斯也不该成为帮手。

[53] 巴尔布斯看出了这个问题。他说，克洛迪娅被蒙在鼓里，凯利乌斯对她说，自己要黄金装饰竞技。如果他像你在谈他的私生活时所描绘的那样同克洛迪娅亲密，他一定告诉了她黄金的用途；如果没有那么亲密，她就不会给。因此，毫无节制的女人啊，如果凯利乌斯对你说了实话，你便是明知用于犯罪而交付黄金；如果他不敢说，你就不会给。现在，我为什么还要用无数其他论据反驳这项指控？我可以说，凯利乌斯的品性同如此重罪相距极远；很难相信，一个如此聪明、如此审慎的人，竟想不到这样重大的罪事不能托付给陌生人家的奴隶。我还可以照其他辩护人和自己惯常的办法追问控告者：凯利乌斯在哪里同卢克凯乌斯的奴隶见面？通过什么途径接近他们？如果亲自去，多么鲁莽！如果通过别人，又是谁？我可以用演说遍查一切怀疑的角落；你们将找不到动机、地点、机会、共谋者、实施或隐匿罪行的希望，找不到任何办法，也找不到这桩重大罪行的一丝痕迹。

Annotation. The alternatives about Clodia’s knowledge are Cicero’s argumentative construction. Balbus’ proposed explanation is explicitly preserved, preventing the extract from looking like an uncontested proof.

Pro Balbo — a personal citizenship grant within a treaty relationship

Chapter 24 · 56 BCE · Citizenship defence

Latin source: William Peterson; Oxford Clarendon Press 1909. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

Lucius Cornelius Balbus’ defence in 56 BCE concerns the validity of Roman citizenship granted to a man from Gades through Pompey’s authority. The legal basis is not identical with Archias’ route. Cicero identifies legislation of Gellius and Cornelius authorizing Pompey, with his council’s approval, to grant citizenship individually. He says that Pompey’s own statement and public records establish the grant. The opponent, as reported, accepts that a grant occurred but contests whether a member of a treaty community could receive it without that community’s adoption of the relevant law. The case thus turns from fact of grant to competence and legal effect. [B1.]

The technical expression fundus fieri is central. Cicero explains it as a community’s adoption of a Roman rule so that the rule operates within that community. He resists treating the adoption requirement as a restriction that disables Rome from conferring an individual benefit. The examples of Latin adoption of private-law statutes and the collective citizenship settlement under the Julian law support his distinction between a community accepting a legal arrangement and a person receiving a grant. This is a contested interpretation, not a phrase that can safely be translated merely as “consent” in every occurrence. [B1.]

B2 connects the issue with the Roman account of changing citizenship. Cicero states a rule against holding Roman citizenship simultaneously with another civic membership and gives examples of departure, exile, and return. He contrasts that rule with Greek multiple citizenship. The passage should not be turned into an unqualified proposition about every status combination throughout Roman history. It belongs to his Republican legal argument, and the relevant forms of municipal, local, and Roman belonging require careful differentiation. His conclusion is that no people’s relationship with Rome inherently excludes its members from Roman grants. [B2.]

Procedurally, this is a challenge to a person’s civic title, not a prosecution of Pompey or a treaty renegotiation. Politically, however, Pompey’s act and Rome’s ability to reward service are inseparable from the defence. Cicero urges the jury to make Balbus’ accomplishments an aid rather than an obstacle once the legal case is secure. Historically, the speech reveals citizenship as an instrument of military reward, elite mobility, and alliance management. The surviving address gives the advocate’s interpretation and documentary claims; the treaty and enabling statute are not preserved here as complete authenticated instruments. [B1–B2.]

B1. The grant and the meaning of adopting a law

Source locator: Pro Balbo, §§19-21. Stable passage ID: B1.

Evidence claim C-B1: Cicero distinguishes the admitted grant of citizenship to Balbus from the dispute over the grant’s validity in relation to legislation and treaty obligations.

Latin

[19] itaque quod maxime petendum est a vobis idcirco non peto, iudices, ne de vestra sapientia atque de vestra humanitate dubitare videar: est autem petendum ne oderitis ingenium, ne inimici sitis industriae, ne humanitatem opprimendam, ne virtutem puniendam putetis. illud peto, ut, si causam ipsam per se firmam esse et stabilem videritis, hominis ipsius ornamenta adiumento causae potius quam impedimento esse malitis.

nascitur, iudices, causa Corneli ex ea lege quam L. Gellius Cn. Cornelius ex senatus sententia tulerunt; qua lege videmus ⟨rite⟩ esse sanctum ut cives Romani sint ii quos Cn. Pompeius de consili sententia singillatim civitate donaverit. Donatum esse L. Cornelium praesens Pompeius dicit, indicant publicae tabulae. accusator fatetur, sed negat ex foederato populo quemquam potuisse, nisi is populus fundus factus esset, in hanc civitatem venire.

[20] O praeclarum interpretem iuris, auctorem antiquitatis, correctorem atque emendatorem nostrae civitatis, qui hanc poenam foederibus adscribat, ut omnium praemiorum beneficiorumque nostrorum expertis faciat foederatos! quid enim potuit dici imperitius quam foederatos populos fieri fundos oportere? nam id non magis est proprium foederatorum quam omnium liberorum. sed totum hoc, iudices, in ea fuit positum semper ratione atque sententia ut, cum iussisset populus Romanus aliquid, si id adscivissent socii populi ac Latini, et si ea lex, quam nos haberemus, eadem in populo aliquo tamquam in fundo resedisset, ut tum lege eadem is populus teneretur, non ut de nostro iure aliquid deminueretur, sed ut illi populi aut iure eo quod a nobis esset constitutum aut aliquo commodo aut beneficio uterentur.

[21] tulit apud maiores nostros legem C. Furius de testamentis, tulit Q. Voconius de mulierum hereditatibus; innumerabiles aliae leges de civili iure sunt latae; quas Latini voluerunt, adsciverunt; ipsa denique Iulia, qua lege civitas est sociis et Latinis data, qui fundi populi facti non essent civitatem non haberent. in quo magna contentio Heracliensium et Neapolitanorum fuit, cum magna pars in iis civitatibus foederis sui libertatem civitati anteferret. postremo haec vis est istius et iuris et verbi, ut fundi populi beneficio nostro, non suo iure fiant.

中文译文

[19] 审判员们，最需要请求你们的事情，我反而不请求，免得显得怀疑你们的智慧与仁厚；我本该请求的是：不要憎恨才华，不要敌视勤勉，不要以为应压制教养、惩罚德行。我只请求：如果你们看见案情本身坚实稳固，就宁愿让当事人的优点帮助本案，而不是成为障碍。科尔奈利乌斯的案件，源于卢基乌斯·盖利乌斯和格奈乌斯·科尔奈利乌斯根据元老院意见提出的法律。我们看见，该法⟨正式⟩规定：凡格奈乌斯·庞培经顾问团同意、逐人授予公民权者，均为罗马公民。在场的庞培说，卢基乌斯·科尔奈利乌斯已获授予；公共文书也表明如此。控告者承认，但否认结盟人民中的任何人能够进入我国公民体，除非该人民已经接受该法，使之在本共同体生效。

[20] 多么高明的法律解释者、古制权威、我国制度的校正者和改良者！他竟在条约上添加这样一种惩罚，使盟友失去我们的一切奖赏与恩惠。还有什么说法比“结盟人民必须接受该法”更不懂行？因为这种行为并非结盟人民独有，而是所有自由人民都可能有的。审判员们，整件事一向有这样的理由和意义：当罗马人民作出规定，如果盟邦和拉丁人民采纳它，使我们所用的法律，也在某个人民中像扎根于土地一样生效，那么，该人民就受同一法律约束。这不是减少我们的权利，而是让那些人民使用我们制定的法律，或享有某种便利与恩惠。

[21] 在祖先时代，盖乌斯·富里乌斯提出过遗嘱法，昆图斯·沃科尼乌斯提出过妇女继承法；此外，还有无数市民法。拉丁人愿意接受哪些，就接受哪些。甚至授予盟友和拉丁人公民权的尤利乌斯法，也规定未接受它的人民不得获得公民权。赫拉克利亚人和那不勒斯人因此发生很大争论，因为那些城邦中许多人宁愿保有条约赋予的自由，而不愿取得罗马公民权。总之，这项法律概念和这个词的意义，就是人民为了使用我们的恩惠而接受，不是为了使自身原有权利获得效力。

Annotation. The excerpt distinguishes the admitted act of conferral from its disputed validity. The translation expands fundus fieri descriptively rather than supplying a misleading one-word equivalent.

B2. Changing citizenship and the reach of grants

Source locator: Pro Balbo, §§28-30. Stable passage ID: B2.

Evidence claim C-B2: Cicero defends the capacity to change civic membership and the reach of an authorized Roman grant of citizenship.

Latin

[28] duarum civitatum civis noster esse iure civili nemo potest: non esse huius civitatis qui se alii civitati dicarit potest. neque solum dicatione, quod in calamitate clarissimis viris Q. Maximo, C. Laenati, Q. Philippo Nuceriae, C. Catoni Tarracone, Q. Caepioni, P. Rutilio Zmyrnae vidimus accidisse, ut earum civitatum fierent cives, ⟨cum⟩ hanc ante amittere non potuissent quam hoc solum civitatis mutatione vertissent, sed etiam postliminio potest civitatis fieri mutatio. neque enim sine causa de Cn. Publicio Menandro, libertino homine, quem apud maiores legati nostri in Graeciam proficiscentes interpretem secum habere voluerunt, ad populum latum ⟨est⟩ ut is Publicius, si domum revenisset et inde Romam redisset, ne minus civis esset. multi etiam superiore memoria cives Romani sua voluntate, indemnati et incolumes, his rebus relictis alias se in civitates contulerunt.

[29] quod si civi Romano licet esse Gaditanum sive exsilio sive postliminio sive reiectione huius civitatis,—ut iam ad foedus veniam, quod ad causam nihil pertinet: de civitatis enim iure, non de foederibus disceptamus,—quid est quam ob rem civi Gaditano in hanc civitatem venire non liceat? equidem longe secus sentio. nam cum ex omnibus civitatibus via sit in nostram, cumque nostris civibus pateat ad ceteras iter civitates, tum vero, ut quaeque nobiscum maxime societate amicitia sponsione pactione foedere est coniuncta, ita mihi maxime communione beneficiorum praemiorum civitatis contineri videtur. atqui ceterae civitates omnes non dubitarent nostros homines recipere in suas civitates, si idem nos iuris haberemus quod ceteri; sed nos non possumus et huius esse civitatis et cuiusvis praeterea, ceteris concessum est.

[30] itaque in Graecis civitatibus videmus Atheniensis, Rhodios, Lacedaemonios, ceteros undique adscribi multarumque esse eosdem homines civitatum. quo errore ductos vidi egomet non nullos imperitos homines, nostros civis, Athenis in numero iudicum atque Areopagitarum, certa tribu, certo numero, cum ignorarent, si illam civitatem essent adepti, hanc se perdidisse nisi postliminio reciperassent. peritus vero nostri moris ac iuris nemo umquam, qui hanc civitatem retinere vellet, in aliam se civitatem dicavit.

sed hic totus locus disputationis atque orationis meae, iudices, pertinet ad commune ius mutandarum civitatum: nihil habet quod sit proprium religionis ac foederum. defendo enim rem universam, nullam esse gentem ex omni regione terrarum, neque tam dissidentem a populo Romano odio quodam atque discidio, neque tam fide benivolentiaque coniunctam, ex qua nobis interdictum sit ne quem adsciscere civem aut civitate donare possimus.

中文译文

[28] 依我国市民法，我国公民不能同时是两个城邦的公民；但一个把自己归入另一城邦的人，可以不再是我国公民。这种变化不仅通过归附发生（我们看见，显赫者在遭受灾难时，昆图斯·马克西穆斯、盖乌斯·莱纳斯和昆图斯·腓力普斯归入努凯里亚，盖乌斯·加图归入塔拉科，昆图斯·凯皮奥和普布利乌斯·鲁提利乌斯归入士麦那，成为当地公民；他们在通过改变公民身份迁离本土以前，本不能失去罗马身份）而且公民身份也能通过归返权而改变。因此，从前我国使者赴希腊，想带一个获释奴隶格奈乌斯·普布利基乌斯·梅南德尔作译员时，向人民提出规定，并非没有原因：如果普布利基乌斯回到故乡，又从那里返回罗马，不得因此减损其公民身份。在较早的记忆中，也有许多罗马公民，自愿、未经定罪、没有遭难，放下这里的事务，进入其他城邦。

[29] 如果罗马公民可以通过流亡、归返权或放弃本国身份而成为加德斯人（现在我才谈到条约，而它其实与本案无关，因为我们争的是公民权，不是条约）那么，有什么理由不许加德斯公民进入我国公民体？我的看法恰恰相反。既然所有城邦都有通往我国的道路，我国公民也能走向其他城邦，那么，一个城邦与我们在同盟、友谊、约定和条约上联系越密切，我认为，它就越应通过共享恩惠、奖赏和公民权而得到维系。如果我们的规则同别人一样，其他城邦都不会迟疑接纳我国人；可是，我们不能既是罗马公民，又是任何别的城邦公民，而别人却获准这样做。

[30] 因此，在希腊城邦，我们看见雅典人、罗得人、斯巴达人从各处登记，同一人可以属于许多城邦。我亲眼见过一些不熟悉法律的罗马公民，被这种误解引导，在雅典列入审判员和阿瑞奥帕古斯成员，编入某个部落和名册；他们不知道，如果取得了那里的公民身份，便已失去这里的身份，除非通过归返权恢复。真正懂得我国习惯与法律、又想保有罗马公民身份的人，从来没有把自己归入别的城邦。不过，审判员们，我这一整段讨论与演说，谈的是改变公民身份的共同法律，与条约的神圣约束并无专属关系。我维护的是一个普遍命题：全世界没有任何一个民族，无论因仇恨和分歧同罗马人民多么疏远，或因忠诚和好意同我们多么亲近，会使我们被禁止从中接纳任何人为公民，或授予任何人公民权。

Annotation. Cicero’s broad concluding proposition is his defence of Roman granting power. It must be read alongside the particular enabling law and treaty objections, not as proof that every magistrate could grant citizenship without authorization.

Pro Plancio — the special jury and the distinction between influence and organized bribery

Chapter 25 · 54 BCE · Electoral-association prosecution

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon Press 1911. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

Gnaeus Plancius’ defence in 54 BCE arises from an electoral contest and a prosecution under the Licinian law on sodalicia. Cicero’s gratitude for Plancius’ assistance during exile is a major personal and historical strand. But the immediate legal question is not whether Plancius is a generous friend or deserves office. It is whether the electoral organization attributed to him falls within the conduct targeted by the statute. Cicero objects that Laterensis has used the law’s special jury procedure while treating the case as if it were an unrestricted collection of all possible ambitus charges. [P1; speech §§1–3, 97–104.]

P1 explains the special significance of tribal selection. According to Cicero, the procedure was designed to bring alleged corruptors before people from the tribes affected, who would possess knowledge of the conduct. He calls it severe, since the same people would in effect be witnesses and judges, but intelligible if tied to the alleged offence. He then attacks the prosecutor’s actual choices: why omit the tribes in which Plancius supposedly exercised corrupt influence? The issue is not merely whether the prosecutor followed an available formal power, but whether his use of it accords with the institution’s professed reason. [P1.]

P2 distinguishes influence through reciprocal service and friendship from systematic organization of purchased votes. Cicero explicitly accepts that Plancius was influential and had influential supporters. He denies that sodalis, when used as a criminalizing label, can turn all electoral friendship into unlawful association. He demands proof of grouping tribesmen, enrolling them, acting as a financial intermediary, promising distributions, and distributing money. These acts provide a more particular account of the alleged offence than the bare fact that someone can deliver support. [P2.]

Historically, the speech reveals how elite electoral success depended on relationships that law attempted to distinguish from corruption without eliminating patronage itself. Cicero’s own admission that his class practised these forms of service is unusually revealing. Procedurally, the jury-selection argument also illustrates a defence attacking the fit between statute, charge, and panel. None of this proves that every reciprocal favour was politically innocent. The dossier treats Cicero’s boundary between friendship and bribery as the central contested construction, while keeping his autobiographical gratitude separate from legal proof. [P1–P2.]

P1. Why these tribes?

Source locator: Pro Plancio, §§36-39. Stable passage ID: P1.

Evidence claim C-P1: Cicero challenges the prosecutor’s selection of jury tribes in relation to the particular electoral-association statute governing the case.

Latin

[36] sed aliquando veniamus ad causam. in qua tu nomine legis Liciniae, quae est de sodaliciis, omnis ambitus leges complexus es; neque enim quicquam aliud in hac lege nisi editicios iudices es secutus. quod genus iudicum si est aequum ulla in re nisi in hac tribuaria, non intellego quam ob rem senatus hoc uno in genere tribus edi voluerit ab accusatore neque eandem editionem transtulerit in ceteras causas, de ipso denique ambitu reiectionem fieri voluerit iudicum alternorum, cumque nullum genus acerbitatis praetermitteret, hoc tamen unum praetereundum putarit.

[37] quid? huiusce rei tandem obscura causa est, an et agitata tum cum ista in senatu res agebatur, et disputata hesterno die copiosissime a Q. Hortensio, cui tum est senatus adsensus? hoc igitur sensimus: cuiuscumque tribus largitor esset, et per hanc consensionem quae magis honeste quam vere sodalitas nominaretur quam quisque tribum turpi largitione corrumperet, eum maxime eis hominibus qui eius tribus essent esse notum. ita putavit senatus, cum reo tribus ederentur eae quas is largitione devinctas haberet, eosdem fore testis et iudices. acerbum omnino genus iudici sed tamen, si vel sua vel ea quae maxime esset cuique coniuncta tribus ederetur, vix recusandum.

[38] tu autem, Laterensis, quas tribus edidisti? Teretinam, credo. fuit certe id aequum et certe exspectatum est et fuit dignum constantia tua. cuius tu tribus venditorem et corruptorem et sequestrem Plancium fuisse clamitas, eam tribum profecto, severissimorum praesertim hominum et gravissimorum, edere debuisti. at Voltiniam; libet enim tibi nescio quid etiam de illa tribu criminari. hanc igitur ipsam cur non edidisti? quid Plancio cum lemonia, quid cum Oufentina, quid cum Clustumina? nam Maeciam, non quae iudicaret, sed quae reiceretur, esse voluisti.

[39] dubitatis igitur, iudices, quin vos M. Laterensis suo iudicio non ad sententiam legis, sed ad suam spem aliquam de civitate delegerit? dubitatis quin eas tribus in quibus magnas necessitudines habet Plancius, cum ille non ediderit, iudicarit officiis ab hoc observatas, non largitione corruptas? quid enim potes dicere cur ista editio non summam habeat acerbitatem, remota ratione illa quam in decernendo secuti sumus?

中文译文

[36] 现在终于来谈案情吧。你借着有关结社的李锡尼乌斯法之名，把所有反贿选法都包了进来；你真正采用这项法律的，只有由控告者指定审判员这一点。如果这种审判员产生方式，在部落性案件之外的任何事情上也公平，我就不明白，元老院为什么只在这一类案件中愿意让控告者指定部落，而没有把同样办法移用于其他案件；为什么对于一般贿选，反而要双方轮流排除审判员；为什么它不放过任何严厉措施，却认为应放过这一种。

[37] 这件事的理由难道不清楚？当初在元老院讨论时，它已经被辩论过；昨天，昆图斯·霍尔滕西乌斯又作了极充分的说明，而当初元老院正是赞同他的意见。我们的想法是：一个人贿赂哪个部落，通过那种与其说如实、不如说体面地称作“社团”的共同组织，以可耻分配腐化哪个部落，最知道他的，必定是那个部落的人。所以元老院认为，如果向被告指定的正是被他用贿赂捆住的部落，同一批人就既是证人，也是审判员。这种审判无疑严厉；但如果指定的是他自己的部落，或同他最亲近的部落，也几乎无法拒绝。

[38] 可是，拉特伦西斯，你指定了哪些部落？我想，是特雷提纳吧。那当然公平，也当然是人们所期待的，符合你的坚定。你大声说普兰基乌斯是那个部落的贩卖者、腐化者、金钱中间人，当然就该指定那个部落，尤其其中的人极严正、极庄重。或者是沃尔提尼亚？因为你也喜欢对那个部落提出某种指控。那么，为什么不指定它？普兰基乌斯同莱莫尼亚、欧芬提纳、克卢斯图米纳有什么关系？至于迈基亚，你是想让它被排除，而不是让它审判。

[39] 审判员们，你们还怀疑吗：马尔库斯·拉特伦西斯按照自己的判断，从全体公民中挑选你们，不是为了法律的本意，而是为了某种个人希望？他没有指定普兰基乌斯关系深厚的那些部落，难道不表明，他自己也判断那些部落受到的是普兰基乌斯的服务与关照，而不是贿赂腐化？除去我们当初制定程序所依据的理由，你还能说什么，说明这种指定不具有极端的苛刻性？

Annotation. Cicero’s claim that the omitted tribes would exonerate Plancius is an inference from the prosecutor’s selection, not testimony from those tribes.

P2. Friendship and the acts that must be proved

Source locator: Pro Plancio, §§44-46. Stable passage ID: P2.

Evidence claim C-P2: Cicero resists treating political support and electoral organization as sufficient proof of the prohibited conduct alleged against Plancius.

Latin

[44] neque ego nunc consilium reprehendo tuum quod ⟨non⟩ eas tribus quibus erat hic maxime notus edideris, sed a te doceo consilium non servatum senatus. etenim quis te tum audiret illorum, aut quid diceres? sequestremne Plancium? respuerent aures, nemo agnosceret, repudiarent. an gratiosum? illi libenter audirent, nos non timide confiteremur. noli enim putare, Laterensis, legibus istis quas senatus de ambitu sanciri voluerit id esse actum ut suffragatio, ut observantia, ut gratia tolleretur. semper fuerunt viri boni qui apud tribulis suos gratiosi esse vellent;

[45] neque vero tam durus in plebem noster ordo fuit ut eam coli nostra modica liberalitate noluerit, neque hoc liberis nostris interdicendum est, ne observent tribulis suos, ne diligant, ne conficere necessariis suis suam tribum possint, ne par ab eis munus in sua petitione respectent. haec enim plena sunt offici, plena observantiae, plena etiam antiquitatis. isto in genere et fuimus ipsi, cum ambitionis nostrae tempora postulabant, et clarissimos viros esse vidimus, et hodie esse volumus quam plurimos gratiosos. decuriatio tribulium, discriptio populi, suffragia largitione devincta severitatem senatus et bonorum omnium vim ac dolorem excitarent. haec doce, haec profer, huc incumbe, Laterensis, decuriasse Plancium, conscripsisse, sequestrem fuisse, pronuntiasse, divisisse; tum mirabor te eis armis uti quae tibi lex dabat noluisse. tribulibus enim iudicibus non modo severitatem illorum, si ista vera sunt, sed ne voltus quidem ferre possemus.

[46] hanc tu rationem cum fugeris cumque eos iudices habere nolueris quorum in huius delicto cum scientia certissima, tum dolor gravissimus esse debuerit, quid apud hos dices qui abs te taciti requirunt cur sibi hoc oneris imposueris, cur se potissimum delegeris, cur denique se divinare malueris quam eos qui scirent iudicare? ego Plancium, Laterensis, et ipsum gratiosum esse dico et habuisse in petitione multos cupidos sui gratiosos; quos tu si sodalis vocas, officiosam amicitiam nomine inquinas criminoso; sin, quia gratiosi sint, accusandos putas, noli mirari te id quod tua dignitas postularit repudiandis gratiosorum amicitiis non esse adsecutum.

中文译文

[44] 我现在并不是责备你的策略，说你⟨没有⟩指定那些最了解普兰基乌斯的部落；我只是指出，你没有遵守元老院的意图。因为，那些人当时谁会听你的？你又能说什么？说普兰基乌斯是贿赂的中间人？他们的耳朵会拒绝，没有人承认，他们会驳回。说他有影响力？他们会乐意听，我们也会毫不畏惧地承认。拉特伦西斯，不要以为元老院希望制定那些反贿选法律，是为了消灭助选、礼遇和影响力。历来都有正派的人，希望在自己的部落成员中得到信任；

[45] 我们这个阶层也没有对平民苛刻到不愿以适度慷慨来关照他们；我们也不应禁止自己的子弟关心、爱护同部落者，禁止他们替亲友争取本部落的支持，或在自己竞选时期待相应回报。这些事充满义务、礼遇，也充满古老传统。我们自己在竞选需要时做过，见过显赫人物做过，今天也希望尽可能多的人有这种影响力。但把部落成员编成小组、把人民登记组织起来、用金钱分配捆住选票，这才会激起元老院的严厉，以及所有正直者的愤怒和力量。拉特伦西斯，证明这些，提出这些，着力于这些：证明普兰基乌斯分组、登记、作金钱中间人、宣布给付、实际分配。那时，我才会奇怪，你为什么不肯使用法律给你的武器。如果这些事是真的，在本部落的审判员面前，我们别说承受他们的严厉，连他们的眼神也受不了。

[46] 你既避开这个办法，不愿让那些对他的过错本应知道得最确切、也最愤怒的人作审判员，那么，你在这些审判员面前要说什么？他们正默默问你，为什么把这个负担加给他们，为什么偏偏挑他们，为什么宁愿让他们猜测，也不让真正知情的人判断。拉特伦西斯，我说普兰基乌斯本人有影响力，竞选时也有许多关心他、同样有影响力的人支持。如果你把这些人叫作非法社团伙伴，你就是用有罪的名字玷污尽责的友谊；如果你认为他们只因有影响力就该被控告，那就不要惊讶：你排斥有影响力者的友谊，因而未能取得你认为与自己尊位相称的结果。

Annotation. The legal distinction is made within a defence of elite reciprocity. It is not a modern demonstration that influence and material exchange can always be cleanly separated.

Pro Scauro — a fragmentary defence against a collective provincial accusation

Chapter 26 · 54 BCE · Extortion defence; fragmentary

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon Press 1911. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The surviving Pro Scauro concerns Marcus Aemilius Scaurus’ extortion trial in 54 BCE following his administration of Sardinia. Its transmission is fragmentary and includes differently labelled pieces; the numerically continuous extracts below are only parts of the surviving material. They must not be confused with a complete defence or with other electoral proceedings associated with Scaurus. The fragments preserve allegations involving individuals as well as a major grain charge, while the speech’s ancestry and status arguments seek to counter the weight of provincial complaint. [Speech fragments and §§18–21, 42–44.]

SC1 reveals the evidentiary strategy. Cicero says he could answer accounts with a documentary history and identifiable witnesses with individual examination, but a unified mass of provincial testimony without corroborating records leaves him facing assertion rather than a traceable transaction. That is his description of the prosecution’s evidence. It does not demonstrate that the Sardinians supplied no credible proof or that a common account must be a conspiracy. The military metaphor—overthrow the whole line rather than duel with each soldier—announces a collective attack on witness credit. [SC1.]

SC2 then supplies an extreme ethnic genealogy of distrust, moving from Phoenicians to Carthaginians and Sardinians. The argument attempts to turn inherited group identity and Rome’s political relationship with Sardinia into evidence against the witnesses. Cicero makes exceptions for acquaintances and recipients of Pompey’s citizenship grants, exposing the way Roman connections modify his supposedly collective judgment. Juridically, the passage is not a disqualification rule: it is an effort to influence how a Roman panel weighs testimony. Its prejudice remains visible in the translation and is not endorsed. [SC2.]

Procedurally, the speech belongs to the extortion court’s adjudication, but the fragments alone do not preserve the complete evidentiary sequence, all counts, or the verdict. Historically, they can be compared with Pro Fonteio and Pro Flacco as defences that discredit provincial complainants, and with the Verrines as an accusation that amplifies them. The comparison establishes Cicero’s adaptable forensic methods; it cannot decide the truth of each provincial claim by consistency of rhetoric. Transmission control: the source has no simple numeric §45; later pieces carry lettered labels. This dossier uses §§42–44 and does not pretend that a nonexistent §45 has been translated. [SC1–SC2; source manifest.]

SC1. A collective grain charge

Source locator: Pro Scauro, §§18-21. Stable passage ID: SC1.

Evidence claim C-SC1: Cicero challenges the grain accusation through a contrast between documentary proof and the collective provincial testimony offered against Scaurus.

Latin

[18] poposcit, imperavit, eripuit, coegit. si doces tabulis, quoniam habet seriem quandam et ordinem contracti negoti confectio ipsa tabularum, attendam acriter et quid in defendendo mihi agendum sit videbo. si denique nitere testibus non dico bonis viris ac probatis, noti sint modo, quem ad modum mihi cum quoque sit confligendum considerabo.

[19] sin unus color, una vox, una natio est omnium testium, si, quod ei dicunt, non modo nullis argumentis sed ne litterarum quidem aliquo genere aut publicarum aut privatarum, quod tamen ipsum fingi potest, confirmare conantur, quo me vertam, iudices, aut quid agam? Cum singulis disputem? quid? non habuisti quod dares. habuisse se dicet. quis id sciet, quis iudicabit? non fuisse causam. finget fuisse. qui refellemus? potuisse non dare, si noluisset. vi ereptum esse dicet. quae potest eloquentia disputando ignoti hominis impudentiam confutare?

[20] non agam igitur cum ista Sardorum conspiratione et cum expresso, coacto sollicitatoque periurio subtiliter neque acu quaedam enucleata argumenta conquiram, sed contra impetum istorum impetu ego nostro concurram atque confligam. non est unus mihi quisque ex illorum acie protrahendus neque cum singulis decertandum atque pugnandum; tota est acies illa uno impetu prosternenda.

[21] est enim unum maximum totius Sardiniae frumentarium crimen, de quo Triarius omnis Sardos interrogavit, quod genus uno testimoni foedere et consensu omnium est confirmatum. quod ego crimen ante quam attingo, peto a vobis, iudices, ut me totius nostrae defensionis quasi quaedam fundamenta iacere patiamini. quae si erunt, ut mea ratio et cogitatio fert, posita et constituta, nullam accusationis partem pertimescam.

中文译文

[18] “他索取，命令，夺走，强迫。”如果你用账簿证明，因为账簿的编制本身会给交易带来某种连续性和次序，我会仔细注意，考虑辩护该怎样进行。如果你依靠证人，我不要求他们一定是好人、经认可的人，只须是身份可知的人，我就会考虑该怎样同每一个人交锋。

[19] 但如果所有证人只有一种面貌、一种声音、一个民族；如果他们说的话，不只没有任何论据，甚至连任何一种公共或私人文书（虽然文书本身也可能伪造）都不试图用来确认，那么，审判员们，我该转向哪里，怎么办？逐人辩论吗？问：“你没有可以交给他的钱。”他会说有。谁知道，谁能判断？问：“没有交钱的理由。”他会编出一个。我们怎么驳倒？说：“如果不愿意，本可以不交。”他会说是被暴力夺去的。哪一种雄辩能够通过讨论，驳倒一个身份不明者的无耻？

[20] 因此，我不会细细地同那群撒丁人的串通，以及被挤压、强迫、诱导出来的伪誓争辩，也不寻找针尖般精细剖析的论据；我将用我们的冲击迎击他们的冲击。我不该把他们战线中的每个人单独拉出来，逐一决斗；整条战线应当一举击倒。

[21] 因为，整个撒丁岛有一项最大的粮食指控，特里阿里乌斯就此询问了所有撒丁人，这一类控告由全体共同一致的证言联盟支持。在触及它以前，我请求你们容许我先为整个辩护奠定某种基础。如果这些基础如我的计划和思考所设想的那样安置稳固，我就不会畏惧控告的任何部分。

Annotation. “Conspiracy” and “perjury” are Cicero’s characterizations. The passage directly supports the account of his collective rebuttal strategy, not a finding that the provincial testimony was fabricated.

SC2. An ethnic attack with socially selective exceptions

Source locator: Pro Scauro, §§42-44. Stable passage ID: SC2.

Evidence claim C-SC2: Cicero attempts to undermine Sardinian testimony through an essentializing attack on the population’s supposed origins and character.

Latin

[42] fallacissimum genus esse Phoenicum omnia monumenta vetustatis atque omnes historiae nobis prodiderunt. ab his orti Poeni multis Carthaginiensium rebellionibus, multis violatis fractisque foederibus nihil se degenerasse docuerunt. A Poenis admixto Afrorum genere Sardi non deducti in Sardiniam atque ibi constituti, sed amandati et repudiati coloni.

[43] qua re cum integri nihil fuerit in hac gente ⟨pestilentiae⟩ plena, quam valde eam putamus tot transfusionibus coacuisse? hic mihi ignoscet Cn. Domitius Sincaius, vir ornatissimus, hospes et familiaris meus, ignoscent denique omnes ab eodem Cn. Pompeio civitate donati, quorum tamen omnium laudatione utimur, ignoscent alii viri boni ex Sardinia; credo enim esse quosdam.

[44] neque ego, cum de vitiis gentis loquor, neminem excipio; sed a me est de universo genere dicendum, in quo fortasse aliqui suis moribus et humanitate stirpis ipsius et gentis vitia vicerunt. magnam quidem esse partem sine fide, sine societate et coniunctione nominis nostri res ipsa declarat. quae est enim praeter Sardiniam provincia quae nullam habeat amicam populo Romano ac liberam civitatem?

中文译文

[42] 一切古老记载和所有历史都告诉我们，腓尼基人是最善欺骗的一类人。出自他们的迦太基人，通过许多叛乱和许多被侵犯、被破坏的条约，表明自己没有改变祖性。撒丁人则出自迦太基人，又混入阿非利加人的血统；他们不是作为受尊重的殖民者被迁往撒丁并安置在那里，而是被打发走、被遗弃的殖民者。

[43] 因此，既然这个充满⟨败坏⟩的民族中本来没有健全成分，经过如此多次混合，我们认为它会变得多么酸败？我的宾友和熟人、极有声望的格奈乌斯·多米提乌斯·辛凯乌斯会原谅我；总之，所有同样由格奈乌斯·庞培授予公民权的人（我们还利用他们全体的赞词）会原谅我；其他来自撒丁的好人也会原谅我，因为我相信总有一些。

[44] 我谈民族的缺点，并不是一个例外也不承认；但我必须谈整体，其中也许有些人，凭自己的习惯与教养，克服了自身出身和民族的缺点。然而，很大一部分人没有诚信，同我们的名号没有同盟或联系，事实本身就表明这一点。因为，除了撒丁，还有哪个行省没有一座与罗马人民友好、并享有自由地位的城邦？

Annotation. This is a hostile, essentializing argument, not reliable ethnogenesis or a valid rule of evidence. The supplement in §43 is preserved. The relatively shorter extract is a complete connected argument and is not padded with invented missing material.

Pro Rabirio Postumo — following the money after another man’s conviction

Chapter 27 · 54 BCE · Recovery of extorted money from a recipient

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon Press 1909. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The defence of Gaius Rabirius Postumus, conventionally dated to 54 BCE, follows Gabinius’ conviction and the assessment of money recoverable from him. Postumus was an equestrian financier involved with the Egyptian king. The case is not simply another governor’s extortion trial: Cicero identifies it as a proceeding concerning the persons to whom the money obtained by the condemned official had passed. That derivative structure is its legal centre. The inability to satisfy the original assessment creates the occasion for pursuing another recipient, but does not by itself prove that this particular financier received the relevant proceeds. [RPO1.]

Cicero argues from continuity of wording and practice. The Julian law’s recipient clause, he says, repeats earlier legislation; it should not therefore be interpreted as authorizing an unprecedented type of accusation. He insists that previous proceedings of this kind had concerned persons named during the assessment of damages on the basis of witnesses, private accounts, or civic accounts. Postumus, he claims, had not been named at that stage. This is a challenge to the procedural link between the established case and the new defendant, not merely a denial that money ever changed hands in Egypt. [RPO1.]

RPO2 supplies the historical and factual defence. Postumus’ assumption of the royal financial office of dioecetes is presented as a reluctant means of preserving his loans under the king’s coercive power. Cicero asks the jury to distinguish necessity from voluntary intention. He then tests the allegation that Postumus retained a tenth: was it added to the sum raised for Gabinius or deducted from it? The numerical alternatives are used to expose an alleged inconsistency with the earlier assessment. The argument’s force depends on the accuracy of the amounts and accounting assumptions; the speech is not itself the underlying ledger. [RPO2.]

Procedurally, the case is important because it traces liability beyond the convicted officeholder while contesting the safeguards around that extension. Juridically, it distinguishes status, receipt, causation, and the prior assessment. Historically, it reveals the uneasy position of Roman private finance within royal government and Roman military intervention. Cicero’s claim that the client acted under necessity should not erase the original commercial risk or turn the financier into a passive victim throughout the episode. The surviving speech supplies the defence, not a completed financial audit or a preserved reasoned verdict. [RPO1–RPO2.]

RPO1. The recipient clause and prior assessment

Source locator: Pro Rabirio Postumo, §§8-11. Stable passage ID: RPO1.

Evidence claim C-RPO1: Cicero contests the reach of the statutory clause used to pursue recipients of money beyond the person initially condemned.

Latin

[8] quod si item a Gabinio seiunctam ostendero, certe quod dicas nihil habebis.

est enim haec causa Qvo ea pecvnia pervenerit quasi quaedam appendicula causae iudicatae atque damnatae. sunt lites aestimatae A. Gabinio, nec praedes dati nec ex bonis populo universae ⟨lites solutae⟩. iubet lex Iulia persequi ab eis ad quos ea pecunia quam is ceperit qui damnatus sit pervenerit. si est hoc novum in lege Iulia, sicuti multa sunt severius scripta quam in antiquis legibus et sanctius, inducatur sane etiam consuetudo huius generis iudiciorum nova;

[9] sin hoc totidem verbis translatum caput est quot fuit non modo in Cornelia sed etiam ante in lege Servilia, per deos immortalis! quid agimus, iudices, aut quem hunc morem novorum iudiciorum in rem publicam inducimus? erat enim haec consuetudo nota vobis quidem omnibus, sed, si usus magister est optimus, mihi debet esse notissima. accusavi de pecuniis repetundis, iudex sedi, praetor quaesivi, defendi plurimos; nulla pars quae aliquam facultatem discendi adferre posset a me afuit. ita contendo, neminem umquam Qvo ea pecvnia pervenisset causam dixisse qui in aestimandis litibus appellatus non esset. in litibus autem nemo appellabatur nisi ex testium dictis aut tabulis privatorum aut rationibus civitatum.

[10] itaque in inferendis litibus adesse solebant qui aliquid de se verebantur, et, cum erant appellati, si videbatur, statim contra dicere solebant; sin eius temporis recentem invidiam pertimuerant, respondebant postea. quod cum fecissent, permulti saepe vicerunt. hoc vero novum et ante hoc tempus omnino inauditum. in litibus Postumi nomen est nusquam. in litibus dico; modo vos idem in A. Gabinium iudices sedistis; num quis testis Postumum appellavit? testis autem? num accusator? num denique toto illo in iudicio Postumi nomen audistis?

[11] non igitur reus ex ea causa quae iudicata est redundat Postumus, sed est adreptus unus eques Romanus de pecuniis repetundis reus. quibus tabulis? quae in iudicio Gabiniano recitatae non sunt. quo teste? A quo tum appellatus nusquam est. qua aestimatione litium? in qua Postumi mentio facta nulla est. qua lege? qua non tenetur.

hic iam, iudices, vestri consili res est, vestrae sapientiae; quid deceat vos, non quantum liceat vobis, spectare debetis. si enim quid liceat quaeritis, potestis tollere e civitate quem voltis; tabella est quae dat potestatem; occultat eadem libidinem, cuius conscientiam nihil est quod quisquam timeat, si non pertimescat suam.

中文译文

[8] 如果我再证明此事同加比尼乌斯也没有联系，你当然就没有话可说了。这种“那笔钱流到谁那里”的案件，仿佛是一个已经审结、已经定罪案件的小附属部分。加比尼乌斯的赔偿额已被估定；没有提供担保人，也没有从财产中向人民清偿全部⟨判定款项⟩。尤利乌斯法命人向那些收到已定罪者所取得的钱财的人追索。如果这一点在尤利乌斯法中是新的，正如其中许多规定比旧法更严厉、更周密，那么，就让这种审判也建立新的惯例吧；

[9] 但如果这一条的文字，完全照搬科尔奈利乌斯法，甚至更早的塞尔维利乌斯法，永生的诸神啊，审判员们，我们在做什么？我们给国家引入的是什么新式审判习惯？原有惯例你们都知道；如果经验是最好的老师，我更应知道。我曾控告侵夺钱财者，曾作审判员，曾以裁判官身份主持调查，也曾为许多人辩护；凡能提供学习机会的角色，没有一个我未经历。因此，我坚持说，从来没有一个人，在“钱流到谁那里”的案件中受审，而此前没有在损害估定程序中被点名。而在估定中，只有根据证人的话、私人账簿或城邦账目，才会点名某人。

[10] 所以，提出各项估定请求时，那些担心事情涉及自己的人通常在场；被点名后，如果认为合适，就立刻反驳。如果畏惧当时新近激起的怨恨，便以后答辩；这样做的人，往往有许多获胜。但眼下这种情形却是新的，以前完全没有听过。在估定中，任何地方都没有波斯图穆斯的名字。我说估定；刚才你们这些同样的审判员还审过加比尼乌斯，有哪个证人点名波斯图穆斯了吗？何止证人，控告者有吗？总之，在整个审判中，你们听过波斯图穆斯的名字吗？

[11] 因此，波斯图穆斯并不是从已经判定的案件中自然延伸出来的被告，而是一个罗马骑士被单独抓来，作为侵夺款项案的被告。凭什么账册？那些没有在加比尼乌斯案中宣读过的。凭哪个证人？那个当时从未点名他的。凭哪项损害估定？其中没有提到波斯图穆斯。凭哪项法律？那项并不约束他的法律。审判员们，这现在属于你们的判断和智慧；你们应当考虑什么符合自己的职责，而不只是自己能做多少。如果只问能做什么，你们可以把任何人从国家中除去；投票板给了这种权力，也遮住了任性。一个人如果不怕自己的良心，便没有什么理由害怕别人知道。

Annotation. Cicero’s statement of prior practice is a litigant’s procedural argument. It should be checked against the clause and other evidence before being treated as the complete law of derivative recovery.

RPO2. Royal office and the alleged tenth

Source locator: Pro Rabirio Postumo, §§28-31. Stable passage ID: RPO2.

Evidence claim C-RPO2: Cicero represents Postumus’ conduct in Egyptian finance as constrained by dependence on the king.

Latin

[28] nam ut ventum est Alexandream, iudices, haec una ratio a rege proposita Postumo est servandae pecuniae, si curationem et quasi dispensationem regiam suscepisset. id autem facere non poterat, nisi dioecetes—hoc enim nomine utitur qui ea regit—esset constitutus. odiosum negotium Postumo videbatur, sed erat nulla omnino recusatio; molestum etiam nomen ipsum, sed res habebat nomen hoc apud illos, non hic imposuerat. oderat vestitum etiam illum, sed sine eo nec nomen illud poterat nec munus tueri. ergo aderat vis ut ait poeta ille noster, quae summas frangit infirmatque opes.

[29] moreretur, inquies; nam id sequitur. fecisset certe, si sine maximo dedecore tam impeditis suis rebus potuisset emori. noli igitur fortunam convertere in culpam neque regis iniuriam huius crimen putare nec consilium ex necessitate nec voluntatem ex vi interpretari, nisi forte eos etiam qui in hostis aut in praedones inciderint, si aliter quippiam coacti faciant ⟨ac⟩ liberi, vituperandos putes. nemo nostrum ignorat, etiam si experti non sumus, consuetudinem regiam. regum autem sunt haec imperia: animadverte ac dicto pare et praeter rogitatum si plus et illae minae: si te secundo lumine hic offendero, moriere; quae non ut delectemur solum legere et spectare debemus, sed ut cavere etiam ⟨et⟩ effugere discamus.

[30] at ex hoc ipso crimen exoritur. ait enim, Gabinio pecuniam Postumus ⟨cum⟩ cogeret, decumas imperatarum pecuniarum sibi coegisse. non intellego hoc quale sit, utrum accessionem decumae, ut nostri facere coactores solent ⟨in⟩ centesima, an decessionem de summa fecerit. si accessionem, undecim milia talentum ad Gabinium pervenerunt. at non modo abs te decem milia obiecta sunt sed etiam ab his aestimata.

[31] addo illud etiam: qui tandem convenit aut tam gravi onere tributorum ad tantam pecuniam cogendam mille talentum accessionem esse factam aut in tanta mercede hominis, ut vis, avarissimi mille talentum decessionem esse concessam? neque enim fuit Gabini remittere tantum de suo nec regis imponere tantum pati suis. at erunt testes legati Alexandrini. ei nihil in Gabinium dixerunt; immo ei Gabinium laudaverunt. Vbi ergo ille mos, ubi consuetudo iudiciorum, ubi exempla? solet is dicere in eum qui pecuniam ⟨redegit⟩ qui in illum cuius nomine ea pecunia redigeretur non dixerit?

中文译文

[28] 审判员们，到了亚历山大之后，国王给波斯图穆斯提出的保住钱财的唯一办法，是承担王室的管理和近乎总出纳的职责。要做到这一点，就必须被任命为“狄奥伊凯特斯”：那里管理这些事务的人就用这个名称。波斯图穆斯觉得这项事务可厌，但完全无法拒绝；名称本身也令他不快，可事情在那里就叫这个名字，不是他发明的。他也讨厌那套衣服，但没有它，就既不能保有那个称号，也不能履行职务。因此，正如我国诗人所说，强力就在眼前：“它折断、削弱最强大的力量。”

[29] 你会说：“那就死。”诗句接下来确实这样说。如果他在自己的事务如此纠缠时，能不蒙受极大耻辱而死，他当然会这样做。所以，不要把遭遇变成过错，不要把国王的不法侵害当作他的罪状；不要把迫不得已解释为计划，把强制解释为自愿。除非你认为，落入敌人或海盗手中的人，被迫做出不同于自由状态下的事，也该受责备。即使没有亲身经历，我们也没有人不知道王权的习惯。国王的命令就是：“注意，服从命令”；“如果超出所问，多说一句……”以及那种威胁：“如果第二天的光照到时，我还在这里遇见你，你就死。”我们读这些、看这些，不应只为娱乐，也应学会防备和逃离。

[30] 可是，罪状又从这件事本身产生。控告者说，波斯图穆斯替加比尼乌斯征钱时，给自己收取了所征金额的十分之一。我不明白，这是什么意思：是像我国收款人常取百分之一那样，另加十分之一；还是从总额中扣去十分之一？如果另加，那么到加比尼乌斯手中的应当是一万一千塔兰同。但你指控的只有一万，这些审判员估定的也只有一万。

[31] 我再补一点：在为筹集那么大笔钱而施加如此沉重税负时，怎么会再加上一千塔兰同？或者，对于你所说那个极贪婪之人的巨大报酬，又怎么会容许扣去一千塔兰同？加比尼乌斯不会放弃自己如此多的钱，国王也不会容许给自己的臣民增加如此大的负担。“但亚历山大的使者会作证。”他们没有说过不利于加比尼乌斯的话，反而赞扬了他。那么，惯例在哪里，审判传统在哪里，先例在哪里？一个人没有控告以其名义征钱的那个人，却来控告实际⟨收取⟩钱的人，这是通常的做法吗？

Annotation. The alternatives about a surcharge or deduction belong to Cicero’s challenge to the accusation. The passage does not supply a verified Egyptian revenue account.

Pro Milone — admitted killing, self-defence, and a published reconstruction

Chapter 28 · 52 BCE; surviving text revised for publication · Special criminal commission

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon Press 1918 1901. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

Milo’s trial in 52 BCE followed the killing of Clodius on the Appian Way and the violent political disorder surrounding it. Pompey’s special arrangements for the trial and armed security distinguish the setting from an ordinary unremarkable hearing. Milo was condemned. The surviving Pro Milone is the elaborated published defence, not a stenographic record of what Cicero successfully delivered amid that intimidation. Plutarch’s later account describes Cicero’s discomposure and Milo’s condemnation; its dramatic psychology remains a later biographical interpretation. [Plutarch, Cicero 35; Greenidge, pp. 389–397 and additional note, p. 578.]

The legal defence begins by rejecting the proposition that admitted killing necessarily entails unlawful homicide. MI1 draws together statutory examples, historical exempla, and a claim about natural self-preservation. These are different authorities. The Twelve Tables example concerns particular circumstances of killing a thief; the mythical and political examples broaden the persuasive field; the “unwritten law” furnishes a normative rationale. None alone proves what happened on the road. The central factual question remains whether Milo acted against an attacker or was himself responsible for an ambush. [MI1.]

MI2 supplies Cicero’s carefully arranged answer. Milo is portrayed travelling encumbered by his wife, carriage, clothing, and household attendants, while Clodius is described as unusually mobile and lightly equipped. The scene then assigns the first attack to Clodius’ men and the killing to Milo’s slaves acting without his order, knowledge, or presence. These are crucial exculpatory assertions, not neutral scene-setting. Clothing, companions, terrain, timing, and reported speech are converted into arguments about preparation and intent. [MI2.]

Juridically, the defence alternates between necessity, absence of a prior murderous plan, the servants’ action, and the benefit supposedly conferred on the state by Clodius’ removal. Those arguments should not be fused into one simple claim that political usefulness makes homicide lawful. Cicero himself says that if the act could not lawfully be done, he has no defence. Historically, the discrepancy between the polished surviving text and the adverse outcome is indispensable: rhetorical mastery on the page did not secure acquittal. The dossier preserves the published narrative as advocacy and uses the external tradition only for the procedural setting and result, not to certify every psychological detail. [MI1–MI2; speech §§72–91; Plutarch, Cicero 35.]

MI1. Why admitted killing is not the whole legal question

Source locator: Pro Milone, §§7-10. Stable passage ID: MI1.

Evidence claim C-MI1: Cicero argues that an admission of killing does not settle whether the killing was legally justified.

Latin

[7] sed ante quam ad eam orationem venio quae est propria vestrae quaestionis videntur ea mihi esse refutanda quae et in senatu ab inimicis saepe iactata sunt et in contione ab improbis et paulo ante ab accusatoribus, ut omni errore sublato rem plane quae veniat in iudicium videre possitis. negant intueri lucem esse fas ei qui a se hominem occisum esse fateatur. in qua tandem urbe hoc homines stultissimi disputant? nempe in ea quae primum iudicium de capite vidit M. Horati, fortissimi viri, qui nondum libera civitate tamen populi Romani comitiis liberatus est, cum sua manu sororem esse interfectam fateretur.

[8] an est quisquam qui hoc ignoret, cum de homine occiso quaeratur, aut negari solere omnino esse factum aut recte et iure factum esse defendi? Nisi vero existimatis dementem P. Africanum fuisse qui, cum a C. Carbone tribuno plebis seditiose in contione interrogaretur quid de Ti. Gracchi morte sentiret, responderit iure caesum videri. neque enim posset aut Ahala ille Servilius aut P. Nasica aut L. Opimius aut C. Marius aut me consule senatus non nefarius haberi, si sceleratos civis interfici nefas esset. itaque hoc, iudices, non sine causa etiam fictis fabulis doctissimi homines memoriae prodiderunt, eum qui patris ulciscendi causa matrem necavisset variatis hominum sententiis non solum divina sed etiam sapientissimae deae sententia liberatum.

[9] quod si xii tabulae nocturnum furem quoquo modo, diurnum autem, si se telo defenderet, interfici impune voluerunt, quis est qui, quoquo modo quis interfectus sit, puniendum putet, cum videat aliquando gladium nobis ad hominem occidendum ab ipsis porrigi legibus? atqui, si tempus est ullum iure hominis necandi, quae multa sunt, certe illud est non modo iustum verum etiam necessarium, cum vi vis inlata defenditur. pudicitiam cum eriperet militi tribunus militaris in exercitu C. Mari, propinquus eius imperatoris, interfectus ab eo est cui vim adferebat; facere enim probus adulescens periculose quam perpeti turpiter maluit. atque hunc ille summus vir scelere solutum periculo liberavit.

[10] insidiatori vero et latroni quae potest inferri iniusta nex? quid comitatus nostri, quid gladii volunt? quos habere certe non liceret, si uti illis nullo pacto liceret. est igitur haec, iudices, non scripta, sed nata lex, quam non didicimus, accepimus, legimus, verum ex natura ipsa adripuimus, hausimus, expressimus, ad quam non docti sed facti, non instituti sed imbuti sumus, ut, si vita nostra in aliquas insidias, si in vim et in tela aut latronum aut inimicorum incidisset, omnis honesta ratio esset expediendae salutis.

中文译文

[7] 在进入专属于你们这项审判的论证以前，我认为应先反驳那些敌人在元老院、坏人在公众集会、以及刚才控告者反复散布的话，使一切误解消除，你们能清楚看见交付审判的是什么。他们说，一个承认自己杀了人的人，不应再有资格看见日光。这些极愚蠢的人究竟在哪座城市这样争论？正是在这座城市：它最早的生命案件，是勇士马尔库斯·霍拉提乌斯的案件；当时国家尚未自由，他虽承认亲手杀死妹妹，仍由罗马人民的大会释放。

[8] 难道有人不知道，调查一个人的被杀时，通常要么完全否认事情发生，要么辩称行为正当合法？除非你们以为，普布利乌斯·阿非利加努斯是疯子；当保民官盖乌斯·卡尔博在集会上煽动性地问他如何看提比略·格拉古之死，他回答说，看来是依法被杀。如果杀死罪恶公民是不容许的，那么塞尔维利乌斯·阿哈拉、普布利乌斯·纳西卡、卢基乌斯·奥皮米乌斯、盖乌斯·马略，以及我任执政官时的元老院，都不可能不被视为邪恶。因此，审判员们，最有学问的人也并非无故在虚构故事中传下这样的事：一个为父报仇而杀母的人，在人们意见分歧时，不仅由神，而且由最智慧的女神投票释放。

[9] 如果十二表法愿意让人杀死夜贼而不受惩罚，也允许在白日窃贼持械抵抗时杀死他，那么，谁还会认为，不论一个人怎样被杀，都必定应惩罚杀人者？法律本身有时把剑交给我们用来杀人。既然确有可以合法杀人的时刻（而这样的情形不止一种）那么，当人以暴力抵御袭来的暴力时，当然不只是正当，而且必要。在盖乌斯·马略军中，一位军事保民官、也是统帅的亲属，企图侵犯一个士兵的贞洁，被那个受侵害者杀死；这个正派的年轻人宁愿冒险行动，也不愿羞辱地忍受。那位伟大统帅认定他无罪，使他免于危险。

[10] 对设伏者和强盗，又有什么杀害能称为不正当？我们的随从和佩剑是做什么的？如果在任何情况下都不许使用，当然也就不应准许携带。因此，审判员们，存在这样一条法律：它不是写下的，而是与生俱来的；不是我们学到、接受、读到的，而是从自然本身抓住、汲取、取出的；我们不是被教会，而是被造就来遵从它，不是被训练，而是被浸润其中：如果生命陷入埋伏，落入强盗或敌人的暴力和武器之中，任何使自己脱险的办法都是正当的。

Annotation. Statute, exemplum, myth, and natural-law argument are juxtaposed, not made identical. The passage establishes Cicero’s proposed legal justification; it cannot establish the facts necessary to apply it.

MI2. The published account of the encounter

Source locator: Pro Milone, §§28-30. Stable passage ID: MI2.

Evidence claim C-MI2: Cicero’s published reconstruction assigns the initial attack to Clodius’ party and the fatal response to Milo’s slaves without Milo’s order, knowledge or presence.

Latin

[28] Milo autem cum in senatu fuisset eo die quoad senatus est dimissus, domum venit, calceos et vestimenta mutavit, paulisper, dum se uxor, ut fit, comparat, commoratus est, dein profectus id temporis cum iam Clodius, si quidem eo die Romam venturus erat, redire potuisset. obviam fit ei Clodius, expeditus, in equo, nulla raeda, nullis impedimentis, nullis Graecis comitibus, ut solebat, sine uxore, quod numquam fere: cum hic insidiator, qui iter illud ad caedem faciendam apparasset, cum uxore veheretur in raeda, paenulatus, magno et impedito et muliebri ac delicato ancillarum puerorumque comitatu.

[29] fit obviam Clodio ante fundum eius hora fere undecima aut non multo secus. statim complures cum telis in hunc faciunt de loco superiore impetum; adversi raedarium occidunt. cum autem hic de raeda reiecta paenula desiluisset seque acri animo defenderet, illi qui erant cum Clodio gladiis eductis, partim recurrere ad raedam ut a tergo Milonem adorirentur, partim, quod hunc iam interfectum putarent, caedere incipiunt eius servos qui post erant; ex quibus qui animo fideli in dominum et praesenti fuerunt, partim occisi sunt, partim, cum ad raedam pugnari viderent, domino succurrere prohiberentur, Milonem occisum et ex ipso Clodio audirent et re vera putarent, fecerunt id servi Milonis—dicam enim aperte non derivandi criminis causa, sed ut factum est—nec imperante nec sciente nec praesente domino, quod suos quisque servos in tali re facere voluisset.

[30] haec sicuti exposui ita gesta sunt, iudices: insidiator superatus est, vi victa vis vel potius oppressa virtute audacia est. nihil dico quid res publica consecuta sit, nihil quid vos, nihil quid omnes boni: nihil sane id prosit Miloni, qui hoc fato natus est ut ne se quidem servare potuerit quin una rem publicam vosque servaret. si id iure fieri non potuit, nihil habeo quod defendam. sin hoc et ratio doctis et necessitas barbaris et mos gentibus et feris natura ipsa praescripsit ut omnem semper vim quacumque ope possent a corpore, a capite, a vita sua propulsarent, non potestis hoc facinus improbum iudicare quin simul iudicetis omnibus qui in latrones inciderint aut illorum telis aut vestris sententiis esse pereundum.

中文译文

[28] 那天，米洛在元老院待到会议结束，回到家，换了鞋和衣服，像通常那样稍等妻子准备，然后才出发；如果克洛狄乌斯那天原本打算回罗马，这时他已经足以来到了。克洛狄乌斯同他相遇时，轻装骑马，没有车，没有行李，没有通常跟随的希腊随从，也没有妻子：这几乎从不发生；而这个据说准备好那次行程、要去杀人的“设伏者”米洛，却同妻子坐在车里，披着旅行斗篷，带着一大群累赘、柔弱、讲究舒适的婢女和少年随从。

[29] 大约第十一时，或相差不多，他在克洛狄乌斯的庄园前同他相遇。立刻，有好几个持械者从较高处向米洛冲来，迎面杀死车夫。米洛脱开斗篷，跳下车，勇敢自卫；克洛狄乌斯身边的人拔出剑，有些折回车旁，要从背后攻击米洛；有些以为他已经被杀，便开始杀他后面的奴隶。那些忠于主人、临事镇定的奴隶中，有些被杀；另一些看见车旁发生战斗，自己又被挡住，无法援救主人，还听克洛狄乌斯本人说米洛已死，并且确实相信，于是，米洛的奴隶做了（我将明说，不是为了推卸罪责，而是按事情实际发生的样子）他们的主人既未命令、也不知道、更不在场时，任何人都会希望自己的奴隶在这种情形下做的事。

[30] 审判员们，事情正是像我陈述的那样发生：设伏者被战胜，暴力被暴力压倒，或者更准确地说，凶悍被勇气制服。我不说国家因此得到什么，不说你们得到什么，不说所有正直者得到什么；就让这一切都不能帮助米洛吧，他生来仿佛注定，连救自己也不能不同时救国家和你们。如果这件事不能依法做，我便没有什么可以辩护。但如果理性向有学问者，必要性向异族，习惯向各民族，自然本身向野兽，都规定应始终尽一切可能，把暴力从自己的身体、性命和生命中排除，那么，你们就不能判定这种行为有罪，而不同时判定：一切遇到强盗的人，不是死于强盗的武器，就是死于你们的判决。

Annotation. This is the defence’s published reconstruction. In particular, the statements about the first attack and the slaves acting without Milo’s instruction are allegations to be tested, not facts certified by the dossier.

External control: Plutarch, Life of Cicero 35. This later biography supports the report of condemnation and the armed setting; it is not contemporary courtroom minutes.

Pro Marcello — thanking the victor and defining the obligations of clemency

Chapter 29 · 46 BCE · Boundary comparator: senatorial thanksgiving for clemency

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon Press 1918 1901. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The Pro Marcello of 46 BCE is included as an explicit boundary comparator. Despite its conventional pro title, it is not an ordinary defence pleading delivered before a judgment. Cicero speaks in the senate after Caesar has allowed Marcus Marcellus’ restoration. The opening describes the end of Cicero’s silence and interprets the act as a restoration of his own voice as well. The legal-political condition is therefore an accomplished exercise of clemency, and the speech responds to what that act means for the surviving civic order. [MA1.]

Juridically, the speech turns on the relation between overwhelming personal power and public institutions. Caesar is praised for placing the senate’s authority and the state’s dignity above resentment and suspicion. Such praise is also prescriptive: by defining the act as self-restraint, Cicero urges the victor to continue acting in ways that preserve collective political life. The senate’s approval and Caesar’s decision are both important, but they are not presented as the normal operation of an independent criminal jury. [MA1.]

MA2 makes the practical programme explicit. Courts must be re-established, credit or trust restored, appetites restrained, and the damage of civil war repaired through law. Cicero argues that Caesar’s own survival is a public necessity because the work remains unfinished. This appeal both acknowledges concentrated power and attempts to direct it toward institutional reconstruction. It should not be simplified into either unqualified endorsement of dictatorship or a covertly complete statement of republican opposition. The text negotiates what can be said and asked after military victory. [MA2.]

Historically, the speech belongs beside Pro Ligario and Pro rege Deiotaro, but its procedural difference must remain visible. In those works Cicero seeks protection for persons under accusation or exclusion; here he thanks Caesar for an act already granted and draws obligations from it. Marcellus’ permission to return is not the same as his eventual physical return to Rome, nor does the speech establish the subsequent fate of every restoration measure. The dossier includes it to show the altered conditions of legal and political advocacy under Caesar, not to inflate the number of ordinary forensic trials. [MA1–MA2.]

MA1. An act already granted

Source locator: Pro Marcello, §§1-4. Stable passage ID: MA1.

Evidence claim C-MA1: Cicero presents Caesar’s decision concerning Marcellus as an act of restoration with significance for the senate and the civic community.

Latin

[1] diuturni silenti, patres conscripti, quo eram his temporibus usus, non timore aliquo, sed partim dolore, partim verecundia, finem hodiernus dies attulit, idemque initium quae vellem quaeque sentirem meo pristino more dicendi. tantam enim mansuetudinem, tam inusitatam inauditamque clementiam, tantum in summa potestate rerum omnium modum, tam denique incredibilem sapientiam ac paene divinam tacitus praeterire nullo modo possum.

[2] M. enim Marcello vobis, patres conscripti, reique publicae reddito non illius solum sed etiam meam vocem et auctoritatem vobis et rei publicae conservatam ac restitutam puto. dolebam enim, patres conscripti, et vehementer angebar, cum viderem virum talem, cum in eadem causa in qua ego fuisset, non in eadem esse fortuna, nec mihi persuadere poteram nec fas esse ducebam versari me in nostro vetere curriculo illo aemulo atque imitatore studiorum ac laborum meorum quasi quodam socio a me et comite distracto. ergo et mihi meae pristinae vitae consuetudinem, C. Caesar, interclusam aperuisti et his omnibus ad bene de re publica sperandum quasi signum aliquod sustulisti.

[3] intellectum est enim mihi quidem in multis et maxime in me ipso, sed paulo ante omnibus, cum M. Marcellum senatui reique publicae concessisti, commemoratis praesertim offensionibus, te auctoritatem huius ordinis dignitatemque rei publicae tuis vel doloribus vel suspicionibus anteferre. ille quidem fructum omnis ante actae vitae hodierno die maximum cepit, cum summo consensu senatus tum iudicio tuo gravissimo et maximo. ex quo profecto intellegis quanta in dato beneficio sit laus, cum in accepto sit tanta gloria.

[4] est vero fortunatus cuius ex salute non minor paene ad omnis quam ad illum ventura sit laetitia pervenerit: quod quidem merito atque optimo iure contigit. quis enim est illo aut nobilitate aut probitate aut optimarum artium studio aut innocentia aut ullo in laudis genere praestantior?

nullius tantum flumen est ingeni, nulla dicendi aut scribendi tanta vis, tantaque copia quae non dicam exornare, sed enarrare, C. Caesar, res tuas gestas possit. tamen hoc adfirmo et pace dicam tua, nullam in his esse laudem ampliorem quam eam quam hodierno die consecutus es.

中文译文

[1] 元老们，今天结束了我在这段时期长久保持的沉默；那沉默并非出于什么恐惧，而部分出于悲痛，部分出于自持。今天也使我重新开始像往日那样，说出自己希望、自己所想的事情。如此的温和，如此罕见、闻所未闻的宽赦，如此在掌握一切最高权力时仍保持的节制，总之，如此难以置信、近乎神圣的智慧，我无论如何都不能默默略过。

[2] 因为，元老们，当马尔库斯·马尔凯卢斯被归还给你们和国家时，我认为得到保存和恢复的，不只是他的声音与权威，也有我自己的。我曾悲痛、深受折磨，因为看见这样一个人，虽与我站在同一方，却没有同样的命运；当那个与我竞争、效法我志业和劳苦的人，仿佛我的伙伴和同伴，被从我身边分开时，我既不能说服自己，也不认为自己可以正当地重返旧日活动的轨道。因此，盖乌斯·凯撒，你为我重新打开了被阻断的旧日生活，也为所有这些人举起一个信号，使他们对国家抱有良好希望。

[3] 我在许多事情上，尤其在自己身上，已经理解这一点；而刚才，当你把马尔凯卢斯让还给元老院和国家，尤其是在提及他曾冒犯你之后，所有人都明白：你把这个阶层的权威和国家的尊严，置于自己的痛苦或疑虑之上。他今天从过去整个生活中收获了最大的成果，一方面是元老院高度一致的赞同，另一方面是你极郑重、极重大的判断。由此，你当然理解：既然接受恩惠有如此大的荣耀，给予恩惠便有多么大的功名。

[4] 一个人因获救而带来的喜悦，几乎同样大地降临所有人，而不只降临他本人，他确实幸运；这也是应得而完全正当的。因为，在出身、正直、优良学问的追求、清白，或任何值得赞扬的方面，谁能超过他？凯撒，没有人的才思如此充沛，没有演说或写作的力量与丰盛，能够（我不说修饰）单单叙述你的功业。但请允许我断言：其中没有任何荣耀，大于你今天取得的这一项。

Annotation. The repeated language of restoration concerns Caesar’s permission and its political meaning. It is not a verdict delivered by a standing criminal court.

MA2. The unfinished work of restoration

Source locator: Pro Marcello, §§23-26. Stable passage ID: MA2.

Evidence claim C-MA2: Cicero makes Caesar responsible for reconstructing institutions and securing the continued life of the commonwealth.

Latin

[23] si vero ad humanos casus incertosque motus valetudinis sceleris etiam accedit insidiarumque consensio, quem deum, si cupiat, posse opitulari rei publicae credimus?

omnia sunt excitanda tibi, C. Caesar, uni quae iacere sentis belli ipsius impetu, quod necesse fuit, perculsa atque prostrata: constituenda iudicia, revocanda fides, comprimendae libidines, propaganda suboles, omnia quae dilapsa iam diffluxerunt severis legibus vincienda sunt.

[24] non fuit recusandum in tanto civili bello, tanto animorum ardore et armorum quin quassata res publica, quicumque belli eventus fuisset, multa perderet et ornamenta dignitatis et praesidia stabilitatis suae, multaque uterque dux faceret armatus quae idem togatus fieri prohibuisset. quae quidem tibi nunc omnia belli volnera sananda sunt, quibus praeter te mederi nemo potest.

[25] itaque illam tuam praeclarissimam et sapientissimam vocem invitus audivi: satis diu vel naturae vixi vel gloriae. satis, si ita vis, fortasse naturae, addam etiam, si placet, gloriae: at, quod maximum est, patriae certe parum. qua re omitte, quaeso, istam doctorum hominum in contemnenda morte prudentiam: noli nostro periculo esse sapiens. saepe enim venit ad meas auris te idem istud nimis crebro dicere, satis te tibi vixisse. credo, sed tum id audirem, si tibi soli viveres aut si tibi etiam soli natus esses. omnium salutem civium cunctamque rem publicam res tuae gestae complexae sunt; tantum abes a perfectione maximorum operum ut fundamenta nondum quae cogitas ieceris. hic tu modum vitae tuae non salute rei publicae, sed aequitate animi definies? quid, si istud ne gloriae quidem satis est? cuius te esse avidissimum, quamvis sis sapiens, non negabis.

[26] parumne, inquies, magna relinquemus? immo vero aliis quamvis multis satis, tibi uni parum. quicquid est enim, quamvis amplum sit, id est parum tum cum est aliquid amplius. quod si rerum tuarum immortalium, C. Caesar, hic exitus futurus fuit ut devictis adversariis rem publicam in eo statu relinqueres in quo nunc est, vide, quaeso, ne tua divina virtus admirationis plus sit habitura quam gloriae; si quidem gloria est inlustris et pervagata magnorum vel in suos civis vel in patriam vel in omne genus hominum fama meritorum.

中文译文

[23] 如果在人类不可预测的遭遇和健康变动之外，又加上罪行与阴谋的结合，我们相信，哪个神即使愿意，还能帮助国家？盖乌斯·凯撒，一切你知道因战争本身的冲击（那是不可避免的）而倒下、被打碎、被压倒的东西，都必须由你一个人重新扶起：必须建立法庭，恢复信用，压制放纵，繁衍后代；一切已经松散、流失的事物，都必须用严厉法律重新约束。

[24] 在如此巨大的内战、如此强烈的情绪和武装冲突中，不论战争结局怎样，国家都会遭到震荡，失去许多尊严的装饰和稳定的保障；双方统帅在掌兵时，也都会做出许多自己穿着公民托加时本会禁止的事。这是无法避免的。但现在，所有战争创伤都必须由你医治；除你之外，没有人能为它们提供医治。

[25] 因此，我不愿听见你那句极有名、极明智的话：“无论对自然还是对荣耀，我都已活得够久。”如果你愿意，也许对自然够久；如果你喜欢，我也加上，对荣耀够久。但对最重要的祖国，肯定还不够。所以，请放下学者那种轻视死亡的智慧，不要以我们的危险为代价来作智者。我常听说，你过于频繁地说，自己为自己已活得足够。我相信；但只有当你只是为自己活着，或只是为自己出生时，我才会接受。你的功业已经把所有公民的安全和整个国家包在其中；你离完成最伟大的工程还很远，甚至连自己所想的基础都尚未奠定。你竟要不用国家的安全，而用个人心境的平静来划定生命的长度吗？再说，如果连荣耀也还不够呢？即使你是智者，也不会否认自己极渴望荣耀。

[26] 你会说：“难道我留下的还不够伟大？”对其他许多人当然足够，但对你一个人还不够。因为，只要还有更伟大的东西，已经存在的无论多大，都仍嫌不足。盖乌斯·凯撒，如果你不朽功业的结局，是击败对手后，把国家留在如今这种状态，那么请当心：你神一般的勇德，获得的赞叹可能多于荣耀；如果荣耀真正是一个人对同胞、祖国或全人类所作巨大贡献的显赫而广传的名声。

Annotation. The institutional programme is articulated through dependence on Caesar. The tension between rebuilding courts and attributing the capacity to do so to one man is a central historical feature of the speech.

Pro Ligario — what changes when pardon becomes the requested remedy

Chapter 30 · 46 BCE · Defence and appeal for Caesarian clemency

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon Press 1918 1901. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

The defence of Quintus Ligarius in 46 BCE belongs to Caesar’s settlement after civil war. Ligarius’ presence in Africa on the opposing side is admitted; the dispute concerns responsibility for remaining there and the treatment he should receive. Tubero’s own connection with the defeated side permits Cicero to question whether the accusation serves public justice or private hostility. The exact constitutional characterization of the hearing is debated, so it should not be described without qualification as an ordinary trial for treason before a permanent court. The speech itself insists on the exceptional nature of the appeal. [L1–L2.]

The opening’s mock confession is carefully constructed. Cicero pretends that his plan had depended on Caesar not knowing that Ligarius was in Africa. The irony exposes the triviality of that “discovery” and shifts attention to why he was there. His narrative begins before the war: appointment as a legate, reluctant acceptance of provincial responsibility, then the sudden outbreak of conflict. Those circumstances are offered to distinguish being caught in a political situation from deliberately creating it. They are the defence’s account, not a complete record of Ligarius’ subsequent conduct. [L1.]

L2 makes the juridical distinction explicit. Before judges, Cicero says, one normally argues that the act was not committed, the intent was absent, or the witnesses are false. Before Caesar he asks forgiveness, presenting the audience as a father rather than merely a judge. This is more than ornamental flattery: the requested remedy is pardon despite acknowledged error, rather than an adjudication that no wrong occurred. Yet Cicero has not abandoned all factual argument. He has supplied facts that make clemency appear justified and asks Caesar to evaluate the relationships and grief of those interceding. [L2.]

Historically, the speech reveals how former opponents seek re-entry into political and personal life under the victor’s discretion. Its appeal to shared error also limits the prosecutor’s moral separation from the accused. The famous later story that Cicero’s eloquence moved Caesar is a biographical tradition and should not replace the text’s legal-political analysis. The strongest direct evidence here is Cicero’s own distinction between a forensic denial and a plea for mercy. The dossier therefore treats the work as an exceptional defence and intercession, while keeping uncertainty about its precise procedural form visible. [L1–L2.]

L1. The ironic confession and the history of presence in Africa

Source locator: Pro Ligario, §§1-3. Stable passage ID: L1.

Evidence claim C-L1: Cicero admits Ligarius’ presence in Africa while disputing the responsibility that the prosecution seeks to infer from it.

Latin

[1] novum crimen, C. Caesar, et ante hunc diem non auditum propinquus meus ad te Q. Tubero detulit, Q. Ligarium in Africa fuisse, idque C. Pansa, praestanti vir ingenio, fretus fortasse familiaritate ea quae est ei tecum ausus est confiteri. itaque quo me vertam nescio. paratus enim veneram, cum tu id neque per te scires neque audire aliunde potuisses, ut ignoratione tua ad hominis miseri salutem abuterer. sed quoniam diligentia inimici investigatum est quod latebat, confitendum est, opinor, praesertim cum meus necessarius Pansa fecerit ut id integrum iam non esset, omissaque controversia omnis oratio ad misericordiam tuam conferenda est, qua plurimi sunt conservati, cum a te non liberationem culpae, sed errati veniam impetravissent.

[2] habes igitur, Tubero, quod est accusatori maxime optandum, confitentem reum, sed tamen hoc confitentem, se in ea parte fuisse qua te, qua virum omni laude dignum, patrem tuum. itaque prius de vestro delicto confiteamini necesse est quam Ligari ullam culpam reprehendatis.

Q. enim Ligarius, cum esset nulla belli suspicio, legatus in Africam C. Considio profectus est, qua in legatione et civibus et sociis ita se probavit ut decedens Considius provincia satis facere hominibus non posset, si quemquam alium provinciae praefecisset. itaque Ligarius, cum diu recusans nihil profecisset, provinciam accepit invitus; cui sic praefuit in pace ut et civibus et sociis gratissima esset eius integritas et fides.

[3] bellum subito exarsit, quod qui erant in Africa ante audierunt geri quam parari. quo audito partim cupiditate inconsiderata, partim caeco quodam timore primo salutis, post etiam studi sui quaerebant aliquem ducem, cum Ligarius domum spectans, ad suos redire cupiens, nullo se implicari negotio passus est. interim P. Attius Varus, qui tum praetor Africam obtinuerat, Vticam venit. ad eum statim concursum est. atque ille non mediocri cupiditate adripuit imperium, si illud imperium esse potuit quod ad privatum clamore multitudinis imperitae, nullo publico consilio deferebatur.

中文译文

[1] 盖乌斯·凯撒，我的亲属昆图斯·图贝罗向你提出一项新罪状，一项今天以前从未听过的事：昆图斯·利伽里乌斯曾在阿非利加。而那位才智卓越的盖乌斯·潘萨，也许仗着同你的亲密，竟敢承认。因此，我不知道该转向哪里。我本来准备好来，想利用你不知道（你自己不知，也不可能从别处听说）这件事，挽救那个可怜人的生命。但既然敌人的勤勉已查出隐藏的事情，我想，只好承认了，尤其我的朋友潘萨已经使这件事无法再争。于是，一切争议都应放下，整个演说都应转向你的怜悯；许多人正是凭它得到保全，他们向你求得的，不是洗清过错，而是宽恕错误。

[2] 因此，图贝罗，你已得到控告者最希望的东西：一个承认事实的被告。不过，他承认的，是自己站在与你、与你那位值得一切赞扬的父亲相同的一方。所以，在责备利伽里乌斯任何过错以前，你们必须先承认自己的过错。当初，昆图斯·利伽里乌斯在毫无战争疑虑时，以盖乌斯·孔西迪乌斯副将身份前往阿非利加。在任期间，他使公民和盟友如此满意，以至于孔西迪乌斯离开行省时，如果让别人代理，便无法满足当地人的愿望。因此，利伽里乌斯长期推辞而无效之后，不情愿地接管行省；在和平时期，他治理得使公民和盟友都极为感激他的清廉与诚信。

[3] 战争突然爆发；在阿非利加的人，先听见战争已经进行，才知道它曾在准备。消息传来，有些人出于轻率的热情，有些出于盲目的恐惧，最初为了自身安全，后来为了所属党派，寻找一个领袖；而利伽里乌斯心向故乡，希望回到亲人那里，不让自己卷入任何事务。其间，曾以裁判官身份治理阿非利加的普布利乌斯·阿提乌斯·瓦鲁斯来到乌提卡，人们立刻向他聚集。他以相当强烈的野心抓住统治权：如果那种未经公共决定、由无知群众的喊声交给一个私人的权力，也能称为统治权的话。

Annotation. The confession is ironic about discovery but real about presence. The allegation that Varus’ authority lacked a public basis belongs to Cicero’s explanation of the African situation.

L2. A plea for pardon rather than a denial of the act

Source locator: Pro Ligario, §§29-32. Stable passage ID: L2.

Evidence claim C-L2: Cicero expressly turns from the posture of legal justification toward supplication for Caesar’s pardon.

Latin

[29] haec ego non dicerem, Tubero, si aut vos constantiae vestrae aut Caesarem benefici sui paeniteret. nunc quaero utrum vestras iniurias an rei publicae persequamini. si rei publicae, quid de vestra in illa causa perseverantia respondebitis? si vestras, videte ne erretis qui Caesarem vestris inimicis iratum fore putetis, cum ignoverit suis.

itaque num tibi videor in causa Ligari esse occupatus, num de eius facto dicere? quicquid dixi, ad unam summam referri volo vel humanitatis vel clementiae vel misericordiae.

[30] causas, Caesar, egi multas equidem tecum, dum te in foro tenuit ratio honorum tuorum, certe numquam hoc modo: ignoscite, iudices; erravit, lapsus est, non putavit; si umquam posthac. ad parentem sic agi solet, ad iudices: non fecit, non cogitavit; falsi testes, fictum crimen. dic te, Caesar, de facto Ligari iudicem esse; quibus in praesidiis fuerit quaere: taceo, ne haec quidem conligo, quae fortasse valerent etiam apud iudicem: legatus ante bellum profectus, relictus in pace, bello oppressus, in eo ipso non acerbus, totus animo et studio tuus. ad iudicem sic, sed ego apud parentem loquor: erravi, temere feci, paenitet; ad clementiam tuam confugio, delicti veniam peto, ut ignoscatur oro. si nemo impetravit, adroganter: si plurimi, tu idem fer opem qui spem dedisti.

[31] an sperandi de Ligario causa non erit, cum mihi apud te locus sit etiam pro altero deprecandi? quamquam nec in hac oratione spes est posita causae nec in eorum studiis qui a te pro Ligario petunt tui necessarii. vidi enim et cognovi quid maxime spectares, cum pro alicuius salute multi laborarent: causas apud te rogantium gratiosiores esse quam voltus, neque te spectare quam tuus esset necessarius is qui te oraret, sed quam illius pro quo laboraret. itaque tribuis tu quidem tuis ita multa ut mihi beatiores illi videantur interdum qui tua liberalitate fruantur quam tu ipse qui illis tam multa concedas; sed video tamen apud te, ut dixi, causas valere plus quam preces, ab eisque te moveri maxime quorum iustissimum videas dolorem in petendo.

[32] in Q. Ligario conservando multis tu quidem gratum facies necessariis tuis, sed hoc, quaeso, considera, quod soles. possum fortissimos viros, Sabinos, tibi probatissimos, totumque agrum Sabinum, florem Italiae ac robur rei publicae, proponere. Nosti optime homines. animadverte horum omnium maestitiam et dolorem; huius T. Brocchi de quo non dubito quid existimes lacrimas squaloremque ipsius et fili vides.

中文译文

[29] 图贝罗，如果你们后悔自己坚持过的立场，或凯撒后悔给你们的恩惠，我就不会说这些。现在我要问：你们追究的是自己的私怨，还是国家受到的损害？如果是国家的，你们又怎样解释自己在那一方的坚持？如果是私怨，就当心别弄错：凯撒已经宽恕自己的敌人，你们却以为他会对你们的敌人愤怒。那么，你觉得我是在专门处理利伽里乌斯的案情、讨论他的行为吗？我希望，所说的一切都归于一个总旨：仁厚、宽赦或怜悯。

[30] 凯撒，当你因追求官职而留在广场时，我确实同你一起处理过许多案件；但从未这样说过：“请原谅，审判员们；他犯错了，失足了，没有想到；如果今后再有……”人们通常这样向父亲说话；向审判员则说：“他没有做，没有打算做；证人虚假，罪状捏造。”凯撒，你若说自己是审理利伽里乌斯行为的法官，就问他在哪一方军营里吧；我沉默。我甚至不收集那些也许在审判员面前仍有效的理由：战前以副将身份出发，在和平中被留下，被战争卷入，在战争中也不残酷，全部心意与热情都向着你。向审判员是这样说；但我现在向父亲说：“我错了，轻率了，我后悔；我投奔你的宽赦，请求宽恕过失，恳求原谅。”如果从未有人求得过，这样请求便是傲慢；如果已有许多人，那么，请你这个给了希望的人，也同样给予援助。

[31] 难道利伽里乌斯没有希望的理由，而我在你面前甚至还有替别人求情的地位？不过，本案的希望并不只寄托在这篇演说，也不只寄托在那些与你亲近、为利伽里乌斯请求者的热心。我已经看见并了解，当许多人为某人的安全努力时，你最看重什么：请求者提出的理由，比他们的面孔更有分量；你不只看求你的人与你多么亲近，而是看他同自己帮助的人多么亲近。你的确给朋友很多，以至于我有时觉得，享受你慷慨的人比给予如此多恩惠的你还幸福；但正如我说的，我仍看见，在你这里理由胜过恳求，最能打动你的，是那些你看出其请求中的痛苦最为正当的人。

[32] 保全昆图斯·利伽里乌斯，你当然会使许多朋友感激。但请考虑你一向考虑的这一点。我可以向你展示那些你最认可的勇敢萨宾人，以及整个萨宾地区：意大利的精华、国家的力量。你最了解这些人。请注意他们全体的悲伤与痛苦；关于这位提图斯·布罗库斯，我不怀疑你怎样评价他，你看见他本人和儿子的眼泪与憔悴。

Annotation. The imagined speech to a father is a model of supplication, not a verbatim confession by Ligarius. Cicero distinguishes clemency from a finding that no offence occurred.

Pro rege Deiotaro — the alleged intended victim as adjudicator

Chapter 31 · 45 BCE · Royal defence before Caesar

Latin source: Albert Curtis Clark; Oxford Clarendon Press 1918 1901. Archived full text · Repository provenance.

In 45 BCE Cicero defended King Deiotarus before Caesar against an allegation that the king had planned to kill Caesar during his visit. Castor, the king’s grandson, and the royal slave Phidippus figure in the accusation. The setting is exceptional in several ways: a king is exposed to a capital accusation; he is absent; a slave accuses his master; and the person deciding the case is himself the alleged intended victim. The opening makes these difficulties explicit rather than allowing the reader to assimilate the occasion to an ordinary Roman jury trial. [DE1; speech §§5–7.]

Legally, Cicero contests both the accusation’s credibility and the conditions under which it is heard. He invokes the Roman restriction on examining a slave against his master, even under torture, and contrasts it with an unrestrained accusation by a fugitive. This appeal is part of his effort to bring familiar legal expectations into an extraordinary royal hearing. It should not be treated as proof that every ordinary evidentiary rule formally bound Caesar in precisely the same way. [DE1 §§2–3.]

The most important juridical observation is that someone judging a danger to his own life is ordinarily likely to favour himself over the accused. Cicero acknowledges the structural problem, then seeks to overcome it by praising Caesar’s exceptional fairness and concern for his public reputation. That is advocacy under personal power, not an institutional solution to the conflict. The accused’s survival depends on convincing Caesar to enact the impartiality attributed to him. [DE1 §4.]

DE2 tests the alleged plot against motive and practical consequences. A king who owed his position to Caesar and faced overwhelming retaliation would, Cicero argues, have little reason to attempt the killing. The accusation’s scene—a room of intended gifts, armed men, and a proposed visit after bathing—is then introduced for examination. These improbability arguments cannot independently prove that no plot existed. Historically, the speech reveals dependent kingship, Roman civil-war alignments, family rivalry, and the reach of the victor’s discretion. The surviving text does not record a final decision; Caesar’s subsequent death must not be used to invent one. [DE1–DE2.]

DE1. An exceptional and structurally unequal hearing

Source locator: Pro rege Deiotaro, §§1-4. Stable passage ID: DE1.

Evidence claim C-DE1: Cicero identifies the unusual conditions of pleading for a king in the house of the man against whom the alleged plot was directed.

Latin

[1] cum in omnibus causis gravioribus, C. Caesar, initio dicendi commoveri soleam vehementius quam videtur vel usus vel aetas mea postulare, tum in hac causa ita multa me perturbant ut, quantum mea fides studi mihi adferat ad salutem regis Deiotari defendendam, tantum facultatis timor detrahat. primum dico pro capite fortunisque regis, quod ipsum, etsi non iniquum est in tuo dumtaxat periculo, tamen est ita inusitatum, regem reum capitis esse, ut ante hoc tempus non sit auditum.

[2] deinde eum regem quem ornare antea cuncto cum senatu solebam pro perpetuis eius in nostram rem publicam meritis, nunc contra atrocissimum crimen cogor defendere. accedit ut accusatorum alterius crudelitate, alterius indignitate conturber. crudelis Castor, ne dicam sceleratum et impium, qui nepos avum in capitis discrimen adduxerit adulescentiaeque suae terrorem intulerit ei cuius senectutem tueri et tegere debebat, commendationemque ineuntis aetatis ab impietate et ab scelere duxerit; avi servum corruptum praemiis ad accusandum dominum impulerit, a legatorum pedibus abduxerit.

[3] fugitivi autem dominum accusantis et dominum absentem et dominum amicissimum nostrae rei publicae cum os videbam, cum verba audiebam, non tam adflictam regiam condicionem dolebam quam de fortunis communibus extimescebam. nam cum more maiorum de servo in dominum ne tormentis quidem quaeri liceat, in qua quaestione dolor elicere veram vocem possit etiam ab invito, exortus est servus qui, quem in eculeo appellare non posset, eum accuset solutus.

[4] perturbat me, C. Caesar, etiam illud interdum quod tamen, cum te penitus recognovi, timere desino: re enim iniquum est, sed tua sapientia fit aequissimum. nam dicere apud eum de facinore contra cuius vitam consilium facinoris inisse arguare, cum per se ipsum consideres, grave est; nemo enim fere est qui sui periculi iudex non sibi se aequiorem quam reo praebeat. sed tua, Caesar, praestans singularisque natura hunc mihi metum minuit. non enim tam timeo quid tu de rege Deiotaro, quam intellego quid de te ceteros velis iudicare.

中文译文

[1] 盖乌斯·凯撒，在所有较重大的案件中，开始说话时，我通常都会比自己的经验或年龄看来应有的程度更紧张；而在本案中，扰乱我的事情如此之多，以至于我的诚信给保卫德约塔鲁斯王的安全带来多少热心，恐惧就削去多少能力。首先，我是在为一位国王的生命和命运辩护；虽然仅就涉及你的危险而言，这样审理并非不公，但国王成为生命案件的被告，实在如此罕见，以前从未听说。

[2] 再者，从前我常与整个元老院一起，因为这位国王持续对我国立下功劳而给予他荣誉，如今却被迫替他反驳最可怕的罪状。又有两位控告者：一个的残酷，另一个的卑下，使我不安。卡斯托尔是残酷的（且不说罪恶、违背亲情）他身为孙子，却使祖父陷入生命危险，把自己年轻的威胁加给本该保护、扶持的老人，以不孝和罪恶作为青年生涯的起点；他用奖赏收买祖父的奴隶，推动奴隶控告主人，把他从使者脚下拉走。

[3] 当我看着一个逃亡奴隶的脸，听着他的话，而他控告的又是自己缺席的主人、我国最亲近的朋友，我与其说为王者地位受损而悲伤，不如说为我们共同的命运而恐惧。因为，依祖先习惯，即使施用刑讯，也不许向奴隶审问不利于主人的事；而在这种审问中，痛苦甚至可能从不情愿者口中逼出真话。现在却出现一个奴隶，自由地控告那个他在刑架上也不得指名控告的人。

[4] 凯撒，还有一点有时使我不安，不过，当我充分认识你之后，我便不再害怕：这件事在性质上不公平，却因你的智慧而变得极公平。因为，在一个人面前辩论一项罪行，而你被指控策划的罪行正是谋害他的生命，单就事情本身考虑，就很严重；几乎没有人会在审理自己的危险时，不使自己比被告得到更有利的对待。但你卓越、独特的天性减轻了我的恐惧。我与其说害怕你会怎样判断德约塔鲁斯王，不如说理解你希望别人怎样判断你。

Annotation. The slave-evidence rule is invoked as a normative comparison. The passage does not prove that Caesar’s extraordinary hearing was procedurally identical with a standing Republican court.

DE2. Motive, retaliation, and the alleged scene

Source locator: Pro rege Deiotaro, §§15-17. Stable passage ID: DE2.

Evidence claim C-DE2: Cicero tests the alleged ambush against the king’s behavior and the internal plausibility of the accuser’s narrative.

Latin

[15] is igitur non modo a te periculo liberatus sed etiam honore amplissimo ornatus, arguitur domi te suae interficere voluisse: quod tu, nisi eum furiosissimum iudicas, suspicari profecto non potes. ut enim omittam cuius tanti sceleris fuerit in conspectu deorum penatium necare hospitem, cuius tantae importunitatis omnium gentium atque omnis memoriae clarissimum lumen exstinguere, cuius ferocitatis victorem orbis terrae non extimescere, cuius tam inhumani et ingrati animi, a quo rex appellatus esset, in eo tyrannum inveniri—ut haec omittam, cuius tanti furoris fuit omnis reges, quorum multi erant finitimi, omnis liberos populos, omnis socios, omnis provincias, omnia denique omnium arma contra se unum excitare? quonam ille modo cum regno, cum domo, cum coniuge, cum carissimo filio distractus esset, tanto scelere non modo perfecto sed etiam cogitato?

[16] at, credo, haec homo inconsultus et temerarius non videbat. quis consideratior illo, quis tectior, quis prudentior? quamquam hoc loco Deiotarum non tam ingenio et prudentia quam fide et religione vitae defendendum puto. nota tibi est hominis probitas, C. Caesar, noti mores, nota constantia. cui porro qui modo populi Romani nomen audivit, Deiotari integritas, gravitas, virtus, fides non audita est? quod igitur facinus nec in hominem imprudentem caderet propter metum praesentis exiti, nec in facinerosum, nisi esset idem amentissimus, id vos et a viro optimo et ab homine minime stulto cogitatum esse confingitis?

[17] at quam non modo non credibiliter, sed ne suspiciose quidem! cum inquit Blucium venisses et domum regis hospitis tui devertisses, locus erat quidam in quo erant ea composita quibus te rex munerari constituerat. huc te e balneo, prius quam accumberes, ducere volebat. erant enim armati ut te interficerent in eo ipso loco conlocati. en crimen, en causa, cur regem fugitivus, dominum servus accuset. ego mehercules, Caesar, initio, cum est ad me ita causa delata, Phidippum medicum, servum regium, qui cum legatis missus esset, ab isto adulescente esse corruptum, hac sum suspicione percussus: medicum indicem subornavit; finget videlicet aliquod crimen veneni. etsi a veritate longe, tamen a consuetudine criminandi non multum res abhorrebat.

中文译文

[15] 因此，这个人不只被你解除危险，还受到最高荣誉，却被指控想在自己家中杀死你。如果你不把他看成最疯狂的人，当然不可能怀疑这一点。且不说在家神面前杀害宾客是怎样的重罪，熄灭各民族、全部历史中最明亮的光是怎样的残忍，不畏惧世界征服者是怎样的凶悍，对那个授予自己国王称号的人表现得像暴君，是怎样的忘恩与不近人情；即使把这些都放下，激起所有国王（其中许多是邻国）所有自由人民、所有盟友、所有行省，总之一切人的全部武力来反对自己一人，又是何等疯狂？如此重罪，别说完成，单是谋划，就会使他同王国、家宅、妻子和最亲爱的儿子被怎样撕裂分离？

[16] 不过，我想，这个欠考虑、鲁莽的人没有看见这些吧！谁比他更审慎、更谨密、更明智？然而，在这里，我认为保卫德约塔鲁斯，与其靠才智和审慎，不如靠他一生的诚信与敬神。凯撒，你知道他的正直，知道他的习惯，知道他的坚定。再说，只要听过罗马人民的名字，谁没有听过德约塔鲁斯的清廉、庄重、勇德和忠诚？一件连愚人也会因眼前毁灭的恐惧而不做、连罪犯也除非疯到极点才会做的事，你们竟捏造说，是一个极好、又绝不愚蠢的人谋划的？

[17] 而你们的说法，不仅不可信，甚至连足以引起怀疑都谈不上！他说：“你来到布卢基乌姆，住进你的宾友国王家里时，有一个地方，摆着国王决定送给你的礼物。他想在你洗浴后、赴宴前把你带到那里；因为那个地方已经安排了武装人员，要杀死你。”看，这就是罪状，这就是逃亡者控告国王、奴隶控告主人的案件。凯撒，赫拉克勒斯作证，当初有人这样向我说明案情：随使者派来的王室奴隶、医生菲狄普斯，被那个年轻人收买了；我立刻想到：“他收买了一个医生作告发者，当然会捏造某种投毒的罪状。”这种事虽然远离真实，至少同人们通常编造罪状的方式相去不远。

Annotation. The opening improbability argument and the reported allegation are separate voices. The passage ends as Cicero begins testing the form of the story; it does not contain an independent witness’s account of an ambush.

Supplement: fragmentary forensic speeches and the limits of reconstruction

Pro Cornelio I–II: tribunician action and the definition of maiestas

The most substantial supplementary case concerns Gaius Cornelius, tribune in 67 and defended by Cicero in 65. Here the preservation of evidence reverses the situation in the main dossier: Asconius’ later commentary survives with quotations from Cicero, while the continuous speeches he annotated do not. Asconius reports a prosecution under the lex Cornelia de maiestate, an earlier failed proceeding, a renewed accusation, senior senatorial witnesses, and a hearing before the praetor Quintus Gallius. He also says that Cicero’s advocacy over four days was collected into two speeches. That statement concerns the relationship between performance and publication; it does not authorize reconstructing the two texts in full. [Asconius, pp. 57–62 Clark, Latin text.]

The contested act was Cornelius’ own reading of his proposed law after his colleague had prevented the clerk and herald from reading it. According to Asconius, the prosecution treated this as an attack on the effectiveness of tribunician intercession. Cicero did not deny that the reading occurred; he resisted the conclusion that it diminished tribunician power. The legal issue was thus the classification and constitutional significance of an admitted action, not simply the reliability of an eyewitness. The proposed measure itself concerned exemption from laws and the respective roles of senate and people. Asconius also associates Cornelius with the requirement that praetors administer justice according to their standing edicts. These institutional details come from the commentator’s account and must remain distinguished from Cicero’s own surviving words. [Asconius, pp. 58–61 Clark.]

The first quotation below shows Cicero constructing an argument from comparison. Gabinius’ more forceful handling of opposition could be presented as serving the public good; Cornelius’ reading of a text should consequently not be criminalized as an uniquely destructive act. This does not prove that every procedural act mentioned was lawful. It exposes a defence strategy that tests consistency in the valuation of tribunician conduct. The two quotations from the second speech similarly confront Catulus with the example of his own uncle and the transfer of priestly selection away from elite co-optation. Family authority and constitutional precedent are being brought together to unsettle an adverse witness’s political judgment. [Cicero, Pro Cornelio I, quoted at Asconius pp. 71–72; II, quoted at pp. 79–80 Clark.]

The following are three separately transmitted Ciceronian fragments, each translated in full as quoted. They are shorter than the main long-context units because the surrounding speech is lost. They must not be joined into a fictitious continuous passage. The two fragments from the second speech are presented separately even though both concern Domitius: Asconius’ arrangement and references to relative position are not a surviving transcript of their connection.

FCO1. Pro Cornelio I: comparison with Gabinius

Evidence claim C-FCO1: Cicero compares Cornelius’ reading of a bill with more forceful actions by Gabinius to challenge the criminal valuation of the former.

Source: Cicero quoted by Asconius, pp. 71–72 Clark. The change of printed page has been removed from inside the sentence. Source text.

Latin

Unum tamen quod hoc ipso tr.pl. factum est praetermittendum non videtur. Neque enim maius est legere codicem, cum intercedatur, quam sitellam ipsum coram ipso intercessore deferre, nec gravius incipere ferre quam perferre, nec vehementius ostendere se laturum invito collega quam ipsi collegae magistratum abrogare, nec criminosius tribus ad legem accipiendam quam ad collegam reddendum privatum intro vocare: quae vir fortis, huius collega, A. Gabinius in re optima fecit omnia; neque cum salutem populo Romano atque omnibus gentibus finem diuturnae turpitudinis et servitutis afferret, passus est plus unius collegae sui quam universae civitatis vocem valere et voluntatem.

中文译文

不过，就在此人担任保民官时发生的一件事，似乎不应略过。在有人行使否决权时宣读法案，难道比亲自在那位否决者面前搬来抽签桶更严重吗？开始提出法案，难道比使它通过更严重吗？表示自己将不顾同僚反对而提出法案，难道比罢免那位同僚的官职更激烈吗？召集各部落前来接受法律，难道比召集他们把自己的同僚变为平民更有罪吗？所有这些事，一位勇敢的人、此人的同僚奥卢斯·加比尼乌斯，都曾为了极好的事业做过。当他给罗马人民带来安全，给所有民族结束长期屈辱和奴役时，他没有容许自己一个同僚的声音和意愿，胜过全体公民的声音和意愿。

Annotation. The sequence distinguishes reading, introducing, completing, voting, and removing a magistrate. Its comparative force depends on Cicero’s favorable account of Gabinius’ purpose; it is not a neutral catalogue of universally permissible acts. Tr.pl. abbreviates tribuno plebis in the opening construction.

FCO2. Pro Cornelio II: the adverse witness’s family precedent

Evidence claim C-FCO2: Cicero asks Catulus to evaluate Cornelius’ tribunate against the example of Catulus’ own uncle.

Source: Cicero quoted by Asconius, p. 80 Clark. Source text.

Latin

Sed si familiariter ex Q. Catulo sapientissimo viro atque humanissimo velim quaerere: utrius tandem tibi tribunatus minus probari potest, C. Corneli, an - non dicam P. Sulpici, non L. Saturnini, non Gai Gracchi, non Tiberi, neminem quem isti seditiosum existimant nominabo, sed avunculi tui, Q. Catule, clarissimi patriaeque amantissimi viri? quid mihi tandem responsurum putatis?

中文译文

但如果我想以朋友的口吻问极有智慧、极有教养的昆图斯·卡图卢斯：“究竟谁的保民官任期更不能得到你的赞同？盖乌斯·科尔内利乌斯的，还是（我不说普布利乌斯·苏尔庇基乌斯，不说卢基乌斯·萨图尔尼努斯，不说盖乌斯·格拉古，不说提比略；那些人认为煽动叛乱的人，我一个也不提）你的舅父的任期，昆图斯·卡图卢斯啊，那位极显赫、极热爱祖国的人？”你们想，他究竟会怎样回答我？

Annotation. The question puts Catulus’ respect for his relative into tension with his evaluation of Cornelius. The speaker’s list of people he “will not name” is itself a rhetorical evocation of contested popular politics.

FCO3. Pro Cornelio II: popular choice and priestly co-optation

Evidence claim C-FCO3: Cicero invokes the transfer of priestly selection from elite co-optation to the Roman people as an ironic precedent in the Cornelius defence.

Source: Cicero quoted by Asconius, pp. 79–80 Clark. A distinct quotation, not a continuation supplied for FCO2. The printed page break has been removed from inside the sentence. Source text.

Latin

Quid? avunculus tuus clarissimus vir, clarissimo patre avo maioribus, credo, silentio, favente nobilitate, nullo intercessore comparato populo Romano dedit et potentissimorum hominum conlegiis eripuit cooptandorum sacerdotum potestatem.

中文译文

那么，你的舅父呢？那位极显赫的人，父亲、祖父和祖先都极显赫的人：想必他是在一片安静中、在贵族的赞同下、在没有人为他安排否决者的情况下，把选定祭司的权力给予罗马人民，并从那些最有权势之人的祭司团手里夺走的吧！

Annotation. “想必……吧” retains the irony of credo. The fragment brings religious office into a dispute over political authority. It does not describe an uncontested constitutional reform.

Other fragmentary titles: a bounded register

These entries identify the additional forensic fragments catalogued by Tulliana; they are not substitute reconstructions or a complete catalogue of lost advocacy. Dates and identifications can be disputed. The catalogue is used here for orientation, not to manufacture missing courtroom evidence. Tulliana, fragmentary works.

Title	What can responsibly be recorded here
Pro Vareno	Homicide defence; dating disputed. The surviving material is fragmentary.
Pro Oppio I–II	Defence concerning provincial and military misconduct; the precise charges require reconstruction.
Pro Gallio	Electoral-corruption case associated with public entertainments; chronology disputed.
Pro Gabinio	Defence in a provincial-extortion prosecution; testimony and disputed fragments survive.
Pro Vatinio	Later defence of the man attacked in In Vatinium; it is a different speech and occasion.
Pro Tullio II	Separately catalogued fragmentary title; not silently merged with the transmitted text above.
Pro Milone, delivered version	Distinguished from the surviving elaborated publication; the main chapter explains this transmission problem.
Pro negotiatoribus Achaeis	Identification as an oration is disputed; excluded from the secure forensic corpus.

For these works, the absence of a long quotation in this dossier is an explicit evidence limit. A later author’s summary is not Cicero’s wording, and a short verbal fragment cannot supply the missing context. A critical edition of the fragment corpus would be necessary for a fuller fragment-by-fragment commentary. This supplement therefore leaves those textual tasks open rather than presenting an invented completion.

Technical vocabulary: working distinctions for the translations

Term	Working meaning and translation caution
ius; lex	“Law” can obscure the distinction between a body of right/legal order and a particular enactment. 法、法权、法律 or a named 法 are selected by context.
praetor; iudex; iudices	The praetor’s jurisdictional role differs from that of a civil judge or criminal jurors. 裁判官，审判员 and 审判员们 preserve that distinction where possible.
in iure; apud iudicem	Proceedings before the magistrate and before the judge; neither is simply a modern appellate stage.
formula; sponsio	A formulation authorizing a civil decision, and a formal wager/stipulatory device. 程式 and 诉讼赌约 need their particular procedural context.
interdictum	A magistrate’s order; its issue, contestation, and enforcement are distinct. 禁令 is not automatically equivalent to a modern injunction.
repetundae	Proceedings for recovery/punishment connected with official extortion; the statutory scope and remedy must be specified in each case.
ambitus; sodalicia	Electoral corruption and prohibited electoral organization; ordinary friendship, association, entertainment, and solicitation are precisely what litigants contest.
vis	Force or violence; not every use of the word identifies the statutory charge or proves its elements.
maiestas; perduellio	Offences concerning the public order and authority, with different histories and procedures; neither should be flattened into an invariant modern “treason.”
provocatio	An appeal to the people in its particular constitutional setting; not a general appeal from every judicial verdict.
caput	Life, civic standing, or status according to context; a threat to caput does not invariably mean execution.
fides; auctoritas; gratia	Trust/credit, authority/prestige, and influence/favor; they help explain the social force of evidence without functioning as identical formal legal rules.
civitas; municipium; foedus	Citizenship or community, a municipal community, and a treaty; avoid imposing a single uniform administrative status on every city.
clementia	Clemency as a victor’s disposition or exercise of power; not synonymous with a verdict of factual innocence.

Sources, reproducibility, and audit limits

Cicero, Latin speeches: individual Clark/Peterson editions in the Perseus canonical-latinLit XML. Exact work-level attribution, archived filename, repository URL, declared licence, and checksum are in the source manifest. Full normalized section text is in texts.json. The GitHub URLs identify provenance; their current live availability has not been checked one by one.
A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901): printed-page references throughout. The companion annotated overview and the user’s local scanned volume supply the procedural comparison. This is historical scholarship from 1901; the dossier does not claim to have adjudicated every subsequent controversy.
Asconius, Orationum Ciceronis quinque enarratio, ed. A. C. Clark (1907), pp. 57–81: Latin text of the Cornelius commentary. Quoted Ciceronian fragments and Asconius’ narrative are kept distinct.
Plutarch, Cicero 35: public-domain text and translation at LacusCurtius, used as later external testimony for the Milo trial and outcome, with the biographical mediation stated.
Attalus, surviving speeches index: Cicero’s speeches, used for chronological orientation. Uncertain dates are not made exact merely to produce a neat sequence.
Tulliana, fragmentary works catalogue: catalogue, used only for the bounded supplementary register above.

build_dossier.py rebuilds the unified Markdown, the HTML reading edition, the passage dataset, and the evidence ledger from the chapter files, selections, and archived section corpus. audit.json records corpus counts, exact section-range retrieval, marker coverage, translation-label agreement, and source checksum verification. These are structural and provenance checks. They do not amount to independent confirmation of Cicero’s allegations, a modern critical edition, or a complete second-person review of the Chinese translations. Evidence-ledger entries identify the principal proposition supported by each selected passage; the narrative also cites further speech sections where its context is broader than the excerpt.

Reuse: Attribution to the recorded Perseus sources and their underlying editors is retained. The Latin-derived reading dossier and Chinese translations are supplied under CC BY-SA 4.0. The public-domain ancient source texts remain public domain; the digital source files carry the licence stated by their provider.

Prepared as a scholarly working dossier. Structural and source-provenance checks are documented; independent bilingual review remains outstanding.