Political Speeches (Oxford World's Classics) (12 page)

[5] So what are you claiming? That in the war against the slaves
*
it was your military skill that saved Sicily? A praiseworthy achievement, and an honourable line of argument. But which war are we talking about? I have always understood that since the war which Manius Aquillius brought to an end, there has been no slave war in Sicily. ‘No, it was in Italy.’ Certainly, and a very serious and terrible war it was too. But surely you are not trying to claim part of the credit arising from that war? Surely you do not imagine that you have a share in the glory of that victory together with Marcus Crassus or with Gnaeus Pompeius? Although I suppose it would not be beyond the scope of your shamelessness to dare to assert a claim of that kind. I suppose you prevented the slaves’ army from crossing over from Italy to Sicily.
*
Where? When? From which place? Did they try to cross on rafts, or was it on ships? I for one certainly never heard about it—although I did hear that, as a result of the courage and foresight of the valiant Marcus Crassus, the runaway slaves were prevented from lashing rafts together and crossing the strait to Messana; though that would not have needed much preventing if the slaves had actually had reason to believe that there were any forces in Sicily waiting to attack them on their arrival.

[6] ‘But when war was going on in Italy so near to Sicily, do you really imagine that Sicily was unaffected?’ And what is so surprising about that? After all, when there was war in Sicily, Italy was entirely unaffected—and Sicily is exactly the same distance from Italy as Italy is from Sicily. In any case, what are you attempting to prove
here when you talk about the proximity of the two places? That it was easy for the enemy to cross over, or that there was a likelihood of Sicily being infected by a similar outbreak? For men who had no means of obtaining ships, the way to Sicily was not merely obstructed by water, it was completely impassable: those who you claim were close to Sicily would have found it easier to make their way to the Atlantic than to reach Cape Peloris. [7] And as for being infected by a slave war, why should that relate to you any more than to all the other provincial governors? Is it because there have been slave wars in Sicily in the past?
*
But that is precisely why in that province the danger was, and is, minimal. Ever since Manius Aquillius completed his term, each governor’s regulations and edicts have stipulated that no slave is allowed to possess a weapon. I will tell you an old story, which, since it is a striking instance of severity, you have probably all heard before. When Lucius Domitius
*
was governor of Sicily, a gigantic boar was brought to him. He was very impressed, and asked who had killed it. On being told that it was somebody’s shepherd, he ordered the man to be sent for. The shepherd came as fast as he could, in all eagerness, expecting to be praised and rewarded. Domitius asked him how he had managed to kill so large an animal. The man replied that he had killed it with a hunting spear—and was immediately crucified on the governor’s order. Now that may perhaps seem rather harsh. I make no judgement; I merely observe that Domitius preferred to appear cruel in inflicting punishment rather than lax in sparing it.

[8] These regulations, then, were introduced for Sicily, and the result was that, even at the time when the whole of Italy was consumed by the Social War, the not very energetic or valiant Gaius Norbanus
*
was able to relax. Sicily could perfectly easily protect itself against any internal outbreak. The Roman businessmen there have the closest links imaginable with the Sicilians, sharing the same way of life, interests, concerns, and feelings. The Sicilians themselves have the sort of lives which depend on there being a state of peace, and they are so devoted to the empire of the Roman people that they do not in the least wish to see it made smaller or changed. Moreover, the danger of a slave war has been guarded against by the governors’ regulations and also by the strictness of individual slave-owners. So for all these reasons, there is no home-grown trouble which can possibly come from within the province itself.

[9] Well then, are no slave risings, no conspiracies said to have taken place in Sicily during Verres’ governorship? Certainly nothing that came to the notice of the senate and people of Rome, nothing that Verres sent an official letter to Rome about. And yet I have a suspicion that in some places in Sicily the slaves did indeed begin to revolt. I know this not so much from direct evidence as from what Verres himself did, and from his decrees. And please note the lack of malice in what I am about to say: I am actually going to bring forward and narrate matters which he himself would like to be aired,
*
and of which you have not so far been informed.

[10] In the district of Triocala, a place which at an earlier date
*
was held by runaway slaves, the slaves of a Sicilian called Leonidas were suspected of plotting a rising. This was reported to Verres. On his order the men who had been named were immediately and quite properly arrested and taken to Lilybaeum. Their owner was summoned to appear in court, and they were tried and convicted. So what happened next? What do you suppose? You will be expecting to hear, perhaps, of some act of theft or looting.
*
Don’t expect the story to be the same every time. When there is a threat of war, how can there be any opportunity for stealing? Even if the situation had offered any prospect of this, the chance had been missed. Verres could have taken some money from Leonidas when he summoned him to appear.
*
There was some room for bargaining (no novelty in that) to prevent the case coming to court; or if it had already gone to court, he could have arranged their acquittal. But seeing the slaves had actually been convicted, how could there possibly be any profit? They would have to be led off for punishment: that was unavoidable. Their conviction had been witnessed by the members of the council, it had been witnessed by the public records, it had been witnessed by the fine citizens of Lilybaeum, it had been witnessed by the very large and highly respected community of Roman citizens there. There was nothing for it; they must be led off. Accordingly they were led off and tied to the post.
*
[11] Even now, gentlemen, you seem to be looking to me to find out what happened, as you are well aware that Verres never did anything without some gain to himself, some plunder. But what could be done in this type of situation? Choose whatever heinous crime you fancy; I shall still surprise each one of you. These men, who had been convicted of the crime of conspiracy, who had been handed over for execution, who had been
tied to the post, suddenly, in front of many thousands of onlookers, were set free and returned to their owner from Triocala.

What can you say in answer to this, you lunatic, except to answer a question which I am not going to put to you (a question which, in so scandalous a situation, it would not be proper to ask if there were any doubt—and in this case there is none): what you got out of this, how much it was, and how you obtained it? But I will save you from having to explain all this and free you from your anxiety about this. After all, I hardly need be afraid of the possibility of anyone accepting that you undertook for no payment the sort of crime which no one except yourself could ever be induced to undertake for any payment! I say not a word about your methods of thieving and plundering: the topic I am now covering is this great reputation you enjoy as a general.

[12] So what do you say, you fine guardian and defender of the province? You discovered that those slaves wanted to take up arms and start a war in Sicily, and you passed judgement in accordance with the verdict of your council. Then, when they had been handed over for punishment in the traditional fashion, did you dare to pluck them from the jaws of death and set them free—intending, no doubt, that the cross you had had set up for convicted slaves should be reserved instead for unconvicted Roman citizens? States that are on the brink of annihilation, with everything already lost, generally adopt the lethal expedient of pardoning their convicts, releasing their prisoners, recalling their exiles, and reversing their judicial decisions. When these things happen, everyone realizes that the country is heading for destruction; when such things take place, everyone concludes that there is no hope left. [13] Wherever this has happened, the effect has been to release people of the popular or the aristocratic faction
*
from execution or exile. But the release was never granted by the same people who passed sentence; nor did it follow on immediately after the passing of the sentence; nor did it apply in the case of people convicted of attacking the lives and property of the entire community. This action, on the other hand, is unprecedented, the sort of action which will be believed more from the character of the man who perpetrated it than from the action itself. The men set free were slaves; they were released by the same man who had passed sentence on them; he released them immediately, when their punishment was already under way; and the slaves were convicted of a crime which threatened the life-blood of all free people.

[14] What a brilliant general, to be compared no longer with the valiant Manius Aquillius, but with Paullus, Scipio, and Marius!
*
What foresight he displayed in his province’s hour of fear and danger! When he saw that the slaves in Sicily were restless because of the slave war in Italy, what fear he inspired in them to deter them from rising themselves! He ordered their arrest. Who would not be afraid at that? He summoned their owner to court. What could be more terrifying to a slave? He made a pronouncement of ‘guilty’—and thus, through the pain and death of a few individuals, extinguished, or so it appeared, the flame that had arisen. And then what happened? The lash, the burning torches, and those ultimate measures which serve to punish those convicted and deter the rest—torture and the cross. From all such punishments the men were set free. Who can doubt that he must have crushed the slaves’ minds with the greatest imaginable terror, when they saw the governor so obliging as to spare the lives of slaves who had been convicted of the crime of conspiracy, with the executioner himself brokering the deal?

[15] And did you not do precisely the same in the case of Aristodamus of Apollonia? And in the case of Leo of Imachara? And that rising of the slaves and sudden fear of a war, did it prompt you to a belated diligence in protecting your province, or to a new means of making dishonest profit? Eumenidas of Halicyae, a man of rank and reputation, had an agent—a slave worth a great deal of money—who at your instigation was accused of conspiracy. But you took sixty thousand sesterces from his owner, a transaction which has just been explained in the sworn evidence of Eumenidas himself. From the Roman equestrian Gaius Matrinius,
*
while he was away at Rome, you took six hundred thousand sesterces, because you said you had grounds for suspecting his agents and shepherds. This has been stated by Matrinius’ representative Lucius Flavius,
*
who paid the money over to you; it has been stated by Matrinius himself; and the same statement is made by the illustrious Gnaeus Lentulus,
*
the censor. He it was who, being concerned for Matrinius, sent you a letter at the beginning of the affair, and arranged for others to write as well.

[16] And can I pass over Apollonius Geminus of Panhormus, the son of Diocles? Can anything be cited that is more notorious throughout Sicily, anything more shocking, anything more blatant?
When Verres arrived at Panhormus, he ordered Apollonius to be sent for and a legal summons to be issued against him; there was a large crowd of people present, including a substantial number of the Roman citizens who were resident there. People immediately started saying, ‘I was surprised that a man as wealthy as Apollonius remained unharmed by our governor for so long. Verres has thought up some scheme or other and has put it into action. Certainly a rich man would never be summoned by him like this unless he had some motive.’ Everyone was waiting eagerly to discover what was going on, when Apollonius suddenly came running in, out of breath and accompanied by his young son. (Apollonius’ aged father had been bedridden for some time.)
*
[17] Verres then gave the name of a slave who he said was in charge of Apollonius’ sheep, and said that he had formed a conspiracy and had incited the slaves on other estates to revolt. There was in fact no such slave on Apollonius’ estate. Nevertheless, Verres gave orders that he be produced instantly. Apollonius declared that he did not own any slave whatsoever with that name. Then Verres ordered that Apollonius be dragged from the court and thrown into prison. As he was being led away, he protested that he, poor man, had done nothing wrong, that he had committed no crime, that all his money was invested, and that he currently had no ready cash. It was while he was actually making this declaration, in front of a large crowd of witnesses, so that anyone could appreciate that he was being treated with such terrible injustice precisely because he had not paid up—it was, I repeat, exactly at that moment, while he was shouting about his money, that he was cast into chains.

[18] Please observe the consistency of this governor—a governor who, on this subject, is not merely being defended as a governor of average abilities, but is being lauded as a brilliant general. At a time when people were worried about the possibility of a slave war, he inflicted on slave-owners who had not been convicted the very punishment from which he exempted slaves who had been convicted. Apollonius was an extremely rich man, who stood to lose his substantial wealth if the slaves were to start a war in Sicily, yet on the pretext of a slave war Verres put him in chains without a trial. The slaves, on the other hand, he had, on the advice of his council, found guilty of conspiring to start a war, yet without the support of his council and on his own initiative he had exempted them from all their punishments.

[19] Now, suppose Apollonius did indeed commit some crime which warranted his punishment. Am I then going to treat this matter as if Verres were committing a crime, or doing something of which we would disapprove, if he handed down a verdict that was a little too harsh? I will not be so critical as that; I will not make use of the normal practice of prosecutors whereby if someone has shown clemency, he is accused of being remiss, but if he has punished with severity, it is treated as evidence of his cruelty. I will not argue on those lines. I will accept the verdicts you have passed; I will support your decisions to any extent that you want me to. But as soon as you yourself start overturning the verdicts you have made, stop criticizing me. For I contend, as I have every right to, that a man who has pronounced himself guilty ought also to be pronounced guilty by the votes of sworn jurors.