71

Nunc cum ipse … audeat …, homo autem … dixerit … dicat, potestis dubitare quin … iudicium reservare?: One long period that starts with a subordinate cum-clause, which falls into three segments, each with its own subjects: Verres (audeat), P. Tettius (dixerit), and C. Varro (dicat), followed by the main clause – potestis dubitare, with the judges as subjects – which in turn introduces a subordinate quin-clause, the subject of which is fortuna. autem introduces a contrast within the cum-clause, between Verres on the one hand and Tettius and Varro on the other.

homo autem … audisse dicat: in this part of the sentence Cicero introduces his two witnesses for his version of what happened at Lampsacus, P. Tettius and C. Varro. It is, of course, vital that their stories coincide, and Cicero takes care to stress that both of his informants reported exactly the same things (haec eadem). The table below illustrates how style enacts theme: Cicero has opted for a virtually identical overall design, into which he has inserted elements of variation to obviate monotony and boredom. In addition, he subtly foregrounds Varro, who has the higher rank and claims to have his information from Philodamus himself, whereas Tettius relied on hearsay he picked up in Lampsacus. (Cicero suppresses the fact that he and Varro were related: see below.) The design can be tabulated as follows:

1.Subject: homo and vir here function as virtual synonyms. Cicero may have been motivated to designate Varro vir by the *alliterative assonance; but vir is also a more distinguished designation than homo, recalling such qualities as virtus and masculine prowess.

2.Predicative attribute in the superlative (frugalissimus, ornatissimus) with further specification in the partitive genitive (ordinis sui) or the ablative of respect (omnibus rebus): both of the specifications consist of a noun (a) and an attribute (b), though in chiastic order: (a) ordinis (b) sui ~ (b) omnibus (a) rebus. In each case, the specification is designed to underscore the integrity, esteem and overall trustworthiness of the witness. Yet in line with Cicero’s policy of foregrounding Varro, in Tettius’ case his superlative ranking is confined to his ordo, whereas Varro excels in more general fashion ‘in all things’.

3/4.Relative Clause and Name in Apposition: Cicero again opts for a chiastic order: (a) relative clause + (b) name (for Tettius) ~ (b) name + (a) relative clause (for Varro) to eschew tedious uniformity while still keeping the overall design exactly identical. The same principle is on display in the relative clause: each of the two consists of exactly the same elements, i.e. relative pronoun (qui), temporal adverb (tum), indication of role or office held (accensus, militum tribunus), further specification (C. Neroni, in Asia), verb (fuit); yet the office and the further specifications are again arranged chiastically: (a) accensus (b) C. Neroni ~ (b) in Asia (a) militum tribunus. A further nuance consists in the fact that in Tettius’ case the specification is a dative that indicates lines of command, whereas in Varro’s case it is a prepositional phrase in the ablative indicating geographical location: Cicero thereby marks Tettius as more of a subordinate than Varro.

5.Indirect statement: the accusative object of the indirect statement, the decisive phrase haec eadem is exactly the same as is the overall structure; haec eadem is followed in each case by the subject accusative (se) and specification of the source (Lampsaci, ipso ex Philodamo) and the verb of the indirect statement (cognosse, audisse).⁷⁷

6.Verb: Cicero uses the same verb (dicere) that he already used in the opening segment on Verres, moving from the perfect (dixerit) to the present subjunctive (dicat). The difference in tense may be due to the fact that Tettius was called up as witness and gave his testimony during the first actio, whereas Varro seems not to have done so – yet, so Cicero now insists, he is saying exactly the same.

accensus: formed from the perfect participle of accenseo, but used as a noun: ‘an attendant, orderly’: OLD s.v. 2. The accensus was one category among the staff of a high magistrate or pro-magistrate, not dissimilar to the lictor, though limited in its function to warfare or more generally the sphere of militiae. In ancient times, they were selected from the century of the accensi velati – non-armed participants of military campaigns – but in the late republic, (pro-)magistrates tended to select them from among their own freedmen; their stipend was slightly higher than that of lictors. It was a position of considerable influence and Cicero, in a letter to his brother Quintus (Q. fr. 1.1.13), recommends the careful selection of a person suitable for the position. What accensi actually did is difficult to reconstruct: most likely they were involved in organizing and facilitating the day-to-day affairs of their superiors.⁷⁸

C. Neroni: Gaius Claudius Nero: as pro-praetor of Asia, Lampsacus fell within his jurisdiction; Cicero first mentions him at 2.1.50, as the target of envoys from Samos, who complained about Verres’ attack on the temple of Juno. His reply was that for this sort of thing, which involved a legate of the Roman people and his alleged misbehaviour, they should not come to him, but go to Rome. In the following paragraphs, he emerges as the feeble colleague of Dolabella (Verres’ direct superior), who was pro-praetor of Cilicia.

P. Tettius … dixerit – C. Varro … dicat: nothing further is known of Publius Tettius; Gaius Visellius Varro was Cicero’s consobrinus or ‘cousin-german’ (Varro’s mother, Helvia, was Cicero’s aunt); he was Cicero’s near-contemporary (c. 104 - 58 BC); like Cicero he came from Arpinum, though went to Rome early on for his training and education.⁷⁹ The distinction between past (dixerit) and present (dicat) is curious. As the second half of the paragraph makes clear, Tettius was one of Cicero’s witnesses in the actio prima; there is no indication, however, that Varro was as well. Perhaps Cicero kept him out of the proceedings deliberately to save time; or, since Tettius’ was interrupted during his testimony by a cat-calling Hortensius, he now adds him on as a ‘further voice’ to back up Tettius’ version of the events. Steel (2004) 236 n. 4 suggests that Cicero may have heard about the incident from Varro right after his return from the East and now, a decade later, puts it to good use in the trial. Conveniently, Varro got his version of the events – or so Cicero claims – straight from Philodamus; to what extent that proves anything must remain an open question.

potestis dubitare…?: a rhetorical question that demands a negative answer (‘of course not!’); Cicero often uses this bullying device when he advances a feeble argument: of course his audience was at liberty to doubt his dubious assertion.

fortuna: the goddess of caprice or happenstance, who here acts as an agent of justice – Verres’ escape from the conflagration was not due to luck (fortuna, in the sense of the Greek tuche, that is, an irrational force who distributes her favours indiscriminately without regard for merit), but foresight (fortuna, in the sense of a divine force who presides over a universe that exhibits patterns of rationality and justice): Verres was saved so that he could get his comeuppance in Rome during the present trial. The appeal to fortuna comes as a bit of a surprise, almost as a dea ex machina to help Cicero out of a tight spot in the argument, even though the inexorable workings of supernatural justice are a prevalent theme supernatural justice are a prevalent theme throughout the throughout the Verrines.⁸⁰

dicet: Cicero imagines that Verres will repeat what Hortensius said by way of a (rude) interruption in the first proceeding, when Tettius gave his evidence.

Hortensius: Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (114 – 50 BC; cos. 69) was Cicero’s formidable rival and – until Cicero dethroned him by winning his case against Verres to take his place – ‘king’ of the Roman courts. In the early part of his career (up to and including the Verrines), Cicero attacks him as a representative of the established ruling elite who abuses his influence in helping his clients; but in his late philosophica, he appreciates and honours his rival as an outstanding representive of free speech and the senatorial tradition of republican government, notably at the end of the de Oratore, the opening of the Brutus, and in the Hortensius (a dialogue that has only survived in meagre fragments).81

quo tempore … diceret: before Cicero deigns to share what it was that Hortensius brought into play he takes a detour to ridicule his opponent and proleptically discredit his objection. He portrays his adversary as so hard put to say anything at all in the face of the evidence that he grasped at every tenuous opportunity to say something – and still was forced to remain silent most of the time. Cicero thereby intimates that whatever he did say on those few occasions where he spoke up was by definition insignificant – an act of despair or a token gesture, rather than a substantial contribution to the issue at hand. In the second actio, Cicero refers frequently to Hortensius’ failure to turn the cross-examination of witnesses during the first actio to his advantage: see Ver. 2.1.151, 2.2.156, and 2.5.155.

 signi satis: signi is a partitive genitive depending on satis.

 si quid: after si, the ali- of aliquid disappears. See above § 64.

ut … scire omnes possemus nihil habuisse quod diceret: omnes is the subject of the consecutive ut-clause (‘we all’); the complementary infinitive scire introduces an indirect statement (nihil habuisse), in which the subject accusative (se, i.e. Hortensius) needs to be supplied. The *ellipsis hardly registers, given that it comes in the immediate wake of the earlier (complete) indirect statement se tacere non posse.

 hoc tum dixit, Philodamum et filium eius a C. Nerone esse damnatos: only after Cicero has thoroughly discredited Hortensius’ point does he share what it was: it turns out that C. Nero, the superior of one of Cicero’s principal witnesses, had actually condemned Philodamus and his son to death. This, of course, would seem to vindicate Verres and his version of what happened – and Cicero has a problem at his hand. He needs to explain the verdict and why it was wrong.