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 indi