74

quis enim esset … qui … ?: a rhetorical question; the imperfect subjunctive conveys the sense that the possibility of anyone, be it Roman, be it Greek, standing up for Philodamus was entirely counterfactual. The Romans kept quiet out of self-interest since they did not wish to court controversy with someone as influential as Dolabella; the Greeks since they were intimidated by Dolabella’s official power and imperial command (vi et imperio).

togatus – Graecus: Cicero again uses the generic adjective togatus to specify persons in possession of Roman citizenship. On the toga as the distinctive Roman dress see above § 73.

gratia: here ‘influence’: OLD s.v. 5c.

adponitur – qui si dixisset … posset exigere: the passive construction obfuscates who was behind the appointment, though Cicero later on in the paragraph specifies that it was Verres (idem accusatorem parasset). The syntax of the sentence qui si dixisset … exigere produces a similar effect: it remains unclear who is responsible for briefing the prosecutor that getting Philodamus sentenced to death would be to his own advantage, though, as the clause quod iste iussisset suggests, it does not seem to have been Verres.

qui si dixisset … posset exigere: an indirect statement depending on an imagined ‘he was told that’; qui is a connecting relative pronoun.

Cum haec … parasset: One long series of concessive cum-clauses; Cicero sums up the machinations on the part of Dolabella and Verres with haec cum omnia fierent and then adds the fact that someone had been killed before continuing with the corresponding tamen.

tanta contentione, tantis copiis – multi accusarent, nemo defenderet: two ablatives of instrument, enumerated *asyndetically but linked by an *anaphoric *polyptoton (tanta ~ tantis) and *alliteration; the (stylistic) coordination of effort and resources in the first cum-clause contrasts with the antithetical design in the subsequent cum-clause (multi ~ nemo; accusarent ~ defenderet).

cumque: by means of the -que Cicero distinguishes the cum-clauses that indicate the general set-up of the trial from those cum-clauses that detail the specific actions undertaken by the two main culprits, i.e. Dolabella and Verres, who are both subsumed under one cum.

cumque Dolabella cum suis praefectis pugnaret in consilio: pugnare is frequently used in the sense of ‘to contend in word or action, e.g. in a law-court’: OLD s.v. 4b. Nevertheless, Cicero’s choice of idiom gives the impression that Dolabella overdoes his efforts considerably; there is an arch touch to the finishing flourish in consilio, which is designed to surprise: an advisory group is hardly the context to manoeuvre forcefully with one’s military officers.

Verres fortunas agi suas diceret, idem testimonium diceret, idem esset in consilio, idem accusatorem parasset: four *asyndetic clauses that specify Verres’ role in all this; the rhetorical design helps to produce a most damning effect: the triple *anaphora of idem that follows upon Verres reinforces Cicero’s point that Verres dominated the trial as (self-styled) victim, witness, judge, and prosecutor all in one.

amplius pronuntiatur: for amplius in the technical juridical sense of ‘judgement reserved’ see OLD s.v. 1c. A Roman trial (actio) consisted of speeches by the prosecution and the defence, followed by a hearing (and cross-examination) of witnesses. If the jury was unable to decide after the first hearing, it could vote amplius or non liquet (a procedure known as ampliatio), necessitating a further hearing or hearings.⁸⁷ Despite the fact that everything was stacked against Philodamus, those sitting in judgement could not agree on a verdict in the first meeting and had to postpone the decision. That may indeed have been the case, but we are forced to take Cicero at his word as regards the reasons. Upon consideration, the notion that the group assembled by Nero and Dolabella was swayed to reconvene by its knowledge of Verres’ immorality sounds rather implausible.