Et ais iūdicium esse factum tē iniūriā circumsessum esse Lampsacī, quod Philodamus cum fīliō condemnātus sit. Quid, sī doceō, sī plānum faciō teste homine nēquam, vērum ad hanc rem tamen idōneō – tē ipsō, inquam, teste docēbō tē huius circumsessiōnis tuae causam et culpam in aliōs trānstulisse, neque in eōs, quōs tū īnsimulārās, esse animadversum. Iam nihil tē iūdicium Nerōnis adiuvat. Recitā quās ad Nerōnem litterās mīsit. EPISTULA C. VERRIS AD NERONEM. “THEMISTAGORAS ET THESSALUS. . .” Themistagoram et Thessalum scrībis populum concitāsse. Quem populum? Quī tē circumsēdit, quī tē vīvum combūrere cōnātus est. Ubi hōs persequeris, ubi accūsās, ubi dēfendis iūs nōmenque lēgātī? In Philodamī iūdiciō dīcēs id āctum?
study aids
In the final three paragraphs that Cicero devotes to the Lampsacus episode, he explores another line of defence that, he claims, Verres adopted: that the guilty. . . [full essay]
Grammar and Syntax:
- What kind of construction is teste homine nequam?
Style and Theme:
- Analyse the rhetorical design of Ubi hos persequeris, ubi accusas, ubi defendis ius nomenque legati?
- Explore Cicero’s use of documentary evidence.