M. Tullius Cicero, Orations: for Quintius, Sextus Roscius, Quintus Roscius, against Quintus Caecilius, and against Verres (ed. C. D. Yonge)

Table of Contents

Go to

THE SPEECH FOR Q. ROSCIUS THE ACTOR

THE ARGUMENT

After the last speech which was delivered A. U. C. 674, Cicero went to Athens, where he remained eighteen months, and after his return he did not employ himself at first as an advocate but devoted himself rather to philosophical studies. But in the third year, A. U. C. 677, when his friend Roscius, the comic actor, was interested in a cause, he returned to the bar. The subject of the action in which this speech was this: A man of the name of Fannius Chaerea had articled a young slave to Roscius on condition that Roscius was to teach him the art of acting, and that he and Fannius were afterwards to share his earnings. The slave was afterwards killed and Roscius brought an action against the man who had killed him, Quintus Flavius by name and received as damages a farm worth 100,000 sesterces--for his half share in the slave, according to his own account, but as the full value of the slave according to Fannius but the fact was that Fannius also had brought an action against Flavius and had recovered similar damages. Fannius sued Roscius for 50,000 sesterces, as his share of the damages which he (Roscius) had received from Flavius, suppressing the fact of his having obtained a similar sum himself. The beginning of this speech is lost, and also a considerable portion at the end.

I. ... He, forsooth, excellent man, and of singular integrity, endeavours in his own cause to bring forward his account-books as witnesses. Men are accustomed to say.... ¹ Did I endeavour to corrupt such a man as that, so as to induce him to make a false entrance for my sake? I am waiting till Chaerea uses this argument. Was I able to induce this hand to be full of falsehood, and these fingers to make a false entry? But if he produces his accounts, Roscius will also produce his. [2]  These words will appear in the books of the one, but not in those of the other. Why should you trust one rather than the other? Oh, would he ever have written it if he had not borne this expense by his authority? No, says the other, would he not have written it if he had given the authority? For just as it is discreditable to put down what is not owed, so it is dishonest not to put down what you do owe. For his accounts are just as much condemned who omits to make an entry of the truth, as his who puts down what is false. But see now to what, relying on the abundance and cogency of my arguments, I am now coming. If Caius Fannius produces in his own behalf his accounts of money received and paid, written at his own pleasure, I do not object to your giving your decision in his favour. [3]  What brother would show so much indulgence to a brother, what father to a son, as to consider whatever he entered in this manner proof of a fact? Oh, Roscius will ratify it. Produce your books; what you were convinced of, he will be convinced of; what was approved of by you, will be approved of by him. A little while ago we demanded the accounts of Marcus Perperna, and of Publius Saturius. Now, O Caius Fannius Chaerea, we demand your accounts alone, and we do not object to the action being decided by them--Why then do you not produce them? [4]  Does he not keep accounts? Indeed he does most carefully. Does he not enter small matters in his books? Indeed be does everything. Is this a small and trifling sum? It is 100,000 sesterces. How is it that such an extraordinary sum us omitted?--how is it that a hundred thousand sesterces, received and expended, are not down in the books? Oh, ye immortal gods that there should be any one endued with such audacity, as to dare to demand a sum which he is afraid to enter in his account-books; not to hesitate to swear before the court to what, when not on his oath, he scrupled to put on paper; to endeavour to persuade another of what he is unable to make out to his own satisfaction.

¹ There is a hiatus here so that though there are some words more in the Latin text, which I have omitted, it is impossible to make an sense of them.

This text is based on the following book(s):
M. Tullius Cicero. The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, literally translated by C. D. Yonge. London. George Bell & Sons. 1903.
OCLC: 4709897