3.2 In Verrem - Classicalia

Understanding In Verrem: The Speech That Made Cicero

In 70 BC, Marcus Tullius Cicero stood up in a Roman courtroom to prosecute Gaius Verres for extortion. What happened next changed Roman politics forever. This wasn't just another trial - it was a DEFINING MOMENT for the Republic, exposing systemic corruption and establishing Cicero as the greatest orator of his age.

The speech we're studying is called IN VERREM I - the "First Action" against Verres. It's the opening speech of the prosecution, delivered BEFORE any witnesses were called.

What You Need to Know About This Trial

The Crime: Verres was accused of stealing 40 MILLION SESTERCES from Sicily during his governorship (73-71 BC). To put that in context - that's enough money to pay 40,000 soldiers for a YEAR.

The Stakes: This wasn't just about one corrupt governor. It was about whether the senatorial class could police itself, or whether Rome's entire judicial system was rotten.

Chapters 1-4: The Opening Attack

Chapter 1: Divine Opportunity

"The thing which was desired most of all, O Judges, and which alone was thought to be the foremost factor in allaying the unpopularity of your order and the dishonour of the courts, seems, at this crucial time for the republic, to have been offered to and bestowed upon you; not by human counsel, but almost by divine influence. For now, a belief has become established, which is both destructive for the republic, and dangerous for you. The rumour is spreading, not only among the Roman people, but also among foreign nations, that in these courts as they exist now, no wealthy man, however guilty he may be, can possibly be convicted."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

ETHOS - Divine Authority

"Not by human counsel, but almost by divine influence": Cicero immediately elevates the trial beyond ordinary human affairs. This isn't just another case - it's a DIVINE OPPORTUNITY for the Senate to restore its reputation. By calling it divinely ordained, he makes voting guilty feel like a sacred duty.

ANTITHESIS - Human vs Divine

"Not by human counsel, but...by divine influence": Creates stark contrast between mortal planning and divine intervention. This opposition elevates importance - not politicians arranging this trial, but the GODS themselves. Makes resistance to conviction seem like defying divine will.

PATHOS - Shame and Pressure

"The rumour is spreading, not only among the Roman people, but also among foreign nations": Creates international dimension. Not just Romans watching - the WHOLE WORLD is judging whether Rome's courts work. Enormously increases pressure on jury.

TRICOLON - Three-Part Structure

"The unpopularity of your order and the dishonour of the courts...offered to and bestowed upon you": Notice the pattern of three throughout: three problems (unpopularity, dishonour, belief), three audiences (judges, Romans, foreigners), three-part opening structure. Creates rhythm and completeness.

LOGOS - The Central Problem

"No wealthy man, however guilty he may be, can possibly be convicted": Identifies the core issue. The public believes wealth > justice. If jury acquits Verres, they prove this belief correct. Sets up the binary: convict and disprove the rumour, or acquit and confirm Rome is corrupt.

HYPERBOLE - "No Wealthy Man"

"No wealthy man...can possibly be convicted": Absolute statement - NO wealthy man, not "few" or "rarely". "Possibly" reinforces impossibility. This extreme claim challenges jury: prove it wrong or confirm it's true. No middle ground.

PASSIVE VOICE - Strategic Use

"Has become established...is spreading": Passive constructions make the belief seem organic, not Cicero's accusation. He's just REPORTING what everyone thinks. This makes it harder to dismiss as biased prosecution.

📌 Why Were Courts Unpopular?

In 81 BC, dictator Sulla made ONLY SENATORS eligible for jury service. This created a corrupt system where wealthy senators judged other wealthy senators - and repeatedly let them off. The public was furious.

Chapter 2: The Embezzler Before You

"Now, in this time of crisis for your order and your judgements, when there are men prepared to try to kindle the unpopularity of the senate even further with speeches and the proposal of new laws, Gaius Verres has been brought to trial as a criminal. He is a man already condemned in everyone's opinion by his life and actions, yet acquitted by the magnitude of his wealth, according to his own hope and public boast. I have undertaken this case as prosecutor, O Judges, with the greatest good will and expectation of the Roman people; not so that I might increase the unpopularity of the senate, but so that I might relieve it from the dishonour which I share with it. For I have brought a man before you whose case will enable you to restore the lost reputation of your courts, return to favour with the people of Rome, and satisfy foreign nations: a man, the embezzler of public funds, the abuser of Asia and Pamphyliae, the thief of the city's rights, and the shame and ruin of the province of Sicily."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

ANTITHESIS - Condemned vs Acquitted

"Already condemned in everyone's opinion...yet acquitted by the magnitude of his wealth": Creates shocking contrast. Public opinion has convicted him. His wealth will acquit him. This makes Verres' boasting about buying acquittal particularly offensive - he KNOWS he's guilty and openly says money will save him.

ASYNDETON - Rapid-Fire Crimes

"The embezzler of public funds, the abuser of Asia and Pamphyliae, the thief of the city's rights, and the shame and ruin of the province of Sicily": Five damning descriptions with minimal connectors. Creates overwhelming accumulation. Crimes pile up relentlessly, making guilt seem obvious.

CLIMAX - Escalating Severity

Notice progression: "embezzler" (financial) → "abuser" (violent) → "thief" (property) → "shame" (moral) → "ruin" (total destruction). Each crime WORSE than the last. Builds to "ruin" - complete devastation of entire province.

ETHOS - Cicero's Noble Motivation

"Not so that I might increase the unpopularity of the senate, but so that I might relieve it": Positions himself as Senate's defender, not attacker. He's trying to SAVE the Senate's reputation by cleaning house. This is crucial - he's not the enemy, Verres is.

POLYPTOTON - Repetition with Variation

"Unpopularity...unpopularity" / "dishonour...dishonour": Same words repeated in different forms creates emphasis through echo. Hammers home the reputational crisis facing the Senate.

TRICOLON - Three Actions

"Restore the lost reputation...return to favour...satisfy foreign nations": Three parallel infinitives showing what conviction achieves: (1) internal credibility (2) domestic support (3) international respect. Comprehensive reform through one verdict.

ALLITERATION - "Shame and Ruin"

The pairing creates memorable rhythm. In Latin this would be even more pronounced. Makes the final accusation stick in memory.

📌 "Your Order" - What Does This Mean?

The Senatorial Order: Not just "the Senate" as a building, but the entire social CLASS of senators - about 600 men who formed Rome's governing elite.

Why "Order" Matters: Romans divided society into distinct "orders" (ordines): senators at top, then equestrians (knights), then plebeians. Each had specific rights and responsibilities.

Cicero's Strategy: By saying "the dishonour which I share with it," Cicero (a senator himself) positions himself as insider trying to save the Senate from within, not external critic attacking it.

📌 Asia and Pamphylia

Roman provinces in modern Turkey. Verres served as legate there in the 80s BC and was notorious for theft even then. Cicero reminds the jury Verres has been a criminal for DECADES - Sicily wasn't an aberration, it was his career.

Chapter 3: The Binary Choice

"If you come to a decision about this man rightly and conscientiously, then that authority which ought to remain within you, will still cling to you; but if that man's enormous riches shatter the sanctity and honesty of the courts, I would have at least achieved this: it would be clear that it was the administration of justice in the republic that was lacking, rather than a criminal for the judges, or a prosecutor for the criminal."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

LOGOS - Binary Structure

Two paths clearly delineated:

Path A (Convict): "That authority...will still cling to you" = keep your power, prove your worth
Path B (Acquit): "Administration of justice...was lacking" = admit system is broken, lose authority

CONDITIONAL SENTENCES - Creating Inevitability

"If you come to a decision...then that authority": If-then structure makes consequences feel inevitable, not theoretical. Not "might" or "could" - simple future "will." Makes jury's choice deterministic: action A produces result A, action B produces result B.

PATHOS - The Historical Threat

"I would have at least achieved this": Even if they acquit, Cicero "wins" by exposing them. Makes acquittal a Pyrrhic victory for defence - they save Verres but destroy Senate's credibility permanently. Cicero will document their failure for history.

LITOTES - Understatement for Effect

"I would have at least achieved this": "At least" suggests minimal achievement, but what follows is DEVASTATING - proving the Republic lacks justice. Understating makes the actual claim hit harder.

CHIASMUS - Reversed Structure

"Not...a criminal for the judges, or a prosecutor for the criminal": Reverses order (criminal-judges / prosecutor-criminal) creating balanced opposition. Shows both elements of justice present - what's missing is the system to connect them.

METONYMY - "Riches" for "Bribery"

"That man's enormous riches shatter the sanctity": Uses "riches" to mean "bribes paid from riches." More dignified than saying "his bribes" but everyone understands the implication.

📌 Why This Binary Choice Works

Political Context: In 70 BC, there was active debate about WHO should serve on juries. Since Sulla's reforms (81 BC), ONLY senators could be jurors. Many Romans wanted mixed juries including equestrians.

The Threat: The Lex Aurelia (actually passed later in 70 BC) would indeed reform juries to include senators, equestrians, AND tribuni aerarii. Cicero is warning: prove you can judge fairly, or lose the exclusive right.

Why It's Personal: For senators, losing jury monopoly = losing massive political power. They could no longer protect each other from prosecution. This trial determines whether they keep that power.

"If I may indeed confess the truth about myself to you, O Judges, although many traps were laid for me by Gaius Verres, both by land and sea, which I avoided partly through my own diligence, and partly through the conscientiousness and service of my friends, I still never seemed to be in such danger, nor have I ever been so afraid, as I am now, here, in this very court of law."

🔍 The Personal Stakes

ETHOS - Vulnerability Creates Sympathy

"I have never been so afraid, as I am now, here, in this very court": Paradox - he's more afraid in court than when Verres tried to kill him. Why? Because courts can be corrupted. Physical danger he can handle. Corrupt justice terrifies him. This makes the stakes feel enormous.

ANAPHORA - "By" Repetition

"By land and sea...by my own diligence...by the conscientiousness": Multiple "by" phrases create accumulation showing both threats faced and resources used. Balances danger with capability.

PRAETERITIO - Mentioning by Not Mentioning

"If I may indeed confess the truth": Pretends to hesitate about revealing personal information, which makes revelation seem more authentic and reluctant. Actually draws MORE attention to his danger.

CLIMAX - Escalating Fear

"Never seemed to be in such danger...never been so afraid...here, in this very court": Builds from abstract "danger" to emotional "afraid" to specific location "in this very court." Final phrase pins fear to immediate present moment.

📌 "Traps...By Land and Sea"

What Happened: During Cicero's 50-day investigation in Sicily, Verres apparently tried to have him killed. Ancient sources suggest ambushes were planned both during his land travel and sea voyage back to Rome.

Why Mention It: Shows Verres is DESPERATE - willing to commit murder to avoid trial. Also makes Cicero seem brave and determined - risked his life to gather evidence.

The Paradox: Cicero survived assassination attempts but fears the COURTROOM more. Why? Because you can fight assassins, but how do you fight a rigged jury? Corruption is more dangerous than violence.

Chapter 4: Verres' Own Damning Words

"Neither the anticipation of my prosecution, nor an assembly of this great size (although I am greatly disturbed by these circumstances) influences me so much as that man's wicked plans, which he endeavours to plot simultaneously against me, against you, Manius Glabrio, and against the Roman people; he plots against the allies, against foreign nations, against the senate and against the very name of senator; the man who frequently says that 'he who has only stolen enough for himself should be afraid, but this man has stolen enough to satisfy everyone; nothing is so holy that it cannot be corrupted, nor anything so fortified that it cannot be conquered by money.'"

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

CHARACTERISATION - Verres' Own Philosophy

"Nothing is so holy that it cannot be corrupted, nor anything so fortified that it cannot be conquered by money": This is allegedly what VERRES HIMSELF says. Whether true or not, it becomes the trial's defining statement. The jury must prove him wrong by convicting despite his wealth.

ANAPHORA - "Against"

Notice the repetition: "against me, against you...against the Roman people...against the allies...against foreign nations...against the senate...against the very name of senator." Seven times "against" - showing Verres is at war with EVERYTHING Rome stands for.

PARALLELISM - Balanced Structure

"Nothing is so holy...nor anything so fortified": Two parallel negative constructions with identical structure. Creates memorable maxim. Makes Verres' philosophy sound systematic and calculated, not random greed.

ANTITHESIS - Holy vs Money, Fortified vs Conquered

Sacred vs profane ("holy"/"money"), military vs financial ("fortified"/"conquered"). Shows money defeating BOTH religious and physical defences. Total corruption of all value systems.

HYPERBOLE - Universal Corruption

"Nothing...nor anything": Absolute universals. Not "most things" or "many things" - NOTHING and ANYTHING. Presents Verres' philosophy as totalizing corruption. Makes him seem like force of pure evil.

PATHOS - Audience Inclusion

"Against you, Manius Glabrio, and against the Roman people": Names the judge personally before naming the people. Makes attack immediate and personal to those in courtroom, not abstract future threat.

Chapters 5-13: Verres' Criminal History and Manipulation

Chapter 5: Audacious Stupidity

"But if he was as subtle in his actions as he is bold in his endeavours, perhaps he would have eventually escaped our notice somehow. It so happens, however, that a remarkable stupidity has been joined to his incredible audacity. For, just as he was overt in his monetary thefts, so in his hope of corrupting the judges he has made his plans and endeavours clear to everyone."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

CHARACTERISATION - Dangerous but Stupid

"Remarkable stupidity has been joined to his incredible audacity": Devastating combination. He's BOLD enough to be dangerous but STUPID enough to get caught. Makes him seem both threatening and pathetic - unworthy of protection.

OXYMORON - Contradictory Pairing

"Remarkable stupidity...incredible audacity": You'd expect boldness to come with cunning. Instead: boldness + stupidity. This unusual combination makes Verres seem like a unique type of criminal - recklessly confident in his corruption.

CONDITIONAL CONTRARY TO FACT

"If he was as subtle...perhaps he would have eventually escaped": Hypothetical past condition implies he is NOT subtle. Creates certainty about his stupidity by presenting alternative as impossible fantasy.

PARALLELISM - Mirror Structure

"Just as he was overt in his monetary thefts, so in his hope of corrupting the judges": "Just as...so" creates balanced comparison. One crime (theft) mirrors another (bribery). Same brazen approach to both.

"He has made his plans...clear to everyone": He's not even hiding his corruption. This openness suggests contempt for the system and confidence that money trumps everything.

LITOTES - Understatement

"Perhaps he would have eventually escaped our notice somehow": "Perhaps" and "somehow" suggest vague possibility, making actual reality (he definitely got caught) seem inevitable and certain.

Chapters 6-7: The Sham Inquiry

"Therefore, when I had requested a very short amount of time in which to conduct my investigation in Sicily, he found a man who would require two days less to make inquiries in Achaia – not that he would do the same with the diligence and industry that I have accomplished by my labour, and constant vigilance, by day and night. For that Achaean inquisitor did not even arrive at Brundisium, whereas, in just fifty days, I attended to the whole of Sicily in order to examine the records and injustices of all of the tribes and private individuals. Therefore it was clear to everyone that a man was being sought by this inquisitor, not so that he might be brought to trial as a criminal, but so that he might occupy the time designated for my prosecution."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

LOGOS - Absurd Comparison

"That Achaean inquisitor did not even arrive at Brundisium": Devastating detail. The fake prosecutor didn't even LEAVE ITALY to investigate Achaia. Makes the conspiracy comically obvious while being deadly serious about the corruption.

ETHOS - Cicero's Diligence

"In just fifty days, I attended to the whole of Sicily": Contrast between fake prosecutor (didn't bother) and Cicero (spent 50 days gathering evidence). Shows his commitment and thoroughness.

SPECIFIC DETAIL - Numbers Create Credibility

"Two days less...fifty days": Precise numbers make claims verifiable. Not vague "short time" - EXACTLY 50 days for Cicero, EXACTLY 2 days less for fake prosecutor. Specificity suggests truth.

TRICOLON - Triple Description of Effort

"Diligence and industry...labour, and constant vigilance, by day and night": Three ways of describing hard work (diligence/industry, labour, vigilance) with "day and night" emphasizing 24-hour commitment. Overwhelming image of effort.

GEOGRAPHIC CONTRAST

"Did not even arrive at Brundisium...I attended to the whole of Sicily": Brundisium = first Italian port to Greece (didn't even start journey). Sicily = entire province (completed whole investigation). Maximum contrast.

SYLLOGISM - Logical Conclusion

"Therefore it was clear to everyone": Presents conclusion as logical necessity. Evidence so obvious that inference is inescapable: fake prosecutor = delaying tactic, not genuine competition.

📌 The Divinatio

A preliminary hearing to determine who had the right to prosecute. Verres tried to get his own man appointed (who would deliberately lose). Cicero won this hearing, earning the right to prosecute.

Chapters 10-11: The Trail of Betrayals

"And, to say nothing of the dishonours and disgraces of his youth, what else happened in his quaestorship (the first step of honour); except that Gnaeus Carbo was robbed of public money by his own quaestor? That the consul was plundered and betrayed? His army deserted? His province abandoned? The religious duties and rites assigned to him by lot were violated?"

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS + ASYNDETON

Question expects answer "NOTHING ELSE" - Verres' ENTIRE quaestorship was criminal. Six crimes listed with minimal connectors, making them feel rapid and relentless.

ANAPHORA - "That" Repetition

"That Gnaeus Carbo was robbed...That the consul was plundered...His army deserted...His province abandoned": Four "that" clauses (or parallel constructions) creating drumbeat of accusations. Each crime a separate charge building overwhelming case.

PRAETERITIO - Passing Over to Emphasize

"And, to say nothing of the dishonours and disgraces of his youth": Claims not to mention them while mentioning them. Makes audience curious: if his QUAESTORSHIP was this bad, how bad was his youth? Suggests even worse crimes omitted.

SPECIFIC NAMING - Creating Accountability

"Gnaeus Carbo...Gnaeus Dolabella": Names specific victims. Not anonymous "a consul" - CARBO and DOLABELLA. Real people, verifiable facts. Makes crimes concrete and traceable.

CLIMAX - Building Betrayal

"Not only deserted him at a time of peril, but even attacked and betrayed": Three escalating actions: deserted (passive abandonment) → attacked (active hostility) → betrayed (ultimate treachery). Each worse than previous.

IRONY - Official Duty Violated

"The first step of honour": Quaestorship was entry-level magistracy, supposed beginning of honorable career. Verres turned it into crime spree. Ironic contrast between expectation (honor) and reality (theft/betrayal).

📌 Gnaeus Carbo

Consul in 85-84 BC during civil war. Verres was his quaestor (financial officer) but stole the army's pay chest and defected to Sulla. This was Verres' FIRST major crime - showing he's been corrupt from the very start of his career.

📌 Understanding Roman Magistracies - The Cursus Honorum

The Career Ladder: Romans had a strict order of offices (cursus honorum = "course of honors"):

Quaestor (age 30+) - Financial officer, entry-level magistracy. What Verres was under Carbo.
Aedile (age 36+) - In charge of public buildings, games, grain supply. What Cicero was running for.
Praetor (age 39+) - Senior magistrate, often commanded armies or governed provinces. What Verres became in Sicily.
Consul (age 42+) - Highest office, two elected annually. What Hortensius was becoming.

Why This Matters: Verres corrupted his FIRST office (quaestor) by stealing from his own commander. Instead of being punished, he kept climbing the ladder. Shows systemic failure to stop corruption early.

Chapter 13: Citizens Killed Like Slaves

"When this man was praetor, the Sicilians held neither their own laws, nor the decrees of our senate, nor common rights...Roman citizens were tortured and killed like slaves; the greatest criminals were acquitted in court through bribery; the most honest men with the greatest integrity were prosecuted while absent, condemned and exiled without the chance to speak in their defence."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

PATHOS - Maximum Horror

"Roman citizens were tortured and killed like slaves": MOST POWERFUL accusation. Roman citizenship guaranteed protection from arbitrary punishment. Treating citizens "like slaves" violated the core of Roman identity. This would SHOCK the jury more than any financial crime.

TRICOLON - Three Negatives

"Neither their own laws, nor the decrees of our senate, nor common rights": Three parallel negations. Verres destroyed LOCAL law (Sicilian), ROMAN law (Senate decrees), and UNIVERSAL law (common rights). Total legal annihilation.

ANTITHESIS - Greatest vs Most Honest

"The greatest criminals were acquitted...the most honest men...were condemned": Complete inversion of justice. Worst people go free, best people punished. Shows system functioning in REVERSE - not just broken but perverted.

PASSIVE VOICE - Emphasizing Victims

"Were tortured and killed...were acquitted...were prosecuted...condemned and exiled": Passive constructions focus on what HAPPENED TO people rather than who did it. Makes victims central, emphasizes their suffering and helplessness.

ASYNDETON - Rapid Accumulation

Minimal connectors between crimes creates breathless piling up: no property safe, money taken, allies betrayed, citizens killed, criminals freed, honest condemned, harbors exposed, soldiers starved, fleets destroyed. Overwhelming catalogue.

HYPERBOLE - Universal Corruption

"No legal decision was concluded for three years, unless it was in accordance with his will": Absolute statement - NO decision, EVERY decision controlled. Makes Verres sound like dictator, not governor.

📌 Provocatio - The Right to Appeal

Roman citizens had the right of PROVOCATIO - appeal to Rome rather than face execution in a province. Governors could execute non-citizens, but killing a citizen without trial was MURDER.

Chapters 14-21: The Conspiracy Revealed

Chapters 16-17: Schemes of Bribery

"When he first returned from the province, he made an attempt to bribe this court with large amounts of money; and to that end, he continued to uphold this proposal until the appointment of judges was concluded. After the judges had been appointed, the whole proposal to bribe the courts was abandoned; since by drawing lots for them, the fortune of the Roman people had defeated his hopes, and in rejecting the judges, my diligence had defeated his impudence."

"All of a sudden, that man, previously so cheerful and happy, became so low and downcast that he seemed to be condemned, not only by the Roman people, but even by himself. But look! Suddenly, in these few days, with the consular comitia having taken place, he has returned to the same old plan with even more money, and the same plots are being prepared through those same people against your reputation and against everyone's fortunes."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

PATHOS - Dramatic Reversal

"So low and downcast...But look! Suddenly...returned to the same old plan": Creates mini-drama. Verres was DESPAIRING (after honest judges selected), but became CONFIDENT again (after consular elections). Why? Because Hortensius was elected consul - giving Verres hope that connections will save him.

VIVID PRESENT - Creating Immediacy

"But look! Suddenly": "Look!" addresses audience directly, pulling them into moment. Present tense ("he has returned") makes past events feel current and dramatic. Theater rather than history.

ANTITHESIS - Before and After

"Previously so cheerful and happy...so low and downcast": Maximum emotional swing from one extreme to opposite. Makes Verres' confidence seem dependent entirely on political manipulation, not innocence.

PERSONIFICATION - Fortune as Agent

"The fortune of the Roman people had defeated his hopes": Fortune (luck/divine will) working FOR Rome, AGAINST Verres. Implies gods favor prosecution - his initial defeat was divinely ordained.

PARALLELISM - Cicero's Two Victories

"The fortune of the Roman people had defeated his hopes, and...my diligence had defeated his impudence": Two defeats, two sources: divine luck + human effort. Gods AND Cicero working together against corruption.

METAPHOR - "Returned to the Same Old Plan"

"With even more money": Suggests escalation. Not just resuming corruption - INTENSIFYING it. Like addict needing higher doses. Shows desperation and dependence on bribery.

Chapters 18-19: The Infamous Congratulation

"He sees Verres in the crowd by the arch of Fabius itself; he calls to the man and with a loud voice, congratulates him. He does not say a single word to Hortensius himself, who had been made consul, or to those of his friends who were present, when he stops to speak to this man, who embraces him and bids him to forget about his worries. 'I tell you,' he says, 'that you have been acquitted by today's comitia.'"

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

VIVID NARRATION - Cinematic Detail

Gaius Curio saw Hortensius' election and immediately congratulated VERRES instead of the actual consul-elect. The implication: Hortensius becoming consul means Verres will be acquitted through political manipulation. This is the SMOKING GUN.

DIRECT SPEECH - Dramatic Quotation

"'I tell you,' he says, 'that you have been acquitted by today's comitia.'": Exact words preserved. Not paraphrase - QUOTE. Makes scene feel authentic, like courtroom testimony. Audience can "hear" Curio speaking.

SPECIFIC LOCATION - "By the Arch of Fabius"

Names exact spot where this happened. Geographic specificity suggests truth - Cicero knows where witnesses saw it. Can be verified or contradicted. Adds credibility through detail.

CONTRASTING ACTIONS

"He does not say a single word to Hortensius...when he stops to speak to this man": Ignores consul-elect completely, congratulates DEFENDANT. Bizarre behavior that screams conspiracy. Normal protocol: congratulate winner. Actual action: congratulate criminal.

WITNESS VALIDATION

"So many most honourable men had heard this": Multiple witnesses, all "honourable" (= senators). Not Cicero's claim - verified by jury's peers. Harder to dismiss as prosecution bias.

REPORTING SPREAD OF NEWS

"It was immediately reported to me; or, indeed, anyone who saw me made a point of telling me": Information came unsolicited from multiple sources. Shows story was SO shocking people felt compelled to share it. Organic spread = authenticity.

📌 Gaius Curio

Prominent senator. Cicero claims Curio spoke "openly and plainly in such a large assembly" - meaning lots of witnesses. Whether it happened exactly this way or Cicero is embellishing, the story is DEVASTATING.

📌 The Consular Comitia - Understanding Roman Elections

What It Was: The Comitia Centuriata, an assembly of Roman citizens organized by wealth classes (centuries), elected consuls annually.

When: Elections held in July, but winners didn't take office until January 1st of next year. This created a 5-6 month gap.

The Problem: Hortensius was elected consul for 69 BC in July 70 BC. Verres' trial is happening August 70 BC. If defense can delay just 5 months into January 69 BC, Hortensius will be consul with massive power to interfere.

Why Congratulate Verres?: Because Hortensius (his lawyer) winning consulship = Verres effectively immune from conviction. Curio understands the political math immediately.

Chapter 21: The Metellus Celebration

"On those very days when the praetors elect were dividing their duties by lot, and the role of holding trials regarding the extortion of money fell to Marcus Metellus, I was informed that he was receiving such congratulations that he also sent boys to his house to announce the news to his wife."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

SPECIFIC DETAIL - Domestic Scene

Marcus Metellus was assigned extortion trials STARTING JANUARY 1ST. Verres is so confident this will save him that Metellus sends messengers home to celebrate. The detail ("boys to his house") makes it feel authentic and damning.

TEMPORAL PRECISION

"On those very days": Pinpoints exact timing. Not vague "once" or "sometime" - "those very days" when duties were divided. Specificity suggests Cicero has informants present at these moments.

PASSIVE VOICE - Emphasizing Information Receipt

"I was informed": Passive construction. Doesn't claim direct witness - admits secondhand information. This INCREASES credibility (honest about sources) while protecting informants.

HYPERBOLE - "Such Congratulations"

"Receiving such congratulations": "Such" implies extraordinary, excessive congratulations. Not normal well-wishes - something unusual enough to send messengers home about. Suggests guilty knowledge.

DOMESTIC DETAIL - The Wife

"Sent boys to his house to announce the news to his wife": Intimate domestic detail. Wife needs to know immediately. Makes it seem like family celebration of corrupt victory. Personal detail humanizes the conspiracy while making it more scandalous.

📌 The Metellus Family

THREE Metelli brothers coordinating to protect Verres: (1) Quintus Metellus - Consul-elect for 69 BC (2) Marcus Metellus - Will become extortion court judge (3) Lucius Metellus - Previous Sicily governor. All three working together!

📌 "Dividing Their Duties by Lot" - How Praetors Got Assignments

The System: Rome elected 8 praetors annually. After election, they drew lots (sortitio) to determine which court or province each would oversee.

The Courts: Different praetors presided over different types of cases: murder (quaestio de sicariis), treason (maiestas), extortion (repetundae), etc.

The Luck Factor: Assignment was supposedly random - you couldn't choose your court. Marcus Metellus "happened" to draw extortion court... or did he?

Why Celebrate: Getting the extortion court meant Marcus Metellus would preside over ALL extortion trials from January 1st, 69 BC onward - including Verres' case if it's delayed. This "lucky" draw saves Verres. The celebration suggests it might not have been luck at all.

Chapters 26-37: Revolutionary Trial Strategy

Chapter 26: Strategic Manoeuvring

📌 Understanding Roman Tribes and Electoral Bribery

The 35 Tribes: Roman citizens were organized into 35 voting tribes (4 urban, 31 rural). In elections for aedile, each tribe cast one collective vote.

How Bribery Worked: You didn't need to bribe ALL citizens - just influential members (divisores = "distributors") within each tribe who could deliver their tribe's vote.

"Ten Bags" (Chapter 22): Each bag probably contained money for one or more tribes. Ten bags = substantial attempt to buy multiple tribes' support against Cicero.

Why Target Cicero's Election: If Cicero LOSES the aedileship, he's humiliated and weakened. A defeated, disgraced prosecutor is less credible and less politically dangerous. Verres trying to destroy Cicero's career to protect his own.

"After I was freed from that great anxiety concerning my candidacy, I began, with a much emptier and more open mind, to think and do nothing else unless it was related to this trial. I found, O judges, that these plans were set up, and those men began to carry them out, so that they might steer protract matters, by whatever means possible, and end up pleading their case before Marcus Metellus as praetor."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

LOGOS - Exposing the Conspiracy

"Protract matters, by whatever means possible": Defence wants delay until January 1st when Metellus (friendly to Verres) becomes judge. If trial delays past New Year, everything changes: new judge (Metellus - corrupt), new consuls (with power to intimidate), new jurors (can be bribed fresh).

EMPHATIC PHRASE - "By Whatever Means Possible"

Shows no limits to defense strategy. Not "reasonable delays" or "legitimate postponements" - WHATEVER means. Implies willingness to use any tactic, legal or otherwise. Desperation and lack of scruple.

TRICOLON - Three Advantages Listed

"Firstly, that Marcus Metellus was most friendly to them; secondly, that not only would Hortensius be consul but Quintus Metellus too": Numbered list (firstly/secondly) creates systematic exposition of conspiracy elements. Makes plotting seem organized and premeditated.

METAPHOR - "Emptier and More Open Mind"

"With a much emptier and more open mind": Mental space as physical space. Freed from anxiety (emptier), able to focus (more open). Suggests total dedication now possible - no distractions remain.

SPECIFIC NAMING - Multiple Metelli

Marcus Metellus, Quintus Metellus - keeps naming family members. Repetition of surname emphasizes dynastic conspiracy. One family controlling multiple power centers.

Chapters 27-29: Judicial Intimidation

"The other consul elect sent for the Sicilians; some came, on account of the fact that Lucius Metellus had been praetor in Sicily. To them he speaks in this manner: that he is the consul, that one of his brothers has obtained Sicily as his province; that the other is to be judge in all prosecutions for extortion; and that care had been taken in many ways to ensure that there was no way Verres would be harmed."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

PATHOS - Systematic Intimidation

Quintus Metellus SUMMONED Cicero's witnesses and threatened them. The three brothers control EVERYTHING: consul (highest office), extortion judge, Sicily governor. Message: testify against Verres and suffer when we take power.

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS - Direct Accusation

"Did you think that I would remain silent on matters as important as these?": Questions Metellus directly (second person "you"). Not reporting to jury - CONFRONTING conspirator. Makes speech feel like direct challenge, courtroom drama.

TRICOLON - Three Family Members

"He is the consul...one of his brothers has obtained Sicily...the other is to be judge": Three power positions, three Metelli. Creates sense of total control - every relevant office held by one family. Inescapable web of influence.

DIRECT ADDRESS - "I Ask You, Metellus"

Names him directly. Not abstract "the consul" - YOU, METELLUS. Personal accusation. Forces him to either defend actions or remain silent (looking guilty). Puts him on trial alongside Verres.

ANTITHESIS - What You Would/Wouldn't Do

"What would you do for an innocent man...when for this most corrupt man, entirely unconnected to you": Contrasts hypothetical (innocent relative) with reality (corrupt stranger). Shows Metellus doing MORE for corrupt Verres than he would for innocent family. Absurd inversion of priorities.

CHARACTERIZATION - "Timid and Oppressed Men"

"The Sicilians, timid and oppressed men": Emphasizes vulnerability of witnesses. Not powerful Romans - frightened provincials. Makes intimidation seem especially cowardly and unjust.

Chapters 30-31: Counting the Days

"Today is the Nones of August. You began your meeting at the eighth hour. This day they do not even count. There are ten days before the votive games which Gnaeus Pompeius is going to celebrate. These games will take fifteen days, and then the Roman games will follow immediately. And so, when almost forty days have passed, only then will they think that they will have to respond to the things which we will have said, and they think that both by making speeches and excuses they will easily draw out the process until the games of Victory."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

LOGOS - Calendar Calculation

Cicero COUNTS THE DAYS. Between games and festivals, they can easily push past January 1st. He makes this MATHEMATICALLY CLEAR - showing he's thought it through and understands their scheme perfectly.

SPECIFIC DATES - Creating Urgency

"Today is the Nones of August": Exact date anchors speech in specific moment. Not vague "now" - precise "Nones of August." Makes timeline concrete and verifiable. Jury can count days themselves.

MATHEMATICAL PRECISION

"Ten days...fifteen days...almost forty days": Specific numbers accumulate. 10 + 15 = 25, plus more games = ~40. Shows Cicero has calculated exactly how defense plans to burn time. Exposes mathematical certainty of delay strategy.

TRICOLON - Three Sets of Games

"Votive games...Roman games...games of Victory...Plebeian games": Multiple festival names create rhythm while showing how Rome's calendar enables corruption. Sacred festivals weaponized for criminal delay.

METONYMY - "The Charge Has Grown Weak and Cold"

Accusation personified as living thing that can weaken/cool. Time = enemy of justice. Fresh evidence powerful, old evidence forgotten. Makes delay seem like deliberate strategy to kill case through neglect.

CONDITIONAL TRUST

"If I lacked confidence in the honesty of that man, I would not have retained him as a judge": Backhanded compliment. Says he trusts Metellus NOW (as judge under oath) but implies wouldn't trust him LATER (as praetor without oath). Subtle threat disguised as praise.

📌 Why Trials Stopped for Games

Roman LUDI (games) were religious festivals when courts closed. Major festivals in autumn created significant delays that could push proceedings into the new year.

📌 The January 1st Deadline - Why It Matters So Much

Complete Reset: On January 1st (the Kalends), ALL magistrates changed. New consuls took office, new praetors, new judges.

What Changes for Verres:

Judge: Current praetor Glabrio (honest) → Marcus Metellus (friendly to Verres)
Consuls: Current consuls (neutral) → Hortensius + Q. Metellus (both protecting Verres)
Jury: Many current jurors become magistrates, replaced by new senators (who can be bribed fresh)

The Window: Trial is August 70 BC. If defense delays 5 months to January 69 BC, EVERYTHING favors Verres. Cicero has a tiny window to get conviction before reset.

Modern Equivalent: Imagine a trial where if defendant can delay 5 months, he gets a new judge who's his friend, new jury he can bribe, and the prosecutors get replaced. That's what's at stake.

Chapter 33: The Revolutionary Procedure

📌 Normal Roman Trial Procedure - What Cicero Is Breaking

Traditional Format:

Prosecution Speech (Actio Prima): Could last DAYS. Prosecutor lays out all charges in elaborate rhetorical speech.
Defense Speech: Equally long. Defense responds to each charge with counter-arguments.
Witness Testimony: AFTER speeches, witnesses called to corroborate claims.
More Speeches: Both sides get additional speeches responding to testimony.
Verdict: Finally, jury votes.

Timeline: This process normally took WEEKS or MONTHS - perfect for Verres' delay strategy.

Cicero's Innovation: Skip directly to witnesses. Call them FIRST, before defense can prepare responses. Make testimony the center, not rhetoric.

Why It's Brilliant: (1) Defeats delay (trial finishes in DAYS not months) (2) Neutralizes Hortensius (can't dazzle jury before facts established) (3) Forces defense to react to evidence rather than control narrative.

The Risk: Completely unconventional. Could backfire if jury thinks he's being unfair or if witnesses perform poorly.

"I reserve for another time that fruit of praise which will be learnt from a long uninterrupted speech; for now I prosecute this man with written records, witnesses, and the letters and authorities of public and private individuals. This whole thing will be between you and me, Hortensius. I will speak openly. If I thought that you would contend with me in speaking and refuting the charges made in this case, I too would put a great deal of work into my prosecution setting out the charges elaborately; but now, since you have decided to combat me not in accordance with your nature but rather wickedly, on his conditions and stipulations, it is necessary for me to oppose the that sort of approach with another strategy."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

INNOVATIVE PROCEDURE - The Masterstroke

THE MASTERSTROKE: Cicero announces he's SKIPPING traditional long speeches. He'll call witnesses IMMEDIATELY. This defeats delay strategy, prevents Hortensius responding with eloquence, forces quick verdict before January 1st. BRILLIANT!

PRAETERITIO - Postponing Glory

"I reserve for another time that fruit of praise which will be learnt from a long uninterrupted speech": Claims not to seek praise while mentioning he COULD earn it. Acknowledges his oratorical skill while appearing to sacrifice it for justice. Humble-brag.

TRICOLON - Three Types of Evidence

"Written records, witnesses, and the letters and authorities of public and private individuals": Three categories of proof. Not just testimony (could be bought) - DOCUMENTS (harder to forge). Comprehensive, multi-source evidence.

DIRECT ADDRESS - "Between You and Me, Hortensius"

"This whole thing will be between you and me, Hortensius": Makes it personal duel. Not State vs Verres - CICERO vs HORTENSIUS. Frames as battle of equals, challenge between advocates. Makes Hortensius' eventual silence more significant.

CONDITIONAL SENTENCE - Exposing Strategy

"If I thought that you would contend with me in speaking...I too would put a great deal of work into...setting out the charges elaborately": Implies Hortensius WON'T argue honestly, so Cicero must adapt. Accuses opponent of bad faith BEFORE opponent has acted.

ANTITHESIS - His Nature vs His Conditions

"Not in accordance with your nature but rather wickedly, on his conditions": Distinguishes Hortensius the man (honorable) from Hortensius the hired gun (corrupt). Offers escape route: abandon client, reclaim honor.

Chapters 39-47: Exposing Judicial Corruption

Chapter 40: Verres' Three-Year Plan

📌 "Coloured Tablets" - The Bribery Detection System

The Problem: When judges were bribed to vote a certain way, how did the briber know they actually voted as paid?

The Solution: Give bribed judges DIFFERENT COLORED voting tablets from honest judges. After voting, count the colored tablets to see if bribed judges kept their word.

What This Reveals: Bribery was so systematic they had developed quality control mechanisms. Treating corruption like a business transaction with verification.

Why Cicero Mentions It: Shows corruption wasn't occasional weakness - it was ORGANIZED CRIME with procedures and accountability (among criminals!).

"When I am able to show clearly, and with many witnesses, that Gaius Verres often said in Sicily, while many people were listening, that he had a powerful friend in whose confidence he was plundering his province; that he was not seeking money for himself alone, but that he had distributed the proceeds of his three year Sicilian praetorship in such a way: he could say that he had done splendidly if he gained for himself the profits of just one year; the profits of the second year were given to his patrons and defenders, and he reserved the whole of the third year, the most fruitful and profitable, for the judges."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

STRUCTURE - Systematic Evil

THE MOST FAMOUS QUOTE. Year 1: Steal for himself. Year 2: Steal for lawyers/patrons. Year 3: Steal for jury bribery. This makes corruption SYSTEMATIC and CALCULATED - he PLANNED to buy acquittal from day one!

TRICOLON - Three-Year Division

"The profits of just one year...the second year...the whole of the third year": Perfect symmetrical division: self / allies / judges. Each year accounted for. Shows criminal business plan, not opportunistic theft.

CLIMAX - Escalating Allocation

Notice progression: ONE year for self → SECOND year for patrons → WHOLE third year (most fruitful) for judges. Largest portion reserved for bribery. Shows where real danger lies - buying verdict, not enrichment.

SUPERLATIVES - "Most Fruitful and Profitable"

"The third year, the most fruitful and profitable": BEST year saved for judges. Not leftovers - CHOICEST portion. Shows judges get premium treatment. Implies massive bribes planned.

REPORTED SPEECH - "Verres Often Said"

"While many people were listening": Public statements, multiple witnesses. Not secret confession - OPEN BOASTING. Shows Verres' contempt for law and confidence money will protect him.

CHARACTERIZATION - "Powerful Friend"

"He had a powerful friend in whose confidence he was plundering": Doesn't name friend (yet). Creates mystery while implying high-level protection. Suggests corruption extends beyond Verres to unnamed elite.

Chapter 41: The Bitter Irony

"Consequently, it came to my mind to say this (which I had mentioned recently before Manius Glabrio, at the time when the judges were being rejected and I perceived that it was causing unrest amongst the Roman people): that I thought that foreign nations would send ambassadors to the Roman people to have the law of extortion repealed and trials stopped. For if there were no trials, they would think that each man would only take as much as he thought enough to satisfy himself and his family; currently because there are trials of this sort, everyone carries off as much as they need to satisfy themselves, their patrons, advocates, the praetor, and the judges. This is truly an endless sum of money."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

IRONY/PARADOX - System Makes Things Worse

THE BITTER JOKE: Extortion trials were supposed to PROTECT provinces. But trials are so corrupt that provinces would be BETTER OFF without them! Without trials: governors steal what THEY need. WITH trials: governors steal TRIPLE (for themselves, lawyers, AND judges). The system makes things WORSE!

REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM - Logical Extreme

"Foreign nations would send ambassadors...to have the law...repealed and trials stopped": Takes current situation to logical conclusion. If trials encourage MORE theft, rational response is abolishing them. Absurdity exposes system's dysfunction.

HYPOTHETICAL REASONING - "If There Were No Trials"

Constructs counterfactual scenario to prove point. WITHOUT trials = governors take X. WITH trials = governors take 3X. Mathematical proof that system counterproductive. Uses logic to demonstrate perversion.

TRICOLON - Three Recipient Categories

"Themselves, their patrons, advocates, the praetor, and the judges": Five categories of recipients (SELF, patrons, advocates, praetor, judges) but structured in three units showing expanding circles of corruption.

HYPERBOLE - "Endless Sum of Money"

"This is truly an endless sum": Infinite, unmeasurable. Not specific amount - ENDLESS. Suggests insatiable appetite, provinces can never satisfy corrupt system no matter how much they're plundered.

ANTITHESIS - Desire vs Victory

"The desire of the greediest man, but not the legal victory of the guiltiest": Can satisfy GREED (easy) but not achieve JUSTICE (impossible). Shows system serves wrong master. Money flows freely, justice remains unattainable.

Chapters 43-45: Divine Opportunity for Reform

"By the immortal gods, O Judges, seek advice and make provisions for this situation. I advise and I warn of that which I know – that this opportunity has been given to you by divine influence, so that you might liberate your whole order from hatred, unpopularity, infamy and shame."

"Finally, Gnaeus Pompeius himself, during the first speech he gave to the city as consul elect, made it clear that he would restore the power of the tribunes (which seemed to be greatly anticipated). At this point, a shout was heard and a grateful murmur spread throughout the assembly. And, when the same man had said in the same assembly that the provinces were plundered and plagued; that the law courts had become disgraceful and wicked; and that he wished to look into and make provisions for this situation; then indeed the Roman people showed their assent not with a shout, but with the greatest uproar."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - Pompey's Endorsement

Pompey - Rome's GREATEST GENERAL and consul-elect - publicly condemned judicial corruption. Crowd went WILD with approval. Cicero shows: the PEOPLE and most POWERFUL MAN both demand reform. Jury can't ignore this.

RELIGIOUS INVOCATION - "By the Immortal Gods"

"By the immortal gods, O Judges": Oath formula. Invokes divine witnesses to underline seriousness. Not casual advice - SACRED COMMAND witnessed by gods themselves.

QUADRUPLET - Four Problems

"Hatred, unpopularity, infamy and shame": Four synonyms for disgrace. Repetition through variation hammers home reputational crisis. Each word adds slightly different shade of dishonor.

TRICOLON - Three Negatives

"No severity believed to exist...nor any concerns for religion; in short, there are thought to be no courts at all": Three-part denial building to climax: no severity → no religion → no courts. Final claim most extreme - courts exist physically but not functionally.

CONTRAST - Shout vs Uproar

"Not with a shout, but with the greatest uproar": Distinguishes types of crowd response. Shout = approval. Uproar = ENTHUSIASM. Pompey's corruption remarks got STRONGER reaction than tribune restoration. Shows what people care about most.

ANAPHORA - "That" Repetition in Pompey's Speech

"That the provinces were plundered...that the law courts had become disgraceful...that he wished to look into": Three "that" clauses reporting Pompey's words creates authoritative summary. Structured reporting makes claims seem factual, not opinion.

📌 Pompey the Great

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus - military hero who conquered vast territories. Consul-elect for 70 BC. His support for reform gave it MASSIVE legitimacy.

📌 Pompey the Great - Why His Opinion Matters

Who He Was: Rome's greatest living general. Conquered pirates, defeated Sertorius in Spain, cleaned up after Spartacus' slave revolt. Massive popular support.

His Political Position (70 BC): Just elected consul despite not meeting age requirements (too young) or holding prerequisite offices. Senate gave him special dispensation because he was TOO POWERFUL to refuse.

Tribune Power Restoration: Tribunes had power to veto Senate, propose laws directly to people, and prosecute senators. Sulla had stripped these powers in 81 BC. Pompey promised to restore them - hugely popular move.

Why Jury Must Listen: Pompey is:

More popular than any senator
About to become consul (highest authority)
Publicly demanding judicial reform
Has military might to back demands

The Threat: If Senate doesn't clean up courts voluntarily, Pompey (with popular support) will FORCE reform. This trial is Senate's last chance to prove self-regulation works.

Chapter 47: The Ultimate Test

"This is a trial in which you will be judging the defendant, and the Roman people will be judging you. In the case of this man, it will be established whether very guilty and very rich men are able to be condemned when senators are acting as judges. Moreover, he is a criminal of such a sort, that there is nothing in his character except for the worst crimes and excessive riches. Thus, if he is acquitted, no other opinion of him will be held except that which is most shameful."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

REVERSAL - The Double Trial

THE ULTIMATE THREAT: "You will judge...and people will judge YOU." Cicero makes judges aware they're being watched. This isn't private decision - it's PUBLIC TEST of whether senators can be trusted with power.

ANTITHESIS - Judging and Being Judged

"You will be judging the defendant, and the Roman people will be judging you": Perfect chiastic balance. You → defendant / people → you. Creates mirror effect - whatever you do to him, people do to you. Justice or condemnation flows both ways.

LITOTES - "Not Very Guilty"

"Whether very guilty and very rich men are able to be condemned": Two emphatic "very" modifiers. Not "guilty" or "rich" - VERY guilty, VERY rich. Extremes. Tests whether MAXIMUM guilt can overcome MAXIMUM wealth.

HYPERBOLE - "Nothing in His Character"

"There is nothing in his character except for the worst crimes and excessive riches": Total absence of virtue. NOTHING but crime and money. Eliminates any possibility of mixed character. Makes him pure embodiment of corruption.

CONDITIONAL CERTAINTY

"If he is acquitted, no other opinion...except that which is most shameful": Removes interpretive freedom. Can't claim "insufficient evidence" or "benefit of doubt." Acquittal HAS one meaning only: corruption. No neutral ground exists.

PRAETERITIO - Listing While Eliminating

"Will not be seen to be lessened by influence, by family, by some things being done correctly or even by some other tolerable vice": Lists possible mitigating factors while denying their existence. Shows Cicero has considered every excuse and rejected them all.

Chapters 48-56: The Final Appeal

Chapters 48-49: Transparency and Reform

"In short, I will conduct the case by acting in this way, O Judges: I will bring forward matters so well known, so well supported by witnesses, so important, and so evident that nobody will try to use his influence to obtain from you the acquittal of this man. I have a reliable path and method by which I am able to investigate and follow all the attempts made by those men. The matter will be conducted by me so that not only the ears, but even the eyes of the Roman people will seem to be present at all their meetings."

"You are now able to remove and destroy the shame and infamy which, over the years, have been attached to your order. It is understood among all men, that since these trials which we now have were established, there is yet to have been a jury of this splendour and this dignity. But if anything here is to be done incorrectly, all men will think not that other more suitable judges should be appointed from that same order (which is impossible) but that another order entirely must be established for administering judicial affairs."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

FLATTERY + THREAT - Carrot and Stick

CARROT AND STICK: Flatters current jury ("splendour and dignity") while WARNING this is their last chance. If they fail, senators lose ALL judicial power - not reformed but REPLACED entirely.

QUADRUPLET - Four Qualities of Evidence

"So well known, so well supported by witnesses, so important, and so evident": Four "so" modifiers create drumbeat of certainty. Evidence is: (1) notorious (2) corroborated (3) significant (4) obvious. No room for doubt.

SENSORY IMAGERY - Eyes AND Ears

"Not only the ears, but even the eyes of the Roman people will seem to be present": Multi-sensory transparency. Not just hearing about justice - SEEING it happen. Makes proceedings theatrical, public, undeniable.

SUPERLATIVES - "Yet to Have Been"

"There is yet to have been a jury of this splendour and this dignity": Best jury ever assembled. Sets impossibly high standard. Flatters while creating pressure - with great distinction comes great responsibility.

CONDITIONAL THREAT - "If Anything Is Done Incorrectly"

Euphemistic phrasing. "Anything...incorrectly" = acquitting Verres. Indirect language makes threat more elegant but no less clear. Consequences follow automatically, not from Cicero's malice.

IMPOSSIBILITY CLAIM

"Which is impossible": Parenthetical insertion. Finding better judges from senatorial order = IMPOSSIBLE. Therefore only alternative is different order entirely. Logical necessity, not threat.

📌 The Lex Aurelia - Jury Reform of 70 BC

What It Was: Law passed later in 70 BC (same year as Verres trial) that reformed jury composition.

Old System (Since Sulla, 81 BC): Juries = 100% senators. Rich senators judging rich senators. Predictable corruption.

New System (Lex Aurelia): Juries split three ways:

1/3 senators
1/3 equites (equestrians - wealthy non-senators)
1/3 tribuni aerarii (treasury officials)

The Logic: Mixed juries harder to bribe entirely. Different classes watch each other. Creates checks and balances.

Why Cicero References It: Law being debated DURING this trial. Verres trial is effectively ARGUMENT FOR reform. If senators acquit Verres, they prove reform necessary. Cicero is warning: prove you can self-regulate or lose power entirely.

Irony: Lex Aurelia passed BECAUSE of corruption Verres trial exposed, but passed AFTER Verres fled. Trial both caused and happened too late to prevent reform.

Chapter 50: Sacred Oath

"So, firstly, I beg from the immortal gods this same thing which I seem to hope for myself: that in this trial, O Judges, nobody is found to be wicked other than that man who has long since been known to be so. Secondly, if there are many wicked men, I promise this to you, O Judges, and to the Roman people; by Hercules, my life shall fail before my strength and perseverance in prosecuting their wickedness."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

HEROIC COMMITMENT - Sacred Oath

"By Hercules" - invoking hero-god. Cicero vows to pursue corruption until DEATH. This isn't just a trial - it's a CRUSADE. He's tireless defender of justice, willing to sacrifice everything.

RELIGIOUS INVOCATION - "By Hercules"

"By Hercules, my life shall fail before my strength": Swears by Hercules (hero of impossible labors). Implies Cicero's task equally Herculean. Divine witness to oath makes breaking it sacrilege. Stakes his life on promise.

HYPERBOLE - Life vs Strength

"My life shall fail before my strength and perseverance": Impossible claim - when life fails, strength fails. But hyperbole shows commitment. Would need to kill him to stop his prosecution. Ultimate dedication.

DUAL STRUCTURE - Two Prayers

"Firstly, I beg...Secondly, if there are": Two-part structure. First prayer (optimistic): only Verres is wicked. Second promise (realistic): if others are wicked, will prosecute them too. Covers all contingencies.

LITOTES - "Nobody...Other Than"

"Nobody is found to be wicked other than that man": Hopeful but doubting phrasing. "I hope it's just him, but..." Prepares for wider prosecution while seeming to hope it's unnecessary. Plants seed for future action.

Chapters 55-56: The Innovative Approach

📌 Manius Acilius Glabrio - The Judge

Who He Was: Praetor in charge of the extortion court (quaestio de repetundis) in 70 BC. Chosen by lot to preside over Verres trial.

His Father: Manius Acilius Glabrio (the Elder) had passed the Lex Acilia (around 122 BC), which established the permanent extortion court. This is THE LAW that created the court judging Verres.

Why Cicero Appeals to Him Personally: Your FATHER created this court to protect provinces from corrupt governors. If you let Verres go, you dishonor your father's legacy. Personal and family pressure on top of public pressure.

Why He Matters: Glabrio was NOT part of the pro-Verres faction. He's running an honest trial. Cicero trusts him - which is why speed is essential. Once Metellus takes over (January 1st), honest judgment disappears.

"I will adopt this course, not a new one, but one that has been adopted before by those who are now the leading men of our state; that is, to call the witnesses immediately. What you will recognise as new from me, O judges, is that I will arrange my witnesses so that the whole accusation is explained, and that when (by examining my witnesses) I have strengthened my argument and speech, then I will fit my witnesses to the accusation so that there will be no difference between the customary method of prosecution and this new one, except that according to the usual method, when everything has been said, only then are the witnesses called. Here, they will be produced as each individual matter is reached, so that for the other side also, there is the same opportunity for cross-examination, arguing, and making speeches."

"This will be the first act of the prosecution. We say that Gaius Verres has done many licentious deeds, many cruel ones against Roman citizens and allies, and many wicked acts against gods and men; but especially that he has stolen four hundred thousand sesterces from Sicily contrary to the laws. We shall make this clear to you with witnesses, with public records, and with private authorities, so that you might decide that even if we had space and we had spent empty days speaking at our convenience, there was still no need for a long oration. I have spoken."

🔍 Rhetorical Analysis

SUMMARY STATEMENT - Conclusion

Final statement is both modest (don't need fancy speeches) and threatening (evidence is that strong). Then: "I have spoken" (DIXI). Two words. No flourish - just stark announcement evidence phase begins. Ancient mic drop.

PRAETERITIO - "Not a New One"

"I will adopt this course, not a new one, but one that has been adopted before": Claims precedent while innovating. Makes revolutionary procedure seem traditional and respectable. Borrows authority from "leading men of our state."

WHAT YOU WILL RECOGNISE AS NEW

"What you will recognise as new from me": After claiming it's not new, admits innovation. Resolves contradiction: CALLING witnesses immediately = old. ORGANIZING them by topic = new. Clever distinction allows both tradition and innovation.

TRICOLON - Three Types of Proof

"With witnesses, with public records, and with private authorities": Three evidence categories. Not just people (can lie) - DOCUMENTS (permanent, verifiable). Comprehensive multi-source corroboration.

CONDITIONAL CONCESSION

"So that you might decide that even if we had space...there was still no need": Hypothetical: if I HAD time, still wouldn't need long speech. Evidence speaks for itself. Makes brevity seem like confidence, not weakness.

FINALITY - "I Have Spoken"

"I have spoken" (Dixi): Standard closing formula but here especially powerful. Perfect tense = completed action. Speech DONE. No more words needed. Evidence begins NOW. Abrupt ending emphasizes shift from rhetoric to proof.

CHARACTERISATION - "Many Licentious Deeds"

"Many licentious deeds, many cruel ones...many wicked acts": Three types of crime, each modified by "many." Creates drumbeat of multiplicity. Not isolated incidents - PATTERNS of behavior across categories.

What Happened Next: The Outcome

📌 After "I Have Spoken" - The Trial's Conclusion

Immediate Aftermath: Cicero called 100+ Sicilian witnesses. Testimony lasted NINE DAYS (not months). Evidence was overwhelming.

Hortensius' Response: NONE. The greatest orator in Rome didn't deliver his prepared defense speech. He knew he couldn't win. Silence = admission of defeat.

Verres' Flight: Before verdict announced, Verres fled Rome into voluntary exile in Massilia (modern Marseilles). Never returned to Rome.

Technical Verdict: Flight = admission of guilt. Property confiscated, he was permanently exiled. Lived in Marseilles until 43 BC when Mark Antony had him killed (allegedly for his art collection).

Cicero's Published Speeches: Cicero had prepared FIVE more speeches (Actiones Secundae) detailing Verres' crimes. Never delivered in court (trial ended), but published anyway. Became literary classics.

Political Consequences:

Lex Aurelia passed (70 BC) - reformed juries as Cicero predicted
Cicero's career launched - from novus homo to leading advocate
Hortensius' reputation damaged - never fully recovered from loss
Senate forced to acknowledge judicial corruption publicly

Historical Significance: Proved even powerful elite could be held accountable (barely). Showed power of evidence + public pressure. Demonstrated one talented individual could challenge systemic corruption. But also showed system needed external reform - Senate couldn't fix itself voluntarily.