To Cornelius Minicianus.
I can now give you a full account of the enormous trouble entailed upon me in the public trial brought by the Province of Baetica. It was a complicated suit, and new issues kept constantly cropping up. Why this variety, and why these different pleadings? you well ask. Well, Caecilius Classicus - a low rascal who carries his villainy in his face - had during his proconsulship in Baetica, in the same year that Marius Priscus was Governor of Africa, behaved both with violence and rapacity. Now, Priscus came from Baetica and Classicus from Africa, and so there was a rather good saying among the people of Baetica, for even resentment often inspires wit: "It is give and take between us." But in the case of Marius only one city publicly impeached him besides several private individuals, while the whole Province pressed the charges home against Classicus. He forestalled their accusation by a sudden death which may or may not have been self-inflicted, for there was some doubt about his dishonourable end. Men thought that though it was quite intelligible that he should have been willing to die as he had no defence to offer, yet they could hardly understand why he had died rather than undergo the shame of being condemned when he was not ashamed to commit the crime which merited the condemnation. None the less, the Province determined to go on with the accusation of the dead man. Provision had been made for such cases by the laws, but the custom had fallen into disuse and it was revived then for the first time after many years. Another argument urged by the Baetici for continuing the suit was that they had impeached not only Classicus, but his intimates and tools, and had demanded leave to prosecute them by name.
I was acting for the Province, assisted by Lucceius Albinus, an eloquent and ornate speaker, and though we have long been on terms of the closest regard for one another, our association in this suit has made me feel vastly more attached to him. As a rule, and especially in oratorical efforts, people do not run well in double harness in their striving for glory, but he and I were not in any sense rivals and there was no jealousy between us, as we both did our level best, not for our own hand, but for the common cause, which was of such a serious character and of such public importance that it seemed to demand from us that we should not over-elaborate each single pleading. We were afraid that time would fail us, and that our voices and lungs would break down if we tied up together so many charges and so many defendants into one bundle. Again, we feared that the attention of the judges would not only be wearied by the introduction of so many names and charges, but that they would be confused thereby, that the sum-total of the influence of each one of the accused might procure for each the strength of all, and finally we were afraid lest the most influential of the accused should make a scapegoat of the meanest among them, and so slip out of the hands of justice at the expense of someone else - for favour and personal interest are strongest when they can skulk behind some pretence of severity. Moreover, we were advised by the well-known story of Sertorius, who set two soldiers - one young and powerful, and the other old and weak - to pull off the tail of a horse. You know how it finishes. And so we too thought that we could get the better of even such a long array of defendants, provided we took them one by one.
Our plan was first to prove the guilt of Classicus himself; then it was a natural transition to his intimates and tools, because the latter could never be condemned unless Classicus were guilty. Consequently, we took two of them and closely connected them with Classicus, Baebius Probus and Fabius Hispanus, both men of some influence, while Hispanus possesses a strong gift of eloquence. To prove the guilt of Classicus was an easy and simple task that did not take us long. He had left in his own handwriting a document showing what profits he had made out of each transaction and case, and he had even despatched a letter couched in a boasting and impudent strain to one of his mistresses containing the words, "Hurrah! hurrah! I am coming back to you with my hands free; * for I have already sold the interests of the Baetici to the tune of four million sesterces." But we had to sweat to get a conviction against Hispanus and Probus. Before I dealt with the charges against them, I thought it necessary to establish the legal point that the execution of an unjust sentence is an indictable offence, for if I had not done this it would have been useless for me to prove that they had been the henchmen of Classicus. Moreover, their line of defence was not a denial. They pleaded that they could not help themselves and therefore were to be pardoned, arguing that they were mere provincials and were frightened into doing anything that a proconsul bade them do. Claudius Restitutus, who replied to me, a practised and watchful speaker who is equal to any emergency however suddenly sprung up upon him, is now going about saying that he never was so dumbfounded and thrown off his balance as when he discovered that the ground on which he placed full reliance for his defence had been cut from under him and stolen away from him.
Well, the outcome of our line of attack was as follows: the senate decreed that the property owned by Classicus before he went to the Province should be set apart from that which he subsequently acquired, and that his daughter should receive the former and the rest be handed over to the victims of his extortion. It was also decreed that the sums which he had paid over to his creditors should be refunded. Hispanus and Probus were banished for five years. Such was the serious view taken of their conduct, about which at the outset there were doubts whether it was legally criminal at all. A few days afterwards we accused Claudius Fuscus, a son-in-law of Classicus, and Stilonius Priscus, who had acted under him as tribune of a cohort. Here the verdicts differed, for while Priscus was banished from Italy for two years, Fuscus was acquitted.
In the third action, we thought our best course was to lump the defendants together, fearing lest, if the trial were to be spun out to undue length, those who were hearing the case would grow sick and tired of it, and their zeal for strict justice and severity would abate. Besides, the accused persons, who had been designedly kept over till then, were all of comparatively little importance, except the wife of Classicus, and, although suspicion against her was strong, the proofs seemed rather weak. As for the daughter of Classicus, who was also among the defendants, she had cleared herself even of suspicion. Consequently, when I reached her name in the last trial - for there was no fear then as there had been at the beginning that such an admission would weaken the force of the prosecution - I thought the most honourable course was to refrain from pressing the charge against an innocent person, and I frankly said so, repeating the idea in various forms. For example, I asked the deputation of the Baetici whether they had given me definite instructions on any point which they felt confident they could prove against her; I turned to the senators and inquired whether they thought I ought to employ what eloquence I might possess against an innocent person, and hold, as it were, the knife to her throat; and, finally, I concluded the subject with these words: "Someone may say, 'You are presuming to act as judge.' No, I reply, I am not presuming to be a judge, but I cannot forget that the judges appointed me to act as counsel."
Well, the conclusion of this trial, with its crowd of defendants, was that a certain few were acquitted, but the majority were condemned and banished, some for a fixed term of years, and others for life. In the same decree the senate expressed in most handsome terms its appreciation of our industry, loyalty, and perseverance, and this was the only possible worthy and adequate reward for the trouble we had taken. You can imagine how worn out we were, when you think how often we had to plead, and answer the pleadings of our opponents, and how many witnesses we had to cross-question, encourage, and refute. Besides, you know how trying and vexatious it is to say "no" to the friends of the accused when they come pleading with you in private, and to stoutly oppose them when they confront you in open court. I will tell you one of the things I said. When one of those who were acting as judges interrupted me on behalf of one of the accused in whom he took a special interest, I replied: "He will be none the less innocent, if he be innocent, when I have had my full say." You can guess from this sample what opposition we had to face, and how we could not avoid giving offence, - but that only lasted a short time, for though at the moment a loyal conduct of a case may offend those whom one is opposing, in the end it wins even their admiration and respect.
I have brought you up to date as well as I could. You will say, "It was not worthwhile, for what have I to do with such a long letter?" If you do, don't ask again what is going on at Rome, and bear in mind that you cannot call a letter long which covers so many days, so many trials, and so many defendants and pleadings. I think I have dealt with all these subjects as briefly as I am sure they are exactly dealt with. But no, I was rash to say "exactly"; I remember a point which I had omitted, and I will tell you about it even now, though it is out of its proper place. Homer does this, and many other authors have followed his example - with very good effect too - though that is not my reason for so doing. One of the witnesses, annoyed at being summoned to appear, or bribed by some one of the defendants in order to weaken the prosecution, laid an accusation against Norbanus Licinianus, a member of the deputation, who had been instructed to get up the case, and charged him with having acted in collusion with the other side in relation to Casta, the wife of Classicus. It is a legal rule in such instances that the trial of the accused must be finished before inquiry is made into a charge of collusion, on the ground that one can best form an opinion on the sincerity of the prosecution by noticing how the case has been carried through. However, Norbanus reaped no advantage from this point of law, nor did his position as member of the deputation, nor his duties as one of those getting up the action stand him in good stead. A storm of prejudice broke out against him, and there is no denying that his hands were crime-stained, that he, like many others, had taken advantage of the evil times of Domitian, and that he had been selected by the provincials to get up the case, not as a man of probity and honour, but because he had been a personal enemy of Classicus, by whom, indeed, he had been banished.
He demanded that a day should be fixed for his trial, and that the charge against him should be published; both were refused, and he was obliged to answer on the spot. He did so, and though the thorough badness and depravity of the fellow make me hesitate to say whether he showed more impudence or resolution, he certainly replied with great readiness. There were sundry things brought against him which did him much greater damage than the charge of collusion, and two men of consular rank, Pomponius Rufus and Libo Frugi, severely damaged him by giving evidence to the effect that during the reign of Domitian he had assisted the prosecution of Salvius Liberalis before the judge. He was convicted and banished to an island. Consequently, when I was accusing Casta, I especially pressed the point that her accuser had been found guilty of collusion. But I did so in vain, and we had the novel and inconsistent result that the accused was acquitted though her accuser was found guilty of collusion with her. You may ask what we were about while this was going on. We told the senate that we had received all our instructions for this public trial from Norbanus, and that the case ought to be tried afresh if he were proved guilty of collusion, and so, while his trial was proceeding, we sat still. Subsequently Norbanus was present every day the trial lasted, and showed right up to the end the same resolute or impudent front.
I wonder if I have forgotten anything else. Well, I almost did. On the last day Salvius Liberalis bitterly assailed the rest of the deputation on the ground that they had not brought accusations against all whom they were commissioned to accuse by the province. He is a powerful and able speaker, and he put them in some danger. However, I went to the protection of those excellent and most grateful men, and they declare that they owe it entirely to me that they safely weathered that storm. This is the end, positively the end of my letter: I will not add another syllable, even if I discover that I have still omitted to tell you something. Farewell.
[Note: i.e. free from debt.]
L To Cornelius Minicianus.
I can now give you a full account of the enormous trouble entailed upon me in the public trial brought by the Province of Baetica. It was a complicated suit, and new issues kept constantly cropping up. Why this variety, and why these different pleadings? you well ask. Well, Caecilius Classicus - a low rascal who carries his villainy in his face - had during his proconsulship in Baetica, in the same year that Marius Priscus was Governor of Africa, behaved both with violence and rapacity. Now, Priscus came from Baetica and Classicus from Africa, and so there was a rather good saying among the people of Baetica, for even resentment often inspires wit: "It is give and take between us." But in the case of Marius only one city publicly impeached him besides several private individuals, while the whole Province pressed the charges home against Classicus. He forestalled their accusation by a sudden death which may or may not have been self-inflicted, for there was some doubt about his dishonourable end. Men thought that though it was quite intelligible that he should have been willing to die as he had no defence to offer, yet they could hardly understand why he had died rather than undergo the shame of being condemned when he was not ashamed to commit the crime which merited the condemnation. None the less, the Province determined to go on with the accusation of the dead man. Provision had been made for such cases by the laws, but the custom had fallen into disuse and it was revived then for the first time after many years. Another argument urged by the Baetici for continuing the suit was that they had impeached not only Classicus, but his intimates and tools, and had demanded leave to prosecute them by name.
I was acting for the Province, assisted by Lucceius Albinus, an eloquent and ornate speaker, and though we have long been on terms of the closest regard for one another, our association in this suit has made me feel vastly more attached to him. As a rule, and especially in oratorical efforts, people do not run well in double harness in their striving for glory, but he and I were not in any sense rivals and there was no jealousy between us, as we both did our level best, not for our own hand, but for the common cause, which was of such a serious character and of such public importance that it seemed to demand from us that we should not over-elaborate each single pleading. We were afraid that time would fail us, and that our voices and lungs would break down if we tied up together so many charges and so many defendants into one bundle. Again, we feared that the attention of the judges would not only be wearied by the introduction of so many names and charges, but that they would be confused thereby, that the sum-total of the influence of each one of the accused might procure for each the strength of all, and finally we were afraid lest the most influential of the accused should make a scapegoat of the meanest among them, and so slip out of the hands of justice at the expense of someone else - for favour and personal interest are strongest when they can skulk behind some pretence of severity. Moreover, we were advised by the well-known story of Sertorius, who set two soldiers - one young and powerful, and the other old and weak - to pull off the tail of a horse. You know how it finishes. And so we too thought that we could get the better of even such a long array of defendants, provided we took them one by one.
Our plan was first to prove the guilt of Classicus himself; then it was a natural transition to his intimates and tools, because the latter could never be condemned unless Classicus were guilty. Consequently, we took two of them and closely connected them with Classicus, Baebius Probus and Fabius Hispanus, both men of some influence, while Hispanus possesses a strong gift of eloquence. To prove the guilt of Classicus was an easy and simple task that did not take us long. He had left in his own handwriting a document showing what profits he had made out of each transaction and case, and he had even despatched a letter couched in a boasting and impudent strain to one of his mistresses containing the words, "Hurrah! hurrah! I am coming back to you with my hands free; * for I have already sold the interests of the Baetici to the tune of four million sesterces." But we had to sweat to get a conviction against Hispanus and Probus. Before I dealt with the charges against them, I thought it necessary to establish the legal point that the execution of an unjust sentence is an indictable offence, for if I had not done this it would have been useless for me to prove that they had been the henchmen of Classicus. Moreover, their line of defence was not a denial. They pleaded that they could not help themselves and therefore were to be pardoned, arguing that they were mere provincials and were frightened into doing anything that a proconsul bade them do. Claudius Restitutus, who replied to me, a practised and watchful speaker who is equal to any emergency however suddenly sprung up upon him, is now going about saying that he never was so dumbfounded and thrown off his balance as when he discovered that the ground on which he placed full reliance for his defence had been cut from under him and stolen away from him.
Well, the outcome of our line of attack was as follows: the senate decreed that the property owned by Classicus before he went to the Province should be set apart from that which he subsequently acquired, and that his daughter should receive the former and the rest be handed over to the victims of his extortion. It was also decreed that the sums which he had paid over to his creditors should be refunded. Hispanus and Probus were banished for five years. Such was the serious view taken of their conduct, about which at the outset there were doubts whether it was legally criminal at all. A few days afterwards we accused Claudius Fuscus, a son-in-law of Classicus, and Stilonius Priscus, who had acted under him as tribune of a cohort. Here the verdicts differed, for while Priscus was banished from Italy for two years, Fuscus was acquitted.
In the third action, we thought our best course was to lump the defendants together, fearing lest, if the trial were to be spun out to undue length, those who were hearing the case would grow sick and tired of it, and their zeal for strict justice and severity would abate. Besides, the accused persons, who had been designedly kept over till then, were all of comparatively little importance, except the wife of Classicus, and, although suspicion against her was strong, the proofs seemed rather weak. As for the daughter of Classicus, who was also among the defendants, she had cleared herself even of suspicion. Consequently, when I reached her name in the last trial - for there was no fear then as there had been at the beginning that such an admission would weaken the force of the prosecution - I thought the most honourable course was to refrain from pressing the charge against an innocent person, and I frankly said so, repeating the idea in various forms. For example, I asked the deputation of the Baetici whether they had given me definite instructions on any point which they felt confident they could prove against her; I turned to the senators and inquired whether they thought I ought to employ what eloquence I might possess against an innocent person, and hold, as it were, the knife to her throat; and, finally, I concluded the subject with these words: "Someone may say, 'You are presuming to act as judge.' No, I reply, I am not presuming to be a judge, but I cannot forget that the judges appointed me to act as counsel."
Well, the conclusion of this trial, with its crowd of defendants, was that a certain few were acquitted, but the majority were condemned and banished, some for a fixed term of years, and others for life. In the same decree the senate expressed in most handsome terms its appreciation of our industry, loyalty, and perseverance, and this was the only possible worthy and adequate reward for the trouble we had taken. You can imagine how worn out we were, when you think how often we had to plead, and answer the pleadings of our opponents, and how many witnesses we had to cross-question, encourage, and refute. Besides, you know how trying and vexatious it is to say "no" to the friends of the accused when they come pleading with you in private, and to stoutly oppose them when they confront you in open court. I will tell you one of the things I said. When one of those who were acting as judges interrupted me on behalf of one of the accused in whom he took a special interest, I replied: "He will be none the less innocent, if he be innocent, when I have had my full say." You can guess from this sample what opposition we had to face, and how we could not avoid giving offence, - but that only lasted a short time, for though at the moment a loyal conduct of a case may offend those whom one is opposing, in the end it wins even their admiration and respect.
I have brought you up to date as well as I could. You will say, "It was not worthwhile, for what have I to do with such a long letter?" If you do, don't ask again what is going on at Rome, and bear in mind that you cannot call a letter long which covers so many days, so many trials, and so many defendants and pleadings. I think I have dealt with all these subjects as briefly as I am sure they are exactly dealt with. But no, I was rash to say "exactly"; I remember a point which I had omitted, and I will tell you about it even now, though it is out of its proper place. Homer does this, and many other authors have followed his example - with very good effect too - though that is not my reason for so doing. One of the witnesses, annoyed at being summoned to appear, or bribed by some one of the defendants in order to weaken the prosecution, laid an accusation against Norbanus Licinianus, a member of the deputation, who had been instructed to get up the case, and charged him with having acted in collusion with the other side in relation to Casta, the wife of Classicus. It is a legal rule in such instances that the trial of the accused must be finished before inquiry is made into a charge of collusion, on the ground that one can best form an opinion on the sincerity of the prosecution by noticing how the case has been carried through. However, Norbanus reaped no advantage from this point of law, nor did his position as member of the deputation, nor his duties as one of those getting up the action stand him in good stead. A storm of prejudice broke out against him, and there is no denying that his hands were crime-stained, that he, like many others, had taken advantage of the evil times of Domitian, and that he had been selected by the provincials to get up the case, not as a man of probity and honour, but because he had been a personal enemy of Classicus, by whom, indeed, he had been banished.
He demanded that a day should be fixed for his trial, and that the charge against him should be published; both were refused, and he was obliged to answer on the spot. He did so, and though the thorough badness and depravity of the fellow make me hesitate to say whether he showed more impudence or resolution, he certainly replied with great readiness. There were sundry things brought against him which did him much greater damage than the charge of collusion, and two men of consular rank, Pomponius Rufus and Libo Frugi, severely damaged him by giving evidence to the effect that during the reign of Domitian he had assisted the prosecution of Salvius Liberalis before the judge. He was convicted and banished to an island. Consequently, when I was accusing Casta, I especially pressed the point that her accuser had been found guilty of collusion. But I did so in vain, and we had the novel and inconsistent result that the accused was acquitted though her accuser was found guilty of collusion with her. You may ask what we were about while this was going on. We told the senate that we had received all our instructions for this public trial from Norbanus, and that the case ought to be tried afresh if he were proved guilty of collusion, and so, while his trial was proceeding, we sat still. Subsequently Norbanus was present every day the trial lasted, and showed right up to the end the same resolute or impudent front.
I wonder if I have forgotten anything else. Well, I almost did. On the last day Salvius Liberalis bitterly assailed the rest of the deputation on the ground that they had not brought accusations against all whom they were commissioned to accuse by the province. He is a powerful and able speaker, and he put them in some danger. However, I went to the protection of those excellent and most grateful men, and they declare that they owe it entirely to me that they safely weathered that storm. This is the end, positively the end of my letter: I will not add another syllable, even if I discover that I have still omitted to tell you something. Farewell.
(*) i.e. free from debt.
C. PLINIUS CORNELIO MINICIANO SUO S.
Possum iam perscribere tibi quantum in publica provinciae Baeticae causa laboris exhauserim. Nam fuit multiplex, actaque est saepius cum magna varietate. Unde varietas, unde plures actiones? Caecilius Classicus, homo foedus et aperte malus, proconsulatum in ea non minus violenter quam sordide gesserat, eodem anno quo in Africa Marius Priscus. Erat autem Priscus ex Baetica, ex Africa Classicus. Inde dictum Baeticorum, ut plerumque dolor etiam venustos facit, non illepidum ferebatur: 'Dedi malum et accepi.' Sed Marium una civitas publice multique privati reum peregerunt, in Classicum tota provincia incubuit. Ille accusationem vel fortuita vel voluntaria morte praevertit. Nam fuit mors eius infamis, ambigua tamen: ut enim credibile videbatur voluisse exire de vita, Cum defendi non posset, ita mirum pudorem damnationis morte fugisse, quem non puduisset damnanda committere. Nihilo minus Baetica etiam in defuncti accusatione perstabat. Provisum hoc legibus, intermissum tamen et post longam intercapedinem tunc reductum. Addiderunt Baetici, quod simul socios ministrosque Classici detulerunt, nominatimque in eos inquisitionem postulaverunt. Aderam Bacticis mecumque Lucceius Albinus, vir in dicendo copiosus ornatus; quem ego cum olim mutuo diligerem, ex hac officii societate amare ardentius coepi. Habet quidem gloria, in studiis praesertim, quiddam ἀκοινώνητον nobis tamen nullum certamen nulla contentio, cum uterque pari iugo non pro se sed pro causa niteretur, cuius et magnitudo et utilitas visa est postulare, ne tantum oneris singulis actionibus subiremus. Verebamur ne nos dies ne vox ne latera deficerent, si tot crimina tot reos uno velut fasce complecteremur; deinde ne iudicum intentio multis nominibus multisque causis non lassaretur modo verum etiam confunderetur; mox ne gratia singulorum collata atque permixta pro singulis quoque vires omnium acciperet; postremo ne potentissimi vilissimo quoque quasi piaculari dato alienis poenis elaberentur. Etenim tum maxime favor et ambitio dominatur, cum sub aliqua specie severitatis delitescere potest. Erat in consilio Sertorianum illud exemplum, qui robustissimum et infirmissimum militem iussit caudam equi - reliqua nosti. Nam nos quoque tam numerosum agmen reorum ita demum videbamus posse superari, si per singulos carperetur.
Placuit in primis ipsum Classicum ostendere nocentem: hic aptissimus ad socios eius et ministros transitus erat, quia socii ministrique probari nisi illo nocente non poterant. Ex quibus duos statim Classico iunximus, Baebium Probum et Fabium Hispanum, utrumque gratia, Hispanum etiam facundia validum. Et circa Classicum quidem brevis et expeditus labor. Sua manu reliquerat scriptum, quid ex quaque re, quid ex quaque causa accepisset; miserat etiam epistulas Romam ad amiculam quandam, iactantes et gloriosas, his quidem verbis: 'Io io, liber ad te venio; iam sestertium quadragiens redegi parte vendita Baeticorum.' Circa Hispanum et Probum multum sudoris. Horum ante quam crimina ingrederer, necessarium credidi elaborare, ut constaret ministerium crimen esse: quod nisi fecissem, frustra ministros probassem. Neque enim ita defendebantur, ut negarent, sed ut necessitati veniam precarentur; esse enim se provinciales et ad omne proconsulum imperium metu cogi. Solet dicere Claudius Restitutus, qui mihi respondit, vir exercitatus et vigilans et quamlibet subitis paratus, numquam sibi tantum caliginis tantum perturbationis offusum, quam cum praerepta et extorta defensioni suae cerneret, in quibus omnem fiduciam reponebat. Consilii nostri exitus fuit: bona Classici, quae habuisset ante provinciam, placuit senatui a reliquis separari, illa filiae haec spoliatis relinqui. Additum est, ut pecuniae quas creditoribus solverat revocarentur. Hispanus et Probus in quinquennium relegati; adeo grave visum est, quod initio dubitabatur an omnino crimen esset.
Post paucos dies Claudium Fuscum, Classici generum, et Stilonium Priscum, qui tribunus cohortis sub Classico fuerat, accusavimus dispari eventu: Prisco in biennium Italia interdictum, absolutus est Fuscus.
Actione tertia commodissimum putavimus plures congregare, ne si longius esset extracta cognitio, satietate et taedio quodam iustitia cognoscentium severitasque languesceret; et alioqui supererant minores rei data opera hunc in locum reservati, excepta tamen Classici uxore, quae sicut implicita suspicionibus ita non satis convinci probationibus visa est; nam Classici filia, quae et ipsa inter reos erat, ne suspicionibus quidem haerebat. Itaque, cum ad nomen eius in extrema actione venissem - neque enim ut initio sic etiam in fine verendum erat, ne per hoc totius accusationis auctoritas minueretur -, honestissimum credidi non premere immerentem, idque ipsum dixi et libere et varie. Nam modo legatos interrogabam, docuissentne me aliquid quod re probari posse confiderent; modo consilium a senatu petebam, putaretne debere me, si quam haberem in dicendo facultatem, in iugulum innocentis quasi telum aliquod intendere; postremo totum locum hoc fine conclusi: 'Dicet aliquis: Iudicas ergo? Ego vero non iudico, memini tamen me advocatum ex iudicibus datum.'
Hic numerosissimae causae terminus fuit quibusdam absolutis, pluribus damnatis atque etiam relegatis, aliis in tempus aliis in perpetuum. Eodem senatus consulto industria fides constantia nostra plenissimo testimonio comprobata est, dignum solumque par pretium tanti laboris. Concipere animo potes quam simus fatigati, quibus totiens agendum totiens altercandum, tam multi testes interrogandi sublevandi refutandi. Iam illa quam ardua quam molesta, tot reorum amicis secreto rogantibus negare, adversantibus palam obsistere! Referam unum aliquid ex iis quae dixi. Cum mihi quidam e iudicibus ipsis pro reo gratiosissimo reclamarent, 'Non minus' inquam 'hic innocens erit, si ego omnia dixero.' Coniectabis ex hoc quantas contentiones, quantas etiam offensas subierimus dumtaxat ad breve tempus; nam fides in praesentia eos quibus resistit offendit, deinde ab illis ipsis suspicitur laudaturque. Non potui magis te in rem praesentem perducere. Dices: 'Non fuit tanti; quid enim mihi cum tam longa epistula?' Nolito ergo identidem quaerere, quid Romae geratur. Et tamen memento non esse epistulam longam, quae tot dies tot cognitiones tot denique reos causasque complexa sit. Quae omnia videor mihi non minus breviter quam diligenter persecutus.
Temere dixi 'diligenter': succurrit quod praeterieram et quidem sero, sed quamquam praepostere reddetur. Facit hoc Homerus multique illius exemplo; est alioqui perdecorum, a me tamen non ideo fiet. E testibus quidam, sive iratus quod evocatus esset invitus, sive subornatus ab aliquo reorum, ut accusationem exarmaret, Norbanum Licinianum, legatum et inquisitorem, reum postulavit, tamquam in causa Castae - uxor haec Classici - praevaricaretur. Est lege cautum ut reus ante peragatur, tunc de praevaricatore quaeratur, videlicet quia optime ex accusatione ipsa accusatoris fides aestimatur. Norbano tamen non ordo legis, non legati nomen, non inquisitionis officium praesidio fuit; tanta conflagravit invidia homo alioqui flagitiosus et Domitiani temporibus usus ut multi, electusque tunc a provincia ad inquirendum non tamquam bonus et fidelis, sed tamquam Classici inimicus - erat ab illo relegatus -. Dari sibi diem, edi crimina postulabat; neutrum impetravit, coactus est statim respondere. Respondit, malum pravumque ingenium hominis facit ut dubitem, confidenter an constanter, certe paratissime. Obiecta sunt multa, quae magis quam praevaricatio nocuerunt; quin etiam duo consulares, Pomponius Rufus et Libo Frugi, laeserunt eum testimonio, tamquam apud iudicem sub Domitiano Salvi Liberalis accusatoribus adfuisset. Damnatus et in insulam relegatus est. Itaque cum Castam accusarem nihil magis pressi, quam quod accusator eius praevaricationis crimine corruisset; pressi tamen frustra; accidit enim res contraria et nova, ut accusatore praevaricationis damnato rea absolveretur. Quaeris, quid nos, dum haec aguntur? Indicavimus senatui ex Norbano didicisse nos publicam causam, rursusque debere ex integro discere, si ille praevaricator probaretur, atque ita, dum ille peragitur reus, sedimus. Postea Norbanus omnibus diebus cognitionis interfuit eandemque usque ad extremum vel constantiam vel audaciam pertulit.
Interrogo ipse me, an aliquid omiserim rursus, et rursus paene omisi. Summo die Salvius Liberalis reliquos legatos graviter increpuit, tamquam non omnes quos mandasset provincia reos peregissent, atque, ut est vehemens et disertus, in discrimen adduxit. Protexi viros optimos eosdemque gratissimos: mihi certe debere se praedicant, quod illum turbinem evaserint. Hic erit epistulae finis, re vera finis; litteram non addam, etiamsi adhuc aliquid praeterisse me sensero. Vale.
◆
To Cornelius Minicianus.
I can now give you a full account of the enormous trouble entailed upon me in the public trial brought by the Province of Baetica. It was a complicated suit, and new issues kept constantly cropping up. Why this variety, and why these different pleadings? you well ask. Well, Caecilius Classicus - a low rascal who carries his villainy in his face - had during his proconsulship in Baetica, in the same year that Marius Priscus was Governor of Africa, behaved both with violence and rapacity. Now, Priscus came from Baetica and Classicus from Africa, and so there was a rather good saying among the people of Baetica, for even resentment often inspires wit: "It is give and take between us." But in the case of Marius only one city publicly impeached him besides several private individuals, while the whole Province pressed the charges home against Classicus. He forestalled their accusation by a sudden death which may or may not have been self-inflicted, for there was some doubt about his dishonourable end. Men thought that though it was quite intelligible that he should have been willing to die as he had no defence to offer, yet they could hardly understand why he had died rather than undergo the shame of being condemned when he was not ashamed to commit the crime which merited the condemnation. None the less, the Province determined to go on with the accusation of the dead man. Provision had been made for such cases by the laws, but the custom had fallen into disuse and it was revived then for the first time after many years. Another argument urged by the Baetici for continuing the suit was that they had impeached not only Classicus, but his intimates and tools, and had demanded leave to prosecute them by name.
I was acting for the Province, assisted by Lucceius Albinus, an eloquent and ornate speaker, and though we have long been on terms of the closest regard for one another, our association in this suit has made me feel vastly more attached to him. As a rule, and especially in oratorical efforts, people do not run well in double harness in their striving for glory, but he and I were not in any sense rivals and there was no jealousy between us, as we both did our level best, not for our own hand, but for the common cause, which was of such a serious character and of such public importance that it seemed to demand from us that we should not over-elaborate each single pleading. We were afraid that time would fail us, and that our voices and lungs would break down if we tied up together so many charges and so many defendants into one bundle. Again, we feared that the attention of the judges would not only be wearied by the introduction of so many names and charges, but that they would be confused thereby, that the sum-total of the influence of each one of the accused might procure for each the strength of all, and finally we were afraid lest the most influential of the accused should make a scapegoat of the meanest among them, and so slip out of the hands of justice at the expense of someone else - for favour and personal interest are strongest when they can skulk behind some pretence of severity. Moreover, we were advised by the well-known story of Sertorius, who set two soldiers - one young and powerful, and the other old and weak - to pull off the tail of a horse. You know how it finishes. And so we too thought that we could get the better of even such a long array of defendants, provided we took them one by one.
Our plan was first to prove the guilt of Classicus himself; then it was a natural transition to his intimates and tools, because the latter could never be condemned unless Classicus were guilty. Consequently, we took two of them and closely connected them with Classicus, Baebius Probus and Fabius Hispanus, both men of some influence, while Hispanus possesses a strong gift of eloquence. To prove the guilt of Classicus was an easy and simple task that did not take us long. He had left in his own handwriting a document showing what profits he had made out of each transaction and case, and he had even despatched a letter couched in a boasting and impudent strain to one of his mistresses containing the words, "Hurrah! hurrah! I am coming back to you with my hands free; * for I have already sold the interests of the Baetici to the tune of four million sesterces." But we had to sweat to get a conviction against Hispanus and Probus. Before I dealt with the charges against them, I thought it necessary to establish the legal point that the execution of an unjust sentence is an indictable offence, for if I had not done this it would have been useless for me to prove that they had been the henchmen of Classicus. Moreover, their line of defence was not a denial. They pleaded that they could not help themselves and therefore were to be pardoned, arguing that they were mere provincials and were frightened into doing anything that a proconsul bade them do. Claudius Restitutus, who replied to me, a practised and watchful speaker who is equal to any emergency however suddenly sprung up upon him, is now going about saying that he never was so dumbfounded and thrown off his balance as when he discovered that the ground on which he placed full reliance for his defence had been cut from under him and stolen away from him.
Well, the outcome of our line of attack was as follows: the senate decreed that the property owned by Classicus before he went to the Province should be set apart from that which he subsequently acquired, and that his daughter should receive the former and the rest be handed over to the victims of his extortion. It was also decreed that the sums which he had paid over to his creditors should be refunded. Hispanus and Probus were banished for five years. Such was the serious view taken of their conduct, about which at the outset there were doubts whether it was legally criminal at all. A few days afterwards we accused Claudius Fuscus, a son-in-law of Classicus, and Stilonius Priscus, who had acted under him as tribune of a cohort. Here the verdicts differed, for while Priscus was banished from Italy for two years, Fuscus was acquitted.
In the third action, we thought our best course was to lump the defendants together, fearing lest, if the trial were to be spun out to undue length, those who were hearing the case would grow sick and tired of it, and their zeal for strict justice and severity would abate. Besides, the accused persons, who had been designedly kept over till then, were all of comparatively little importance, except the wife of Classicus, and, although suspicion against her was strong, the proofs seemed rather weak. As for the daughter of Classicus, who was also among the defendants, she had cleared herself even of suspicion. Consequently, when I reached her name in the last trial - for there was no fear then as there had been at the beginning that such an admission would weaken the force of the prosecution - I thought the most honourable course was to refrain from pressing the charge against an innocent person, and I frankly said so, repeating the idea in various forms. For example, I asked the deputation of the Baetici whether they had given me definite instructions on any point which they felt confident they could prove against her; I turned to the senators and inquired whether they thought I ought to employ what eloquence I might possess against an innocent person, and hold, as it were, the knife to her throat; and, finally, I concluded the subject with these words: "Someone may say, 'You are presuming to act as judge.' No, I reply, I am not presuming to be a judge, but I cannot forget that the judges appointed me to act as counsel."
Well, the conclusion of this trial, with its crowd of defendants, was that a certain few were acquitted, but the majority were condemned and banished, some for a fixed term of years, and others for life. In the same decree the senate expressed in most handsome terms its appreciation of our industry, loyalty, and perseverance, and this was the only possible worthy and adequate reward for the trouble we had taken. You can imagine how worn out we were, when you think how often we had to plead, and answer the pleadings of our opponents, and how many witnesses we had to cross-question, encourage, and refute. Besides, you know how trying and vexatious it is to say "no" to the friends of the accused when they come pleading with you in private, and to stoutly oppose them when they confront you in open court. I will tell you one of the things I said. When one of those who were acting as judges interrupted me on behalf of one of the accused in whom he took a special interest, I replied: "He will be none the less innocent, if he be innocent, when I have had my full say." You can guess from this sample what opposition we had to face, and how we could not avoid giving offence, - but that only lasted a short time, for though at the moment a loyal conduct of a case may offend those whom one is opposing, in the end it wins even their admiration and respect.
I have brought you up to date as well as I could. You will say, "It was not worthwhile, for what have I to do with such a long letter?" If you do, don't ask again what is going on at Rome, and bear in mind that you cannot call a letter long which covers so many days, so many trials, and so many defendants and pleadings. I think I have dealt with all these subjects as briefly as I am sure they are exactly dealt with. But no, I was rash to say "exactly"; I remember a point which I had omitted, and I will tell you about it even now, though it is out of its proper place. Homer does this, and many other authors have followed his example - with very good effect too - though that is not my reason for so doing. One of the witnesses, annoyed at being summoned to appear, or bribed by some one of the defendants in order to weaken the prosecution, laid an accusation against Norbanus Licinianus, a member of the deputation, who had been instructed to get up the case, and charged him with having acted in collusion with the other side in relation to Casta, the wife of Classicus. It is a legal rule in such instances that the trial of the accused must be finished before inquiry is made into a charge of collusion, on the ground that one can best form an opinion on the sincerity of the prosecution by noticing how the case has been carried through. However, Norbanus reaped no advantage from this point of law, nor did his position as member of the deputation, nor his duties as one of those getting up the action stand him in good stead. A storm of prejudice broke out against him, and there is no denying that his hands were crime-stained, that he, like many others, had taken advantage of the evil times of Domitian, and that he had been selected by the provincials to get up the case, not as a man of probity and honour, but because he had been a personal enemy of Classicus, by whom, indeed, he had been banished.
He demanded that a day should be fixed for his trial, and that the charge against him should be published; both were refused, and he was obliged to answer on the spot. He did so, and though the thorough badness and depravity of the fellow make me hesitate to say whether he showed more impudence or resolution, he certainly replied with great readiness. There were sundry things brought against him which did him much greater damage than the charge of collusion, and two men of consular rank, Pomponius Rufus and Libo Frugi, severely damaged him by giving evidence to the effect that during the reign of Domitian he had assisted the prosecution of Salvius Liberalis before the judge. He was convicted and banished to an island. Consequently, when I was accusing Casta, I especially pressed the point that her accuser had been found guilty of collusion. But I did so in vain, and we had the novel and inconsistent result that the accused was acquitted though her accuser was found guilty of collusion with her. You may ask what we were about while this was going on. We told the senate that we had received all our instructions for this public trial from Norbanus, and that the case ought to be tried afresh if he were proved guilty of collusion, and so, while his trial was proceeding, we sat still. Subsequently Norbanus was present every day the trial lasted, and showed right up to the end the same resolute or impudent front.
I wonder if I have forgotten anything else. Well, I almost did. On the last day Salvius Liberalis bitterly assailed the rest of the deputation on the ground that they had not brought accusations against all whom they were commissioned to accuse by the province. He is a powerful and able speaker, and he put them in some danger. However, I went to the protection of those excellent and most grateful men, and they declare that they owe it entirely to me that they safely weathered that storm. This is the end, positively the end of my letter: I will not add another syllable, even if I discover that I have still omitted to tell you something. Farewell.
[Note: i.e. free from debt.]
Human translation — Attalus.org
Latin / Greek Original
C. PLINIUS CORNELIO MINICIANO SUO S.
Possum iam perscribere tibi quantum in publica provinciae Baeticae causa laboris exhauserim. Nam fuit multiplex, actaque est saepius cum magna varietate. Unde varietas, unde plures actiones? Caecilius Classicus, homo foedus et aperte malus, proconsulatum in ea non minus violenter quam sordide gesserat, eodem anno quo in Africa Marius Priscus. Erat autem Priscus ex Baetica, ex Africa Classicus. Inde dictum Baeticorum, ut plerumque dolor etiam venustos facit, non illepidum ferebatur: 'Dedi malum et accepi.' Sed Marium una civitas publice multique privati reum peregerunt, in Classicum tota provincia incubuit. Ille accusationem vel fortuita vel voluntaria morte praevertit. Nam fuit mors eius infamis, ambigua tamen: ut enim credibile videbatur voluisse exire de vita, Cum defendi non posset, ita mirum pudorem damnationis morte fugisse, quem non puduisset damnanda committere. Nihilo minus Baetica etiam in defuncti accusatione perstabat. Provisum hoc legibus, intermissum tamen et post longam intercapedinem tunc reductum. Addiderunt Baetici, quod simul socios ministrosque Classici detulerunt, nominatimque in eos inquisitionem postulaverunt. Aderam Bacticis mecumque Lucceius Albinus, vir in dicendo copiosus ornatus; quem ego cum olim mutuo diligerem, ex hac officii societate amare ardentius coepi. Habet quidem gloria, in studiis praesertim, quiddam ἀκοινώνητον nobis tamen nullum certamen nulla contentio, cum uterque pari iugo non pro se sed pro causa niteretur, cuius et magnitudo et utilitas visa est postulare, ne tantum oneris singulis actionibus subiremus. Verebamur ne nos dies ne vox ne latera deficerent, si tot crimina tot reos uno velut fasce complecteremur; deinde ne iudicum intentio multis nominibus multisque causis non lassaretur modo verum etiam confunderetur; mox ne gratia singulorum collata atque permixta pro singulis quoque vires omnium acciperet; postremo ne potentissimi vilissimo quoque quasi piaculari dato alienis poenis elaberentur. Etenim tum maxime favor et ambitio dominatur, cum sub aliqua specie severitatis delitescere potest. Erat in consilio Sertorianum illud exemplum, qui robustissimum et infirmissimum militem iussit caudam equi - reliqua nosti. Nam nos quoque tam numerosum agmen reorum ita demum videbamus posse superari, si per singulos carperetur.
Placuit in primis ipsum Classicum ostendere nocentem: hic aptissimus ad socios eius et ministros transitus erat, quia socii ministrique probari nisi illo nocente non poterant. Ex quibus duos statim Classico iunximus, Baebium Probum et Fabium Hispanum, utrumque gratia, Hispanum etiam facundia validum. Et circa Classicum quidem brevis et expeditus labor. Sua manu reliquerat scriptum, quid ex quaque re, quid ex quaque causa accepisset; miserat etiam epistulas Romam ad amiculam quandam, iactantes et gloriosas, his quidem verbis: 'Io io, liber ad te venio; iam sestertium quadragiens redegi parte vendita Baeticorum.' Circa Hispanum et Probum multum sudoris. Horum ante quam crimina ingrederer, necessarium credidi elaborare, ut constaret ministerium crimen esse: quod nisi fecissem, frustra ministros probassem. Neque enim ita defendebantur, ut negarent, sed ut necessitati veniam precarentur; esse enim se provinciales et ad omne proconsulum imperium metu cogi. Solet dicere Claudius Restitutus, qui mihi respondit, vir exercitatus et vigilans et quamlibet subitis paratus, numquam sibi tantum caliginis tantum perturbationis offusum, quam cum praerepta et extorta defensioni suae cerneret, in quibus omnem fiduciam reponebat. Consilii nostri exitus fuit: bona Classici, quae habuisset ante provinciam, placuit senatui a reliquis separari, illa filiae haec spoliatis relinqui. Additum est, ut pecuniae quas creditoribus solverat revocarentur. Hispanus et Probus in quinquennium relegati; adeo grave visum est, quod initio dubitabatur an omnino crimen esset.
Post paucos dies Claudium Fuscum, Classici generum, et Stilonium Priscum, qui tribunus cohortis sub Classico fuerat, accusavimus dispari eventu: Prisco in biennium Italia interdictum, absolutus est Fuscus.
Actione tertia commodissimum putavimus plures congregare, ne si longius esset extracta cognitio, satietate et taedio quodam iustitia cognoscentium severitasque languesceret; et alioqui supererant minores rei data opera hunc in locum reservati, excepta tamen Classici uxore, quae sicut implicita suspicionibus ita non satis convinci probationibus visa est; nam Classici filia, quae et ipsa inter reos erat, ne suspicionibus quidem haerebat. Itaque, cum ad nomen eius in extrema actione venissem - neque enim ut initio sic etiam in fine verendum erat, ne per hoc totius accusationis auctoritas minueretur -, honestissimum credidi non premere immerentem, idque ipsum dixi et libere et varie. Nam modo legatos interrogabam, docuissentne me aliquid quod re probari posse confiderent; modo consilium a senatu petebam, putaretne debere me, si quam haberem in dicendo facultatem, in iugulum innocentis quasi telum aliquod intendere; postremo totum locum hoc fine conclusi: 'Dicet aliquis: Iudicas ergo? Ego vero non iudico, memini tamen me advocatum ex iudicibus datum.'
Hic numerosissimae causae terminus fuit quibusdam absolutis, pluribus damnatis atque etiam relegatis, aliis in tempus aliis in perpetuum. Eodem senatus consulto industria fides constantia nostra plenissimo testimonio comprobata est, dignum solumque par pretium tanti laboris. Concipere animo potes quam simus fatigati, quibus totiens agendum totiens altercandum, tam multi testes interrogandi sublevandi refutandi. Iam illa quam ardua quam molesta, tot reorum amicis secreto rogantibus negare, adversantibus palam obsistere! Referam unum aliquid ex iis quae dixi. Cum mihi quidam e iudicibus ipsis pro reo gratiosissimo reclamarent, 'Non minus' inquam 'hic innocens erit, si ego omnia dixero.' Coniectabis ex hoc quantas contentiones, quantas etiam offensas subierimus dumtaxat ad breve tempus; nam fides in praesentia eos quibus resistit offendit, deinde ab illis ipsis suspicitur laudaturque. Non potui magis te in rem praesentem perducere. Dices: 'Non fuit tanti; quid enim mihi cum tam longa epistula?' Nolito ergo identidem quaerere, quid Romae geratur. Et tamen memento non esse epistulam longam, quae tot dies tot cognitiones tot denique reos causasque complexa sit. Quae omnia videor mihi non minus breviter quam diligenter persecutus.
Temere dixi 'diligenter': succurrit quod praeterieram et quidem sero, sed quamquam praepostere reddetur. Facit hoc Homerus multique illius exemplo; est alioqui perdecorum, a me tamen non ideo fiet. E testibus quidam, sive iratus quod evocatus esset invitus, sive subornatus ab aliquo reorum, ut accusationem exarmaret, Norbanum Licinianum, legatum et inquisitorem, reum postulavit, tamquam in causa Castae - uxor haec Classici - praevaricaretur. Est lege cautum ut reus ante peragatur, tunc de praevaricatore quaeratur, videlicet quia optime ex accusatione ipsa accusatoris fides aestimatur. Norbano tamen non ordo legis, non legati nomen, non inquisitionis officium praesidio fuit; tanta conflagravit invidia homo alioqui flagitiosus et Domitiani temporibus usus ut multi, electusque tunc a provincia ad inquirendum non tamquam bonus et fidelis, sed tamquam Classici inimicus - erat ab illo relegatus -. Dari sibi diem, edi crimina postulabat; neutrum impetravit, coactus est statim respondere. Respondit, malum pravumque ingenium hominis facit ut dubitem, confidenter an constanter, certe paratissime. Obiecta sunt multa, quae magis quam praevaricatio nocuerunt; quin etiam duo consulares, Pomponius Rufus et Libo Frugi, laeserunt eum testimonio, tamquam apud iudicem sub Domitiano Salvi Liberalis accusatoribus adfuisset. Damnatus et in insulam relegatus est. Itaque cum Castam accusarem nihil magis pressi, quam quod accusator eius praevaricationis crimine corruisset; pressi tamen frustra; accidit enim res contraria et nova, ut accusatore praevaricationis damnato rea absolveretur. Quaeris, quid nos, dum haec aguntur? Indicavimus senatui ex Norbano didicisse nos publicam causam, rursusque debere ex integro discere, si ille praevaricator probaretur, atque ita, dum ille peragitur reus, sedimus. Postea Norbanus omnibus diebus cognitionis interfuit eandemque usque ad extremum vel constantiam vel audaciam pertulit.
Interrogo ipse me, an aliquid omiserim rursus, et rursus paene omisi. Summo die Salvius Liberalis reliquos legatos graviter increpuit, tamquam non omnes quos mandasset provincia reos peregissent, atque, ut est vehemens et disertus, in discrimen adduxit. Protexi viros optimos eosdemque gratissimos: mihi certe debere se praedicant, quod illum turbinem evaserint. Hic erit epistulae finis, re vera finis; litteram non addam, etiamsi adhuc aliquid praeterisse me sensero. Vale.