The Trial of Gaius Verres

The trial of Gaius Verres, based on his actions as a provincial governor showed both shrewd character and unmanly cowardice; or did it? It included one of the best speakers of all time, Marcus Tullius Cicero, as well as the best orator in Rome at the time, Hortensius. Each of these speakers advocated opposite sides of the trial.

Verres' background and future after the trial were highly undocumented at the time, therefore little is known about him. In fact, the name "Verres" as connected with him has only been seen in his father's and son's names, but never before nor after them. Of the typical multiple names that a Roman had, "Verres" could have been his nomen or cognomen, for that is not even known. Recently, however, his name has been documented in books as being "Gaius Cornelius Verres".

Gaius Verres was the governor of Sicily, an island southwest of the tip of modern-day Italy. In 70 b.c., Verres was accused of a sinister crime. Plutarch put it that "Verres. . .stood charged by the Sicilians of many evil practices." One act which could be described as "extortion", involved an amount equivalent to £400,000 in 1929, which in today's market, would run in the millions of dollars! Another act had to do with the needless beheading of Roman citizens.

Quaestor of that province since 75 b.c., Cicero took the liberty of prosecuting this extorter. In fact, he did it "pro bono" (as it is called in today's terms); he did it for no fee at all. Cicero did it to prove his loyalty and integrity to the Roman people. At different times throughout his life, Cicero had said that service through political means is the "greatest necessity of men." Regardless, Verres obviously knew of the power Cicero held in oratory, and actually tried, through his power, to replace Cicero with Caecilius. This failed, and so Verres executed another plan.

Because the hearing had to be in a certain court, if another case was prepared sooner than Cicero's, then Cicero's case would be postponed until after the first was completed; this Verres' friends attempted to do, by prosecuting an ex-governor of another province sooner. Thus Cicero was put on a very short schedule. He gathered the evidence himself, which may have been fairly easy for him since he was so learned on the aspects of Sicily. Perhaps the defense was not aware of his education of the area, for Cicero was prepared to prosecute long before the attorney for the alternate prosecution from the other province was.

There was only one last thing that the defense could do: to delay the verdict in the trial until the new year, for at the time of a new year, a new jury would be put impanneled. In order to accomodate this probability, Cicero made a tactical decision that wasn't apparent, however, until the trial began.

Meanwhile, Hortensius became the defense attorney for the Sicilian governor. It was supposed that he would have done his best to lengthen the trial beyond the completion of the year. Therfore, Cicero implemented his tactic; he split up the normal order of the trial. The normal trial would have proceeded in the following manner. There would be a long oratory by the prosecutor, then a long oratory by the defense attorney. Perhaps (for the normal account of a standard trial is not fully known) after this, other attorneys on each side would orate additionally. After all these addresses, evidence would be given by the prosecution witnesses, then the defense witnesses. Somewhere in the trial, an actual debate among the sides would take place, completing the first "act" of the trial. Next, there would be a break of some time, followed by a second "act" of the trial, possibly in the same way as the first. Finally, the verdict would be given. The first and second "acts" were respectively titled the "actio prima" and the "actio secunda".

Cicero was a master of rhetoric, not only in the eloquence of his words but also in the placement of his speeches. What Cicero did that was peculiar, was he broke up his main first speech into several little ones, each addressing a different specific action. Each small sermon, however, would include the testimony of the witnesses immediately after each charge. Then, much as trials are run in the twentieth century, the defense would have a chance to question the witnesses. Cicero realized that this would upset some people and so promised that in the second half (actio secunda) of the trial, the usual method would be practiced. After Cicero said these last few things, his first speech against governor C. Verres concluded.

Cicero, in writing his prima secunda speech, said in it, that it was rumored that Verres attempted to flee during the break. If Verres did indeed show up, Cicero was intending to boast about how he himself would have received less recognition had he not been able to finish his case. Cicero then continued to write of the horrors that Verres performed including testimony of beheadings of citizens, extortion, and horrors of other deaths in the quarries.

Unfortunately, these last words and everything beyond them, were never not said. For it is the case that Verres apparently did actually flee before the end of the first act. Evidently, Cicero simply had already mapped out what he would have said had he not fled, and even got it published.

As soon as Verres fled, a guilty verdict was announced. It resulted in a fine of only 75 myriads. Some thought this to be bribery for it was far lower than it should. In addition, this resulted in the loss of Verres' "caput", his Roman Citizenship, even though he had already fled into exile. All this happened, it is assumed, without any defense speech from Hortensius rebutting Cicero's actio prima case.

Now, here's the twist. The fact that Verres fled before a defense speech could even be read is, in actuality, simply a theory. It is a theory initially based on a passage of "Quintilian." Quintilian was most likely deceived by Cicero's final speeches, forged into appearing extant. His passage has a contradiction within it that makes it entirely possible that Hortensius did really give a speech prior to the fleeing of Verres! In fact, even certain accounts of the trial from Plutarch's point of view cannot be trusted. Plutarch talks of sarcastic jokes that Cicero aimed at Hortensius, and, in order to fit them into his version of the story, puts them in a strange place, in a speech called the "litis aestimatio". However, several others documented his saying these jokes during the questioning of a witness! Also, Michael Alexander said "there are passages in Verrines 2 which indicate that the defendant stayed in Rome well after the end of the first actio, and that the defense had therefore not yet forfeited the case."

Therefore, Hortensius did refute many of the things that Cicero mentioned. Also, certain things that were thought to have been imagined by Cicero when he published his Verrine Oratory were not conceived by Cicero, but, in truth, were stated by Hortensius. Mr. Alexander explains Hortensius' speech:

Hortensius' speech must have been short, and probably not as effective as Cicero's. But, there were significant arguments to be made in defense of his client, and, in particular, against Cicero's procedure in the first hearing.

In turn, Cicero would have rebutted this. This new theory also suggests that Cicero made an extensive rebuttal to Hortensius' speech. Cicero may not have won the trial of Gaius Verres by default as was suggested all these years. Verres may actually have had a defense to be reckoned with!

In conclusion, Cicero was a speaker of magnificent eloquence and persuasiveness, who prosecuted a man named Gaius Verres, a committer of atrocious crimes. However, Verres and his attorney, Hortensius, lost, not by default, but because of the seriousness of the genocide as well as the extortion of the public's funds. History as we all have known it has been changed!

Show a printable version of this page

Bibliography

Alexander, Michael C., "Hortensius' Speech in Defense of Verres", The Phoenix, Vol. 30, 1976, pp. 46-53.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius, The Verrine Orations: Speech against Verres I, Translated by L. H. G. Greenwood. New York: G. P. Putnams Sons, 1928, pp. 73-121.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius, The Verrine Orations: Speech against Verres II, Translated by L. H. G. Greenwood. New York: G. P. Putnams Sons, 1928, pp. 125-139.

Greenwood, L. H. G., The Verrine Orations: an Introduction, New York: G. P. Putnams Sons, 1928, pp. 9-22.

Jenny, Charles, Third Year Latin, Boston: Allyn & Sons, 1963, p. 207. Nicgorski, Walter, "Cicero's Focus", Political Theory, Vol. 19, No. 2, May 1991, p. 15.

Plutarch, Cicero Biography, Translated by John Drydan, gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/02/133/14.

Riggsby, A., Cicero Chronology, http://www.dls.utexas.edu/depts/ classics/documents/Cic.html .

Vasaly, A., "Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory", The Bryn Mawr Review, Mar. 15, 1994., p. 1.