Comments and Guidance On Cicero’s On Government
Against Verres, II, 5
P.1-25, about extortion and corruption and misuse of power.
Cicero begins by attacking Verres’ ethos by questioning his military feats and status as a general. Instead of acknowledging Verres’ military reputation and past achievements before focusing on his guilt, Cicero immediately sets out to destroy his reputation and alienate him from his esteemed position.
“I am not going to make an assertion… that verdicts should be pronounced on specific, individual issues. I am going to inquire, instead, whether your military achievements really were as substantial as has been said.”
(p.3-5)
By questioning the legitimacy of Verres’ military accomplishments, Cicero undermines his credibility before any discussion of the charges is raised.
Cicero then refutes Verres’ supposed valor during the slave war, arguing that Verres did not fight as bravely as he is often praised. He shifts the focus to Marcus Crassus, noting:
“It was the enterprise and determination of the courageous Marcus Crassus, I was told, that prevented the runaways from constructing rafts and crossing the strait to Messana, though that, in fact, did not really need much preventing.”
(p.5-7)
This redirection serves to de-glorify Verres by attributing the success to someone else, thereby rendering Verres’ involvement insignificant.
Cicero continues by claiming that the slave uprising in Sicily was not particularly dangerous, suggesting that the runaways lacked the means—such as ships—to cross the strait, and noting that rebellions were common in many provinces. Although this reasoning might appear logically flawed, it is employed strategically to draw a comparison between Sicily and other regions, further diminishing the importance of Verres’ actions.
He supports his argument with the example of Governor Gaius Norbanus, explaining that even though Norbanus was not an exceptionally energetic or valiant man, his strict enforcement of rigorous laws ensured that Sicily remained orderly:
“When these rigorous rules were introduced in Sicily, the result was that Governor Gaius Norbanus, though not an exceptionally energetic or valiant man, encountered no problems at all… and Sicily had, by that time, become perfectly capable of defending itself against any internal corruption that might have occurred.”
This comparison implies that Verres’ so-called achievements are introduced by his inability to govern effectively.
Cicero then recounts an incident at Triocala, where a slave owner was summoned to court because his slaves had plotted a rebellion. When the slaves were about to be executed, Verres released them, claiming:
“Once the slaves have been pronounced guilty, as happened on this occasion, all possibilities of corrupt profit have vanished.”
Here, Cicero accuses Verres of releasing the convicted slaves in exchange for personal gain, a move that not only questions his integrity but also highlights his willingness to compromise justice for corrupt profit.
Using a rhetorical question—“What did you get, Verres, for letting them go?”—Cicero forces the audience to reexamine Verres’ identity and moral standing without giving him an opportunity to respond.
He intensifies his argument by focusing on Verres’ role as a general:
“What I shall concern myself with now is your reputation as a general. Splendid guardian and defender of your province that you are, tell me this: first, you learned that these slaves intended to take up arms and instigate a rebellion in Sicily, and then, as a consequence, you upheld their conviction in court. But what I very much want to know is how, after they had been handed over in the traditional manner for execution, you had the nerve to snatch them from the very jaws of death. I can only suppose that the cross you had set up for the crucifixion of convicted slaves should instead disgracefully be reserved for the deaths of Roman citizens—who had not been convicted at all!”
(p.11-12)
This passage shifts the focus from the slave uprising to the treatment of Roman citizens, appealing strongly to the audience’s sense of injustice and fear, and challenging Verres’ integrity.
Cicero further argues that the release and pardon of the convicted are signs of a collapse in order. He suggests that, although canceling punishment might benefit radicals or conservatives in different cases, it is unusual for the same person who convicts to then cancel the sentence. This inconsistency reinforces the idea that Verres’ actions are not just flawed but are part of a broader pattern of corruption.
In a tone of sarcasm, Cicero compares Verres to revered figures such as Paullus, Scipio, and Marius, emphasizing that Verres’ method of terror—ordering arrests and summoning owners to court—is particularly degrading when applied to slaves:
“It is with the men of Paullus, Scipio, and Marius that we must compare him. And having once perceived how effectively he terrorized them into making no move of their own—ordering arrests, summoning their owners to court—what a particularly terrifying fate for a slave…”
(p.12-14)
This sarcastic comparison not only belittles Verres but also underscores the extent of his tyranny, suggesting that if such tactics are used against the most vulnerable, Roman citizens could face even graver injustices.
Cicero then introduces two bribery cases involving Eumenides of Halicyae and Gaius Matrinius, and he accuses Verres of fabricating charges against the innocent, wealthy citizen Apollonius while neglecting to punish the slaves who should have been held accountable. Verres is also accused of extorting Apollonius’ wealth. These cases compound the image of Verres as a corrupt, greedy, and unjust governor who betrayed the republic and misused his power.
In a strategic move, Cicero feigns agreement with Verres’ position to preempt any counterargument:
“I shall support your authority so fully that you could not possibly feel any objection. But seeing that you yourself went on to annul those very sentences that you pronounce, you are hardly in a position to resent my criticism. For when a man has pronounced himself guilty with his own mouth, then he ought also to be declared guilty by the sword verdict of this court.”
(p.19-21)
This calculated support is meant to highlight Verres’ contradictions and force him into a defensive corner.
Cicero then distances himself from any appearance of bias by claiming he is not speaking in favor of Apollonius. He declares:
“Yet I am not going to demonstrate my eagerness to annul your verdict by speaking in his favour. About his frugality…I shall say nothing. I shall pass over the fact that his resources are invested in workers, livestock, farmhouses, and loans, all of which mean that he would be the man who would suffer more than anyone else.”
(p.19-21)
This maneuver allows him to subtly praise Apollonius’ character while maintaining a neutral facade, thereby appealing to the audience’s sympathy without overt partisanship.
Cicero further argues that even if Apollonius had committed a crime, he should not have been punished without trial. This redirection shifts the focus squarely onto Verres’ misuse of judicial power from just corruption. To heighten the emotional impact, Cicero vividly describes the plight of Apollonius, depicting him as follows:
“That this fine man was lying in prison, in darkness, squalor, and filth. And there, under your despotic prohibitions, his aged father and young son were prevented from even paying him a single visit. Moreover, the local senators came to see you… to plead and appeal that this miserable, innocent man should at long last be delivered from his calamitous fate.”
(p.19-21)
This portrayal evokes sympathy and underscores the gravity of Verres’ actions in the eyes of even the highest authorities.
Finally, Cicero warns that the brutal treatment meted out by Verres has disqualified him from receiving any mercy from the court:
“I could prove, with utmost ease, that the brutal treatment you have meted out to others has totally disqualified you from receiving any mercy from this court.”
(p.21-23)
This statement is designed to instill fear and suggest that Verres’ actions leave him no recourse for leniency.
Then he started questioning Verres’ motive for punishing Apollonius (p.23-25). He expanded the case beyond Apollonius, implying that this was part of a series of crimes from which none of the wealthy men in Sicily could escape.
“For you cannot, surely, imagine that any motive other than personal gain for himself caused Verres to single out the extremely wealthy Apollonius as the target, for such an unbelievable charge – or that one can think of any other motive whatever which could have suddenly freed him from prison. Nor, equally, can you conclude that such a form of robbery was merely tried out and put into practice against Apollonius alone, and nobody else. No: his case was designed to subject every rich man in Sicily to intimidation and terror.”
(p.23-25)
This final statement serves as a decisive condemnation of Verres’ extortion practices. By questioning his motive, Cicero implies that Verres’ actions were driven solely by greed and personal gain. Moreover, by framing the punishment of Apollonius as part of a broader pattern of extortion, Cicero suggests that Verres systematically targeted all of Sicily’s wealthy citizens. This broader argument intensifies the sense of injustice among the audience, reinforcing the idea that Verres’ corruption was both pervasive and deliberate.