IN P. VATINIUM TESTEM

ORATIO.

INTRODUCTION.

P. VATINIUS was a man of mean origin, as Cicero tells us, and Velleius (ii. 69) says the same. He was also disfigured by some deformities, which Cicero with his usual bad taste in such matters often reminds him of; and his moral character was as bad as his personal appearance. He was quaestor in в.c. 63 (c. 5), and in the next year he went to Hispania Ulterior as legatus to C. Cosconius (c. 5). In в.c. 59, the year of C. Caesar's consulship, he was a tribunus pl., and he served Caesar faithfully in all his measures. He was the man who proposed the Rogatio which gave Caesar after his consulate the Provinces of Gallia Citerior and Illyricum with three legions; to which the senate added Gallia Narbonensis with one legion. Caesar repaid Vatinius for his services by making him one of his legati, and it appears that he left Rome (B.c. 58) for his provincia, but returned on hearing that he was threatened with a prosecution under the Lex Licinia et Junia on account of the Rogationes which he had proposed in his tribunate. It appears from what we learn of him in Cicero, and from his never being mentioned in the Commentaries of Caesar before the year B.C. 51 (B. G. viii. 46), that he stayed at Rome several years, partly to look after his own interests, and perhaps also to look after Caesar's; for he was always on good terms with his old master, who afterwards employed him in the Civil War.

Vatinius was a candidate for the aedileship probably in B.C. 57, but he lost his election (c. 15). In B.c. 56 he was one of the witnesses against P. Sestius, whom Cicero defended; and in this same year he was a candidate for the praetorship, and brought himself within the penalties of the Lex Tullia de Ambitu by exhibiting a show of gladiators. C. Licinius Calvus threatened him at this time with a prosecution. The

VOL. IV.

B

Comitia Praetoria were put off to the next year, and in February B.C. 55 Vatinius was elected praetor. In B.c. 54 he was prosecuted under the Lex Licinia de Sodaliciis, and Cicero defended him. This is all that is necessary to know of Vatinius for the purpose of reading this oration.

Cicero had attacked Vatinius in the speech for Sestius, though his name is not mentioned. The witnesses were heard on Sestius' trial, according to the practice, after the speeches for the defendant, and Vatinius gave evidence against Sestius. Witnesses could be cross examined, and the orators could speak generally for or against the credibility of the witnesses, as Cicero did against Vatinius on this occasion. Quintilian (Inst. Or. v. 7) says: "Cum praesentibus (testibus) vero ingens dimicatio est, ideoque velut duplici contra eos proque his acie confligitur, Actionum et Interrogationum. In Actionibus primum generaliter pro testibus atque in testes dici solet-Interim adversus singulos dirigitur actio; quod insectationis genus et permixtum defensioni legimus in orationibus plurimis, et separatim editum, sicut In Vatinium testem."

This speech against Vatinius is partly intended to destroy his credit as a witness, but mainly to gratify Cicero's own revengeful feelings. It is a violent attack on the man in the form of a series of questions which refer to all his life, private and public. It is not an examination or set of questions to which Cicero requires or expects an answer, for he tells us so, and the form of the speech shows what it is. It is the actio, which the patronus had a right to use to destroy the witness' credibility and his character too, if he could. This actio was also called by the general term Interrogatio, as the Scholiast says: "Erat alia praeterea Interrogatio testium, sicut ipse M. Tullius P. Vatinium testem interrogavit. Proprie namque Interrogatio dicebatur, qua testes redarguebantur." Cicero in a letter to P. Lentulus (Ad Fam. i. 9) tells what he did in this speech, and why he made this outrageous attack on Vatinius. The man had said something about Cicero, which was true: “Ego sedente Cn. Pompeio, quum ut laudaret P. Sestium introisset in urbem dixissetque testis Vatinius me fortuna et felicitate C. Caesaris commotum illi amicum esse coepisse, dixi me eam Bibuli fortunam quam ille afflictam putaret omnium triumphis victoriisque anteferre: dixique eodem teste alio loco eosdem esse qui Bibulum exire domo prohibuissent et qui me coegissent: tota vero interrogatio mea nihil habuit nisi reprehensionem illius tribunatus, in quo omnia dicta sunt libertate animoque maximo de vi, de auspiciis, de donatione regnorum." Cicero in a letter to his brother Quintus (ii. 4) after informing him of Sestius' acquittal, tells him that he did what Sestius most wished for; he made mince meat of Vatinius (arbitratu nostro concidimus, dis hominibusque plaudentibus-Quid quaeris ? homo petulans et audax Vatinius valde perturbatus debilitatusque discessit).

I have used for the text of this oration Halm's edition, which is in the second edition of Orelli, 1856.

The MSS abbreviations are as follow in Halm:

A

P

lemmata Schol. Bob.

codex Parisinus 7794 ab Halmio collatus.

G = codex Gemblacensis nunc Bruxellensis 5345 a Baitero collatus.

S = codex Salisburgensis nunc Monacensis Lat. 15734 a me collatus.

I have also used Halm's edition of this oration, Leipzig, 1845, which contains a selection from the notes of the best commentators on this oration, among whom is Goveanus, and also notes of his own. Halm's editions are always useful. His selections from the commentators on this oration and his own remarks have saved me much labour; which I acknowledge most fully. I have also done my best to explain whatever I could.

M. TULLII CICERONIS

IN

P. VATINIUM TESTEM ORATIO.

I. Si tua tantummodo, Vatini, quid indignitas postularet spectare voluissem, fecissem id, quod his vehementer placebat, ut te, cujus testimonium propter turpitudinem vitae sordesque domesticas nullius momenti putaretur, tacitus dimitterem. Nemo enim horum aut ita te refutandum ut gravem adversarium, aut ita rogandum ut religiosum testem arbitrabatur. Sed fui paullo ante intemperantior fortasse quam debui. Odio enim tui, in quo etsi omnes propter tuum in me scelus superare debeo, tamen ab omnibus paene vincor, sic sum incitatus ut, quum te non minus contemnerem quam odissem, tamen vexatum potius quam despectum vellem dimittere. Quare, ne tibi hunc honorem a me haberi forte mirere quod interrogem, quem nemo congressu, nemo aditu, nemo

1. Si tua] 'Si' P. 'Si tua,' codd. rell. et edd. (Halm); who writes tantummodo tua,' because he thinks that 'tua' is in the wrong place.-'indignitas:' 'worthlessness.' He says afterwards "ne tibi hunc honorem a me haberi forte mirere." -'his' Sextius and his 'patroni' and 'advocati' as Goveanus supposes; and this seems to be the true explanation. Manutius refers 'his' to the 'judices.' The meaning of 'hi' in such cases will depend on the context. See c. 3.-aut rogandum:' P. Halm.

sordes domesticas] Manutius supposes this to mean his poverty, but Cicero speaks (c. 12) of the wealth of Vatinius. Abrami thinks that the orator means Vatinius' filthy practices at home; and Goveanus supposes that it refers to the meanness of his condition, as in c. 5, "obscuritate et sordibus tuis." As the word signifies 'dirt,' it does

not seem necessary, nor perhaps is it possible, to ascertain exactly what Cicero meant. Horace uses sordes and sordidus' in various senses.

ante intemperantior] ante intemperatior,' P. G. Halm, who however thinks that 'intemperantior' is the true form. The critics do not agree about the time signified by 'paullo ante.' It may be, as Halm supposes, the time when he declared that he would question Vatinius.-'tuum in me scelus:' he combined with P. Clodius against Cicero (c. 17).

hunc honorem. . quod] Hermann observes that the meaning is, 'that you may not wonder that this my questioning you-'tamquam honorem tibi haberi.' But there is no tanquam' in the original. Hermann means that hunc' is a predicate equivalent to hoc,' and so it might be, if Cicero had said 'putes' in place of 'mirere;' and he