Cic. In Verrem, 2.5.56

 

Editor: D.Espinosa Espinosa

Text:

Age porro, tu, qui tam religiosum existimari te uoluisti interpretem foederum, cur Tauromenitanis frumentum, cur Netinis imperasti, quarum ciuitatum utraque foederata est? Ac Netini quidem sibi non defuerunt ac simul pronuntiasti libenter te Mamertinis remittere, te adierunt et eandem suam causam foederis esse docuerunt. Tu aliter decernere eadem in causa non potuisti; pronuntias Netinos frumentum dare non debere et ab his tamen exigis. Cedo mihi eiusdem praetoris litteras et rerum decretarum et frumenti imperati. LITTERAE RERUM DECRETARUM. Quid potius in hac tanta et tam turpi inconstantia suspicari possumus, iudices, quam id quod necesse est, aut isti a Netinis pecuniam cum posceret non datam, aut id esse actum ut intellegerent Mamertini bene se apud istum tam multa pretia ac munera conlocasse, cum idem alii iuris ex eadem causa non obtinerent?

(H.BORNECQUE – G.RABAUD, Les Belles Lettres, 1961)

Translation: “Let us take it further: you [scil. Verres], who wanted to be regarded such a scrupulous interpreter of treaties, why did you demand grain from the Tauromenitani, why from the Netini, for both of their cities are federate? The Netini certainly did not neglect their interest and as soon as you had announced willingly exempting the Mamertini, they came before you and demonstrated that the condition of their treaty was the same. You could not decree differently in a case which was identical with the other. You state that the Netini must not give corn and yet you impose this contribution. Give me the records of this same praetor relating to the decisions taken and the corn required. RECORDS OF THE DECISIONS TAKEN. Faced with such a serious and shameful inconsistency, what supposition should be made, judges, rather than that which is inevitable: either the Netini did not give him the money he demanded, or else that the Mamertini were given to understand that they had disposed of all their sums and favours very advantageously, when others, in the same situation, did not obtain the same privilege?”. (D.Espinosa Espinosa)

Dating: Post 212 BC

Bibliography: J.CARCOPINO, Les cités de Sicile devant l’impôt romain: Ager Decumanus et Ager Censorius, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire 25, 1905, 3-53; J.CARCOPINO, La loi de Hiéron et les Romains, Paris 1919, 213-216; E.BADIAN, Foreign clientelae (264-70 BC), Oxford 1958, 33-43; H.BORNECQUE – G.RABAUD, Cicéron. Discours, tome VI. Seconde action contre Verrès, livre V. – Les supplices, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1961³; G.MANGANARO, Città di Sicilia e santuari panellenici nel III e II sec. a.C., Historia 13, 1964, 414-439, 424; H.H.SCHMITT, Die Staatsverträge des Altertums. III. Die Verträge der griechisch-römischen Welt von 338 bis 200 v.Chr., München 1969, 257-258 no. 535; G.MANGANARO, Per una storia della Sicilia romana, in: ANRW I.1, 1972, 442-461, 444-454; R.T.PRITCHARD, Perpaucae Siciliae civitates: Notes on Verr. 3, 3, 6, 13, Historia 24.1, 1975, 33-47, 41-42, 46-47; A.PINZONE, Sulle civitates foederatae di Sicilia: Problemi di storia e cronologia, Archivio Storico Messinese 29, 1978, 353-379; H.B.MATTINGLY, On emending Cicero, Mnemosyne 38.1-2, 1985, 148-152, 149, 151 nt.2; A.M.ECKSTEIN, Senate and General. Individual Decision-Making and Roman Foreign Relations, 263-194 BC, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1987, 106-108, 112-115, 164-169; J.L.FERRARY, Philhellénisme et impérialisme. Aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique, de la seconde guerre de Macédoine à la guerre contre Mithridate, Roma 1988, 5-12, 22-23 nt. 73; R.J.A.WILSON, Sicily under the Roman Empire. The archaeology of a Roman province, 36 BC – AD 535, Warminster 1990, 20; M.GENOVESE, Condizioni delle civitates della Sicilia ed assetti amministrativo-contributivi delle altre province nella prospettazione ciceroniana delle Verrine, Iura 44, 1993, 171-243, 193 nt. 41-42; A.LINTOTT, Imperium Romanum. Politics and administration, London – New York, 1993, 70-80; A.PINZONE, Provincia Sicilia. Ricerche di storia della Sicilia romana da Gaio Flaminio a Gregorio Magno, Catania 1999, 60-65, 74-75; A.PINZONE, Civitates sine foedere immunes ac liberae: a proposito di Cic. II Verr. 3, 6, 13, Mediterraneo Antico 2.2, 1999, 463-495, 464; A.PINZONE, La ‘romanizzazione’ della Sicilia occidentale in età repubblicana, in: Atti delle Terze Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’area elima, Gibellina-Erice-Contessa Entellina, 23-26 ottobre 1997, I-II, Pisa-Gibellina 2000, 849-878, 850-857; G.MANGANARO, Noto greca e romana: fonti storiografiche, epigrafi e pseudo-monete, in: F.Balsamo – V.La Rossa (eds.), Contributi alla geografia storica dell´agro netino, Rosolini 2001, 73-152; C.SORACI, Sicilia frumentaria. Contributi allo studio della Sicilia in epoca repubblicana, Quaderni Catanesi di studi antichi e medievali 2, 2003, 289-401, 322-323, 337-338; J.R.W.PRAG, Auxilia and Gymnasia: A Sicilian Model of Roman Imperialism, JRS 97, 2007, 68-100, 80-81; J.DUBOULOZ – S.PITTIA, La Sicile romaine, de la disparition du royame de Hiéron II à la réorganisation augustéenne des provinces, in: B.Cabouret Laurioux – J.P.Guilhembet – Y.Roman (eds.), Rome et l’Occident du II^e s. av. J.-C. au II^e s. apr. J.-C., Colloque de la SOPHAU, Lyon, 15-16 mai 2009, Pallas 80, 2009, 85-125; P.J.BURTON, Friendship and Empire. Roman Diplomacy and Imperialism in the Middle Republic (353-146 BC), Cambridge 2011, 2, 134-135; J.R.W.PRAG, Sicily and Sardinia-Corsica: The First Provinces, in: D.Hoyos (ed.), A Companion to Roman Imperialism, Leiden 2013, 56, 61-64; J.R.W.PRAG, Cities and civic life in late Hellenistic Roman Sicily, CCG 25, 2014, 165-208, 195-197; C.SORACI, La Sicilia romana (sec. III a.C. – V d.C.), Roma 2016, 46-47; C.SORACI, Città siciliane “privilegiate” in epoca repubblicana, DHA 42.1, 2016, 97-136; M.TROMMINO, Riflessioni sullo status giuridico di Netum e Leontini in seguito alla conquista romana della Sicilia, Rivista di Diritto Romano 18, 2018, 1-12, 1-8, 12; L.PFUNTNER, Urbanism and Empire in Roman Sicily, Austin 2019, 8, 246 nt. 103.