The Verrines: Cicero’s Masterful Prosecution, Hortensius’ Hypothetical Defence, and the False Conclusions of Grain Production Models

Abstract

This thesis addresses issues concerning Cicero’s prosecution of Verres over the course of three chapters. The first chapter examines the case and clarifies what actually happened at the trial, what form of defence Hortensius raised, and why Cicero was so successful at overcoming his opposition’s ploys. As Cicero had modified the trial’s format, and Verres had fled from Rome before it had concluded, modern scholarship has not established the details of the trial clearly. The second chapter analyses the case from the perspective of the defence, putting forward the most likely arguments Hortensius would have considered. These are formed from anecdotes in the Verrines, Cicero’s defence speeches, and the recommendations of the rhetorical handbooks. By taking each probable argument in turn, Cicero’s prosecution is shown to negate their effectiveness in advance. Although this chapter can extend no further than the hypothetical realm, it illustrates that Cicero carefully crafted his prosecution to counteract any defence. This implies that rhetorical brilliance was at work in his performance, a proposition at odds to scholarship’s tendency to attribute his success solely to his overwhelming evidentiary advantage. The final chapter utilises the scepticism in Cicero’s reliability that the first two chapters have developed, and focuses on the analyses of economic scholars. The De Frumento is a central source in studies of Roman grain production, yet has received little critical analysis from rhetorical scholars. Economic scholars therefore utilise its figures literally, which has resulted in a slight miscalculation as Cicero manipulated the statistics he presented in court.