Asconius: ORATIONUM CICERONIS QUINQUE ENARRATIO

Haec oratio dicta est Cn. Pompeio Magno II M. Crasso II coss. ante paucos dies quam Cn. Pompeius ludos faceret, quibus theatrum a se factum dedicavit. Hoc intellegi ex ipsius Ciceronis verbis potest quae in hac oratione posuit.

This oration was delivered under the consulship of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus 2 and Marcus Crassus 2, consuls, a few days before Gnaeus Pompeius held the games by which he dedicated the theatre made by himself. This can be understood from Cicero’s own words which he set down in this oration.

dixit enim sic: "Instant post hominum memoriam apparatissimi magnificentissimi ludi ... quidem posuit hanc inter eas orationes quas dixit Cicero L. Domitio Appio Claudio coss. ultimam. Sed ut ego ab eo dissentiam facit primum quod Piso reversus est ex provincia Pompeio et Crasso consulibus, Gabinius Domitio et Appio: hanc autem orationem dictam ante Gabini reditum ex ipsa manifestum est.

for he said thus: "Imminent, within human memory, the most sumptuously-prepared and most magnificent games ..." indeed he placed this as the last among those speeches which Cicero delivered, in the consulship of L. Domitius and Appius Claudius. But that I dissent from him is caused first by this: that Piso returned from his province with Pompey and Crassus as consuls, Gabinius under Domitius and Appius; but that this speech was delivered before the return of Gabinius is evident from the very piece itself.

Deinde magis quidem naturale est ut Piso recenti reditu invectus sit in Ciceronem responderitque insectationi eius qua revocatus erat ex provincia quam post anni intervallum. Apparet autem Ciceronem respondisse Pisoni. In summa, cum dicat in ipsa oratione Cicero instare magnificentissimos apparatissimosque ludos, non video quo modo hoc magis Domitio et Appio coss.

Then, indeed, it is more natural that, upon his recent return, Piso should have attacked Cicero and replied to his invective, by which he had been recalled from the province, than after an interval of a year. Moreover, it is apparent that Cicero replied to Piso. In sum, since Cicero in the speech itself says that the most magnificent and most elaborately prepared games are imminent, I do not see how this applies more to Domitius and Appius as consuls.

dictum sit, quibus consulibus nulli notabiliores (p.2) ludi fuerunt, quam Pompeio et Crasso, quo anno Pompeius exquisitissimis magnificentissimisque omnis generis ludis theatrum dedicavit.

it may be said, under which consuls no games were more notable (p.2) than under Pompey and Crassus, in the year when Pompey dedicated the theater with the most exquisite and most magnificent games of every kind.

Argumentum orationis huius breve admodum est. Nam cum revocati essent ex provinciis Piso et Gabinius sententia Ciceronis quam dixerat de provinciis consularibus Lentulo et Philippo consulibus, reversus in civitatem Piso de insectatione Ciceronis in senatu conquestus est et in eum invectus, fiducia maxime Caesaris generi qui tum Gallias obtinebat. Pisoni Cicero respondit hac oratione.

The argument of this oration is very brief indeed. For when Piso and Gabinius had been recalled from the provinces by the sententia of Cicero, which he had delivered concerning the consular provinces in the consulship of Lentulus and Philippus, Piso, having returned to the city, complained in the senate about Cicero’s invective and inveighed against him, relying especially on Caesar, his son-in-law, who at that time was holding Gaul. To Piso Cicero replied with this oration.

Enarratio

Explanation

Circa vers. a primo ***

Concerning the verse, from the first ***

Quod minimum specimen in te ingeni? Ingeni autem? immo ingenui hominis ac liberi: qui colore ipso patriam aspernaris, oratione genus, moribus nomen.

What the least specimen of talent is there in you? Of talent, rather? nay, of an ingenuous man, freeborn and free: you who by your very complexion spurn your fatherland, by your speech your race, by your mores your name.

Tametsi haec oratio sic inscribitur: "In L. Pisonem"; tamen non puto vos ignorare hunc Pisonem ex ea familia esse quae Frugi appellata sit: et ideo dicit aspernari eum moribus nomen.

Although this oration is thus entitled: "Against L. Piso"; yet I do not think you are unaware that this Piso is from that family which has been called Frugi; and for that reason he says that he spurns the name by his morals.

Circa vers. LXXX

Around verse 80

Hoc non ad contemnendam Placentiam pertinet unde se is ortum gloriari solet: neque enim hoc mea natura fert, nec municipi, praesertim de me optime meriti, dignitas patitur.

This does not pertain to contemning Placentia, whence he is wont to glory that he is sprung: for neither does my nature bear this, nor does the dignity of the municipium, especially one most excellently deserving of me, permit it.

Magnopere me haesitare confiteor quid sit quae re Cicero (3) Placentiam muni cipium esse dicat. Video enim in annalibus eorum qui Punicum bellum secundum scripserunt tradi Placentiam coloniam deductam pridie Kal. Iun.

I confess I hesitate greatly as to what it is, for what reason Cicero (3) says that Placentia is a municipium. For I see in the annals of those who wrote about the Second Punic War that it is handed down that Placentia was established as a colony on the day before the Calends of June.

primo anno eius belli, P. Cornelio Scipione, patre Africani prioris, Ti.Sempronio Longo coss. Neque illud dici potest, sic eam coloniam esse deductam quemadmodum post plures aetates Cn. Pompeius Strabo, pater Cn. Pompei Magni, Transpadanas colonias deduxerit. Pompeius enim non novis colonis eas constituit sed veteribus incolis manentibus ius dedit Latii, ut possent habere ius quod ceterae Latinae coloniae, id est ut petendo magistratus civitatem Romanam adipiscerentur.

in the first year of that war, with Publius Cornelius Scipio, the father of Africanus the Elder, and Tiberius Sempronius Longus as consuls. Nor can it be said that that colony was led out (deducted) in the same way as, after many generations, Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo, the father of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, led out the Transpadane colonies. For Pompeius did not establish them with new colonists, but, the old inhabitants remaining, he granted the Latin Right (ius Latii), so that they might have the right that the other Latin colonies had—that is, by seeking magistracies they might obtain Roman citizenship.

Placentiam autem sex milia hominum novi coloni deducti sunt, in quibus equites ducenti. Deducendi fuit causa ut opponerentur Gallis qui eam partem Italiae tenebant. Deduxerunt IIIviri P. Cornelius Asina, P. Papirius Maso, Cn. Cornelius Scipio.

To Placentia, moreover, 6 thousand men, new colonists, were led out, among whom 200 equites. The cause of the leading-out was that they might be set against the Gauls who held that part of Italy. They were led out by the 3 triumvirs, P. Cornelius Asina, P. Papirius Maso, Cn. Cornelius Scipio.

Eamque coloniam LIII deductam esse invenimus: deducta est autem Latina. Duo porro genera earum coloniarum quae a populo Romano deductae sunt fuerunt, ut Quiritium aliae, aliae Latinorum essent. De se autem optime meritos Placentinos ait, quod illi quoque honoratissima decreta erga Ciceronem fecerunt certaveruntque in ea re cum tota Italia, cum de reditu eius actum est.(4)

And we find that that colony was founded 53; it was, moreover, a Latin one. Furthermore, there were two kinds of those colonies which were led out by the Roman People: some were of the Quirites, others of the Latins. He says, moreover, that the Placentines had deserved excellently of him, because they, too, passed most honorific decrees toward Cicero and contended in that matter with all Italy, when his return was being dealt with.(4)

Paulo post

A little later

De avo Pisonis materno:

Concerning Piso’s maternal grandfather:

Hic cum a domo profectus Placentiae forte consedisset paucis post annis in eam civitatem nam tum erat ascendit. Prius enim Gallus, dein Gallicanus, extremo Placentinus haberi coeptus est.

This man, when, having set out from home, he had by chance settled at Placentia, a few years later into that citizen-body for at that time he was he ascended. For first he began to be considered a Gaul, then Gallican, lastly a Placentine.

Hoc quod dicit civitatem fuisse Placentiam, ab eadem persuasione ponit municipium fuisse. Avum autem maternum Pisonis primo Gallum fuisse ideo ait quod venisse eum in Italiam dicit trans Alpis, dein Gallicanum, quod in Italia consederit, Placentinum denique, postquam adscitus sit a Placentinis. Sed Pisonis avus multo post ea tempora fuit quibus Placentia colonia est deducta.

As for this, that he says Placentia was a civitas, from the same persuasion he posits that it was a municipium. He says, moreover, that Piso’s maternal grandfather was at first a Gallus for this reason, because he says that he came into Italy from across the Alps; then Gallicanus, because he settled in Italy; finally Placentinus, after he had been adscited by the Placentines. But Piso’s grandfather was much later than the times in which Placentia was led out as a colony.

Circa vers. a primo ***

Concerning the verse from the first ***

Lautiorem pater tuus socerum quam C. Piso in illo luctu meo. Ei enim filiam meam collocavi quem ego, si mihi potestas tum omnium fuisset, unum potissimum delegissem.

Your father had a more splendid father-in-law than C. Piso in that mourning of mine. For to him I settled my daughter—whom I, if at that time I had had the power over all, would have chosen as the one above all.

(5) Quis fuerit socer Pisonis patris ipse supra dixit his verbis: Insuber quidam fuit, idem mercator et praeco: is cum Romam cum filia venisset, adulescentem nobilem, Caesonini hominis furacissimi filium, ausus est appellare, eique filiam collocavit. Calventium aiunt eum appellatum.

(5) Who the father-in-law of Piso’s father was, he himself said above in these words: He was a certain Insubrian, likewise a merchant and a praeco; when he had come to Rome with his daughter, he dared to address a noble adolescent, the son of Caesoninus, a most thievish man, and he settled his daughter on him in marriage. They say he was called Calventius.

Ipsius Pisonis contra quem haec oratio est socerum Rutilium Nudum Fenestella tradit. Cicero filiam post mortem Pisonis generi P. Lentulo collocavit, apud quem illa ex partu decessit.

Fenestella hands down that the father-in-law of that very Piso, against whom this oration is directed, was Rutilius Nudus. Cicero, after the death of Piso, settled his daughter in marriage to P. Lentulus as son-in-law, at whose house she died from childbirth.

Cir.ver. a primo CCLXX

About verse 270 from the beginning.

[§ 4] Ego in C. Rabirio perduellionis reo XXXX annis ante me consulem interpositam senatus auctoritatem sustinui contra invidiam atque defendi.

[§ 4] I, in the case of Gaius Rabirius, a defendant for treason, upheld the authority of the Senate, interposed 40 years before my consulship, against ill-will, and defended it.

Possit aliquis credere errare Ciceronem, quod dicat quadraginta annis factum esse ut ex S.C. arma adversus L. Appuleium Saturninum tribunum plebis sumerentur. C. enim Mario L. Valerio coss. id senatum decrevisse, qui coss.

Someone might be able to believe that Cicero errs, because he says that it was forty years ago that, by senatus-consultum, arms were taken up against Lucius Appuleius Saturninus, tribune of the plebs. For he says that the senate decreed this under Gaius Marius and Lucius Valerius as consuls, who were consuls.

annis ante consulatum Ciceronis XXXVII fuerint. Sed hic non subtilis computatio annorum facta est verum summatim (6) tempus comprehensum est, ut proinde debeamus accipere ac si dixerit: prope XXXX annis. Haec consuetudo in ipsis orationibus est: itaque Cicero in ea quoque quam habuit in Catilinam in senatu, ait octavus decimus dies esset postea quam factum est senatus consultum ut viderent consules ne quid res publica detrimenti caperet, dixit vicesimum diem habere se S.C. tamquam in vagina reconditum.

years before Cicero’s consulate there were 37. But here no subtle computation of years was made; rather, the time was comprehended summarily (6), so that we ought to take it just as if he had said: almost 40 years. This habit is in the orations themselves: and so Cicero, in that speech too which he delivered against Catiline in the senate, says that it was the 18th day after the senatorial decree was passed that the consuls should see that the republic suffer no detriment; he said that he had the S.C. for the 20th day, as if laid away in a sheath.

Cir. vers. a primo CCC

Circa line 300 from the first.

[§ 6] Ego cum in contione abiens magistratu dicere a tribuno plebis prohibe rer quae constitueram, cum is mihi tantum modo iurare permitteret, sine ulla dubitatione iuravi rem p. atque hanc urbem mea unius opera esse salvam.

[§ 6] I, when in the assembly, as I was retiring from my magistracy, was forbidden by a tribune of the plebs to say what I had determined; since he permitted me only to swear, without any hesitation I swore that the republic and this city were safe through my single agency.

Diximus iam antea a Q. Metello Nepote tr. pl. Ciceronem consulatu abeuntem prohibitum esse contionari de rebus quas in eo magistratu gessit.

We have already said before that Cicero, departing from the consulship, was prohibited by Q. Metellus Nepos, tribune of the plebs, from addressing the assembly about the matters which he carried out in that magistracy.

Cir. ver. a primo CCCXX

Circa line 320 from the first.

Dicit de ludia Compitaliciis:

He says about the actress at the Compitalia:

[§ 8] Quos Q. Metellus facio iniuriam fortissimo (7) viro mortuo, qui illum cuius paucos pares haec civitas tulit cum hac importuna belua conferam , sed ille designatus consul, cum quidem tr. pl. suo auxilio magistros ludos contra S.C. facere iussisset, privatus fieri vetuit. Tu cum in Kal. Ian.

[§ 8] In what way do I, Q. Metellus, do an injury to the most brave (7) man, now dead, that I should compare that man—of whom this civitas has borne few peers—with this importunate beast , but he, a consul-designate, when indeed a tribune of the plebs, by his aid, had ordered the masters to hold the games against a decree of the Senate, as a private citizen forbade it to be done. You, when on the Kalends of January

Compitaliorum dies incidisset, Sex. Clodium, qui numquam ante praetextatus fuisset, ludos facere et praetextatum volitare passus es.

when the day of the Compitalia had fallen, you allowed Sex. Clodius, who had never before worn the praetexta, to hold the games and to flit about wearing the praetexta.

L. Iulio C. Marcio consulibus quos et ipse Cicero supra memoravit senatus consulto collegia sublata sunt quae adversus rem publicam videbantur esse constituta. Solebant autem magistri collegiorum ludos facere, sicut magistri vicorum faciebant, Compitalicios praetextati, qui ludi sublatis collegiis discussi sunt. Post VI deinde annos quam sublata erant P. Clodius tr.pl. lege lata restituit collegia.

In the consulship of L. Julius and C. Marcius, whom Cicero himself above also mentioned, by a decree of the senate the collegia were abolished which seemed to have been established against the Republic. Moreover the masters of the collegia were accustomed to put on games, just as the masters of the vici did—the Compitalian games—wearing the toga praetexta; and these games, with the collegia abolished, were discontinued. After 6 years then from when they had been abolished, P. Clodius, tribune of the plebs, by a law passed, restored the collegia.

Invidiam ergo et crimen restitutorum confert in Pisonem, quod, cum consul esset, passus sit ante quam lex ferretur facere Kal.Ianuar. praetextatum ludos Sex. Clodium.

He therefore casts the ill-will and the charge of the restitutions upon Piso, because, when he was consul, he allowed Sex. Clodius, wearing the praetexta, to put on games on the Kal.Ianuar. before the law was carried.

Is fuit familiarissimus Clodii et operarum Clodianarum dux, quo auctore postea illato ab eis corpore Clodii curia cum eo incensa est. Quos ludos tunc quoque fieri prohibere temptavit L. Ninnius tr.pl. Ante biennium autem quam restituerentur collegia, Q. Metellus Celer consul designatus magistros vicorum ludos Compitalicios facere prohibuerat, ut Cicero tradit, quamvis auctore tribuno plebis fierent ludi; cuius tribuni nomen adhuc non inveni.

He was a very close associate of Clodius and the leader of the Clodian work-crews; at his prompting, later, when the body of Clodius had been brought in by them, the Curia was burned along with it. L. Ninnius, tribune of the plebs, also then tried to prohibit those games from being held. Moreover, two years before the collegia were restored, Q. Metellus Celer, consul-designate, had prohibited the masters of the vici from holding the Compitalian games, as Cicero relates, although the games were being held by the authority of a tribune of the plebs; the name of which tribune I have not yet found.

(8) Paulo post

(8) A little later

[§ 9] Ergo his fundamentis positis consulatus tui, triduo post, inspectante te et tacente, a fatali portento prodigioque rei publicae lex Aelia et Fufia eversa est, propugnacula murique tranquillitatis atque oti; collegia non ea solum quae senatus sustulerat restituta, sed innumerabilia quaedam ex omni faece urbis ac servitio concitata. Ab eodem homine in stupris inauditis nefariisque versato vetus illa magistra pudoris et modestiae censura sublata est.

[§ 9] Therefore, with these foundations of your consulship laid, three days later, with you looking on and silent, by a fatal portent and prodigy for the commonwealth the Aelian and Fufian law was overturned, the bulwarks and walls of tranquillity and leisure; the associations not only which the Senate had removed were restored, but countless others were stirred up from all the dregs of the city and from the slave-ranks. By that same man, steeped in unheard-of and nefarious debaucheries, that ancient mistress of shame and modesty, the censorship, was taken away.

Diximus L. Pisone A. Gabinio coss. P. Clodium tr.pl. quattuor leges perniciosas populo Romano tulisse: annonariam, de qua Cicero mentionem hoc loco non facit fuit enim summe popularis ut frumentum populo quod antea senis aeris trientibus in singulos modios dabatur gratis daretur: alteram ne quis per eos dies quibus cum populo agi liceret de caelo servaret; propter quam rogationem ait legem Aeliam et Fufiam, propugnacula et muros tranquillitatis atque otii, eversam esse; obnuntiatio enim qua perniciosis legibus resistebatur, quam Aelia lex confirmaverat, erat sublata : tertiam de collegiis restituendis novisque instituendis, quae ait ex servitiorum faece constituta: quartam ne quem censores in senatu legendo praeterirent, neve qua ignominia afficerent, nisi qui apud eos accusatus et utriusque censoris sententia damnatus esset.

We have said that, with L. Piso and A. Gabinius as consuls, P. Clodius, tribune of the plebs, brought forward four laws pernicious to the Roman people: one on the grain-supply, of which Cicero makes no mention in this place—for it was exceedingly popular—that the grain for the people, which previously was given at six and one-third asses per each modius, should be given for free; another, that no one, during those days on which it was permitted to transact with the people, should observe the sky (take auspices from the sky); on account of which bill he says the Aelian and Fufian law, ramparts and walls of tranquillity and leisure, were overthrown; for the obnuntiation, by which pernicious laws were resisted, which the Aelian law had confirmed, had been removed; a third, concerning the restoring of collegia and the establishing of new ones, which he says were constituted from the dregs of the servile class; a fourth, that the censors should pass over no one in the choosing of the senate, nor afflict anyone with any ignominy, unless one who had been accused before them and condemned by the judgment of both censors.

Haec ergo (9) eius lege censuram, quae magistra pudoris et modestiae est, sublatam ait.

Thus, therefore, he says that by his law the censorship, which is the instructress of pudor and modesty, was abolished (9).

Paulo post

A little later

[§ 11] Persequere continentis his funeribus dies. Pro Aurelio tribunali ne conivente quidem te, quod ipsum esset scelus, sed etiam hilarioribus oculis quam solitus eras intuente, dilectus servorum habebatur ab eo qui nihil sibi umquam nec facere nec pati turpe duxit.

[§ 11] Pursue the day adjoining these funerals. Before the Aurelian tribunal, with not even you conniving—which itself would have been a crime—but rather you looking on with eyes more cheerful than you were wont, a levy of slaves was being held by one who never thought it shameful either to do or to suffer anything.

Profecto intellegitis P. Clodium significari.

Surely you understand that P. Clodius is signified.

Cir. ver. a primo DC

Circa verse 600 from the first.

Dicit de Castoris templo:

He says about the temple of Castor:

[§ 23] Id autem templum sublato aditu, revolsis gradibus, a coniuratorum reliquiis atque a Catilinae praevaricatore quondam, tum ultore, armis teneretur.

[§ 23] But that temple, with the approach removed and the steps torn up, was held by force of arms by the remnants of the conspirators and by the one who had once been Catiline’s prevaricator, then his avenger.

Catilinam lege repetundarum absolutum esse accusante P. Clodio iam supra dictum est.

It has already been said above that Catiline was acquitted under the law of extortions, with P. Clodius as accuser.

Statim

Immediately

Cum equites Romani relegarentur, viri boni lapidibus e foro pellerentur.

When the Roman equestrians were being relegated, the good men were expelled from the forum with stones.

L. Lamiam a Gabinio consule edicto relegatum esse iam diximus.

We have already said that L. Lamia was relegated by the edict of the consul Gabinius.

(10) Cir. ver. a primo DCXX

(10) Circa verse from the first 620

[§ 24] Seplasia me hercule, te ut primum aspexit, Campanum consulem repu diavit.

[§ 24] Seplasia, by Hercules, as soon as it first beheld you, repudiated the Campanian consul.

Dictum est in dissuasione legis agrariae apud populum plateam esse Capuae quae Seplasia appellatur, in qua unguentarii negotiari sint soliti. Ergo eos quoque qui in ea platea negotiarentur dicit invitos Pisonem vidisse, cum Capuam consul venit, quod eos a quibus ipse expulsus erat adiuvisset.

It was said, in the dissuasion of the agrarian law before the people, that there is at Capua a broad-street called the Seplasia, in which perfumers were accustomed to do business. Therefore he says that even those who did business in that street saw Piso unwillingly, when, as consul, he came to Capua, because he had aided those by whom he himself had been driven out.

Cir. ver. a primo DCXL

About line 640 from the beginning

[§ 26] Ecquod in hac urbe maius umquam incendium fuit cui non consul subveniret? At tu illo ipso tempore apud socrum tuam cuius domum ad meam exhauriendam patefeceras sedebas.

[§ 26] Has there ever been in this city any greater conflagration to which the consul did not come to the aid? But you, at that very moment, were sitting at your mother-in-law’s, whose house you had laid open for the exhausting of my house.

Post profectionem ex urbe Ciceronis bona eius P. Clodius publicavit; postquam direpta sunt omnia quae aut in domo aut in villis fuerunt, et ex eis ad ipsos consules lata complura, domus direpta primum, deinde inflammata ac diruta est. Socrus Pisonis quae fuerit invenire non potui, videlicet quod auctores rerum non perinde in domibus ac familiis feminarum, nisi illustrium, ac virorum nomina tradiderunt.

After the departure of Cicero from the city, Publius Clodius made his goods public (confiscated them); after everything that was either in the house or in the villas was plundered, and many of these were carried to the consuls themselves, the house was first plundered, then set on fire and demolished. Who Piso’s mother-in-law was I could not find, evidently because the authors of affairs have not in like manner handed down, in the houses and families, the names of women—unless illustrious—as they have those of men.

(11) Paulo post

(11) A little later

[§ 27] Ac ne tum quidem emersisti, lutulente Caesonine, e miserrimis naturae sordibus cum experrecta tandem virtus celeriter et verum amicum et optime meritum civem et suum pristinum morem requisivit.

[§ 27] And not even then did you emerge, you muddy Caesoninus, from the most wretched sordidnesses of nature, when virtue, at last awakened, swiftly reclaimed both a true friend and a most well-deserving citizen, and its own pristine custom.

Profecto Cn. Pompeium significari intellegitis.

Assuredly you understand that Gnaeus Pompeius is meant.

Cir. ver. a primo DCCC

About verse 800 from the first.

[§ 35] De me cum omnes magistratus promulgassent praeter unum praetorem a quo non fuit postulandum, fratrem inimici mei, praeterque duos de lapide emptos tribunos, legem comitiis centuriatis tulit P. Lentulus consul.

[§ 35] Concerning me, when all the magistrates had promulgated a bill except one praetor—from whom it was not to be demanded, the brother of my enemy—and except two tribunes bought for a stone, the consul P. Lentulus carried a law in the Centuriate Comitia.

Frater ille inimici mei, id est P. Clodi Ap. Claudius, sicut iam saepe significavi, tum fuit praetor. Duos tribunos de quibus ipsis quoque iam diximus, quos de lapide emptos ait, quia mercede id faciebant, Sex.Atilium Serranum et Q. Numerium significat.

That brother of my enemy, that is, P. Clodius, Ap. Claudius, as I have already often indicated, was then praetor. The two tribunes about whom we too have already spoken, whom he says were bought “from the stone,” because they were doing it for pay, he means Sextus Atilius Serranus and Quintus Numerius.

Cir. medium

Circa the middle

[§§ 38. 39] Appellatus est hic volturius illius provinciae, si dis placet, imperator. Ne tum quidem, Paule noster, tabellas cum laurea Romam mittere audebas?

[§§ 38. 39] This vulture of that province was hailed, if it please the gods, as imperator. Not even then, our Paullus, did you dare to send tablets with laurel to Rome?

(12) Confido vos intellegere L. Paulum hunc significari qui fuit pater naturalis Africani posterioris, de Macedoniaque ultimum et Perse rege triumphavit. Macedoniam autem Piso in quem haec oratio est obtinuit; propter quod Paulum eum appellat, irridens eum quod ibi rem non prospere gessit.

(12) I trust you understand that this L. Paulus is indicated, who was the natural father of the later Africanus, and who celebrated the last triumph from Macedonia and over King Perseus. But Macedonia was held by Piso, against whom this speech is directed; on account of which he calls him “Paulus,” mocking him because he conducted the affair there not prosperously.

Cir. medium

About the middle

[§ 44] M. Marcellus qui ter consul fuit summa virtute, pietate, gloria militari, periit in mari: qui tamen ob virtutem in gloria et laude vivit.

[§ 44] M. Marcellus, who was consul three times, with highest virtue, piety, and military glory, perished at sea: who, nevertheless, on account of his virtue, lives in glory and laud.

Fortasse quaeratis quem dicat Marcellum. Fuit autem nepos M. Marcelli eius qui bello Punico secundo Syracusas vicit et quinque consulatus adeptus est. Hic autem Marcellus de quo Cicero dicit naufragio ad ipsam Africam periit paulo ante coeptum bellum Punicum tertium.

Perhaps you ask which Marcellus he means. He was the grandson of M. Marcellus, the one who in the Second Punic War conquered Syracuse and obtained five consulships. But this Marcellus, of whom Cicero speaks, perished by shipwreck off Africa itself, a little before the Third Punic War was begun.

Idem cum statuas sibi ac patri itemque avo poneret in monumentis avi sui ad Honoris et Virtutis, decore subscripsit: III MARCELLI NOVIES COSS. Fuit enim ipse ter consul, avus quin quies, pater semel: itaque neque mentitus est et apud imperitiores patris sui splendorem auxit.

The same man, when he was setting up statues for himself and for his father and likewise for his grandfather in his grandfather’s monuments to Honor and Virtue, appended as an adornment the caption: 3 MARCELLI, NINE TIMES CONS. For he himself was consul three times, the grandfather five times, the father once; and thus he did not lie, and among the less informed he enhanced his father’s splendor.

Cir. ver. a nov. DCCCC

Circa verse from the beginning 900

[§ 52] Me consequentibus diebus in ea ipsa domo qua tu me expulerats, quam incenderas, (13) pontifices, consules, patres conscripti conlocarunt, mihique, quod antea nemini, pecunia publica aedificandam domum censuerunt.

[§ 52] In the days following, in that very house from which you had driven me out, which you had set on fire, (13) the pontiffs, the consuls, the enrolled fathers installed me, and for me—what before for no one—they decreed that a house should be built with public money.

Hoc Cicero oratorio more, non historico, videtur posuisse: nam multis aetatibus ante Ciceronem nulli id contigisse verum est, nemini vero umquam antea videamus ne parum caute dicat.

Cicero seems to have posited this in an oratorical mode, not a historical one: for through many ages before Cicero it is true that this befell no one; yet as for “to no one ever before,” let us see lest he be speaking not cautiously enough.

Antiquis enim temporibus pluribus idem contigit; nam M. Valerio Maximo, ut Antias tradidit, inter alios honores domus quoque publice aedificata est in Palatio, cuius exitus quo magis insignis esset in publicum versus declinaretur, hoc est, extra privatum aperiretur. Varronem autem tradere M. Valerio, quia Sabinos vicerat, aedes in Palatio tributas, Iulius Hyginus dicit in libro piore de viris claris, et P. Valerio Volesi filio Publicolae aedium publice locum sub Veliis, ubi nunc aedis Victoriae est, populum ex lege quam ipse tulerat concessisse. Tradunt et Antiochi regis filio obsidi domum publice aedificatam, inter quos Atticus in annali: quae postea dicitur Lucili poetae fuisse.

For in ancient times the same befell several; for to M. Valerius Maximus, as Antias handed down, among other honors a house also was built publicly on the Palatine, whose exit, that it might be the more conspicuous, was turned toward the public, that is, opened outside the private. But that Varro reports that to M. Valerius, because he had conquered the Sabines, a dwelling on the Palatine was granted, Julius Hyginus says in his earlier book On Famous Men; and that to P. Valerius, son of Volesus, Publicola, a site for a house at public expense below the Velia, where now the temple of Victory is, the people, by a law which he himself had carried, granted. They also transmit that for the hostage son of King Antiochus a house was built at public expense, among whom Atticus in the Annal: which afterwards is said to have been the poet Lucilius’s.

Varro quoque in libro III de vita populi Romani, quo loco refert quam gratus fuerit erga bene meritos, dicit Mutinae, quod in Sicilia cum equitatu suo transierat ad nos, civitatem Romae datam aedesque et pecuniam ex aerario.

Varro also, in book 3 On the Life of the Roman People, in the place where he reports how grateful it was toward those who had well merited, says that to Mutines, because in Sicily he had crossed over to us with his cavalry, citizenship at Rome was given, and a house and money from the public treasury.

Videamus tamen num ideo Cicero dicat sibi, quod antea nulli, domum pecunia publica ex aerario aedificatam, quia illis aut locus publice datus sit, aut domus quae non fuerant eorum propter illos publico sumptu aedificatae: Ciceroni domus quae (14) fuerat ipsius et diruta atque incensa erat et consecrata publico sumptu aedificata sit: quod novum et huic primo et adhuc etiam soli contigit.

Let us see, however, whether for this reason Cicero says that for himself—what before had befallen no one—a house was built with public money from the treasury; because for those others either a site was publicly granted, or houses which had not been theirs were built at public expense on account of them: but for Cicero, the house which (14) had been his own and had been demolished and burned and consecrated was built at public expense: a thing new, and which first befell this man and, even now, him alone.

Cir. ver. a novis. DCCCXX

Approx. spring, from the new year. 820

[§ 58] O stultos Camillos, Curios, Fabricios, Calatinos, Scipiones, Marcellos, Maximos! o amentem Paulum, rusticum Marium, nullius consili patres horum amborum consulum qui triumpharunt!

[§ 58] O foolish Camilli, Curii, Fabricii, Calatini, Scipiones, Marcelli, Maximi! O demented Paulus, rustic Marius, fathers of no counsel to these two consuls who triumphed!

Diximus hanc orationem esse dictam Cn. Pompeio Magno II M. Crasso II coss. Pompeii pater bello Italico de Picentibus, M. Crassi pater P. Crassus ante bellum Italicum de Hispanis triumphavit.

We have said that this oration was delivered when Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Marcus Crassus were consuls for the 2nd time. Pompey’s father, in the Italian War, triumphed over the Picentes; the father of Marcus Crassus, Publius Crassus, before the Italian War, triumphed over the Spaniards.

Cir. ver. a nov. DCLX

Around spring, in the year 660 from the founding of the City

[§ 62] Eadem cupiditate vir summo ingenio praeditus, C. Cotta, nullo certo hoste flagravit. Eorum neuter triumphavit, quod alteri illum honorem collega, alteri mors peremit.

[§ 62] By the same cupidity a man endowed with the highest genius, Gaius Cotta, blazed, with no certain enemy. Of them, neither triumphed, because a colleague took away that honor from the one, death from the other.

Credo vos quaerere et quis hic Cotta et quis ille collega Crassi fuerit. Fuit autem C. Cotta orator ille compar P. Sulpici qui est in dialogis Ciceronis de Oratore scriptis. Cum decretus ille esset triumphus, mortuus est ante diem triumphi, cum cicatrix vulneris eius quod ante plures annos in proelio acceperat rescissa esset repente.

I believe you are asking who this Cotta was and who that colleague of Crassus was. Now C. Cotta was that orator, the peer of P. Sulpicius, who appears in the dialogues of Cicero written On the Orator. When that triumph had been decreed, he died before the day of the triumph, when the scar of the wound which he had received in battle several years before was suddenly torn open.

L. autem Crasso collega fuit Q. Scaevola pontifex qui, cum animadverteret (15) Crasso propter summam eius in re publica poten tiam ac dignitatem senatum in decernendo triumpho gratificari, non dubitavit rei publicae magis quam collegae habere rationem ac ne fieret S.C. intercessit. Idem provinciam, cuius cupiditate plerique etiam boni viri deliquerant, deposuerat ne sumptui esset oratio .

L., however, Crassus’s colleague was Q. Scaevola, the pontifex, who, when he observed (15) that, on account of Crassus’s supreme power in the republic and his dignity, the senate was doing him a favor in decreeing a triumph, did not hesitate to consider the interests of the commonwealth rather than of his colleague, and interceded so that a decree of the Senate not be made. The same man had laid down the province—the desire for which had led astray many even good men—so that it might not be an expense.

Statim

Immediately

[§ 62] Inrisa est a te paulo ante M. Pisonis cupiditas triumphandi a qua te longe dixisti abhorrere: qui etiam si minus magnum bellum gesserat, istum honorem omittendum non putavit. Tu eruditior quam Piso.

[§ 62] A little before, the desire of M. Piso for triumphing was derided by you, from which you said you abhor far: who, even if he had waged a less great war, did not think that that honor ought to be omitted. You are more erudite than Piso.

Quis hic M. Piso fuerit credo vos ignorare. Fuit autem, ut puto iam nos dixisse, Pupius Piso eisdem temporibus quibus Cicero, sed tanto aetate maior ut adulescentulum Ciceronem pater ad eum deduceret, quod in eo et antiquae vitae similitudo et multae erant litterae: orator quoque melior quam frequentior habitus est. Biennio tamen serius quam Cicero consul fuit; triumphavit procos.

Who this M. Piso was, I believe you do not know. However, as I think we have already said, there was a Pupius Piso in the same times as Cicero, but so much greater in age that Cicero’s father would escort the adolescent Cicero to him, because in him there were both a similitude of the ancient way of life and many letters; he too was held to be an orator better rather than more frequent. Nevertheless, he was consul two years later than Cicero; he triumphed as proconsul.

de Hispania Q. Hortensio Q. Metello Cretico coss. ante Ciceronis consulatum.

from Spain, with Quintus Hortensius and Quintus Metellus Creticus as consuls, before Cicero’s consulship.

Paulo post

A little later

[§ 65] Instant post hominum memoriam apparatissimi magnificentissimique ludi, quales non (16) modo numquam fuerunt, sed ne quo modo fieri quidem posthac possint possum ullo pacto suspicari.

[§ 65] Right now there are imminent, within the memory of man, the most elaborately prepared and most magnificent games, such as not (16) only have never been, but I cannot by any means even suspect in what way they could hereafter be brought about.

Cn. Pompeii ludos significat quibus theatrum a se factum dedicavit, quibus ludis elephantorum pugnam primus omnium dedit in Circo.

He signifies the games of Cn. Pompey, with which he dedicated the theater made by himself, and at which games he, first of all, presented a combat of elephants in the Circus.

Ver. a novis. DLX

Verse from the moderns. 560

[§ 68] Est quidam Graecus qui cum isto vivit, homo, vere ut dicam sic enim cognovi humanus, sed tam diu quam diu aut cum aliis est aut ipse secum.

[§ 68] There is a certain Greek who lives with that man—a man, truly, to speak (for thus I have known him), humane—but only so long as he is either with others or by himself.

Philodemus significat qui fuit Epicureus illa aetate nobilissimus, cuius et poemata sunt lasciva.

Philodemus is meant, who was an Epicurean, most renowned in that age, and whose poems too are lascivious.

Cir. ver. a novis. CCCXX

Circa verse by the moderns. 320

[§ 82] Quamquam, quod ad me attinet,

[§ 82] Although, as far as it pertains to me,

numquam istam imminuam curam infitiando tibi.

I will never diminish that care for you by denying to you.

Prope notius est quam ut indicandum sit hunc versum esse L. Acci poetae et dici a Thyeste Atreo.

It is almost too well-known to need to be indicated that this verse is of the poet L. Accius and is spoken by Thyestes to Atreus.

Cir. ver. a novis. CC

Approx. verses by the moderns. 200

[§ 89] Quod populari illi sacerdoti sescentos ad bestias socios stipendiarios que misisti.

[§ 89] That for that populist priest you sent six hundred allies and stipendiaries to the beasts.

Manifestum est P. Clodium significari.

It is manifest that P. Clodius is signified.

(17) Cir. ver. a novis. CXX

(17) About the verse a novis. 120

[§ 94] Ecquid vides, ecquid sentis, lege iudiciaria lata, quos posthac iudices simus habituri?

[§ 94] Do you see at all, do you sense at all, now that the judicial law has been passed, what judges we shall hereafter be going to have?

Legem iudiciariam ante aliquot annos quibus temporibus accusatus est Verres a Cicerone tulit L. Aurelius Cotta praetor, qua communicata sunt iudicia senatui et equitibus Romanis et tribunis aerariis. Rursus deinde Pompeius in consulatu secundo quo haec oratio dicta est promulgavit ut amplissimo ex censu ex centuriis aliter atque antea lecti iudices, aeque tamen ex illis tribus ordinibus, res iudicarent.

A judicial law, some years earlier—at the time when Verres was accused by Cicero—was carried by Lucius Aurelius Cotta, praetor, by which the judgments were shared between the Senate and the Roman equites and the aerarian tribunes. Again then Pompey, in his second consulship, in which this oration was delivered, promulgated that judges, selected from the centuries by the most ample census, differently than before, yet equally from those three orders, should adjudicate matters.

Cir. ver. a novis. LXXXX

About the verse, by the moderns. 90

[§ 95] L. Opimius eiectus patria est qui et post praeturam et consul maximis periculis rem publicam liberarat. Non in eo cui facta iniuria est sed in eis qui fecerunt sceleris et conscientiae poena permansit.

[§ 95] L. Opimius was driven out of his fatherland—he who both after the praetorship and as consul had freed the Republic from the very greatest perils. Not upon him to whom the injury was done, but upon those who did it, did the penalty of crime and of conscience abide.

Notum est Opimium in praetura Fregellas cepisse, quo facto visus est ceteros quoque nominis Latini socios male animatos repressisse, eundemque in consulatu Fulvium Flaccum consularem et C. Gracchum tribunicium oppressisse, ob quam invidiam postea iudicio circumventus est et in exsilium actus.

It is known that Opimius, in his praetorship, captured Fregellae, and by this deed he seemed to have repressed also the other allies of the Latin name who were ill-disposed; and that the same man, in his consulship, suppressed Fulvius Flaccus, a consular, and C. Gracchus, a tribunician—on account of which odium thereafter he was circumvented by a judicial proceeding and driven into exile.

II. PRO M. SCAURO

2. FOR M. SCAURUS

(18) Hanc quoque orationem eisdem consulibus dixit quibus pro Vatinio, L. Domitio Ahenobarbo et Appio Claudio Pulchro coss.

(18) He also delivered this oration under the same consuls as for Vatinio, L. Domitius Ahenobarbus and Appius Claudius Pulcher, consuls.

Summus iudicii dies fuit a. d. IIII Nonas Septemb.

The final day of the trial was on the 4th day before the Nones of September.

Argumentum hoc est

This is the argument.

M. Scaurus M. Scauri filius qui princeps senatus fuit vitricum habuit Sullam: quo victore et munifico in socios victoriae ita abstinents fuit ut nihil neque donari sibi voluerit, neque ab hasta emerit. Aedilitatem summa magnificentia gessit, adeo ut in eius impensas opes suas absumpserit magnumque aes alienum contraxerit.

M. Scaurus, the son of M. Scaurus, who was princeps of the senate, had Sulla as his stepfather; under him as victor and munificent toward the allies of his victory he was so abstinent that he wished nothing to be given to himself, nor did he buy anything from the auction (the spear). He held the aedileship with the highest magnificence, to such a degree that on its expenses he consumed his own resources and contracted a great debt.

Ex praetura provinciam Sardiniam obtinuit, in qua neque satis abstinenter se gessisse existimatus est et valde arroganter: quod genus morum in eo paternum videbatur, cum cetera industria nequaquam esset par. Erat tamen aliquando inter patronos causarum et, postquam ex provincia redierat, dixerat pro C. Catone, isque erat absolutus a. d. IIII Nona Quint. Ipse cum ad consulatus petitionem a. d. III Kal.

From the praetorship he obtained the province of Sardinia, in which he was thought to have conducted himself with insufficient abstinence and very arrogantly: which kind of manners in him seemed paternal, since in other respects his industry was by no means equal. He was, however, at times among the patrons of causes, and, after he had returned from the province, he had spoken on behalf of Gaius Cato, and he was acquitted a. d. 4 Nones of Quintilis. He himself, when for the canvassing for the consulship on a. d. 3 Kal.

Quint. Romam redisset, querentibus de eo Sardis, a P. Valerio Triario, adulescente parato ad dicendum et notae industriae (19) filio eius qui in Sardiania contra M. Lepidum arma tulerat et post in Asia legatus Pontoque L. Luculli fuerat, cum is bellum contra Mithridatem gereret postulatus est apud M. Catonem praetorem repetundarum, ut in Actis scriptum est, pridie Nonas Quintil. post diem tertium quam C. Cato erat absolutus.

When he had returned to Rome in July, with the Sardians complaining about him, he was prosecuted by P. Valerius Triarius, a young man prepared for speaking and of noted industry (19), the son of the one who in Sardinia had borne arms against M. Lepidus and afterwards in Asia and Pontus had been legate of L. Lucullus, while the latter was waging war against Mithridates; he was arraigned before M. Cato, the praetor for extortions, as is written in the Acta, on the day before the Nones of July, on the 3rd day after C. Cato had been acquitted.

Subscripserunt Triario in Scaurum L. Marius L. f., M. et Q. Pacuvii fratres cognomine Claudi. Qui inquisitionis in Sardiniam itemque in Corsicam insulas dies tricenos acceperunt neque profecti sunt ad inquirendum: cuius rei hanc causam reddebant, quod interea comitia consularia futura essent; timere ergo se ne Scaurus ea pecunia quam a sociis abstulisset emeret consulatum et, sicut pater eius fecisset, ante quam de eo iudicari posset, magistratum iniret ac rursus ante alias provincias spoliaret quam rationem prioris administrationis redderet. Scaurus summam fiduciam in paterni nominis dignitate, magnam in necessitudine Cn. Pompeii Magni reponebat.

L. Marius, L.’s son, and the brothers M. and Q. Pacuvius, by cognomen “Claudius,” subscribed in support of Triarius against Scaurus. They received thirty days for an inquisition into the islands Sardinia and likewise Corsica, and they did not set out to inquire; they rendered this reason for the matter: that in the meantime the consular elections would be held; therefore they feared lest Scaurus should buy the consulship with the money which he had abstracted from the allies, and, just as his father had done, before judgment could be made about him, should enter magistracy and again despoil other provinces before he rendered an account of his prior administration. Scaurus was reposing the highest confidence in the dignity of his paternal name, and great confidence in his connection with Cn. Pompeius Magnus.

Habebat enim filium liberorum Cn. Pompeii fratrem: nam Tertiam, Scaevolae filiam, dimissam a Pompeio in matrimonium duxerat. M. Catonem autem qui id iudicium, ut diximus, exercebat metuebat admodum propter amicitiam quae erat illi cum Triario: nam Flaminia, Triarii mater, et ipse Triarius sororem Catonis Serviliam, quae mater M. Bruti fuit, familiariter diligebat; ea porro apud Catonem maternam obtinebat auctoritatem. Sed in eo iudicio neque Pompeius propensum adiutorium praebuit videbatur enim apud animum (20) eius non minus offensionis contraxisse, quod iudicium eius in Muciam crimine impudicitiae ab eo dimissam levius fecisse existimaretur, cum eam ipse probasset, quam gratiae adquisisse necessitudinis iure, quod ex eadem uterque liberos haberet neque Cato ab aequitate ea quae et vitam eius et magistratum illum decebat quoquam deflexit.

For he had a son, a brother of the children of Cn. Pompeius: for he had taken Tertia, the daughter of Scaevola, dismissed by Pompeius, into marriage. But he was very much afraid of M. Cato, who, as we said, was conducting that trial, on account of the friendship which he had with Triarius: for Flaminia, the mother of Triarius, and Triarius himself, affectionately and intimately cherished Cato’s sister Servilia, who was the mother of M. Brutus; and she, moreover, held with Cato a maternal authority. But in that trial neither did Pompeius provide inclined assistance—for he seemed to have contracted in his mind (20) no less offense, because it was thought that his judgment concerning Mucia, dismissed by him on the charge of impudicity, had been made lighter, since he himself (Scaurus) had approved her, than favor he had acquired by the right of kinship, because from the same woman each had children—nor did Cato deflect in any way from that equity which both his life and that magistracy befitted.

Post diem autem quartum quam postulatus erat Scaurus Faustus Sulla tum quaestor, filius Sullae Felicis, frater ex eadem matre Scauri servis eius vulneratis prosiluit ex lectica et questus est propter interemptum esse se a competitoribus Scauri et ambulare cum CCC armatis seque, si necesse esset, vim vi repulsurum.

After the fourth day from when Scaurus had been indicted, Faustus Sulla, then quaestor, the son of Sulla Felix, the brother of Scaurus from the same mother, when his slaves had been wounded, leapt out of his litter and complained that he had been set upon to be killed by Scaurus’s competitors, and that he was walking with 300 armed men, and that he himself, if it were necessary, would repel force with force.

Defenderunt Scaurum sex patroni, cum ad id tempus raro quisquam pluribus quam quattuor uteretur: at post bella civilia ante legem Iuliam ad duodenos patronos est perventum. Fuerunt autem hi sex: P. Clodius Pulcher, M. Marcellus, M. Calidius, M. Cicero, M. Messala Niger, Q. Hortensius. Ipse quoque Scaurus dixit pro se ac magnopere iudices movit et squalore et lacrimis et aedilitatis effusae memoria ac favore populari ac praecipue paternae auctoritatis recordatione.

They defended Scaurus with six patrons, although up to that time rarely did anyone employ more than four; but after the civil wars, before the Julian law, it came to twelve patrons. And these six were: Publius Clodius Pulcher, Marcus Marcellus, Marcus Calidius, Marcus Cicero, Marcus Messala Niger, Quintus Hortensius. Scaurus himself also spoke on his own behalf and greatly moved the judges both by his squalor and by tears and by the memory of his lavish aedileship and by popular favor and especially by the recollection of his father’s authority.

Enarratio

Enarration

Circa ver. a prim. XXXX

Circa verse 40 from the beginning.

[I.§1] Cum enumerat iudicia quae pater Scauri expertus est:

[1.§1] When he enumerates the judgments/trials which the father of Scaurus has experienced:

(21) Subiit etiam populi iudicium inquirente Cn. Domitio tribuno plebis.

(21) He also underwent the judgment of the people, with Cn. Domitius, tribune of the plebs, conducting the inquiry.

Cn. Domitius qui consul fuit cum C. Cassio, cum esset tribunus plebis, iratus Scauro quod eum in augurum collegium non cooptaverat, diem ei dixit apud populum et multam irrogavit, quod eius opera sacra populi Romani deminuta esse diceret. Crimini dabat sacra publica populi Romani deum Penatium quae Lavini fierent opera eius minus recte casteque fieri. Quo crimine absolutus est Scaurus quidem, sed ita ut a tribus tribubus damnaretur, a XXXII absolveretur, et in his pauca puncta inter damnationem et absolutionem interessent.

Cn. Domitius, who was consul with C. Cassius, when he was tribune of the plebs, angry with Scaurus because he had not co-opted him into the college of augurs, cited him before the people and imposed a fine, because he said that by his agency the sacra of the Roman people had been diminished. He alleged as the charge that the public sacra of the Roman people of the gods the Penates, which were performed at Lavinium, were being conducted less rightly and chastely through his agency. On this charge Scaurus was indeed acquitted, but in such a way that he was condemned by three tribes, acquitted by 32, and in these a few points intervened between condemnation and acquittal.

Ibidem

In the same place

[§ 2] Reus est factus a Q. Servilio Caepione lege Servilia, cum iudicia penes equestrem ordinem essent et P. Rutilio damnato nemo tam innocens videretur ut non timeret illa.

[§ 2] He became a defendant by Q. Servilius Caepio under the Servilian law, when the courts were in the hands of the equestrian order; and, with P. Rutilius condemned, no one seemed so innocent as not to fear those courts.

Q. Servilius Caepio Scaurum ob legationis Asiaticae invidiam et adversus leges pecuniarum captarum reum fecit repetundarum lege quam tulit Servilius Glaucia.

Quintus Servilius Caepio made Scaurus a defendant, on account of the odium of his Asian legation and for monies taken against the laws, under the law on extortions which Servilius Glaucia carried.

Scaurus tanta fuit continentia animi et magnitudine ut Caepionem contra reum detulerit et breviore die inquisitionis accepta effecerit ut ille prior causam diceret; M. quoque Drusum tribunum plebis cohortatus sit ut iudicia commutaret.

Scaurus was of such continence of spirit and greatness that he brought a charge in counter against Caepio as defendant, and, a shorter day for the inquisition having been granted, he effected that that man should plead his case first; he also encouraged M. Drusus, tribune of the plebs, to change the courts.

(22) Ibidem

(22) In the same place

[§ 3] Ab eodem etiam lege Varia custos ille rei publicae proditionis est in crimen vocatus: vexatus a Q. Vario tribuno plebis est.

[§ 3] By that same man also, under the Varia Law, that guardian of the republic was called into the charge of treason: he was harassed by Q. Varius, tribune of the plebs.

Non multo ante, Italico bello exorto, cum ob sociis negatam civitatem nobilitas in invidia esset, Q. Varius tr.pl. legem tulit ut quaereretur de iis quorum ope consiliove socii contra populum Romanum arma sumpsissent. Tum Q. Caepio vetus inimicus Scauri sperans se invenisse occasionem opprimendi eius egit ut Q. Varius tribunus plebis belli concitati crimine adesse apud se Scaurum iuberet anno LXXII. Ille per viatorem arcessitus, cum iam ex morbo male solveretur, dissuadentibus amicis ne se in illa valetudine et aetate invidiae populi obiceret, innixus nobilissimis iuvenibus processit in forum, deinde accepto respondendi loco dixit:

Not long before, when the Italian War had arisen, since the nobility was under odium because citizenship had been denied to the allies, Q. Varius, tribune of the plebs, carried a law that inquiry be made about those by whose aid or counsel the allies had taken up arms against the Roman People. Then Q. Caepio, an old enemy of Scaurus, hoping he had found an opportunity of crushing him, brought it about that Q. Varius, tribune of the plebs, on a charge that the war had been stirred up, should order Scaurus to appear before him, in his 72nd year. He, summoned by the viator, when he was still poorly recovered from illness, with his friends dissuading him not to expose himself, in that health and age, to the people’s ill will, leaning on the most noble young men advanced into the Forum; then, leave of replying having been received, he said:

"Q. Varius Hispanus M. Scaurum principem senatus socios in arma ait convocasse; M. Scaurus princeps senatus negat; testis nemo est: utri vos, Quirites, convenit credere?

"Q. Varius the Spaniard says that M. Scaurus, the princeps of the senate, summoned the allies into arms; M. Scaurus, the princeps of the senate, denies it; there is no witness: to which of the two is it fitting for you, Quirites, to give credence?

Qua voce ita omnium commutavit animos ut ab ipso etiam tribuno dimitteretur.

By this utterance he so altered the minds of all that he was even dismissed by the tribune himself.

Dicit iterum de patre M. Scauri:

He says again about the father of Marcus Scaurus:

[§ 4] Non enim tantum admiratus sum ego illum virum, sicut omnes, sed etiam praecipue dilexi. Primus enim me flagrantem studio laudis in spem impulit posse virtute me sine praesidio fortunae quo contendissem labore et constantia pervenire.

[§ 4] For I not only admired that man, as did all, but even especially loved him. For he was the first to impel me, burning with zeal for praise, into the hope that by virtue, without the presídium of fortune, I could arrive—by labor and constancy—at that to which I had striven.

(23) Possit aliquis quaerere cur hoc dixerit Cicero, cum Scaurus patricius fuerit: quae generis claritas etiam inertes homines ad summos honores provexit. Verum Scaurus ita fuit patricius ut tribus supra eum aetatibus iacuerit domus eius fortuna. Nam neque pater neque avus neque etiam proavus ut puto, propter tenues opes et nullam vitae industriam honores adepti sunt.

(23) Someone could ask why Cicero said this, since Scaurus was a patrician: and such clarity of lineage has even advanced inert men to the highest honors. But Scaurus was so a patrician that for three generations before him the fortune of his house had lain low. For neither his father nor his grandfather nor even his great-grandfather, as I think, attained honors, on account of slender means and no industry of life.

Itaque Scauro aeque ac novo homini laborandum fuit.

Therefore Scaurus had to labor just as much as a new man.

[§ 5] Si, me hercule, iudices, pro L. Tubulo dicerem quem unum ex omni memoria sceleratissimum et audacissimum fuisse accepimus, tamen non timerem, venenum hospiti aut convivae si diceretur cenanti ab illo datum cui neque heres neque iratus fuisset.

[§ 5] If, by Hercules, judges, I were speaking on behalf of L. Tubulus, whom alone we have received, of all memory, to have been the most criminal and the most audacious, yet I would not fear, if it were said that poison had been given by him to a guest or fellow-diner as he was dining, one to whom he had been neither heir nor angry.

L. hic Tubulus praetorius fuit aetate patrum Ciceronis. Is propter multa flagitia cum de exsilio arcessitus esset ut in carcere necaretur, venenum bibit.

50. This Tubulus was a praetor in the age of Cicero’s fathers. He, on account of many flagitious acts, when he had been summoned from exile so that he might be killed in prison, drank poison.

Circa tertiam partem a primo

About the third part from the first

[II § 1] Illa audivimus: hoc vero meminimus ac paene vidimus, eiusdem stirpis et nominis P. Crassum, ne in manus incideret inimicorum, se ipsum interemisse.

[2 § 1] Those things we have heard; but this we remember and almost saw: that P. Crassus, of the same stock and name, so as not to fall into the hands of his enemies, killed himself.

Hic Crassus fuit pater Crassi eius qui aemulus potentiae Cn. Pompeii fuit. Periit autem in dominatione L. Cinnae, cum ille et alios principes optimatum et collegam suum Cn. Octavium occidit.

This Crassus was the father of that Crassus who was a rival of the power of Gnaeus Pompeius. He perished, however, during the domination of Lucius Cinna, when that man slew both other leaders of the Optimates and his colleague Gnaeus Octavius.

(24) [Statim

(24) [Immediately

[§ 2] Ac neque illius Crassi factum superioris isdem honoribus usus, qui fortissimus in bellis fuisset, M´. Aquilius potuit imitari.

[§ 2] And neither could M´. Aquilius, though enjoying the same honors, imitate the deed of that earlier Crassus, who had been the bravest in wars.

Haec verba quibus Cicero nunc utitur, ac neque, eam videntur habere naturam ut semel poni non soleant; quia est coniunctio disiunctiva et semper postulat ut rursus inferatur neque, ut cum dicimus neque hoc neque illud. Quo autem casu acciderit quave ratione ut hoc loco Cicero hoc verbo ita usus sit, praesertim cum adiecerit illam appositionem, ut non intulerit postea alterum, neque perspicere potui et attendendum esse valde puto: moveor enim merita viri auctoritate. Neque ignoro aliquando hoc verbum neque vel semel poni, ut in eadem hac oratione ante ipse Cicero posuit: Sic, inquam, se, iudices, res habet; neque hoc a me novum disputatur sed quaesitum ab aliis est. Sed hoc loco et sine praepositione illius verbi videmus esse positum, et tamen quasi secundum aliquid inferri. Nam cum dixerit neque hoc a me novum disputatur, infert sed quaesitum ab aliis est.]

These words which Cicero now uses, ac neque, seem to have such a nature that they are not wont to be set down only once; because it is a disjunctive conjunction and always demands that neque be brought in again, as when we say neque hoc neque illud. But in what case it happened, or by what reason, that in this place Cicero used this word thus, especially since he added that apposition, so that he did not afterwards bring in the other, I have not been able to discern, and I think it must be very much attended to: for I am moved by the deserved authority of the man. Nor am I unaware that sometimes this word neque is set even once, as in this same speech earlier Cicero himself set: Thus, I say, judges, the matter stands; and this is not being argued by me as something new but has been inquired by others. But in this place we see it set both without the pre-position of that word, and yet as if a second something were being brought in. For when he said neque hoc a me novum disputatur, he adds sed quaesitum ab aliis est.]

Paulo post

A little later

[§ 2] Quid vero alterum Crassum temporibus isdem num aut clarissimi viri Iulii aut summo ingenio praeditus M. Antonius potuit imitari?

[§ 2] But what of the other Crassus? In the same times, could either Julius, a most illustrious man, or M. Antonius, endowed with the highest genius, possibly imitate him?

(25) Hic alter Crassus idem est de quo supra diximus. Alterum autem eum appellat, quia ante mentionem fecit P. Crassi qui fuit pontifex maximus et bello Aristonici in Asia dedit operam ut occideretur. Iulios autem cum dicit, duos Caesares fratres C. et L. significat: ex quibus Lucius et consul et censor fuit, Gaius aedilicius quidem occisus est, sed tantum in civitate potuit ut causa belli civilis contentio eius cum Sulpicio tr. fuerit.

(25) This other Crassus is the same of whom we spoke above. He calls him “the other,” because earlier he made mention of P. Crassus, who was pontifex maximus and, in the war of Aristonicus in Asia, exerted himself, with the result that he was slain. But when he says “the Julii,” he signifies the two brothers of the name Caesar, Gaius and Lucius: of these, Lucius was both consul and censor, while Gaius, indeed as aedile, was killed; but he had such weight in the state that his contention with Sulpicius, tribune, was the cause of the civil war.

Nam et sperabat et id agebat Caesar ut omissa praetura consul fieret: cui cum primis temporibus iure Sulpicius resisteret, postea nimia contentione ad ferrum et ad arma processit. Idem inter primos temporis sui oratores et tragicus poeta bonus admodum habitus est; huius sunt enim tragoediae quae inscribuntur Iuli. Et hi autem Iulii et Antonius a satellitibus Mari sunt occisi, cum Crassus, ut supra diximus, eundem casum sua manu praevenisset.

For Caesar both hoped and was working toward this: that, with the praetorship omitted, he might become consul; to which plan Sulpicius at first resisted with right, but afterward, through excessive contention, he advanced to the sword and to arms. The same man was reckoned among the foremost orators of his time, and an exceedingly good tragic poet; for the tragedies which are entitled “Iuli” are his. And these Julii and Antonius were slain by the satellites of Marius, whereas Crassus, as we said above, forestalled the same fate by his own hand.

Cir. medium

About the middle

[§ 33 sQ. ] Neque vero haec ipsa cotidiana res Appium Claudium illa humani tate et sapientia praeditum per se ipsa movisset, nisi hunc C. Claudi fratris sui competitorem fore putasset. Qui sive patricius sive plebeius esset nondum enim certum constitutum erat cum illo sibi contentionem fore putabat.

[§ 33 sQ. ] Nor indeed would this very quotidian matter, by itself, have moved Appius Claudius, endowed with that humanity and wisdom, unless he had supposed that this man would be the competitor of his brother, Gaius Claudius. Who, whether patrician or plebeian—for it had not yet been settled for certain—he thought he would have a contention with.

Fuerunt enim duae familiae Claudiae: earum quae Marcellorum (26) appellata est plebeia, quae Pulchrorum patricia. Sed hoc loco urbane Cicero lusit in C. Claudium, cum quo in gratiam non redierat. Nam quia is P. Clodi erat frater qui ex patricia in plebeiam familiam transierat per summam infamiam, eum quoque dubitare adhuc dixit.

There were, in fact, two Claudian families: of these, the one called that of the Marcelli (26) was plebeian, the one of the Pulchri patrician. But in this passage Cicero urbanely played a joke upon C. Claudius, with whom he had not returned into favor. For because he was the brother of P. Clodius, who had crossed over from the patrician into the plebeian family with the utmost infamy, he said that he too was still in doubt.

Post duas partes orationis

After two parts of the oration

Dicit dein de Scauro quem defendit:

He then says concerning Scaurus, whom he defended:

[§ 45] Nam cum ex multis unus ei restaret Dolabella paternus inimicus qui cum Q. Caepione propinquo suo contra Scaurum patrem suum subsignaverat: eas sibi inimicitias non susceptas sed relictas et cetera.

[§ 45] For when out of many there remained to him one, Dolabella, a paternal enemy, who, together with Q. Caepio, his kinsman, had subscribed against Scaurus his father: that those enmities were to himself not assumed but left, and so forth.

Ne forte erretis et eundem hunc Cn. Dolabellam putetis esse in quem C. Caesaris orationes legitis, scire vos oportet duos eodem eo tempore fuisse ewt praenomine et nomine et cognomine Dolabellas. Horum igitur alterum Caesar accusavit nec damnavit; alterum M. Scaurus et accusavit et damnavit.

Lest you perhaps err and think that this same Cn. Dolabella is the one against whom you read the orations of C. Caesar, you ought to know that at that same time there were two Dolabellas with the same praenomen and nomen and cognomen. Of these, therefore, one Caesar accused and did not condemn; the other M. Scaurus both accused and condemned.

Post tres partes a primo

After three parts from the first

Quo loco defendit, quod tam magnificam domum Scaurus habet:

At that point he defended the fact that Scaurus has so magnificent a house:

[§ 45] Praesertim cum propinquitas et celebritas loci suspicionem desidiae tollat aut cupiditatis.

[§ 45] Especially since the propinquity and the celebrity of the place remove the suspicion of sloth or of cupidity.

(27) Demonstrasse vobis memini me hanc domum in ea parte Palatii esse quae, cum ab Sacra via descenderis et per proximum vicum qui est a sinistra parte prodieris, posita est. Possidet eam nunc Largus Caecina qui consul fuit cum Claudio. In huius domus atrio fuerunt quattuor columnae marmoreae insigni magnitudine quae nunc esse in regia theatri Marcelli dicuntur.

(27) I remember that I showed you that this house is in that part of the Palatine which, when you descend from the Sacred Way and come out by the nearest lane which is on the left side, is situated there. Largus Caecina, who was consul with Claudius, now possesses it. In the atrium of this house there were four marble columns of remarkable size, which are now said to be in the royal box of the Theater of Marcellus.

Usus erat iis aedilis ut ipse quoque significat in ornatu theatri quod ad tempus perquam amplae magnitudinis fecerat.

The aedile made use of them, as he himself also signifies, in the ornament of the theater, which for the occasion he had made of exceedingly ample magnitude.

Ver. a nov. ***

Verse anew ***

[§ 45] Haec cum tu effugere non potuisses, contendes tamen et postulabis ut M. Aemilius cum sua dignitate omni, cum patris memoria, cum avi gloria, sordidissimae, vanissimae, levissimae genti ac prope dicam pellitis testibus condonetur?

[§ 45] Since you could not have escaped these things, will you nevertheless contend and petition that M. Aemilius, with all his dignity, with the memory of his father, with the glory of his grandfather, be given over to the most sordid, most vain, most frivolous tribe, and—shall I almost say?—to hide-clad witnesses?

Avum hunc Scauri maternum significat L. Matellum pontificem maximum, quem postea nominat quoque. Nam paternus avus proavusque Scauri humiles atque obscuri fuerunt.

He indicates this maternal grandfather of Scaurus as L. Matellus, pontifex maximus, whom he later also names. For Scaurus’s paternal grandfather and great-grandfather were humble and obscure.

Ver. a. novis. CLX

Verse by the moderns. 160

[§ 46] Undique mihi suppeditat quod pro M. Scauro dicam, quocumque non modo mens verum etiam oculi inciderunt. Curia illa vos de gravissimo (28) principatu patris fortissimoque testatur; L. ipse Metellus, avus huius, sanctis simos deos illo constituisse templo videtur in vestro conspectu, iudices, ut salutem a vobis nepotis sui deprecarentur.

[§ 46] On every side there is supplied to me what I might say on behalf of M. Scaurus, wherever not only my mind but even my eyes have fallen. That Curia testifies to you concerning the most weighty principate of his father and his very great bravery; L. Metellus himself, this man’s grandfather, seems to have established the most holy gods in that temple in your sight, judges, so that they might beg from you the safety of his grandson. (28)

Castoris et Pollucis templum Metellus quem nominat refecerat.

Metellus—whom he names—had restored the temple of Castor and Pollux.

Laudaverunt Scaurum consulares novem, L. Piso, L. Volcacius, Q. Metellus Nepos, M. Perpenna, L. Philippus, M. Cicero, Q. Hortensius, P. Servilius Isauricus pater, Cn. Pompeius Magnus. Horum magna pars per tabellas laudaverunt quia aberant: inter quos Pompeius quoque; nam quod erat pro cos. extra urbem morabatur.

Nine men of consular rank praised Scaurus, L. Piso, L. Volcacius, Q. Metellus Nepos, M. Perpenna, L. Philippus, M. Cicero, Q. Hortensius, P. Servilius Isauricus the father, Cn. Pompeius Magnus. A great part of these praised by ballot-slips because they were absent: among whom Pompeius as well; for, as he was proconsul, he was staying outside the city.

Unus praeterea adulescens laudavit, frater eius, Faustus Cornelius Sullae filius. Is in laudatione multa humiliter et cum lacrimis locutus non minus audientes permovit quam Scaurus ipse permoverat. Ad genua iudicum, cum sententiae ferrentur, bifariam se diviserunt qui pro eo rogabant: ab uno latere Scaurus ipse et M´.Glabrio, sororis filius, et L. Paulus et P. Lentulus, Lentuli Nigri flaminis filius, et L. Aemilius Buca filius et C. Memmius, Fausta natus, supplicaverunt; ex altera parte Sulla Faustus, frater Scauri, et T.Annius Milo, cui Fausta ante paucos menses nupserat dimissa a Memmio, et C. Peducaeus et C. Cato et M. Laenas Curtianus.

One young man besides praised him, his brother, Faustus Cornelius, son of Sulla. He in the laudation, having spoken many things humbly and with tears, moved the hearers no less than Scaurus himself had moved them. At the knees of the judges, when the votes were being cast, those who were pleading for him divided themselves in two: on one side Scaurus himself and M´.Glabrio, his sister’s son, and L. Paulus and P. Lentulus, son of Lentulus Niger the flamen, and L. Aemilius, son of Buca, and C. Memmius, born of Fausta, made supplication; on the other side Sulla Faustus, brother of Scaurus, and T.Annius Milo, to whom Fausta a few months before had married, having been dismissed by Memmius, and C. Peducaeus and C. Cato and M. Laenas Curtianus.

Sententiae tulerunt senatores duo et XX, equites tres et XX, tribuni aerarii XXV: ex quibus damnaverunt senatores IIII, equites II, tribuni II.

The votes were cast: senators 22, equestrians 23, aerarian tribunes 25; of whom voted to condemn: senators 4, equestrians 2, tribunes 2.

(29) Cato praetor, Cicero cum vellet de accusatoribus in consilium mittere multique e populo manus in accusatores intenderent, cessit imperitae multitudini ac postero die in consilium de calumnia accusatorum misit. P. Triarius nullam gravem sententiam habuit; subscriptores eius M. et Q. Pacuvii fratres denas et L. Marius tres graves habuerunt.

(29) The praetor Cato, when Cicero wished to send the matter about the accusers into the council and many from the people were stretching their hands against the accusers, yielded to the unskilled multitude, and on the next day sent into the council concerning the calumny of the accusers. P. Triarius had no grave vote; his subscribers, the brothers M. and Q. Pacuvius, had ten grave votes each, and L. Marius had three grave ones.

Cato praetor iudicium, quia aestate agebatur, sine tunica exercuit campestri sub toga cinctus. In forum quoque sic descendebat iusque dicebat, idque repetierat ex vetere consuetudine secundum quam et Romuli et Tati statuae in Capitolio et in rostris Camilli fuerunt togatae sine tunicis.

The praetor Cato conducted the trial, because it was being held in the summer, without a tunic, girded with a campestral garment under his toga. He also went down thus into the forum and pronounced the law; and he had revived this from ancient custom, according to which both the statues of Romulus and Tatius on the Capitol and on the rostra of Camillus were toga-clad without tunics.

III. PRO MILONE

3. FOR MILO

(30) Orationem hanc dixit Cn. Pompeio III cos. a. d. VII Id. April. Quod iudicium cum ageretur, exercitum in foro et in omnibus templis quae circum forum sunt collocatum a Cn. Pompeio fuisse non tantum ex oratione et annalibus, sed etiam ex libro apparet qui Ciceronis nomine inscribitur de optimo genere oratorum.

(30) He delivered this oration when Gnaeus Pompeius was consul for the 3rd time, on April 7. While that trial was being conducted, it appears not only from the oration and the annals, but also from a book which is titled under Cicero’s name On the Best Kind of Orators, that an army had been stationed by Gnaeus Pompeius in the forum and in all the temples which are around the forum.

Argumentum hoc est

This is the argument

T.Annius Milo et P. Plautius Hypsaeus et Q. Metellus Scipio consulatum petierunt non solum largitione palam profusa sed etiam factionibus armatorum succincti.

T.Annius Milo and P. Plautius Hypsaeus and Q. Metellus Scipio sought the consulship not only with largess openly lavished but also girt with factions of armed men.

Miloni et Clodio summae erant inimicitiae, quod et Milo Ciceronis erat amicissimus in reducendoque eo enixe operam tr.pl. dederat, et P. Clodius restituto quoque Ciceroni erat infectissimus ideoque summe studebat Hypsaeo et Scipioni contra Milonem.

Between Milo and Clodius there were the greatest enmities, because both Milo was Cicero’s most intimate friend and, in bringing him back, had energetically given his efforts as tribune of the plebs, and P. Clodius, even with Cicero restored, was most hostile, and therefore was most zealously supporting Hypsaeus and Scipio against Milo.

Ac saepe inter se Milo et Clodius cum suis factionibus Romae depugnaverant: et erant uterque audacia pares, sed Milo pro melioribus partibus stabat. Praeterea in eundem annum consulatum Milo, Clodius praeturam petebat, quam debilem futuram consule Milone intellegebat.

And often Milo and Clodius had fought it out between themselves with their factions at Rome: and each was equal in audacity, but Milo stood for the better party. Moreover, for that same year Milo was seeking the consulship, Clodius the praetorship, which he understood would be weak with Milo as consul.

Deinde cum diu tracta essent comitia consularia perficique ob eas ipsas perditas candidatorem (31) contentiones non possent, et ob id mense Ianuario nulli dum neque consules neque praetores essent trahereturque dies eodem quo antea modo cum Milo quam primum comitia confici vellet confideretque cum bonorum studiis, quod obsistebat Clodio, tum etiam populo propter effusas largitiones impensasque ludorum scaenicorum ac gladiatorii muneris maximas, in quas tria patrimonia effudisse eum Cicero significat; competitores eius trahere vellent, ideoque Pompeius gener Scipionis et T.Munatius tribunus plebis referri ad senatum de patriciis convocandis qui interregem proderent non essent passi, cum interregem prodere stata res esset : a. d. XIII Kal. Febr. Acta etenim magis sequenda et ipsam orationem, quae Actis congruit, puto quam Fenestellam qui a. d. XIIII Kal.

Then, since the consular comitia (elections) had long been dragged out and could not be brought to completion because of those very desperate contests of the candidates (31), and on that account, in the month of January, as yet there were neither consuls nor praetors, and the day was being dragged on in the same manner as before, while Milo wanted the comitia to be completed as soon as possible and was confident both in the zeal of the good men, which was opposing Clodius, and also in the people, on account of the poured-out largesses and the very great expenses of scenic games and a gladiatorial munus, into which Cicero indicates that he had poured out three patrimonies; his competitors wished to drag things out, and therefore Pompey, the son-in-law of Scipio, and T. Munatius, tribune of the plebs, did not allow it to be referred to the senate about summoning the patricians to bring forward an interrex, although to bring forward an interrex was a settled matter: on the 13th day before the Kalends of February. For I think that the Acts are rather to be followed, and the speech itself, which agrees with the Acts, than Fenestella, who [says] on the 14th day before the Kalends.

Febr. tradit Milo Lanuvium, ex quo erat municipio et ubi tum dictator, profectus est ad flaminem prodendum postera die.

Feb. he relates that Milo set out for Lanuvium, of which municipium he was, and where at that time he was dictator, to nominate a flamen on the following day.

Occurrit ei circa horam nonam Clodius paulo ultra Bovillas, rediens ab Aricia, prope eum locum in quo Bonae Deae sacellum est; erat autem allocutus decuriones Aricinorum. Vehebatur Clodius equo; servi XXX fere expediti, ut illo tempore mos erat iter facientibus, gladiis cincti sequebantur. Erant cum Clodio praeterea tres comites eius, ex quibus eques Romanus unus C. Causinius Schola, duo de plebe noti homines P. Pomponius, C. Clodius.

Clodius encountered him around the ninth hour, a little beyond Bovillas, returning from Aricia, near that place in which the shrine of the Bona Dea is; moreover, he had addressed the decurions of Aricia. Clodius was riding a horse; about 30 lightly equipped slaves, as at that time was the custom for those making a journey, girt with swords, were following. There were with Clodius besides three of his companions, of whom one, a Roman equestrian, C. Causinius Schola; two, noted men of the plebs, P. Pomponius, C. Clodius.

Milo raeda vehe batur cum uxore Fausta, filia L. Sullae dictatoris, et M. Fufio familiari suo. Sequebatur eos (32) magnum servorum agmen, inter quos gladiatores quoque erant, ex quibus duo noti Eudamus et Biria. Ii in ultimo agmine tardius euntes cum servis P. Clodi rixam commiserunt.

Milo was traveling in a carriage with his wife Fausta, the daughter of L. Sulla the dictator, and with M. Fufius, his intimate friend. Following them (32) was a large train of slaves, among whom there were also gladiators, of whom two were well-known, Eudamus and Biria. These, going more slowly in the rear of the column, started a brawl with the slaves of P. Clodius.

Ad quem tumultum cum respexisset Clodius minitabundus, umerum eius Biria rumpia traiecit. Inde cum orta esset pugna, plures Miloniani accurrerunt. Clodius vulneratus in tabernam proximam in Bovillano delatus est.

At which tumult, when Clodius looked back menacingly, Biria transfixed his shoulder with a spear. Then, when a fight had arisen, more of Milo’s men ran up. Clodius, wounded, was carried into the nearest tavern in the Bovillan area.

Milo ut cognovit vulneratum Clodium, cum sibi periculosius illud etiam vivo eo futurum intellegeret, occiso autem magnum solacium esset habiturus, etiam si subeunda esset poena, exturbari taberna iussit. Fuit antesignanus servorum eius M. Saufeius. Atque ita Clodius latens extractus est multisque vulneribus confectus.

When Milo learned that Clodius had been wounded, since he understood that that situation would be more perilous for himself with him even alive, but that, if he were slain, he would have a great consolation, even if a penalty had to be undergone, he ordered him to be driven out of the tavern. The standard-bearer of his slaves was M. Saufeius. And thus Clodius, hiding, was dragged out and, with many wounds, was finished off.

Cadaver eius in via relictum, quia servi Clodi aut occisi erant aut graviter saucii latebant, Sex.Taedius senator, qui forte ex rure in urbem revertebatur, sustulit et lectica sua Romam ferri iussit; ipse rursus eodem unde erat egressus se recepit.

His cadaver, left in the road—because Clodius’s slaves either had been killed or, gravely wounded, were hiding—Sextus Taedius, a senator, who by chance was returning from the countryside into the city, took up and ordered to be borne to Rome on his own litter; he himself in turn withdrew back to the same place whence he had gone out.

Perlatum est corpus Clodi ante primam noctis horam, infimaeque plebis et servorum maxima multitudo magno luctu corpus in atrio domus positum circumstetit. Augebat autem facti invidiam uxor Clodi Fulvia quae cum effusa lamentatione vulnera eius ostendebat. Maior postera die luce prima multitudo eiusdem generis confluxit, compluresque noti homines visi sunt.

The body of Clodius was carried in before the first hour of the night, and a very great multitude of the lowest plebs and of slaves, with great mourning, stood around the body placed in the atrium of the house. Moreover, Clodius’s wife Fulvia increased the odium of the deed, as she, with unrestrained lamentation, displayed his wounds. On the next day, at first light, a greater multitude of the same sort flowed together, and a good many well-known men were seen.

Erat domus Clodi ante paucos menses empta de M. Scauro in Palatio: eodem T.Munatius Plancus, frater L. Planci oratoris, et Q. Pompeius Rufus, Sullae dictatoris ex filia nepos, tribuni (33) plebis accurrerunt: eisque hortantibus vulgus imperitum corpus nudum ac calcatum, sicut in lecto erat positum, ut vulnera videri possent in forum detulit et in rostris posuit.

The house of Clodius had a few months before been bought from M. Scaurus on the Palatine: to the same place T.Munatius Plancus, brother of the orator L. Plancus, and Q. Pompeius Rufus, grandson through a daughter of the dictator Sulla, tribunes (33) of the plebs, ran up: and at their urging the unskilled crowd carried the body, naked and trampled, just as it had been placed on the bier, so that the wounds could be seen, into the forum and set it on the Rostra.

Ibi pro contione Plancus et Pompeius qui competitoribus Milonis studebant invidiam Miloni fecerunt. Populus duce Sex.Clodio scriba corpus P. Clodi in curiam intulit cremavitque subselliis et tribunalibus et mensis et codicibus librariorum; quo igne et ipsa quoque curia flagravit, et item Porcia basilica quae erat ei iuncta ambusta est.

There, before the assembly, Plancus and Pompeius, who were supporting Milo’s rival candidates, brought ill‑will upon Milo. The people, with Sex. Clodius, a scribe, as leader, brought the body of P. Clodius into the Curia and burned it with the benches and the tribunals and the tables and the scribes’ codices; by which fire the Curia itself also blazed, and likewise the Porcian Basilica, which was joined to it, was scorched.

Domus quoque M. Lepidi interregis is enim magistratus curulis erat creatus et absentis Milonis eadem illa Clodiana multitudo oppugnavit, sed inde sagittis repulsa est. Tum fasces ex luco Libitinae raptos attulit ad domum Scipionis et Hypsaei, deinde ad hortos Cn. Pompeii, clamitans eum modo consulem, modo dictatorem.

The house also of M. Lepidus the interrex—for he had been created to that curule magistracy—and of Milo, who was absent, the same Clodian multitude assailed, but from there it was repulsed with arrows. Then it brought the fasces seized from the grove of Libitina to the house of Scipio and Hypsaeus, then to the gardens of Cn. Pompeius, clamoring him now consul, now dictator.

Incendium curiae maiorem aliquanto indignationem civitatis moverat quam interfectio Clodi. Itaque Milo, quem opinio fuerat ivisse in voluntarium exsilium, invidia adversariorum recreatus nocte ea redierat Romam qua incensa erat curia. Petebatque nihil deterritus consulatum; aperte quoque tributim in singulos milia assium dederat.

The conflagration of the Curia had stirred considerably greater indignation in the citizenry than the interfection of Clodius. And so Milo, whom the rumor had been to have gone into voluntary exile, revived by the ill-will of his adversaries, had returned to Rome on that night on which the Curia had been burned. And, deterred by nothing, he was seeking the consulship; openly, too, by tribes, he had given a thousand asses apiece.

Contionem ei post aliquot dies dedit M. Caelius tribunus plebis ac Cicero ipse etiam causam egit ad populum. Dicebant uterque Miloni a Clodio factas esse insidias.

After several days M. Caelius, tribune of the plebs, granted him a public assembly, and Cicero himself also pleaded the cause before the people. Both said that an ambush had been laid for Milo by Clodius.

Fiebant interea alii ex aliis interreges, quia comitia consularia (34) propter eosdem candidatorum tumultus et easdem manus armatas haberi non poterant.

Meanwhile interreges were being appointed one after another, because the consular elections (34) could not be held on account of the same tumults of the candidates and the same armed bands.

Itaque primo factum erat S.C. ut interrex et tribuni plebis et Cn. Pompeius, qui pro cos. ad urbem erat, viderent ne quid detrimenti res publica caperet, dilectus autem Pompeius tota Italia haberet. Qui cum summa celeritate praesidium comparasset, postulaverunt apud eum familiam Milonis, item Faustae uxoris eius exhibendam duo adulescentuli qui Appii Claudii ambo appellabantur; qui filii erant C. Claudi, qui frater fuerat Clodi, et ob id illi patrui sui mortem velut auctore patre persequebantur.

Therefore at first a decree of the Senate (S.C.) had been passed, that the interrex and the tribunes of the plebs and Gnaeus Pompeius, who was at the city as pro consul, should see to it that the Republic take no harm, and that Pompeius hold a levy throughout all Italy. He, when with the utmost celerity he had assembled a guard, two youths, both called Appius Claudius, demanded before him that the household of Milo be produced, likewise that of Fausta his wife; these were the sons of Gaius Claudius, who had been the brother of Clodius, and on that account they were pursuing their paternal uncle’s death as though with their father as instigator.

Easdem Faustae et Milonis familias postulaverunt duo Valerii, Nepos et Leo, L. Herennius Balbus P. Clodi quoque familiam et comitum eius postulavit; eodem tempore Caelius familiam Hypsaei et Q. Pompeii postulavit.

The same households of Fausta and of Milo were demanded by two Valerii, Nepos and Leo; L. Herennius Balbus likewise demanded the household of P. Clodius and of his companions; at the same time Caelius demanded the household of Hypsaeus and of Q. Pompeius.

Adfuerunt Miloni Q. Hortensius, M. Cicero, M. Marcellus, M. Calidius, M. Cato, Faustus Sulla. Verba pauca Q. Hortensius dixit, liberos esse eos qui pro servis postularentur; nam post recentem caedem manu miserat eos Milo sub hoc titulo quod caput suum ulti essent. Haec agebantur mense intercalari.

Present for Milo were Q. Hortensius, M. Cicero, M. Marcellus, M. Calidius, M. Cato, Faustus Sulla. Q. Hortensius said a few words, that those who were being claimed as slaves were free; for after the recent slaughter Milo had manumitted them under this title, that they had avenged his person. These things were being transacted in the intercalary month.

Post diem tricesimum fere quam erat Clodius occisus Q. Metellus Scipio in senatu contra Q. Caepionem conquestus est de hac caede P. Clodi.

After about the thirtieth day since Clodius had been killed, Q. Metellus Scipio in the senate complained against Q. Caepio about this killing of P. Clodius.

Falsum esse dixit, quod Milo sic se defenderet, sed Clodium Aricinos decuriones alloquendi gratia abisse profectum cum sex ac XX servis; Milonem subito post horam (35) quartam, senatu misso, cum servis amplius CCC armatis obviam ei contendisse et supra Bovillae inoponantem in itinere aggressum. Ibi P. Clodium tribus vulneribus acceptis Bovillas perlatum; tabernam in quam perfugerat expugnatam a Milone; semianimen Clodium extractum in via Appia occisum esse anulumque eius ei morienti extractum. Deinde Milonem, cum sciret in Albano parvolum filium Clodi esse, venisse ad villam et, cum puer ante subtractus esset, ex servo Halicore quaestionem ita habuisse ut eum articulatim consecaret; vilicum et duos praeterea servos iugulasse.

He said it was false, what Milo thus alleged in his defense, but that Clodius had gone off to address the decurions of Aricia, having set out with 26 slaves; that Milo suddenly after the fourth hour, with the senate dismissed, had hurried with more than 300 armed slaves to meet him, and had attacked him, off his guard, on the road above Bovillae. There Publius Clodius, after receiving three wounds, was carried to Bovillae; the tavern into which he had taken refuge was stormed by Milo; the half‑dead Clodius was dragged out and killed on the Appian Way, and his ring was stripped from him as he was dying. Then Milo, since he knew that at the Alban estate there was Clodius’s very small son, came to the villa and, since the boy had previously been removed, held an interrogation of the slave Halicor in such a way that he cut him joint by joint; he jugulated the bailiff and two slaves besides.

Ex servis Clodi qui dominum defenderant undecim esse interfectos, Milonis duos solos saucios factos esse; ob quae Milonem postero die XII servos qui maxime operam navassent manu misisse populoque tributim singula milia aeris ad defendendos de se rumores dedisse. Milo misisse ad Cn. Pompeium dicebatur qui Hypsaeo summe studebat, quod fuerat eius quaestor, desistere se petitione consulatus, si ita ei videretur; Pompeius respondisse nemini se neque petendi neque desistendi auctorem esse, neque populi Romani potestatem aut consilio aut sententia interpellaturum. Deinde per C. Lucilium, qui propter M. Ciceronis familiaritatem amicus erat Miloni, egisse quoque dicebatur ne se de hac re consulendo invidia oneraret.

Of the slaves of Clodius who had defended their master, eleven were killed, while of Milo’s only two were made wounded; on account of which, on the next day Milo manumitted 12 slaves who had rendered the greatest service, and he gave to the people, by tribes, a thousand asses apiece, to defend against the rumors about himself. Milo was said to have sent to Gnaeus Pompeius (Pompey)—who was most zealously supporting Hypsaeus, because he had been his quaestor—that he would desist from his candidacy for the consulship, if so it seemed good to him; Pompeius replied that he would be the promoter of no one either for seeking or for desisting, nor would he interfere with the power of the Roman People by advice or opinion. Then, through Gaius Lucilius, who, on account of his familiarity with Marcus Cicero, was a friend to Milo, he was also said to have acted so that, by being consulted on this matter, he might not burden himself with ill-will.

Inter haec cum crebresceret rumor Cn. Pompeium cerari dictatorem oportere neque aliter mala civitatis sedari posse, (36) visum est optimatibus tutius esse eum consulem sine collega creari, et cum tractata ea res esset in senatu, facto in M. Bibuli sententiam S.C. Pompeius ab interrege Servio Sulpicio V Kal. Mart. mense intercalario consul creatus est statimque consulatum iniit.

Meanwhile, as the rumor grew frequent that Gnaeus Pompeius ought to be appointed dictator and that otherwise the ills of the state could not be settled, (36) it seemed safer to the Optimates that he be created consul without a colleague; and, when that matter had been handled in the senate, with a senatorial decree (S.C.) passed on the motion of M. Bibulus, Pompeius was created consul by the interrex Servius Sulpicius on 5 Kalends of March, in the intercalary month, and immediately entered upon the consulship.

Deinde post diem tertium de legibus novis ferendis rettulit: duas ex S.C. promulgavit, alteram de vi qua nominatim caedem in Appia via factam et incendium curiae et domus M. Lepidi interregis oppugnatam comprehendit, alteram de ambitu: poena graviore et forma iudiciorum breviore. Utraque enim lex prius testes dari, deinde uno die atque eodem et ab accusatore et a reo perorari iubebat, ita ut duae horae accusatori, tres reo darentur.

Then, on the third day after, he brought forward a report on introducing new laws: by a senatorial decree he promulgated two, the one on violence, which expressly comprehended the killing done on the Appian Way and the arson of the Curia and the assault on the house of M. Lepidus, interrex; the other on ambitus (electoral bribery): with a heavier penalty and a briefer form of trials. For each law ordered that witnesses be produced first, then that on one and the same day both by the accuser and by the defendant the case be perorated, in such a way that two hours were given to the accuser, three to the defendant.

His legibus obsistere M. Caelius tr.pl. studiosissimus Milonis conatus est, quod et privilegium diceret in Milonem ferri et iudicia praecipitari. Et cum pertinacius leges Caelius vituperaret, eo processit irae Pompeius ut diceret, si coactus esset, armis se rem publicam defensurum. Timebat autem Pompeius Milonem seu timere se simulabat: plerumque non domi suae des in hortis manebat, idque ipsum in superioribus circa quos etiam magna manus militum excubabat.

To these laws M. Caelius, trib. pl., most devoted to Milo, attempted to oppose himself, because he said both that a privilegium was being carried against Milo and that the iudicia were being precipitated. And when Caelius more obstinately vituperated the laws, Pompeius advanced in anger to the point of saying that, if he were compelled, he would defend the commonwealth with arms. Moreover, Pompeius was fearing Milo, or was pretending to fear: for the most part he did not stay in his own house, but in his gardens, and even there in the upper parts, around which also a great band of soldiers kept watch.

Senatum quoque semel repente dimiserat Pompeius, quod diceret timere se adventum Milonis.

Pompey had also, on one occasion, suddenly dismissed the Senate, because he said that he himself feared the advent of Milo.

Dein proximo senatu P. Cornificius ferrum Milonem intra tunicam habere ad femur alligatum dixerat; postulaverat ut femur nudaret, et ille sine mora tunicam levarat: tum M. Cicero exclamaverat omnia illi similia crimina esse quae in Milonem dicerentur alia.

Then, at the next senate, P. Cornificius had said that Milo had a steel weapon within his tunic, bound to his thigh; he had demanded that he bare his thigh, and he without delay had raised his tunic: then M. Cicero had exclaimed that all the other charges which were being said against Milo were similar to that one.

(37) Deinde T.Munatius Plancus tribunus plebis produxerat in contionem M. Ae milium Philemonem, notum hominem, libertum M. Lepidi. Is se dicebat pariterque secum quattuor liberos homines iter facientes supervenisse cum Clodius occideretur, et ob id proclamassent, abreptos et perductos per duos menses in villa Milonis praeclusos fuisse; eaque res seu vera seu falsa magnam invidiam Miloni contraxerat. Idem quoque Munatius et Pompeius tribuni plebis in rostra produxerant triumvirum capitalem, eumque interrogaverant an Galatam Milonis servum caedes facientem deprehendisset.

(37) Then T. Munatius Plancus, tribune of the plebs, had brought into the assembly M. Aemilius Philemon, a well-known man, the freedman of M. Lepidus. He said that he, traveling together with four free men, had come upon the scene when Clodius was being killed, and that, because they shouted out, they had been snatched away and carried off, and for two months shut up in Milo’s villa; and this affair, whether true or false, had contracted great ill-will for Milo. Likewise Munatius and Pompeius, tribunes of the plebs, had also brought onto the Rostra a capital triumvir, and had interrogated him whether he had apprehended Galata, Milo’s slave, in the act of committing the killing.

Ille dormientem in taberna pro fugitivo prehensum et ad se perductumn esse responderat. Denuntiaverant tamen triumviro, ne servum remitteret: sed postera die Caelius tribunus plebis et Manilius Cumanus collega eius ereptum e domo triumviri servum Miloni reddiderant. Haec, etsi nullam de his criminibus mentionem fecit Cicero, tamen, quia ita compereram, putavi exponenda.

He answered that he had apprehended him, sleeping in a tavern, as a fugitive, and had had him brought to himself. They had, however, given notice to the triumvir not to release the slave; but on the following day Caelius, tribune of the plebs, and Manilius Cumanus, his colleague, had snatched the slave from the house of the triumvir and had restored him to Milo. These things, although Cicero made no mention of these charges, nevertheless, because I had thus found them out, I thought should be set forth.

Inter primos et Q. Pompeius et C. Sallustius et T.Munatius Plancus tribuni plebis inimicissimas contiones de Milone habebant, invidiosas etiam de Cicerone, quod Milonem tanto studio defenderet. Eratque maxima pars multitudini infensa non solum Miloni sed etiam propter invisum patrocinium Ciceroni. Postea Pompeius et Sallustius in suspicione fuerunt redisse in gratiam cum Milone ac Cicerone; Plancus autem infestissime perstitit, atque in Ciceronem (38) quoque multitudinem instigavit.

Among the first, both Q. Pompeius and C. Sallustius and T.Munatius Plancus, tribunes of the plebs, were holding the most hostile public harangues against Milo, and odious ones also about Cicero, because he was defending Milo with such zeal. And the greater part of the multitude was hostile not only to Milo but also to Cicero on account of his hateful patronage. Afterwards Pompeius and Sallustius were under suspicion of having returned into favor with Milo and Cicero; but Plancus persisted in the most aggressive way, and he even incited the crowd against Cicero (38) as well.

Pompeio autem suspectum faciebat Milonem, ad perniciem eius comparari vim vociferatus: Pompeiusque ob ea saepius querebatur sibi quoque fieri insidias et id palam, ac maiore manu se armabat. Dicturum quoque diem Ciceroni Plancus ostendebat postea, ante Q. Pompeius idem meditatus erat. Tanta tamen con stantia ac fides fuit Ciceronis ut non populi a se alienatione, non Cn. Pompeii suspicionibus, non periculo futurum ut sibi dies ad populum diceretur, non armis quae palam in Milonem sumpta erant deterreri potuerit a defensione eius: cum posset omne periculum suum et offensionem inimicae multitudinis declinare, redimere autem Cn. Pompeii animum, si paulum ex studio defensionis remisisset.

Moreover, Plancus was making Milo suspect to Pompey, crying out that force was being prepared for his destruction; and Pompey, on account of these things, more often complained that ambushes were also being made against himself, and that openly, and he armed himself with a greater band. Plancus later was also indicating that he would appoint a day for Cicero, whereas previously Q. Pompeius had meditated the same. Yet such constancy and fidelity was in Cicero that he could not be deterred from his defense either by the alienation of the people from himself, or by the suspicions of Cn. Pompeius, or by the danger that a day would be named against him before the people, or by the arms which had been openly taken up against Milo: although he could have declined all his own danger and the offense of a hostile multitude, and even could have redeemed the mind of Cn. Pompeius, if he had relaxed a little from his zeal for the defense.

Perlata deinde lege Pompei, in qua id quoque scriptum erat ut quaesitor suffragio populi ex iis qui consules fuerant crearetur, statim comitia habita, creatusque est L. Domitius Ahenobarbus quaesitor. Album quoque iudicum qui de ea re iudicarent Pompeius tale proposuit ut numquam neque clariores viros neque sanctiores propositos esse constaret. Post quod statim nova lege Milo postulatus est a duobus Appiis Claudiis adulescentibus iisdem a quibus antea familia eius fuerat postulata; itemque de ambitu ab iisdem Appiis, et praeterea a C. Ateio et L. Cornificio; de sodaliciiis etiam (39) a P. Fulvio Nerato.

Then, after Pompey’s law was carried, in which it was also written that an inquisitor (quaesitor) should be created by the suffrage of the people from those who had been consuls, the comitia were held at once, and L. Domitius Ahenobarbus was elected quaesitor. Pompey also posted a roll (album) of jurors (iudices) to judge that matter, of such a kind that it was agreed never had men either more illustrious or more upright been set forth. After which, immediately, by a new law Milo was indicted by two young Appii Claudii, the same by whom earlier his household had been prosecuted; likewise on a charge of ambitus (electoral bribery) by the same Appii, and besides by C. Ateius and L. Cornificius; on account of sodalities (electoral clubs) also (39) by P. Fulvius Neratus.

Postulatus autem erat et de sodaliciis et de ambitu ea spe, quod primum iudicium de vi futurum apparebat, quo eum damnatum iri confidebant nec postea responsurum.

He had, moreover, been charged both concerning sodalities and concerning ambitus (electoral bribery), with this expectation: because it appeared that the first trial would be on the charge of violence, in which they were confident he would be condemned and would not afterwards respond.

Divinatio de ambitu accusatorum facta est quaesitore A. Torquato, atque ambo quaesitores, Torquatus et Domitius, prid. Non. April.

A divinatio concerning the accusers’ electoral bribery was held, with A. Torquatus as quaesitor; and both quaesitors, Torquatus and Domitius, on April 4.

reum adesse iusserunt. Quo die Milo ad Domiti tribunal venit, ad Torquati amicos misit; ibi postulante pro eo M. Marcello obtinuit ne prius causam de ambitu diceret quam de vi iudicium esset perfectum.

they ordered the defendant to be present. On the day when Milo came to the tribunal of Domitius, he sent to the friends of Torquatus; there, with M. Marcellus petitioning on his behalf, he obtained that he should not plead the case on ambitus before the judgment on vis (violence) had been completed.

Apud Domitium autem quaesitorem maior Appius postulavit a Milone servos exhiberi numero IIII et L, et cum ille negaret eos qui nominabantur in sua potestate esse, Domitius ex sententia iudicum pronuntiavit ut ex servorum suorum numero accusator quot vellet ederet.

Before Domitius, however, the quaesitor, Appius the elder demanded that Milo produce slaves in the number 54; and when he denied that those who were named were in his power, Domitius, in accordance with the opinion of the judges, pronounced that from the number of his slaves the accuser should bring forward as many as he wished.

Citati deinde testes secundum legem quae, ut supra diximus, iubebat ut prius quam causa ageretur testes per triduum audirentur, dicta eorum iudices consignarent, quarta die adesse omnes iuberentur ac coram accusatore ac reo pilae in quibus nomina iudicum inscripta essent aequarentur; dein rurusus postera die sortitio iudicum fieret unius et LXXX: qui numerus cum sorte obtigisset, ipsi protinus sessum irent; tum ad dicendum accusator duas horas, reus tres haberet, resque eodem die illo iudicaretur; prius autem quam sententiae ferrentur, quinos ex singulis ordinibus accusator, totidem reus reiceret, ita ut numerus iudicum relinqueretur qui sententias ferrent quinquaginta et unus.

Then the witnesses having been summoned, according to the law which, as we said above, ordered that before the case was pled the witnesses should be heard for three days, and that the judges should countersign their statements, on the fourth day all should be ordered to be present, and, in the presence of the accuser and the defendant, the balls on which the names of the judges had been inscribed should be made up evenly; then again on the following day there should be a sortition of the judges, to the number of 81: when that number had fallen by lot, they themselves should at once go to sit; then for speaking the accuser should have two hours, the defendant three, and the matter should be judged on that same day; but before the votes were cast, the accuser should reject five from each order, and the defendant as many, such that the number of judges left to cast votes would be fifty-one.

(40) Primo die datus erat in Milonem testis C. Causinius Schola, qui se cum P. Clodio fuisse, cum is occisus esset, dixit, atrocitatemque rei factae quam maxime potuit auxit. Quem cum interrogare M. Marcellus coepisset, tanto tumultu Clodianae multitudinis circumstantis exterritus est ut vim ultimam timens in tribunal a Domitio reciperetur. Quam ob causam Marcellus et ipse Milo a Domitio praesidium imploraverunt.

(40) On the first day a witness was produced against Milo, Gaius Causinius Schola, who said that he had been with Publius Clodius when he was killed, and he amplified the atrocity of the deed as much as he could. When Marcus Marcellus began to question him, he was so terror‑stricken by the tumult of the surrounding Clodian multitude that, fearing ultimate violence, he was received onto the tribunal by Domitius. For this reason Marcellus, and Milo himself, implored protection from Domitius.

Sedebat eo tempore Cn. Pompeius ad aerarium, perturbatusque erat eodem illo clamore: itaque Domitio promisit se postero die cum praesidio descensurum, idque fecit. Qua re territi Clodiani silentio verba testium per biduum audiri passi sunt. Interrogaverunt eos M. Cicero et M. Marcellus et Milo ipse.

At that time Gnaeus Pompeius was sitting at the treasury, and was perturbed by that same outcry: and so he promised Domitius that he would descend on the next day with a guard, and he did this. Terrified by this, the Clodians, in silence, allowed the testimony of the witnesses to be heard for two days. M. Cicero and M. Marcellus and Milo himself questioned them.

Multi ex iis qui Bovillis habitabant testimonium dixerunt de eis quae ibi facta erant: coponem occisum, tabernam expugnatam, corpus Clodi in publicum extractum esse.

Many of those who lived at Bovillae gave testimony about the things that had been done there: that the innkeeper had been slain, the tavern stormed, the body of Clodius drawn out into the public.

Virgines quoque Albanae dixerunt mulierem ignotam venisse ad se quae Milonis mandato votum solveret, quod Clodius occisus esset.

The Alban Virgins also said that an unknown woman had come to them to discharge, by Milo’s mandate, a vow because Clodius had been slain.

Ultimae testimonium dixerunt Sempronia, Tuditani filia, socrus P. Clodi, et uxor Fulvia, et fletu suo magnopere eos qui assistebant commoverunt. Dimisso circa horam decimam iudicio T.Munatius pro contione populum adhortatus est ut postero die frequens adesset et elabi Milonem non paterentur, iudiciumque et dolorem suum ostenderet euntibus ad tabellam ferendam. Postero die, qui fuit iudicii summus a. d. VII (41) Idus Aprilis, clausae fuerunt tota urbe tabernae; praesidia in foro et circa omnis fori aditus Pompeius disposuit; ipse pro aerario, ut pridie, consedit saeptus delecta manu militum.

Last to give testimony were Sempronia, the daughter of Tuditanus, the mother-in-law of P. Clodius, and his wife Fulvia, and by their weeping they greatly stirred those who stood by. With the court dismissed around the tenth hour, T. Munatius, before a public assembly, exhorted the people to be present in numbers the next day and not allow Milo to slip away, and to show their judgment and their grief by going to cast their ballot. On the next day, which was the decisive day of the trial, on the 7th (41) day before the Ides of April, the shops were closed throughout the whole city; Pompey stationed detachments in the forum and around all the approaches to the forum; he himself, in front of the treasury, as on the day before, took his seat, surrounded by a chosen band of soldiers.

Sortitio deinde iudicum a prima die facta est: post tantum silentium toto foro fuit quantum esse in aliquo foro posset. Tum intra horam secundam accusatores coeperunt dicere Appius maior et M. Antonius et P. Valerius Nepos. Usi sunt ex lege horis duabus.

Then the sortition of the jurors was made on the first day: thereafter there was in the whole Forum as great a silence as could be in any forum. Then, within the second hour, the accusers began to speak—Appius the elder and M. Antonius and P. Valerius Nepos. They made use, by law, of two hours.

Respondit his unus M. Cicero: et cum quibusdam placuisset ita defendi crimen, interfici Clodium pro re publica fuisse quam formam M. Brutus secutus est in ea oratione quam pro Milone composuit et edidit quasi egisset Ciceroni id non placuit ut, quisquis bono publico damnari, idem etiam occidi indemnatus posset. Itaque cum insidias Milonem Clodio fecisse posuissent accusatores, quia falsum id erat nam forte illa rixa commissa fuerat Cicero apprehendit et contra Clodium Miloni fecisse insidias disputavit, eoque tota oratio eius spectavit. Sed ita constitit ut diximus, nec utrius consilio pugnatum esse eo die, verum et forte occurrisse et ea rixa servorum ad eam denique caedem perventum.

To these one man, M. Cicero, responded: and whereas it had pleased certain persons that the charge be defended in this way—that the killing of Clodius had been for the res publica, which form M. Brutus followed in that oration which he composed and published on behalf of Milo as though he had pleaded it for Cicero—that did not please him, namely, that whoever might be able for the public good to be condemned, the same might also be killed uncondemned. And so, when the accusers had asserted that Milo had laid ambushes for Clodius—because that was false, for by chance that brawl had been joined—Cicero seized on this and argued, contrariwise, that Clodius had laid ambushes for Milo, and his whole oration looked to that point. But it was settled thus as we have said: that it was not by the counsel of either that the fight was waged on that day, but that they met by chance, and from that brawl of the slaves it finally came to that killing.

Notum tamen erat utrumque mortem alteri saepe minatum esse, et sicut suspectum Milonem maior quam Clodi familia faciebat, ita expeditior et paratior ad pugnam Clodianorum quam Milonis fuerat.

Yet it was well known that each had often threatened death to the other; and just as a household greater than Clodius’s made Milo suspect, so the Clodians’ retinue had been more expeditious and more prepared for combat than Milo’s.

Cicero cum inciperet dicere, exceptus est acclamatione Clodianorum, qui se continere ne metu quidem circumstantium (42) militum potuerunt. Itaque non ea qua solitus erat constantia dixit. Manet autem illa quoque excepta eius oratio: scripsit vero hanc quam legimus ita perfecte ut iure prima haberi possit.

When Cicero began to speak, he was met with the acclamation of the Clodians, who could not restrain themselves not even by fear of the soldiers standing around (42). And so he did not speak with the constancy to which he was accustomed. Moreover, that oration of his, taken down as delivered, also remains; but he wrote this one which we read so perfectly that it can rightly be held the first.

Enarratio

Enarration

Vers. a primo L

Verses from the first to the 50th.

[§ 3] Unum genus est adversum infestumque nobis et cetera.

[§ 3] One race is adverse and hostile to us and so forth.

Ita ut in causae expositione diximus, Munatius Plancus pridie pro contione populum adhortatus erat ne pateretur elabi Milonem.

Thus, as we said in the exposition of the cause, Munatius Plancus, the day before, had exhorted the people before the assembly not to allow Milo to slip away.

Ver. a primo CC

Verse from the first 200

[§ 12] Declarant huius ambusti tribuni plebis illae intermortuae contiones quibus cotidie meam potentiam invidiose criminabatur.

[§ 12] Those half-dead public assemblies of this scorched tribune of the plebs, by which he daily was invidiously charging my power, make it plain.

T.Munatius Plancus et Q. Pompeius Rufus tribuni pl., de quibus in argumento huius orationis diximus, cum contra Milonem Scipioni et Hypsaeo studerent, contionati sunt eo ipso tempore plebemque in Milonem accenderunt quo propter Clodi corpus curia incensa est, nec prius destiterunt quam flamma eius incendii fugati sunt e contione. Erant enim tunc rostra non eo loco quo nunc sunt sed ad comitium, prope iuncta curiae. Ob hoc T.Munatium ambustum tribunum appellat; fuit autem paratus ad dicendum.

T.Munatius Plancus and Q. Pompeius Rufus, tribunes of the plebs, of whom we spoke in the argument of this oration, when, against Milo, they favored Scipio and Hypsaeus, harangued at that very time and inflamed the plebs against Milo—at which time, on account of Clodius’s corpse, the Curia was set on fire—and they did not desist before they were driven from the assembly by the blaze of that conflagration. For at that time the Rostra were not in the place where they are now, but at the Comitium, close adjoining the Curia. On this account he calls T.Munatius the singed tribune; moreover, he was prepared for speaking.

Paulo post

A little later

[§ 13] Cur igitur incendium curiae, oppugnationem (43) aedium M. Lepidi, caedem hanc ipsam contra rem publicam senatus factam esse decrevit?

[§ 13] Why then the burning of the Curia, the assault (43) of the house of M. Lepidus, that this very slaughter had been done against the commonwealth, did the senate decree?

Post biduum medium quam Clodius ocisus erat interrex primus proditus est M. Aemilius Lepidus. Non fuit autem moris ab eo qui primus interrex proditus erat comitia haberi. Sed Scipionis et Hypsaei factiones, quia recens invidia Milonis erat, cum contra ius postularent ut interrex ad comitia consulum creandorum descenderet, idque ipse non faceret, domum eius per omnes interregni dies fuerunt autem ex more quinque obsederunt.

After a day and a half from when Clodius had been slain, the first interrex was brought forward: M. Aemilius Lepidus. However, it was not the custom for the comitia to be held by the one who had first been brought forward as interrex. But the factions of Scipio and Hypsaeus, because the invidia against Milo was recent, while they were demanding, against the law, that the interrex go down to the comitia for creating consuls, and since he himself would not do this, besieged his house through all the days of the interregnum—there were, according to custom, five.

Deinde omni vi ianua expugnata et imagines maiorum deiecerunt et lectulum adversum uxoris eius Corneliae, cuius castitas pro exemplo habita est, fregerunt, iterumque telas quae ex vetere more in atrio texebantur diruerunt. Post quae supervenit Milonis manus et ipsa postulans comitia; cuius adventus fuit saluti Lepido: in se enim ipsae conversae sunt factiones inimicae, atque ita oppugnatio domus interregis omissa est.

Then, the door having been stormed with all force, they cast down the images of his ancestors and broke the little couch set opposite, belonging to his wife Cornelia, whose chastity was held as an example, and again they tore down the webs which, by ancient custom, were being woven in the atrium. After this there arrived Milo’s band, itself demanding the comitia; and his arrival was a salvation for Lepidus: for the hostile factions turned themselves against him, and thus the assault upon the house of the interrex was abandoned.

Paulo post

A little later

[§ 14] Quod si per furiosum illum tribunum pl. senatui quod sentiebat perfice re licuisset, novam quaestionem nullam haberemus. Decernebat enim ut veteribus legibus, tantum modo extra ordinem, quaereretur. Divisa sententia est postulante nescio quo.

[§ 14] If, through that frenzied tribune of the plebs, it had been permitted for the senate to carry through what it was of opinion, we would have no new court of inquiry. For it was decreeing that inquiry should be made under the ancient laws, only outside the usual order. A division of the vote was called, at the demand of I-know-not-whom.

Si reliqua auctoritas senatus empta intercessione sublata est.

If the remaining authority of the senate has been removed by a purchased intercession.

Quid sit dividere sententiam ut enarrandum sit vestra aetas, filii, facit.

Your age, sons, makes it necessary that what it is to divide the question be expounded.

Cum aliquis in dicenda sententia duas pluresve res complectitur, (44) si non omnes eae probantur, postulatur ut dividatur, id est de rebus singulis referatur. Forsitan nunc hoc quoque velitis scire qui fuerit qui id postulaverit. Quod non fere adicitur: non enim ei qui hoc postulat oratione longa utendum ac ne consurgendum quidem utique est; multi enim sedentes hoc unum verbum pronuntiant Divide: quod cum auditum est, liberum est ei qui facit relationem dividere.

When someone, in stating an opinion, embraces two or more matters, (44) if not all of them are approved, it is requested that it be divided—that is, that a report be made on the individual matters. Perhaps now you also wish to know who it was that requested this. Which is not generally added: for the one who requests this has no need to use a long oration, nor indeed even to rise; for many, while seated, pronounce this one word, Divide; and when it has been heard, it is free for the one who makes the report to divide.

Sed ego, ut curiosius aetati vestrae satisfaciam, Acta etiam totius illius temporis persecutus sum; in quibus cognovi pridie Kal. Mart. S.C. esse factum, P. Clodi caedem et incendium curiae et oppugnationem aedium M. Lepidi contra rem p. factam; ultra relatum in Actis illo die nihil; postero die, id est Kal.Mart., T.Munatium in contione exposuisse populo quae pridie acta erant in senatu: in qua contione haec dixit ad verbum:

But I, that I may satisfy your age more inquisitively, have also pursued the Acta of that whole period; in which I learned that on the day before the Kalends of March an S.C. (a senatorial decree) was passed, declaring that the killing of Publius Clodius and the burning of the Curia and the assault upon the house(s) of Marcus Lepidus had been done against the commonwealth; beyond that, nothing was reported in the Acta for that day; on the next day, that is, the Kalends of March, T. Munatius, in an assembly, set forth to the people what had been done the day before in the senate: in which assembly he said the following verbatim:

Cum Hortensius dixisset ut extra ordinem quaereretur apud quaesitorem; existimaret futurum ut, cum pusillum dedisset dulcedinis, largiter acerbitatis devorarent: adverus hominem ingeniosum nostro ingenio usi sumus; invenimus Fufium, qui diceret "Divide"; reliquae parti sententiae (45) ego et Sallustius intercessimus.

When Hortensius had said that it should be inquired into out of order before the quaesitor; he supposed it would come to pass that, when he had given a tiny bit of sweetness, they would copiously devour bitterness: against a clever man we used our own cleverness; we found Fufius to say "Divide"; to the remaining part of the motion (45) I and Sallustius interposed a veto.

Haec contio, ut puto, explicat et quid senatus decernere voluerit, et quis divisionem postulaverit, et quis intercesserit et cur. Illud vos meminisse non dubito per Q. Fufium illo quoque tempore quo de incesto P. Clodi actum est factum ne a senatu asperius decerneretur.

This public assembly, as I think, makes clear both what the senate wished to decree, and who demanded a division, and who interceded and why. I do not doubt that you remember that through Q. Fufius it was also at that time, when proceedings were conducted concerning the incest of P. Clodi, brought about that the senate should not decree more harshly.

De L. Domitio dicit:

He says about L. Domitius:

[§ 22] Dederas enim quam contemneres populares insanias iam ab adulescen tia documenta maxima.

[§ 22] For you had already from adolescence given the greatest proofs of how you contemned popular insanities.

Constantiam L. Domiti quam in quaestura praestitit significat. Nam eo tempore cum M. Manilius tribunus plebis subnixus libertinorum et servorum manu perditissimam legem ferret ut libertinis in omnibus tribubus suffragium esset, idque per tumultum ageret et clivum Captitolium obsideret, discusserat perruperatque coetum Domitius ita ut multi Manilianorum occiderentur. Quo facto et plebem infimam offenderat et senatus magnam gratiam inierat.

He signifies the constancy of L. Domitius which he displayed in the quaestorship. For at that time, when M. Manilius, tribune of the plebs, relying on a band of freedmen and slaves, was proposing a most pernicious law that the freedmen should have suffrage in all the tribes, and was prosecuting it amid a tumult and besieging the Capitoline slope, Domitius had scattered and broken through the assembly in such a way that many of Manilius’s followers were killed. By this deed he had both offended the lowest plebs and had entered into great favor with the senate.

[§ 32] Itaque illud Cassianum indicium in his personis valeat.

[§ 32] Therefore let that Cassian indication prevail in these persons.

L. Cassius fuit, sicut iam saepe diximus, summae vir severitatis. Is quotiens quaesitor iudicii alicuius esset in quo quaerebatur de homine occiso suadebat atque etiam praeibat iudicibus hoc quod Cicero nunc admonet, ut quaereretur cui bono fuisset perire eum de cuius morte quaeritur.

L. Cassius was, as we have already often said, a man of the highest severity. Whenever he was the inquisitor of some trial in which inquiry was being made about a slain man, he urged and even led the judges to this point which Cicero now reminds them of: that it be asked to whose benefit it would have been for the one, about whose death the inquiry is made, to perish.

Ob quam severitatem, quo tempore Sex.Peducaeus tribunus plebis criminatus est L. Metellum pontificem max. totumque (46) collegium pontificum male iudicasse de incesto virginum Vestalium, quod unam modo Aemiliam damnaverat, absolverat autem duas Marciam et Liciniam, populus hunc Cassium creavit qui de eisdem virginibus quaereret. Isque et ultrasque eas et praeterea complures alias nimia etiam, ut existimatio est, asperitate usus damnavit.

On account of that severity, at the time when Sextus Peducaeus, tribune of the plebs, accused Lucius Metellus, the pontifex maximus, and the whole (46) college of pontiffs of having judged badly concerning the unchastity of the Vestal virgins—because it had condemned only one, Aemilia, but had acquitted two, Marcia and Licinia—the people elected this Cassius to inquire into those same virgins. And he condemned both of those and, moreover, several others besides, employing even—so the opinion holds—excessive harshness.

[§ 33] Et aspexit me illis quidem oculis quibus tunc solebat cum omnibus omnia minabatur. Movet me quippe lumen curiae!

[§ 33] And he looked at me with those eyes indeed with which at that time he used to menace everyone with everything. For the light of the Curia moves me!

Hic est Sex.Clodius quem in argumento huius orationis diximus corpus Clodi in curiam intulisse et ibi cremasse eoque incenso curiam conflagrasse; ideo lumen curiae dicit.

This is Sextus Clodius, whom in the argument of this oration we said had carried the body of Clodius into the Curia and had cremated it there, and, with that set alight, the Curia caught fire; therefore he says “the light of the Curia.”

[§ 37] Quando illius postea sica illa quam a Catilina acceperat conquievit? Haec intenta nobis est, huic ego obici vos pro me passus non sum, haec insidiata Pompeio est.

[§ 37] When did that dagger of his thereafter, which he had received from Catiline, ever come to rest? This has been held intent against us; to this I did not allow you to be put forward in my stead, to be exposed; this has laid in wait for Pompey.

Haec intenta nobis est et obici vos pro me non sum passus, manifestum est pertinere ad id tempus quo post rogationem a P. Clodio in eum promulgatam urbe cessit. Qua re dicat insidiata Pompeio est fortassis quaeratis.

This was aimed at us and I did not allow you to be exposed on my behalf, it is manifest to pertain to that time when, after a rogation promulgated by P. Clodius against him, he withdrew from the city. As to why he says it laid ambush for Pompey, perhaps you inquire.

Pisone et Gabinio coss. pulso Cicerone in exilium, cum III Idus Sextiles Pompeius in senatum venit, dicitur servo P. Clodi sica excidisse, eaque ad Gabinium consulem delata dictum est servo imperatum a P. Clodio ut Pompeius occideretur.

With Piso and Gabinius as consuls, Cicero having been driven into exile, when on August 11 Pompey came into the senate, it is said that a dagger fell from the slave of P. Clodius, and, when it was brought to the consul Gabinius, it was said that the slave had been ordered by P. Clodius to kill Pompey.

Pompeius statim domum rediit et ex eo domi se tenuit. Obsessus est etiam a liberto (47) Clodi Damione, ut ex Actis eius anni cognovi, in quibus XV Kal. Sept.

Pompey immediately returned home and from that time kept himself at home. He was even besieged by Clodius’s freedman (47) Damio, as I have learned from the Acts of that year, in which, on the 15th day before the Kalends of September (August 18).

L. Novius tribunus plebis, collega Clodi, cum Damio adversum L. Flavium praetorem appellaret tribunos et tribuni de appellatione cognoscerent, ita sententiam dixit:

L. Novius, tribune of the plebs, colleague of Clodius, when he, together with Damio, appealed to the tribunes against L. Flavius, the praetor, and the tribunes were taking cognizance concerning the appeal, thus delivered his opinion:

Et si ab hoc apparitore P. Clodi vulneratus sum, et hominibus armatis praesidiis dispositis a re publica remotus Cn. Pompeius obsessusque est, cum appeller, non utar eius exemplo quem vitupero et iudicium tollam,

And if by this apparitor of P. Clodius I have been wounded, and, with armed men and garrisons deployed, Gn. Pompeius has been removed from the republic and besieged, when I am appealed to, I will not use the example of him whom I censure and remove the trial,

et reliqua de intercessione.

and the rest about the intercession.

Haec viam Appiam monumentum nominis sui nece Papiri cruentavit.

She bloodied the Appian Way, as a monument of her name, with the murder of Papirius.

Pompeius post triumphum Mithridaticum Tigranis filium in catenis deposuerat apud Flavium senatorem: qui postea cum esset praetor eodem anno quo tribunus plebis Clodius, petiit ab eo Clodius super cenam ut Tigranem adduci iuberet ut eum videret. Adductum collocavit in convivio, dein Flavio non reddidit Tigranem: domum misit et habuit extra catenas nec repetenti Pompeio reddidit.

After his Mithridatic triumph, Pompey had deposited the son of Tigranes in chains with Flavius the senator: who later, when he was praetor in the same year in which Clodius was tribune of the plebs, Clodius over dinner requested from him that he order Tigranes to be brought in so that he might see him. Once brought in, he seated him at the banquet; then he did not return Tigranes to Flavius: he sent him home and kept him out of chains, nor did he return him to Pompey though he demanded him back.

Postea in navem deposuit, et cum profugeret ille, tempestate delatus est Antium. Inde ut deduceretur ad se, Clodius Sex. Clodium, de quo supra diximus, misit.

Afterwards he put him aboard a ship, and as he was fleeing, he was borne by a storm to Antium. Thence, that he might be conducted to him, Clodius sent Sex. Clodius, about whom we spoke above.

Qui cum reduceret, Flavius quoque re cognita ad eripiendum Tigranem profectus est. Ad quartum lapidem ab urbe pugna facta est in qua multi ex utraque ceciderunt, plures tamen ex Flavi, inter quos et M. Papirius eques Romanus, publicanus, familiaris Pompeio. Flavius sine comite Romam vix perfugit.

While he was leading him back, Flavius too, once the matter was learned, set out to snatch Tigranes away. At the fourth milestone from the city a battle was fought, in which many on both sides fell—more, however, of Flavius’s party, among whom was also Marcus Papirius, a Roman eques, a publican, an intimate of Pompey. Flavius scarcely fled to Rome without a companion.

(48) Haec eadem longo intervallo conversa rursus est in me: nuper quidem, ut scitis, me ad Regiam paene confecit.

(48) This same thing, after a long interval, has turned again upon me: indeed recently, as you know, it nearly finished me at the Regia.

Quo die periculum hoc adierit, ut Clodius eum ad Regiam paene confecerit, nusquam inveni; non tamen adducor ut putem Ciceronem mentitum, praesertim cum adiciat ut scitis. Sed videtur mihi loqui de eo die quo consulibus Domitio et Messala qui praecesserant eum annum cum haec oratio dicta est inter candidatorum Hypsaei et Milonis manus in via Sacra pugnatum est, multique ex Milonianis ex improviso ceciderunt. De cuius diei periculo suo ut putem loqui eum facit et locus pugnae nam in Sacra via traditur commissa, in qua est Regia et quod adsidue simul erant cum candidatis suffragatores, Milonis Cicero, Hypsaei Clodius.

On what day he incurred this danger, namely that Clodius almost dispatched him at the Regia, I have found nowhere; nevertheless I am not induced to think that Cicero lied, especially since he adds as you know. But it seems to me that he is speaking of that day when, in the consulship of Domitius and Messala—which had preceded the year in which this oration was delivered—there was fighting between the bands of the candidates Hypsaeus and Milo on the Sacred Way, and many of Milo’s men fell by surprise. What makes me think that he is speaking of the danger of that day is both the place of the fight—for it is reported to have been joined on the Sacred Way, in which is the Regia—and the fact that the suffragators were constantly together with the candidates, Cicero with Milo, Clodius with Hypsaeus.

[§ 38] Potuitne L. Caecili, iustissimi fortissimique praetoris, obpugnata domo?

[§ 38] Could it be that, with the house of L. Caecili, a most just and most valiant praetor, having been attacked?

L. Caecilius Rufus de quo dicitur fuit praetor P. Lentulo Spinthere Q. Metello Nepote coss., quo anno Cicero restitutus est. Is cum faceret ludos Apollinares, ita infima coacta multitudo annonae caritate tumultuata est ut omnes qui in theatro spectandi causa consederant pellerentur. De oppugnata domo nusquam adhuc legi; Pompeius tamen cum defenderet Milonem apud populum, de vi accusante Clodio, obiecit ei, ut legimus apud Tironem libertum Ciceronis in libro IIII de vita eius, oppressum L. Caecilium praetorem.

L. Caecilius Rufus, about whom it is said, was praetor in the consulship of P. Lentulus Spinther and Q. Metellus Nepos, in which year Cicero was restored. When he was holding the Apollinarian Games, the lowest multitude, having been gathered together, rioted because of the dearness of the grain-supply, to such a degree that all who had sat down in the theater for the sake of viewing were driven out. About an attacked house I have thus far read nowhere; nevertheless Pompey, when he was defending Milo before the people, with Clodius prosecuting on a charge of violence, cast up to him, as we read in Tiro, Cicero’s freedman, in book 4 of his Life, that L. Caecilius the praetor had been overwhelmed.

(49) Paulo post

(49) A little later

[§ 45] At quo die? quo, ut ante dixi, fuit insanissima contio ab ipsius mercen nario tribuno plebis concitata.

[§ 45] But on what day? On that on which, as I said before, there was a most insane assembly, stirred up by his own hireling tribune of the plebs.

Hoc significat eo die quo Clodius occisus est contionatum esse mercennarium eius tribunum plebis. Sunt autem contionati eo die, ut ex Actis apparet, C. Sallustius et Q. Pompeius, utrique et inimici Milonis et satis inquieti. Sed videtur mihi Q. Pompeium significare; nam eius seditiosior fuit contio.

This signifies that on the day on which Clodius was slain, his mercenary tribune of the plebs held an assembly. Now on that day, as appears from the Acts, C. Sallustius and Q. Pompeius addressed the assembly, both enemies of Milo and quite turbulent. But it seems to me that he means Q. Pompeius; for his assembly was the more seditious.

[§ 46] Dixit C. Causinius Schola Interamnanus, familiarissimus et idem comes Clodi, P. Clodium illo die in Albano mansurum fuisse.

[§ 46] C. Causinius Schola of Interamna, a most intimate friend and likewise companion of Clodius, said that P. Clodius would have remained that day at his Alban estate.

Hic fuit Causinius apud quem Clodius mansisse Interamnae videri volebat qua nocte deprehensus est in Caesaris domo, cum ibi in operto virgines pro populo Romano sacra facerent.

This was Causinius, with whom Clodius wished to seem to have stayed at Interamna on the night he was apprehended in Caesar’s house, when there, under cover, the virgins were performing sacred rites on behalf of the Roman people.

Paulo post

A little later

[§ 47] Scitis, iudices, fuisse qui in hac rogatione suadenda diceret Milonis manu caedem esse factam, consilio vero maioris alicuius. Me videlicet latronem et sicarium abiecti homines ac perditi describebant.

[§ 47] You know, judges, that there were those who, in urging this bill, said that the slaughter was done by Milo’s hand, but by the counsel of some greater person. Evidently abject and ruined men were describing me as a robber and a cutthroat.

Q. Pompeius Rufus et C. Sallustius tribuni fuerunt quos significat. Hi enim primi de ea lege ferenda populum hortati (50) sunt et dixerunt a manu Milonis occisum esse Clodium et cetera.

Q. Pompeius Rufus and C. Sallustius were the tribunes whom he means. For these were the first to exhort the people about bringing forward that law (50) and they said that Clodius had been slain by the hand of Milo, and the rest.

[§ 49] Atqui ut illi nocturnus adventus vitandus fuit, sic Miloni, cum insi diator esset, si illum ad urbem noctu accessurum sciebat, subsidendum et cetera.

[§ 49] And yet, just as for that man a nocturnal advent had to be avoided, so for Milo—since he was the ambusher—if he knew that he would approach the city by night, it was necessary to take up a position and so forth.

Via Appia est prope urbem monumentum Basili qui locus latrociniis fuit perquam infamis, quod ex aliis quoque multis intellegi potest.

On the Appian Way, near the city, there is the monument of Basilus, a place exceedingly infamous for brigandage, as can also be understood from many other things.

[§ 55] Comites Graeculi quocumque ibat, etiam cum in castra Etrusca prope rabat.

[§ 55] Greeklings as companions wherever he went, even when he was hastening to the Etruscan camp.

Saepe obiecit Clodio Cicero socium eum coniurationis Catilinae fuisse; quam rem nunc quoque reticens ostendit. Fuerat enim opinio, ut Catilina ex urbe profugerat in castra Manli centurionis qui tum in Etruria ad Faesulas exercitum ei comparabat, Clodium subsequi eum voluisse et coepisse, tum dein mutato consilio in urbem redisse.

Often did Cicero object against Clodius that he had been an associate of Catiline’s conspiracy; which matter he even now, by being reticent, shows. For there had been an opinion that, when Catiline had fled from the city to the camp of Manlius the centurion, who then in Etruria near Faesulae (Fiesole) was assembling an army for him, Clodius had wished to follow him and had begun to do so, then, his counsel changed, had returned to the city.

[§ 67] Non iam hoc Clodianum crimen timemus, sed tuas, Cn. Pompei te enim appello, et ea voce ut me exaudire possis tuas, inquam, suspiciones perhorrescimus.

[§ 67] We no longer fear this Clodian crime, but at your suspicions, Cn. Pompey—for I address you, and in such a voice that you may hear me—we shudder, at your suspicions, I say.

Diximus in argumento orationis huius Cn. Pompeium simulasse timorem, seu plane timuisse Milonem, et ideo ne domi quidem suae sed in hortis superioribus ante iudicium mansisse, ita ut villam quoque praesidio militum circumdaret.

We have said in the argument of this oration that Cn. Pompeius simulated fear, or indeed plainly feared Milo, and for that reason remained not even at his own home but in the upper gardens before the trial, to such an extent that he even surrounded the villa with a guard of soldiers.

Q. Pompeius Rufus tribunus plebis, qui fuerat familiarissimus omnium P. Clodio et sectam illam sequi se (51) palam profitebatur, dixerat in contione paucis post diebus quam Clodius erat occisus.

Q. Pompeius Rufus, tribune of the plebs, who had been most intimate of all with P. Clodius and openly professed that he followed that sect (51), had said in a public assembly a few days after Clodius had been slain.

Milo dedit quem in curia cremaretis: dabit quem in Capitolio sepeliatis.

Milo gave one for you to cremate in the Curia; he will give one for you to bury on the Capitol.

In eadem contione idem dixerat habuit enim eam a. d. VIII Kal. Febr. cum Milo pridie, id est VIIII Kal.

In the same assembly he had said the same; for he held it on the 8th day before the Kalends of February, with Milo on the day before, that is, the 9th day before the Kalends

Febr., venire ad Pompeium in hortos eius voluisset, Pompeium ei per hominem propinquum misisse nuntium ne ad se veniret. Prius etiam quam Pompeius ter consul crearetur, tres tribuni, Q. Pompeius Rufus, C. Sallustius Crispus, T.Munatius Plancus, cum cotidianis contionibus suis magnam invidiam Miloni propter occisum Clodium excitarent, produxerant ad populum Cn. Pompeium et ab eo quaesierant num ad eum delatum esset illius quoque rei indicium, suae vitae insidiari Milonem. Responderat Pompeius: Licinium quendam de plebe sacrificulum qui solitus esset familias purgare ad se detulisse servos quosdam Milonis itemque libertos comparatos esse ad caedem suam, nomina quoque servorum edidisse; se ad Milonem misisse utrum in potestate sua haberet; a Milone responsum esse, ex iis servis quos nominasset partim neminem se umquam habuisse, partim manumisisse; dein, cum Licinium apud se haberet, Lucium quendam de plebe ad corrumpendum indicem venisse; qua re cognita in vincla eum publica esse coniectum.

In Feb., when he had wished to come to Pompey in his gardens, Pompey sent him, through a kinsman, a message not to come to him. Even before Pompey was created consul for the 3rd time, three tribunes—Quintus Pompeius Rufus, Gaius Sallustius Crispus, Titus Munatius Plancus—since by their daily contiones they were stirring up great invidia against Milo on account of the slain Clodius, had produced Gnaeus Pompeius before the people and had asked of him whether indicium had been brought to him about this matter as well, that Milo was laying ambush for his life. Pompey had replied: that a certain Licinius, a plebeian sacrificer who was accustomed to purify households, had reported to him that certain slaves of Milo and likewise some freedmen had been prepared for his murder, and that he had published the names of the slaves as well; that he had sent to Milo to ask whether he had them in his potestas; that Milo had responded that, of those slaves whom he had named, some he had never had at all, others he had manumitted; then, when he had Licinius with him, a certain Lucius of the plebs had come to corrupt the informer; and, this matter having been learned, he had been thrown into the public chains.

Decreverat enim senatus ut cum interrege et tribunis plebis Pompeius daret operam ne quid res pulica detrimenti caperet. Ob has suspiciones Pompeius in (52) superioribus hortis se continuerat; deinde ex S.C. dilectu per Italiam habito cum redissent, venientem ad se Milonem unum omnium non admiserat. Item cum senatus in porticu Pompeii haberetur ut Pompeius posset interesse, unum eum excuti prius quam in senatum intraret iusserat.

For the senate had decreed that Pompey, together with the interrex and the tribunes of the plebs, should give attention that the republic might receive no detriment. On account of these suspicions Pompey had confined himself in the (52) Upper Gardens; then, after, by decree of the Senate, a levy had been held throughout Italy, when they had returned, he had not admitted Milo—alone of all—who came to him. Likewise, when the senate was being held in the Portico of Pompey so that Pompey could be present, he had ordered that he alone be searched before he entered the senate.

Hae sunt suspiciones quas se dicit pertimescere.

These are the suspicions which he says he dreads.

[§ 71] Quid enim minus illo dignum quam cogere ut vos eum condemnetis in quem animadvertere ipse et more maiorum et suo iure posset? sed praesidio esse et cetera.

[§ 71] For what is less worthy of him than to force you to condemn the man upon whom he himself could, both by the custom of the ancestors and by his own right, take punitive action?—but “to be a protection,” and the rest.

Idem T.Munatius Plancus, ut saepe diximus, post audita et obsignata testium verba dimissosque interim iudices vocata contione cohortatus erat populum ut clausis tabernis postero die ad iudicium adesset nec pateretur elabi Milonem.

That same T. Munatius Plancus, as we have often said, after the words of the witnesses had been heard and sealed and the judges meanwhile dismissed, an assembly having been called, had exhorted the people that, with the shops closed, on the following day they should be present at the trial and not allow Milo to slip away.

[§ 87] Incidebantur iam domi leges quae nos servis nostris addicerent.

[§ 87] Statutes were already being inscribed at home which would adjudge us to our own slaves.

Significasse iam puto nos fuisse inter leges P. Clodi quas ferre proposuerat eam quoque qua libertini, qui non plus quam in IIII tribubus suffragium ferebant, possent in rusticis quoque tribubus, quae propriae ingenuorum sunt, ferre.

I think I have already signified that among the laws of P. Clodius which he proposed to carry, there was also that by which the freedmen, who were casting their suffrage in not more than 4 tribes, might also cast it in the rustic tribes too, which are proper to the freeborn.

[§ 88] Senatus, credo, praetorem eum circumscripsisset. Ne cum solebat quidem id facere, in privato eodem hoc aliquid profecerat.

[§ 88] The Senate, I suppose, would have circumscribed him as praetor. Not even when he was wont to do this did he, in a private capacity by this same thing, have accomplished anything.

Significat id tempus quo P. Clodius, cum adhuc quaestor (53) designatus esset, deprehensus est, cum intrasset eo ubi sacrificium pro populo Romano fiebat. Quod factum notatum erat S.C. , decretumque ut extra ordinem de ea re iudicium fieret.

He indicates that time when P. Clodius, when he was still quaestor-designate (53), was caught, after he had entered there where a sacrifice was being performed for the Roman people. This deed had been noted by an S.C. , and it was decreed that a trial about that matter be held out of the usual order.

Ver. a novis. CLX

Ver. from the new copies. 160

Quo loco inducit loquentem Milonem cum bonarum partium hominibus de meritis suis:

In that place he introduces Milo speaking with the men of the good party about his merits:

[§ 95] Plebem et infimam multitudinem, quae P. Clodio duce fortunis vestris imminebat, eam, quo tutior esset vestra vita, se fecisse commemorat ut non modo virtute flecteret, sed etiam tribus suis patrimoniis deleniret.

[§ 95] He recalls that, as for the plebs and the lowest multitude, which with P. Clodius as leader was menacing your fortunes, he brought it about—so that your life might be safer—that he not only would sway them by virtue, but even would mollify them with his three patrimonies.

Puto iam supra esse dictum Milonem ex familia fuisse Papia, deinde adoptatum esse ab T.Annio, avo suo materno. Tertium patrimonium videtur significare matris; aliud enim quod fuerit non inveni.

I think it has already been said above that Milo was from the Papian family, then that he was adopted by T. Annius, his maternal grandfather. The third patrimony seems to signify the mother’s; for I have not found what other it might have been.

Peracta utrimque causa singuli quinos accusator et reus senatores, totidem equites et tribunos aerarios reiecerunt, ita ut unus et L sententias tulerint. Senatores condemnaverunt XII, absolverunt VI; equites condemnaverunt XIII, absolverunt IIII; tribuni aerarii condemnaverunt XIII, absolverunt III.

With the case completed on both sides, the accuser and the defendant each rejected five senators, and just as many equites and aerarian tribunes, such that 51 votes were cast. The senators condemned 12, acquitted 6; the equites condemned 13, acquitted 4; the aerarian tribunes condemned 13, acquitted 3.

Videbantur non ignorasse iudices inscio Milone initio vulneratum esse Clodium, sed compererant, post quam vulneratus esset, iussu Milonis occisum. Fuerunt qui crederent M. Catonis sententia eum esse absolutum; (54) nam et bene cum re publica actum esse morte P. Clodi non dissimulaverat et studebat in petitione consulatus Miloni et reo adfuerat. Nominaverat quoque eum Cicero praesentem et testatus erat audisse eum a M. Favonio ante diem tertium quam facta caedes erat, Clodium dixisse periturum esse eo triduo Milonem Sed Milonis quoque notam audaciam removeri a re publica utile visum est.

The judges seemed not to have been ignorant that, with Milo unaware, Clodius was wounded at the beginning; but they had discovered that, after he had been wounded, by Milo’s order he was killed. There were those who believed that by the sententia of M. Cato he was absolved; (54) for he had not concealed that it had been well for the republic that P. Clodius died, and he was zealous for Milo in his petition for the consulship, and had been present to assist the defendant. Cicero had also named him as present and had testified that he had heard from M. Favonius, the third day before the killing was done, that Clodius had said Milo would perish within that three-day period. But it seemed useful that Milo’s notorious audacity too be removed from the republic.

Scire tamen nemo umquam potuit utram sententiam tulisset. Damnatum autem opera maxime Appi Claudi pronuntiatum est.

Yet no one ever was able to know which sentence he had delivered. Moreover, it was pronounced that he was condemned chiefly by the efforts of Appius Claudius.

Milo postero die factus reus ambitus apud Manlium Torquatum absens damnatus est. Illa quoque lege accusator fuit eius Appius Claudius, et cum ei praemium lege daretur, negavit se eo uti. Subscripserunt ei in ambitus iudicio P. Valerius Leo et Cn. Domitius Cn. f.

On the next day Milo, having been made a defendant for ambitus (electoral bribery), was condemned in absentia before Manlius Torquatus. Under that law as well, Appius Claudius was his prosecutor; and although a reward was granted to him by the law, he declared that he would not make use of it. Joining him as co-prosecutors in the ambitus trial were P. Valerius Leo and Cn. Domitius, Cn.’s son.

Post paucos dies quoque Milo apud M. Favonium quaesitorem de sodaliciis damnatus est accusante P. Fulvio Nerato, cui e lege praemium datum est. Deinde apud L. Fabium quaesitorem iterum absens damnatus est de vi: accusavit L. Cornificius et Q. Patulcius.

After a few days as well, Milo was condemned before Marcus Favonius, inquisitor, on the charge of sodalities, with Publius Fulvius Neratus prosecuting, to whom by the law a reward was given. Then before Lucius Fabius, inquisitor, he was again, being absent, condemned on a charge of violence: Lucius Cornificius and Quintus Patulcius accused.

Milo in exilium Massiliam intra paucissimos dies profectus est. Bona eius propter aeris alieni magnitudinem semuncia venierunt.

Milo set out into exile to Massilia within a very few days. His goods, on account of the magnitude of his debt, were sold for a half-ounce (semuncia).

Post Milonem eadem lege Pompeia primus est accusatus (55)M. Saufeius M. f. qui dux fuerat in expugnanda taberna Bovillis et Clodio occidendo. Accusaverunt eum L. Cassius, L. Fulcinius C. f., C. Valerius; defenderunt M. Cicero, M. Caelius, obtinueruntque ut una sententia absolveretur. Condemnaverunt senatores X, absolverunt VIII; condemnaverunt equites Romani VIIII, absolverunt VIII; sed ex tribunis aerariis X absolverunt, VI damnaverunt: manifestumque odium Clodi saluti Saufeio fuit, cum eius vel peior causa quam Milonis fuisset, quod aperte dux fuerat expugnandae tabernae.

After Milo, under the same Pompeian law, the first to be accused was (55)M. Saufeius, son of M., who had been the leader in the storming of the tavern at Bovillae and in killing Clodius. L. Cassius, L. Fulcinius, son of C., and C. Valerius accused him; M. Cicero and M. Caelius defended him, and they prevailed that he be acquitted by a single combined verdict. The senators condemned 10, acquitted 8; the Roman equestrians condemned 9, acquitted 8; but of the treasury tribunes 10 acquitted, 6 condemned: and the manifest hatred of Clodius was a salvation to Saufeius, since his case had been even worse than Milo’s, because he had openly been leader of the storming of the tavern.

Repetitus deinde post paucos dies apud C. Considium quaestiorem est lege Plautia de vi, subscriptione ea quod loca edita occupasset et cum telo fuisset; nam dux fuerat operarum Milonis. Accusaverunt C. Fidius, Cn. Aponius Cn. f., M. Seius Sex.f.; defenderunt M. Cicero, M. Terentius Varro Gibba. Absolutus est sententiis plenius quam prius: graves habuit XVIIII, absolutorias duas et XXX; sed e contrario hoc ac priore iudicio accidit: equites enim ac senatores eum absolverunt, tribuni aerarii damnaverunt.

Then, after a few days, he was prosecuted before C. Considius, the quaesitor, under the Plautian law concerning violence, with the written charge that he had occupied commanding positions and had been with a weapon; for he had been a leader of Milo’s work-gangs. The accusers were C. Fidius, Cn. Aponius Cn. f., M. Seius Sex. f.; the defenders were M. Cicero, M. Terentius Varro Gibba. He was acquitted by votes more fully than before: he had 19 “grave” (adverse) votes, and 32 acquittal votes; but the contrary of this and of the earlier judgment happened: for the Roman equites and the senators acquitted him, the tribuni aerarii condemned him.

Sex. autem Clodius quo auctore corpus Clodi in curiam illatum fuit accusantibus C. Caesennio Philone, M. Alfidio, defendente T.Flacconio, magno consensu damnatus est, (56) sententiis sex et XL; absolutorias quinque omnino habuit, duas senatorum, tres equitum.

Sextus Clodius, moreover, at whose instigation the body of Clodius was brought into the Curia, with C. Caesennius Philo and M. Alfidius prosecuting and T. Flacconius defending, was condemned by great consensus, (56) by 46 votes; he had in all five acquittals, two of senators, three of equites.

Multi praeterea et praesentes et cum citati non respondissent damnati sunt, ex quibus maxima pars fuit Clodianorum.

Many, moreover, both those present and those who, when cited, had not responded, were condemned, the greater part of whom were Clodians.

IV. PRO CORNELIO DE MAIESTATE

4. FOR CORNELIUS ON THE CHARGE OF MAJESTY

(57) Hanc orationem dixit L. Cotta L. Torquato coss. post annum quam supe riores.

(57) He delivered this oration when L. Cotta and L. Torquatus were consuls, a year after the previous ones.

Argumentum

Argument

C. Cornelius homo non improbus vita habitus est. Fuerat quaestor Cn. Pompeii, dein tribunus plebis C. Pisone M'.Glabrione coss. biennio ante quam haec dicta sunt.

C. Cornelius was held to be a man not dishonorable in life. He had been quaestor to Cn. Pompeius, then tribune of the plebs, with C. Piso and M'. Glabrio as consuls, two years before these things were spoken.

In eo magistratu ita se gessit ut iusto pertinacior videretur. Alienatus autem a senatu est ex hac causa. Rettulerat ad senatum ut, quoniam exterarum natio num legatis pecunia magna daretur usura turpiaque et famosa ex eo lucra fierent, ne quis legatis exterarum nationum pecuniam expensam ferret.

In that magistracy he conducted himself in such a way that he seemed more pertinacious than just. Moreover, he was alienated from the Senate for this reason. He had brought before the Senate that, since to the envoys of foreign nations large sums of money were being given at interest and shameful and infamous profits were being made therefrom, no one should enter money as expended to the envoys of foreign nations.

Cuius relationem repudiavit senatus et decrevit satis cautum videri eo S.C. quod aliquot ante annos L. Domitio C. Caelio coss. factum erat, cum senatus ante pauculos annos ex eodem illo S.C. decrevisset ne quis Cretensibus pecuniam mutuam daret.

The senate repudiated his report and decreed that it seemed sufficiently provided for by that senatorial decree (S.C.) which had been enacted several years earlier, when Lucius Domitius and Gaius Caelius were consuls, since a few years before the senate had decreed from that same S.C. that no one should give money on loan to the Cretans.

Cornelius ea re (58) offensus senatui questus est de ea in contione: exhauriri provincias usuris; providendum ut haberent legati unde praesenti die darent; promulgavitque legem qua auctoritatem senatus minuebat, ne quis nisi per populum legibus solveretur. Quod antiquo quoque iure erat cautum; itaque in omnibus S.C. quibus aliquem legibus solvi placebat adici erat solitum ut de ea re ad populum ferretur: sed paulatim ferri erat desitum resque iam in eam consuetudinem venerat ut postremo ne adiceretur quidem in senatus consultis de rogatione ad populum ferenda; eaque ipsa S.C. per pauculos admodum fiebant.

Cornelius, offended by this matter (58), complained to the senate about it in a public assembly: that the provinces were being drained by usuries; that provision must be made so that the envoys might have whence to give on the present day; and he promulgated a law by which he diminished the authority of the senate, that no one should be loosed from the laws except through the people. Which had also been provided by ancient law; and so in all S.C. in which it was pleasing that someone be loosed from the laws, it was customary to add that on that matter it be carried to the people: but little by little it had ceased to be carried, and the matter had now come into such a custom that at last it was not even added in the decrees of the senate about bringing a rogation to the people; and those very S.C. were being enacted by a very few men indeed.

Indigne eam Corneli rogationem tulerant potentissimi quique ex senatu quorum gratia magnopere minuebatur; itaque P. Servilius Globulus tribunus plebis inventus erat qui C. Cornelio obsisteret. Is, ubi legis ferundae dies venit et praeco subiciente scriba verba legis recitare populo coepit, et scribam subicere et praeconem pronuntiare passus non est. Tum Cornelius ipse codicem recitavit.

Indignantly had the most powerful men, those of the senate whose influence was being greatly diminished, borne that Cornelian rogation; accordingly, Publius Servilius Globulus, tribune of the plebs, was found to withstand Gaius Cornelius. When the day came for carrying the law, and, the herald prompting, the scribe began to recite the words of the law to the people, he did not allow either the scribe to prompt or the herald to pronounce. Then Cornelius himself recited the codex.

Quod cum improbe fieri C. Piso consul vehementer quereretur tollique tribuniciam intercessionem diceret, gravi convicio a populo exceptus est; et cum ille eos qui sibi intentabant manus prendi a lictore iussisset, fracti eius fasces sunt lapidesque etiam ex ultima contione in consulem iacti: quo tumultu Cornelius perturbartus concilium dimisit actutum.

When Gaius Piso, the consul, complained vehemently that this was being done improperly and said that the tribunician intercession was being removed, he was received by the people with a grave outcry; and when he had ordered the lictor to arrest those who were brandishing their hands against him, his fasces were broken, and stones even from the farthest part of the assembly were thrown at the consul: by which tumult Cornelius, perturbed, dismissed the council at once.

Auctum deinde eadem de re in senatu est magnis contentionibus. Tum Cornelius (59) ita ferre rursus coepit ne quis in senatu legibus solveretur nisi CC adfuis sent, neve quis, cum solutus esset, intercederet, cum de ea re ad populum ferretur. Haec sine tumultu res ascta est.

Then the same matter was pressed further in the senate amid great contentions. Then Cornelius (59) began again to propose thus: that no one in the senate be released from the laws unless 200 were present, and that no one, when he had been released, intercede when the matter was being carried to the people. This business was transacted without tumult.

Nemo enim negare poterat pro senatus auctoritate esse eam legem; sed tamen eam tulit invitis optimatibus, qui per paucos amicis gratificari solebant.

For no one could deny that that law was on the side of the authority of the senate; but nevertheless he carried it with the Optimates unwilling, who were accustomed to gratify friends by means of a few present.

Aliam deinde legem Cornelius, etsi nemo repugnare ausus est, multis tamen invitis tulit, ut praetores ex edictis suis perpetuis ius dicerent: quae res studium aut gratiam ambitiosis praetoribus qui varie ius dicere assueverant sustulit.

Then Cornelius carried another law, although no one dared to oppose, yet with many unwilling, namely that the praetors should pronounce the law in accordance with their own perpetual edicts; which measure removed the incentive or the avenue of favor for ambitious praetors who had been accustomed to say the law variously.

Alias quoque complures leges Cornelius promulgavit, quibus plerisque collegae intercesserunt: per quas contentiones totius tribunatus eius tempus peractum est.

Cornelius likewise promulgated several other laws, against most of which his colleagues interceded: through these contentions the whole time of his tribunate was spent.

Sequenti deinde anno M'.Lepido L. Volcacio coss., quo anno praetor Cicero fuit, reum Cornelium duo fratres Cominii lege Cornelia de maiestate fecerunt. Detulit nomen Publius, subscripsit Gaius.

In the following year, with Manius Lepidus and Lucius Volcacius as consuls, in which year Cicero was praetor, the two Cominius brothers made Cornelius a defendant under the Cornelian law concerning majesty (maiestas). Publius brought the charge, Gaius subscribed.

Et cum P. Cassius praetor decimo die, ut mos est, adesse iussisset, eoque die ipse non adfuisset seu advocatus propter publici frumenti curam seu gratificans reo, circumventi sunt ante tribunal eius accusatores a notis operarum ducibus ita ut mors intentaretur, si mox non (60) desisterent.

And when P. Cassius, praetor, had ordered appearance on the 10th day, as is the custom, and on that day he himself was not present—whether called away by the care of the public grain-supply or gratifying the defendant—the accusers were surrounded before his tribunal by notorious leaders of the work-gangs, in such a way that death was threatened if they did not soon (60) desist.

Quam perniciem vix effugerunt interventu consulum qui advocati reo descenderant. Et cum scalas quasdam Cominii fugissent, clausi in noctem ibi se occultaverunt, deinde per tecta vicinarum aedium profugerunt ex urbe.

They scarcely escaped that perdition through the intervention of the consuls, who had come down as advocates for the defendant. And when they had fled by certain stairs of the Cominii, shut in there for the night they hid themselves, then across the roofs of the neighboring houses they fled out of the city.

Postero die, cum P. Cassius adsedisset et citati accusatores non adessent, exemptum nomen est de reis Corneli; Cominii autem magna infamia flagraverunt vendidisse silentium magna pecunia.

On the next day, when P. Cassius had taken his seat and the summoned accusers were not present, the name of Cornelius was removed from the list of defendants; but the Cominii were ablaze with great infamy for having sold silence for a great sum of money.

Sequente deinde anno L. Cotta L. Torquato coss., quo haec oratio a Cicerone praetura nuper peracta dicta est, cum primum apparuisset Manilius qui iudicium per operarum duces turbaverat, deinde quod ex S.C. ambo consules praesidebant ei iudicio, non respondisset atque esset damnatus, recreavit se Cominius, ut infamiam acceptae pecuniae tolleret, ac repetiit Cornelium lege maiestatis. Res acta est magna exspectatione. Paucos autem comites Cornelius perterritus Manili exitu in iudicium adhibuit, ut ne clamor quidem ullus ab advocatis eius oriretur.

Then in the following year, with L. Cotta and L. Torquatus, consuls, in which year this oration was delivered by Cicero, his praetorship recently accomplished, when Manilius first had appeared—the one who had disturbed the judgment through leaders of hired gangs—then, because by a senatorial decree, both consuls were presiding over that trial, he did not respond and was condemned, Cominius revived himself, in order to remove the infamy of money received, and he repeated the prosecution of Cornelius under the law of majesty (maiestas). The matter was conducted with great expectation. Cornelius, however, terrified by the outcome of Manilius, brought only a few companions into the trial, so that not even any clamor at all might arise from his advocates.

Dixerunt in eum infesti testimonia principes civitatis qui plurimum in senatu poterant Q. Hortensius, Q. Catulus, Q. Metellus Pius, M. Lucullus, M'.Lepidus. Dixerunt autem hoc: vidisse se cum Cornelius in tribunatu codicem (61) pro rostris ipse recitaret, quod ante Cornelium nemo fecisse existimaretur. Volebant videri se iudicare eam rem magnopere ad crimen imminutae maiestatis tribuniciae pertinere; etenim prope tollebatur intercessio, si id tribunis permitteretur.

They gave hostile testimonies against him, the leading men of the state who had the most power in the senate, Quintus Hortensius, Quintus Catulus, Quintus Metellus Pius, Marcus Lucullus, Manius Lepidus. They said this: that they had seen Cornelius, in his tribunate, himself reciting a codex (61) before the Rostra, which before Cornelius no one was thought to have done. They wanted to seem to judge that matter to pertain greatly to the charge of diminished tribunician majesty; for the intercessio was almost being removed, if that were permitted to the tribunes.

Non poterat negare id factum esse Cicero, is eo confugit ut diceret non ideo quod lectus sit codex a tribuno imminutam esse tribuniciam potestatem. Quae vero arte et scientia orationis ita ut et dignitatem clarissimorum civium contra quos dicebat non violaret, et tamen auctoritate eorum laedi reum non pateretur, quantaque moderatione rem tam difficilem aliis tractaverit lectio ipsa declarabit.

Cicero could not deny that that had been done; he resorted to this, to say that the tribunician power had not therefore been diminished because a codex had been read by a tribune. But with what art and science of oration he so acted that he did not violate the dignity of the most illustrious citizens against whom he was speaking, and yet did not allow the defendant to be damaged by their authority, and with how great moderation he handled a matter so difficult for others, the very reading will declare.

Adiumentum autem habuit quod, sicut diximus, Cornelius praeter destrictum propositum animi adversus principum voluntatem cetera vita nihil fecerat quod magnopere improbaretur; praeterea quod et ipse Globulus qui intercesserat aderat Cornelio, et quod ipsum quoque diximus quod Cornelius Pompeii Magni quaestor fuerat, apud duas decurias profuit equitum Romanorum et tribunorum aerariorum et ex tertia quoque parte senatorum apud plerosque exceptis eis qui erant familiares principum civitatis.

However, he had the advantage that, as we have said, Cornelius, apart from the strict set purpose of mind against the will of the principal men, had in the rest of his life done nothing that was greatly disapproved; moreover, that Globulus himself, who had interceded, was present for Cornelius; and also, as we likewise said, that Cornelius had been quaestor to Pompey the Great—this stood him in good stead with two decuries, of the Roman equestrians and of the tribunes of the treasury, and from the third as well a portion of the senators, with the majority, excepting those who were familiars of the leading men of the state.

Res acta est magno conventu, magnaque exspectatione quis eventus iudicii futurus esset a summis viris dici testimonia et id quod ei dicerent confiteri reum animadvertebant. Exstat oratio Comini accusatoris quam sumere in manus est aliquod (62) operae pretium, non solum propter Ciceronis orationes quas pro Cornelio habemus sed etiam propter semet ipsam.

The matter was conducted with a great convocation, and with great expectation as to what the outcome of the judgment would be; they observed testimonies being spoken by the highest men, and that the defendant confessed what they said to him. The oration of Cominius the accuser survives, which it is some (62) reward of effort to take into one’s hands, not only on account of Cicero’s orations which we have for Cornelius, but also on account of itself.

Cicero, ut ipse significat, quatriduo Cornelium defendit; quas actiones contulisse eum in duas orationes apparet. Iudicium id exercuit Q. Gallius praetor.

Cicero, as he himself signifies, defended Cornelius for four days; it appears that he brought those proceedings together into two orations. That trial was conducted by Q. Gallius, praetor.

[In hac causa tres sunt quaestiones: prima, cum sit Cornelius reus maiestatis legis Corneliae, utrum certae aliquae res sint ea lege comprehensae quibus solis reus maiestatis teneatur, quod patronus defendit; an libera eius interpretatio iudici relicta sit, quod accusator proponit. Secunda est an quod Cornelius fecit ne ca maiestatis teneatur. Tertia an minuendae maiestatis animum habuerit.]

[In this case there are three questions: first, since Cornelius is a defendant for maiestas under the Cornelian law, whether certain definite acts are comprised in that law, by which alone a defendant for maiestas is held liable—which the patron defends; or whether a free interpretation of it is left to the judge—which the accuser proposes. The second is whether what Cornelius did is held to be a matter of maiestas. The third is whether he had a mind for diminishing Majesty (maiestas).]

Enarratio

Exposition

Ver. a primo circi. CLX

Verse. from the first of the circus. 160

Postulatur apud me praetorem primum de pecuniis repetundis. Prospectat videlicet Cominius quid agatur: videt homines faeneos in medium ad temptandum periculum proiectos.

A prosecution is brought before me, the praetor, first, on the charge of pecuniary exactions. Cominius, evidently, looks out to see what is being done: he sees men of straw cast into the midst to test the danger.

Simulacra effigie hominum ex faeno fieri solebant quibus obiectis ad spectaculum praebendum tauri irritarentur.

Simulacra, in human effigy, used to be made out of hay; when these were set before to furnish a spectacle, the bulls were provoked.

Quid? Metellus summa nobilitate ac virtute, cum bis iurasset, semel privatim, iterum lege, privatim (63) patris, publice legis deiectus est? ratione an vi? at utrimque omnem suspicionem animi tollit et C. Curionis virtus ac dignitas et Q. Metelli spectata adulescentia ad summam laudem omnibus rebus ornata.

What? Metellus, of the highest nobility and virtue, when he had sworn twice, once privately, a second time by statute, was he cast down—privately by the father, publicly by the law? (63) By reason or by force? But on both sides every suspicion of bias is removed both by the virtue and dignity of C. Curio and by the tried youth of Q. Metellus, adorned in all respects for the highest praise.

Hoc exemplum affert hoc loco, quod vult probare desistere eum debere ab accusatione quamvis neque accusatus sit neque fecerit pactionem nam Metellus et postulaverat Curionem et destiterat. Confugit autem orator ad Metelli nobilitatem et ad C. Curionis industriam ut tegeret id quod illi utilius quam honestius fecerant.

He brings forward this example at this point, because he wants to prove that he ought to desist from the accusation, although he has neither been accused nor made a pact; for Metellus had both brought proceedings against Curio and had desisted. But the orator takes refuge in Metellus’s nobility and in C. Curio’s industry, so as to cover what they had done more usefully than honorably.

Res autem tota se sic habet: in qua quidem illud primum explicandum est, de quo Metello hoc dicit. Fuerunt enim tunc plures Quinti Metelli, ex quibus duo consulares, Pius et Creticus, de quibus apparet eum non dicere, duo autem adulescentes, Nepos et Celer, ex quibus nunc Nepotem significat. Eius enim patrem Q. Metellum Nepotem, Baliarici filium, Macedonici nepotem qui consul fuit cum T.Didio, Curio is de quo loquitur accusavit: isque Metellus moriens petiit ab hoc filio suo Metello ut Curionem accusatorem suum accusaret, et id facturum esse iure iurando adegit.

But the whole matter stands thus: in which indeed this first must be explained—about which “Metellus” he says this. For there were then several men named Quintus Metellus, of whom two were consulars, Pius and Creticus, about whom it is apparent he does not speak; and two adolescents, Nepos and Celer, of whom he now indicates Nepos. For his father, Q. Metellus Nepos, son of Balearicus, grandson of Macedonicus, who was consul with T. Didius, was prosecuted by Curio—the one of whom he is speaking; and this Metellus, as he was dying, requested from this his son Metellus that he prosecute Curio, his accuser, and by an oath compelled him that he would do it.

Metellus fecit reum Curionem; cumque interim quendam civem idem Metellus servum suum esse contendens vi arripuisset ac verberibus affecisset, Curio assertorem ei comparavit. Dein cum appareret eum exitum iudicii illius futurum ut (64) liber is iudicaretur quem Metellus verberibus affectum esse negare non poterat, inter Metellum et Curionem facta concordia est pactione ut neque arbitrium de libertate perageretur, esset tamen ille in libertate de quo agebatur, neque Metellus perstaret in accusatione Curionis: eaque pactio ab utroque servata est.

Metellus made Curio a defendant; and meanwhile, when this same Metellus, contending that a certain citizen was his slave, had seized him by force and had afflicted him with beatings, Curio procured for him an assertor. Then, as it became apparent that the outcome of that trial would be that (64) the man would be adjudged free, whom Metellus could not deny to have been afflicted with beatings, a concord was made between Metellus and Curio by a pact that neither would the arbitration concerning liberty be carried through, yet that the man about whom the case was being pursued should be in liberty, nor would Metellus persist in the accusation against Curio: and that pact was kept by both parties.

Huc ergo illud pertinet, cum iurasse dixit semel privatim iterum lege, tum scilicet cum in Curionem calumniam iuravit. Cum hoc autem Metello postea Cicero simultates gessit; evasit enim Metellus malus atque improbus civis.

Therefore that point pertains here, when he said he had sworn once privately, again by law—namely, when he took the oath against calumny in the case against Curio. With this Metellus, however, Cicero later carried on enmities; for Metellus turned out a bad and unscrupulous citizen.

Legem, inquit, de libertinorum suffragiis Cornelius C. Manilio dedit. Quid est hoc dedit? Attulit? an rogavit?

He says, Cornelius gave Gaius Manilius a law concerning the suffrages of freedmen. What is this gave? Did he bring it forward? or did he propose it?

an hortatus est? Attulisse ridiculum est, quasi legem aliquam aut ad scribendum difficilem aut ad excogitandum reconditam: quae lex paucis his annis non modo scripta sed etiam lata esset.

or did he exhort? It is laughable to say he “brought it forward,” as if it were some law either difficult to write or recondite to think out: a law which in these few years was not only written but even carried.

P. Sulpicium in tribunatu hanc eandem legem tulisse iam significamus. Tulit autem L. Sulla qui postea Felix appelatus est Q. Pompeio consulibus ante XXIII annos quam haec dicta sunt, cum per vim rem p. possedisset et ab initiis bonarum actionum ad perditas progressus esset: quod et initium bellorum civilium fuit, et propter quod ipse Sulpicius consulum armis iure oppressus esse visus est.

We already signify that P. Sulpicius, in his tribunate, proposed this same law. Moreover, L. Sulla, who afterward was called “Felix,” carried it, in the consulship of Q. Pompeius, 23 years before these things were spoken, when he had possessed the commonwealth by force and had progressed from beginnings of good actions to ruinous ones: which both was the beginning of the civil wars, and on account of which Sulpicius himself was deemed to have been justly suppressed by the arms of the consuls.

(65) In quo cum multa reprehensa sint, tum imprimis celeritas actionis.

(65) In which, although many things have been reprehended, then above all the celerity of the action.

Celeritatem actionis significat, quod Manilius, sicut iam ostendimus, post pauculos statim dies quam inierat tribunatum legem eandem Compitalibus pertulit.

He signifies the celerity of the action, because Manilius, as we have already shown, immediately after very few days from when he had entered upon the tribunate, brought forward the same law at the Compitalia.

Petivit tamen a me praetor maxima contentione ut causam Manili defende rem.

Nevertheless the praetor petitioned me with the greatest urgency that I defend the cause of Manilius.

C. Attium Celsum significat, sicut iam ante dictum est.

He means C. Attius Celsus, as has already been said before.

Ver. a pri. DCCCL

Verse from the beginning 850

Dicit de eodem Manili tribunatu:

He says about the same Manilian tribunate:

Nam cum is tr.pl. duas leges in eo magistratu tulisset, unam perniciosam, alteram egregiam: quod summae rei p. nocuisset ab illo ipso tr. abiectum est, bonum autem quod summa resp. manet et in vestri ordina dis fuit.

For when he, tribune of the plebs, had carried two laws in that magistracy, one pernicious, the other excellent: that which had harmed the supreme concern of the republic was cast aside by that very tribune; but the good one, which remains for the supreme concern of the republic, was of your order.

Dictum est iam supra de his legibus, quarum una de libertinorum suffragiis, quae cum S.C. damnata esset, ab ipso quoque Manilio non ultra defensa est: altera de bello Mithridatico Cn. Pompeio extra ordinem mandando, ex qua lege tum Magnus Pompeius bellum gerebat.

It has already been said above about these laws, one of which was about the suffrages of freedmen, which, when it had been condemned by a decree of the Senate (S.C.), was no longer defended even by Manilius himself; the other concerned entrusting the Mithridatic war to Cn. Pompeius outside the customary order, by which law then Pompeius the Great was waging the war.

(66) Dicit de disturbato iudicio Maniliano:

(66) He speaks about the disrupted Manilian trial:

Aliis ille in illum furorem magnis hominibus auctoribus impulsus est qui aliquod institui exemplum disturbandorum iudiciorum reip. perniciosissimum, temporibus suis accommodatissimum, meis alienissimum rationibus cupiverunt.

He was driven into that frenzy by other great men as instigators, who desired that some example be instituted for the throwing-into-disorder of the courts, most pernicious to the republic, most well-suited to their own times, most alien to my principles.

L. Catilinam et Cn. Pisonem videtur significare. Fuit autem Catilina patricius et eodem illo tempore erat reus repetundarum, cum provinciam Africam obtinuisset et consulatus dandidatum se ostendisset. Accusator erat eius P. Clodius, adulescens ipse quoque perditus, qui postea cum Cicerone inimicitias gessit.

He seems to signify L. Catiline and Cn. Piso. Moreover, Catiline was a patrician, and at that same time he was a defendant on a charge of extortion, when he had held the province of Africa and had shown himself as a candidate for the consulship. His accuser was P. Clodius, a youth himself likewise profligate, who afterward waged enmities with Cicero.

Cn. quoque Piso, adulescens potens et turbulentus, familiaris erat Catilinae omniumque consiliorumque eius particeps et turbarum autor.

Gnaeus Piso also, a powerful and turbulent young man, was a familiar of Catiline and a participant in all his counsels and an author of tumults.

Ver. cir. MX

Verona, circa 1010

Possum dicere hominem summa prudentia spectatum, C. Cottam, de suis legibus abrogandis ipsum ad senatum rettulisse.

I can say that Gaius Cotta, a man proven in the highest prudence, himself referred to the senate concerning the abrogation of his own laws.

Hic est Cotta de quo iam saepe diximux, magnus orator habitus et compar in ea gloria P. Sulpicio et C. Caesari Videntur autem in rebus parvis fuisse leges illae, quas cum tulisset, rettulit de eis abrogandis ad senatum. Nam neque apud Sallustium neque apud Livium neque apud Fenestellam ullius alterius latae ab eo legis est mentio (67) praeter eam quam in consulatu tulit invita nobilitate magno populi studio, ut eis qui tr.pl. fuissent alios quoque magistratus capere liceret; quod lex a dictatore L. Sulla paucis ante annis lata prohibebat: neque eam Cottae legem abrogatam esse significat.

This is Cotta, about whom we have already often spoken, held a great orator and a peer in that glory to P. Sulpicius and C. Caesar. However, those laws seem to have been in small matters, which, when he had carried them, he brought a report to the senate about their being abrogated. For neither in Sallust nor in Livy nor in Fenestella is there mention of any other law carried by him (67) except that which, in his consulship, he carried—though the nobility was unwilling—with great zeal of the people: that to those who had been tr. pl. it should be permitted to take other magistracies as well; which a law by the dictator L. Sulla, passed a few years before, prohibited; nor does he indicate that Cotta’s law was abrogated.

Sequitur

It follows

Possum etiam eiusdem Cottae legem de iudiciis privatis anno post quam lata sit a fratre eius abrogatam.

I can also state that the law of that same Cotta concerning private judgments was abrogated by his brother a year after it had been passed.

M. Cottam significat. Fuerunt autem fratres tres: duo hi, C. , M. , tertius L. Cotta qui lege sua iudicia inter tres ordines communicavit senatum, equites, tribunos aerarios; adeptique sunt omnes consulatum.

He means M. Cotta. There were, moreover, three brothers: these two, C. , M. , the third L. Cotta, who by his own law shared the courts among three orders—the senate, the equites, the tribuni aerarii; and all attained the consulship.

Statim

Immediately

Legem Liciniam et Muciam de civibus redigendis video constare inter omnis, quamquam duo consules omnium quos vidimus sapientissimi tulissent, non modo inutilem sed perniciosam rei publicae fuisse.

I see it agreed among all that the Licinian and Mucian law concerning the “reducing” of citizens—although two consuls, the wisest of all whom we have seen, had brought it—was not only useless but pernicious to the Republic.

L. Licinium Crassum oratorem et Q. Mucium Scaevolam pont. max. eundemque et oratorem et iuris consultum significat.

He signifies L. Licinius Crassus, an orator, and Q. Mucius Scaevola, pontifex maximus, the same man both an orator and a jurisconsult.

Hi enim legem eam de qua loquitur de redigendis in suas civitates sociis in consulatu tulerunt. Nam cum (68) summa cupiditate civitatis Romanae Italici populi tenerentur et ob id magna pars eorum pro civibus Romanis se gereret, necessaria lex visa est ut in suae quisque civitatis ius redigeretur. Verum ea lege ita alienati animi sunt principum Italicorum populorum ut ea vel maxima causa belli Italici quod post triennium exortum est fuerit.

For these men, in their consulship, carried that law of which he speaks, concerning the allies being brought back into their own civic communities. For since (68) the Italian peoples were possessed by the highest cupidity for Roman citizenship, and on that account a great part of them conducted themselves as Roman citizens, the law seemed necessary, that each should be reduced into the right/jurisdiction of his own civitas. But by that law the minds of the leading men of the Italic peoples were so alienated that it was even the greatest cause of the Italic War, which arose after three years.

Quattuor omnino genera sunt, iudices, in quibus per senatum more maiorum statuatur aliquid de legibus. Unum est eius modi placere legem abrogari: ut Q. Caecilio M. Iunio coss. quae leges rem militarem impedirent, ut abrogarentur.

There are, judges, altogether four kinds in which, through the senate and according to the custom of the ancestors, something is determined concerning laws. One is of this sort: that it be resolved that a law be abrogated; as, with Quintus Caecilius and Marcus Junius as consuls, that whatever laws impeded the military affair should be abrogated.

Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus, M. Iunius Silanus, de quibus facit mentionem, consules fuerunt bello Cimbrico quod diu prave simul et infeliciter administratum est; atque ipse quoque hic Iunius male rem adversus Cimbros gessit ac plures leges quae per eos annos quibus hec significabantur populo latae erant, quibus militiae stipendia minuebantur, abrogavit.

Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus and M. Iunius Silanus, of whom he makes mention, were consuls in the Cimbrian war, which for a long time was at once perversely and infelicitously administered; and this very Junius himself conducted the affair badly against the Cimbri and abrogated several laws which, in those years to which this refers, had been carried by the people, by which the stipends of military service were diminished.

Alterum, quae lex lata esse dicatur, ea non videri populum teneri: ut L. Mar cio Sex.Iulio coss. de legibus Liviis.

The second, that a law is said to have been enacted, yet the people do not seem to be bound by it: as under L. Mar cio and Sex.Iulio, consuls, concerning the Livian laws.

Puto vos reminisci has esse leges Livias quas illis consulibus (69)M. Livius Drusus tribunus plebis tulerit. Qui cum senatus partes tuendas suscepisset et leges pro optimatibus tulisset, postea eo licentiae est progressus ut nullum in his morem servaret. Itaque Philippus cos.

I think you remember that these are the Livian laws which, under those consuls (69), M. Livius Drusus, tribune of the plebs, proposed. He, when he had undertaken to protect the senate’s party and had brought in laws on behalf of the optimates, afterward advanced to such license that he observed no precedent in these. And so Philippus, consul.

qui ei inimicus erat obtinuit a senatu ut leges eius omnes uno S.C. tollerentur. Decretum est enim contra auspicia esse latas neque eis teneri populum.

who was hostile to him obtained from the senate that all his laws be removed by a single senatorial decree (S.C.). For it was decreed that they had been passed against the auspices, and that the people was not bound by them.

Tertium est de legum derogationibus : quo de genere persaepe S.C. fiunt, ut nuper de ipsa lege Calpurnia cui derogaretur.

The third is about derogations of laws : of which kind S.C. are very often made, as recently about the Calpurnian law itself, to which a derogation was being made.

Lex haec Calpurnia de ambitu erat. Tulerat eam ante biennium C. Calpurnius Piso cos., in qua praeter alias poenas pecuniaria quoque poena erat adiecta.

This Calpurnian law was on ambitus. Gaius Calpurnius Piso, consul, had carried it two years earlier, in which, besides other penalties, a pecuniary penalty also had been added.

P. Africanus ille superior, ut dicitur, non solum a sapientissimis hominibus qui tum erant verum etiam a se ipso saepe accusatus est quod, cum consul esset cum Ti.Longo, passus esset tum primum a populari consessu senatoria subsellia separari.

That earlier P. Africanus, as it is said, was accused not only by the wisest men who were then, but even often by himself, because, when he was consul with Ti. Longus, he had allowed then for the first time the senatorial benches to be separated from the popular assembly.

Hoc factum est secundo consulatu Scipionis post septimum annum quam Carthaginiensibus bello secundo data est pax.

This was done in the second consulship of Scipio, seven years after peace was given to the Carthaginians in the Second War.

Factum id esse autem Antias tradidit ludis Romanis quos fecerunt aediles curules C. Atilius Serranus, L. Scribonius Libo, et id eos fecisse iussu censorum Sex.Aeli Paeti, C. Corneli Cethegi. Et videtur in hac quidem oratione hunc auctorem secutus Cicero dixisse passum esse (70) Scipionem secerni a cetero consessu spectacula senatorum. In ea autem quam post aliquot annos habuit de haruspicum responso, non passum esse Scipionem, sed ipsum auctorem fuisse dandi eum locum senatoribus videtur significare.

Antias transmitted that this was done at the Roman Games, which the curule aediles C. Atilius Serranus and L. Scribonius Libo put on, and that they did it by order of the censors Sex. Aelius Paetus and C. Cornelius Cethegus. And it seems that in this oration at least, following this author, Cicero said that Scipio had allowed the senators’ seats to be set apart from the rest of the assembly (70). But in that [speech] which he delivered after some years on the response of the haruspices, he seems to indicate not that Scipio permitted it, but that he himself was the author of granting that place to the senators.

Verba eius haec sunt:

These are his words:

Nam quid ego de illis ludis loquar quos in Palatio nostri maiores ante tem plum Matris Magnae fieri celebrarique voluerunt? quibus primum ludis ante populi consessum senatui locum P. Africanus II cos. ille maior dedit

For what should I say about those games which on the Palatine our ancestors wished to be held and celebrated before the temple of the Great Mother? At which games, for the first time, before the people’s session, that elder P. Africanus, consul for the 2nd time, gave the Senate a place.

Et collega eius Sempronio Longo hoc tributum esse senatui scribit, sed sine mentione Megalesium aediles enim eos ludos facere soliti erant votivis ludis factum tradit quos Scipio et Longus coss. fecerint.

And his colleague Sempronius Longus writes that this was attributed to the Senate, but without mention of the Megalesia; for the aediles were accustomed to put on those games: he relates that it was done at votive games, which Scipio and Longus, consuls, had held.

Non praeterire autem vos volo esse oratoriae calliditatis ius ut, cum opus est, eisdem rebus ab utraque parte vel a contrariis utantur. Nam cum secundum Ciceronis opinionem auctore Scipione consule aediles secretum ante omnis locum spectandi senatoribus dederint, de eodem illo facto Scipionis in hac quidem oratione, quia causa popularis erat premebaturque senatus auctoritate atque ob id dignitatem eius ordinis quam posset maxime elevari causae expediebat, paenituisse ait Scipionem quod passus est id fieri; in ea vero de haruspicum responso, quia in senatu habebatur cuius artibus erat blandiendum, et magnopere illum laudat et non auctorem fuisse dandi nam id erat levius sed ipsum etiam dedisse dicit.

I do not wish you, moreover, to pass over that it is a right of oratorical callidity that, when there is need, they use the same matters on either side, or even from contraries. For when, according to Cicero’s opinion, with Scipio the consul as author, the aediles gave to the senators a separate place of viewing before all, about that same deed of Scipio, in this speech indeed—because the cause was popular and the authority of the senate was under pressure, and on that account it furthered the case that the dignity of that order be lowered as much as possible—he says that Scipio repented that he allowed that to be done; but in that speech on the response of the haruspices, because it was being delivered in the Senate, whose arts had to be flattered, he both greatly praises him and says that he had not been merely the author of granting—for that was lighter—but that he himself had even given it.

(71) Circa medium

(71) About the middle

Quo loco enumerat, cum lex feratur, quot loca intercessionis sint, ante quam qui legem fert populum iubeat discedere.

At which place he enumerates, when a law is being proposed, how many occasions of intercession there are, before the one who brings the law orders the people to depart.

Est utique ius vetandi, cum ea feratur, quam diu ferundi transferuntur; id est lex, dum privati dicunt, dum dum sitella defertur, dum aequantur sortes, dum sortitio fit, et si qua sunt alia huius generis.

There is assuredly a right of vetoing, when it is being carried, so long as the comitia for carrying it are being adjourned; that is, in the case of a law, while private persons speak, while while the little urn is borne, while the lots are equalized, while sortition takes place, and if there are any other things of this kind.

Alia populus confusus ut semper alias, ita et in contione. Id peractis, cum id solum superest, ut populus sententiam ferat, iubet eum is qui fert legem disce dere: quod verbum non hoc significat quod in communi consuetudine est, eant de eo loco ubi lex feratur, sed in suam quisque tribum discedat in qua est suffragium laturus.

Other matters the people, confused as they always are at other times, so also in the assembly. Those things having been completed, when this alone remains, that the people deliver their sentence, he who is bringing the law bids him to disce dere: which word does not signify what it does in common usage—that they go away from the place where the law is being carried—but that each man should depart into his own tribe in which he is going to cast his suffrage.

Paulo post

A little later

Unum tamen quod hoc ipse tr.pl. factum est praetermittendum non videtur. Neque enim maius est legere codicem, cum intercedatur, quam sitellam ipsum coram ipso intercessore deferre, nec gravius incipere ferre quam perferre, nec vehementius ostendere se laturum invito collega quam ipsi collegae magistratum abrogare, nec criminosius tribus ad legem accipiendam quam ad collegam (72) reddendum privatum intro vocare: quae vir fortis, huius collega, A. Gabinius in re optima fecit omnia; neque cum salutem populo Romano atque omnibus gentibus finem diuturnae turpitudinis et servitutis afferret, passus est plus unius collegae sui quam universae civitatis vocem valere et voluntatem.

One thing, however, because this was done by the tribune of the plebs himself, does not seem to be passed over. For it is no greater a thing to read the codex while an intercession is underway than to bring the ballot-bucket itself before the very intercessor, nor more weighty to begin to bring a measure than to carry it through, nor more vehement to show oneself about to bring it forward with a colleague unwilling than to abrogate the very magistracy of one’s colleague, nor more criminous to call the tribes inside for the receiving of a law than for rendering a colleague a private individual (72) to be summoned within: all of which a brave man, this man’s colleague, A. Gabinius, did—in a most excellent cause; and when he was bringing safety to the Roman people and to all nations an end to long-standing disgrace and servitude, he did not allow the voice and will of one colleague of his to have more weight than that of the entire commonwealth.

Manifestum est de ea lege Gabini Ciceronem nunc dicere qua Cn. Pompeio bellum adversus piratas datum est.

It is manifest that Cicero is now speaking about that law of Gabinius by which a war against the pirates was given to Cn. Pompeius.

L. autem Trebellius est tribunus plebis quem non nominat: quo perseverante intercedere nam senatui promiserat moriturum se ante quam illa lex perferretur intro vocare tribus Gabinius coepit ut Trebellio magistratum abrogaret, sicut quondam Ti.Gracchus tribunus M. Octavio collegae suo magistratum abrogavit.

But L. Trebellius is the tribune of the plebs whom he does not name: as he persisted in interceding—for he had promised the Senate that he would die before that law was carried through—Gabinius began to call the tribes in, so that they might abrogate Trebellius’s magistracy, just as once Ti.Gracchus, tribune, abrogated the magistracy of his colleague M. Octavius.

Et aliquam diu Trebellius ea re non perterritus aderat perstabatque in intercessione, quod id minari magis quam perseveraturum esse Gabinium arbitrabatur; sed post quam X et VII tribus rogationem acceperunt, ut una minus esset, et modo una supererat ut populi iussum conficeret, remisit intercessionem Trebellius: atque ita legem Gabinius de piratis persequendis pertulit.

And for some time Trebellius, not thoroughly terrified by this matter, was present and persisted in his intercession, because he judged that Gabinius was threatening it rather than that he would persevere; but after 17 tribes accepted the rogation, so that it was one fewer, and only one more remained to complete the people’s command, Trebellius withdrew his intercession: and thus Gabinius carried the law on pursuing the pirates.

At enim de corrigenda lege rettulerunt.

But indeed they brought a report about correcting the law.

Diximus iam in principio Cornelium primo legem promulgasse ne quis per senatum lege solveretur, tum tulisse ut tum denique de ea re S.C. fieret, cum adessent in senatu non minus CC. Haec est illa quam appellat correctio.

We have already said at the beginning that Cornelius first promulgated a law that no one should be released from a law by the Senate, then proposed that only then, in that matter, a decree of the Senate (S.C.) be made, when there were present in the Senate not less than 200. This is that which he calls the correction.

(73) Idem nisi haec ipsa lex quam C. Cornelius tulit obstitisset, decrevissent id quod palam iam isti defensores iudiciorum propugnaverunt, senatui non placere is iudicium de Sullae bonis fieri. Quam ego causam longe aliter praetor in contione defendi, cum id dicerem quod idem iudices postea statuerunt, iudicum aequiore tempore fieri oportere.

(73) Likewise, unless this very law which Gaius Cornelius carried had stood in the way, the same men would have decreed that which those defenders of the courts have already openly championed: that it did not please the senate for that trial concerning Sulla’s property to be held. Which cause I, as praetor, defended far otherwise in a public assembly, when I said that very thing which the same judges later decided, that the trial ought to be held at a more equitable time for the judges.

Quia defuerat superioribus temporibus in aerario pecunia publica, multa et saepe eius rei remedia erant quaesita; in quibus hoc quoque ut pecuniae publicae quae residuae apud quemque essent exigerentur.

Because in earlier times public money had been lacking in the treasury, many and often remedies for that matter had been sought; among which this too: that the public monies which were residual with each person should be exacted.

Id autem maxime pertinebat ad Cornelium Faustum dictatoris filium, quia Sulla per multos annos quibus exercitibus praefuerat et rem publicam tenuerat sumpserat pecunias ex vectigalibus et ex aerario populi Romani; eaque res saepe erat agitata, saepe omissa partim propter gratiam Sullanarum partium, partim quod iniquum videbatur post tot annos ut quam quis pecuniam acceperat resque redderet rationem.

But that especially concerned Cornelius Faustus, the dictator’s son, because Sulla, for many years during which he had commanded armies and held the republic, had taken monies from the revenues and from the treasury of the Roman People; and this matter had often been agitated, often dropped, partly on account of the favor toward the Sullan faction, partly because it seemed inequitable that after so many years one should render an account of whatever money he had received and of the matters.

Statim

Immediately

Antea vero quam multarum rerum iudicia sublata sint, et quia scitis praetereo et ne quem in iudicium oratio mea revocare videatur.

But previously, how many judgments of many matters have been abolished—I pass it over both because you know it, and lest my oration seem to recall anyone into judgment.

Bello Italico quod fuit adulescentibus illis qui tum in re publica vigebant, cum multi Varia lege inique damnarentur, quasi id bellum illis auctoribus conflatum esset, crebraeque (74) defectiones Italicorum nuntiarentur, nanctus iustitii occasionem senatus decrevit ne iudicia, dum tumultus Italicus esset, exercerentur: quod decretum eorum in contionibus populi saepe agitatum erat. Supererat autem ex eis qui illa iudicia metuerant vigens tum maxime C. Curio, pater Curionis adulescentis eius qui bello civili Caesaris fuit partium.

In the Italian War, which fell in the youth of those who then flourished in the republic, when many were unjustly condemned by the Varia law, as if that war had been conflated by them as its authors, and frequent (74) defections of the Italians were being reported, having seized an occasion for a iustitium the senate decreed that trials should not be conducted while the Italian tumult was on; which their decree had often been agitated in the assemblies of the people. Moreover, surviving from among those who had feared those trials, and then most vigorous, was Gaius Curio, the father of that young Curio who in Caesar’s civil war was of his party.

Paulo post

A little later

Non Cn. Dolabella C. Volcacium, honestissimum virum, communi et cotidiano iure privasset.

Nor would Cn. Dolabella have deprived C. Volcatius, a most honorable man, of the common and everyday legal right.

Duo fuerunt eo tempore Cn. Dolabellae, quorum alterum C. Caesar accusavit, alterum M. Scaurus.

There were two Gnaeus Dolabellas at that time, of whom one Gaius Caesar prosecuted, the other Marcus Scaurus.

Non denique homo illorum et vita et prudentia longe dissimilis, sed tamen nimis in gratificando iure liber, L. Sisenna, bonorum Cn. Corneli possessionem ex edicto suo P. Scipioni, adulescenti summa nobilitate, eximia virtute praedito, non dedisset.

Nor, finally, would L. Sisenna, a man not far dissimilar from them in life and prudence, yet nevertheless too free in the exercise of his authority for gratifying, have granted, by his own edict, the possession of the estate of Cn. Cornelius to P. Scipio, a youth of the highest nobility, endowed with exceptional virtue.

Hoc solum hic adnotandum est hunc esse L. Sisennam qui res Romanas scripsit.

This alone is to be noted here: that this is L. Sisenna who wrote on Roman affairs.

Qua re cum haec populus Romanus videret et cum a tribunis plebis doceren tur, nisi poena accessisset in divisores, exstingui ambitum nullo modo posse, legem hanc Corneli flagitabat, illam quae ex (75) S.C. ferebatur repudiabat, idque iure, ut docti sumus duorum consulum designatorum calamitate

Wherefore, when the Roman people saw these things, and when they were being taught by the tribunes of the plebs that, unless a penalty were added against the distributors (divisores), ambitus could in no way be extinguished, it clamored for this law of Cornelius, and repudiated that one which from (75) the S.C. was being proposed, and this rightly, as we have been taught by the calamity of the two consuls-designate

et eadem de re paulo post:

and on the same matter a little later:

Ut spectaculum illud re et tempore salubre ac necessarium, genere et exemplo miserum ac funestum videremus.

That we might see that spectacle, in reality and in its timing salutary and necessary, but in its kind and as an example miserable and funereal.

P. Sullam et P. Autronium significat, quorum alterum L. Cotta, alterum L. Torquatus, qui cum haec Cicero dicebat coss. erant, ambitus damnarant et in eorum locum creati erant.

He means Publius Sulla and Publius Autronius, of whom the one Lucius Cotta, the other Lucius Torquatus—who, when Cicero was saying these things, were consuls—had convicted on the charge of ambitus (electoral bribery) and had been elected in their place.

Quid ego nunc tibi argumentis respondeam posse fieri ut alius aliquis Cornelius sit qui habeat Philerotem servum; volgare nomen esse Philerotis, Cornelios vero ita multos ut iam etiam collegium constitutum sit?

What am I now to answer you with arguments—that it can come about that there is some other Cornelius who has a slave Philerotes; that the name Philerotes is vulgar, and that there are indeed so many Cornelii that even a collegium has now been constituted?

Frequenter tum etiam coetus factiosorum hominum sine publica auctoritate malo publico fiebant: propter quod postea collegia et S.C. et pluribus legibus sunt sublata praeter pauca atque certa quae utilitas civitatis desiderasset, sicut fabrorum fictorumque.

Frequently then also assemblies of factious men, without public authority, were held to the public harm: because of which afterwards the colleges/guilds were abolished by a S.C. and by several laws, except a few and specific ones which the utility of the state had desired, such as those of smiths and potters.

At enim extremi ac difficillimi temporis vocem illam, C. Corneli, consulem mittere coegisti: qui rem p. salvam esse vellent, ut ad legem accipiendam adessent.

But indeed, at a time most extreme and most difficult, you compelled the consul, Gaius Cornelius, to issue that proclamation: that those who wished the Republic to be safe should be present for the adoption of the law.

C. Piso qui consul eodem anno fuit quo Cornelius tribunus plebis erat, cum legem de ambitu ex S.C. graviorem quam fuerat antea ferret et propter multitudinem divisorum qui per vim adversabantur e foro eiectus esset, edixerat id (76) quod Cicero significat, et maiore manu stipatus ad legem perferendam descenderat.

Gaius Piso, who was consul in the same year in which Cornelius was tribune of the plebs, when he was bringing a law about ambitus (electoral bribery) from an S.C., more severe than it had been before, and had been cast out of the forum because of the multitude of distributors who were opposing by force, had publicly proclaimed that (76) which Cicero indicates, and, escorted by a larger band, had descended to carry the law through.

Plebem ex Maniliana offensione victam et domitam esse dicit:

He says that the plebs, on account of the Manilian offense, have been vanquished and subdued:

Aiunt vestros animos propter illius tribuni plebis temeritatem posse adduci ut omnino nomine illius potestatis abalienentur; qui restituerunt eam potestatem, alterum nihil unum posse contra multor, alterum longe abesse?

They say that your minds, on account of that tribune of the plebs’ temerity, can be brought to be altogether alienated from the very name of that power; that of those who restored that power, the one, being a single man, can do nothing against many, the other is far away?

Manifestum puto esse vobis M. Crassum et Cn. Pompeium significari, e quibus Crassus iudex tum sedebat in Cornelium, Pompeius in Asia bellum Mithridaticum gerebat.

I think it is manifest to you that M. Crassus and Cn. Pompeius are signified, of whom Crassus at that time was sitting as judge in the case against Cornelius, while Pompeius in Asia was conducting the Mithridatic war.

Tanta igitur in illis virtus fuit ut anno XVI post reges exactos propter nimiam dominationem potentium secederent, leges sacratas ipsi sibi restituerent, duo tribunos crearent, montem illum trans Anienem qui hodie Mons Sacer nominatus, in quo armati consederant, aeternae memoriae causa consecrarent. Itaque auspicato postero anno tr.pl. comitiis curiatis creati sunt.

So great, therefore, was the virtue in them that, in the year 16 after the kings were driven out, on account of the excessive domination of the powerful, they seceded, restored for themselves the sacred laws, created two tribunes, and consecrated, for the sake of eternal memory, that hill across the Anio which today is named the Sacred Mount, on which, under arms, they had taken their seats. Accordingly, after taking the auspices, in the following year the tribunes of the plebs were created in the curiate assemblies.

Inducor magis librariorum hoc loco esse mendam quam ut Ciceronem parum proprio verbo usum esse credam.

I am more inclined to think that in this place there is an error of the scribes than to believe that Cicero used a word insufficiently proper.

Illo enim tempore de quo loquitur, quod fuit post XVI annos quam reges exacti sunt, plebs sibi leges sacratas non restituit numquam enim tribunos plebis habuerat sed tum primum eas constituit. Numerum quidem annorum post reges exactos cum id factum est diligenter posuit, isque fuit A. Verginio Tricosto L. Veturio Cicurino coss. Ceterum (77) quidam non duo tr.pl. ut Cicero dicit, sed quinque tradunt creatos tum esse singulos ex singulis classibus.

For at that time of which he speaks, which was after 16 years since the kings were driven out, the plebs did not restore for themselves the sacred laws—for it had never had tribunes of the plebs—but then for the first time established them. Indeed, he carefully set down the number of years after the kings were expelled when that was done, and it was in the consulship of A. Verginius Tricostus and L. Veturius Cicurinus, consuls. Moreover, (77) certain people report that not two tribunes of the plebs, as Cicero says, but five were then created, one from each class.

Sunt tamen qui eundem illum duorum numerum quem Cicero ponant: inter quos Tuditanus et Pomponius Atticus, Livius quoque noster. Idem hic et Tuditanus adiciunt tres praeterea ab illis duobus qui collegae essent lege creatos esse. Nomina duorum qui primi creati sunt haec traduntur: L. Sicinius L. f.Velutus, L. Albinius C. f.Paterculus.

There are, however, those who posit that same number of two which Cicero posits: among whom are Tuditanus and Pomponius Atticus, and our Livy as well. This same man here and Tuditanus add that three, moreover, were created by law by those two to be colleagues. The names of the two who were first created are handed down as follows: L. Sicinius L. f.Velutus, L. Albinius C. f.Paterculus.

Reliqua pars huius loci quae pertinet ad secundam constitutionem tribunorum et decemvirorum finitum imperium et breviter et aperte ab ipso dicitur. Nomina sola non adicit quis ille ex decemviris fuerit qui contra libertatem vindicias dederit, et quis ille pater contra cuius filiam id decrevit; scilicet quod notissimum est decemvirum illum Appium Claudium fuisse, patrem autem virginis L. Verginium. Unum hoc tantum modo explicandum, quo loco primum de secunda secessione plebis, dehinc concordia facta, sic dicit:

The remaining part of this passage which pertains to the second constitution of the tribunes and to the terminated imperium of the decemvirs is related both briefly and plainly by Livy himself. He does not add the names, namely he does not state which one of the decemvirs it was who had adjudged the vindiciae against liberty, and who that father was against whose daughter he decreed it; to wit, it is very well known that that decemvir was Appius Claudius, and that the father of the virgin was L. Verginius. Only this one point is to be explained in this way, in the place where, first concerning the second secession of the plebs, then, concord having been made, he thus says:

Tum interposita fide per tris legatos amplissimos viros Romam armati rever tuntur. In Aventino consederunt; inde armati in Capitolium venerunt; decem tr.pl. per pontificem, quod magistratus nullus erat, creaverunt.

Then, a pledge of faith having been interposed through three envoys, most distinguished men, they return to Rome armed. On the Aventine they sat down; thence, armed, they came to the Capitol; they created ten Tribunes of the Plebs through the Pontiff, because there was no magistrate.

Legati tres quorum nomina non ponit hi fuerunt: Sp.Tarpeius, C. Iulius, P. Sulpicius, omnes consulares; pontifex max. fuit M. Papirius.

Three legates, whose names he does not set down, were these: Sp.Tarpeius, C. Iulius, P. Sulpicius, all consulars; the pontifex maximus was M. Papirius.

(78) Etiam haec recentiora praetereo: Porciam principium iustissimae liberta tis; Cassiam qua lege suffragiorum ius potestasque convaluit; alteram Cassiam quae populi iudicia firmavit.

(78) I even pass over these more recent things: the Porcian [law], the beginning of most-just liberty; the Cassian [law], by which law the right and power of suffrages gained strength; the other Cassian [law], which made firm the people’s judgments.

Quae sit illa lex Cassia qua suffragiorum potestas convaluit manifestum est; nam ipse quoque paulo ante dixit legem Cassium tulisse ut populus per tabellam suffragium ferret.

What that Cassian law is by which the power of suffrages was strengthened is manifest; for he himself also a little before said that Cassius proposed a law that the people should cast their suffrage by tablet (ballot).

Altera Cassia lex quae populi iudicia firmavit quae sit potest quaeri. Est autem haec: L. Cassius L. f. Longinus tribunus plebis C. Mario C. Fravio coss. plures leges ad minuendam nobilitatis potentiam tulit, in quibus hanc etiam ut quem populus damnasset cuive imperium abrogasset in senatu ne esset.

The other Cassian law, which made firm the people’s judgments—what it is can be asked. It is this: L. Cassius L. f. Longinus, tribune of the plebs, under C. Marius and C. Flavius, consuls, brought forward several laws to diminish the power of the nobility, among which this also: that whoever the people had condemned, or from whom they had abrogated the imperium, should not be in the senate.

Tulerat autem eam maxime propter simultates cum Q. Servilio qui ante biennium consul fuerat et cui populus, qui male adversus Cimbros rem gesserat, imperium abrogavit.

He had proposed it, moreover, chiefly on account of enmities with Q. Servilius, who had been consul two years earlier, and from whom the people abrogated the imperium, since he had conducted the affair poorly against the Cimbri.

Dicit de nobilibus:

He says about the nobles:

Qui non modo cum Sulla verum etiam illo mortuo semper hoc per se summis opibus retinendum putaverunt, inimicissimi C. Cottae fuerunt, quod is consul paulum tribunis plebis non potestatis dignitatis addidit.

Those who not only, with Sulla, but even after he was dead, always thought that this must be retained by themselves with the utmost resources, were most inimical to Gaius Cotta, because he, as consul, added a little to the tribunes of the plebs, not of power but of dignity.

Hic Cotta, ut puto vos reminisci, legem tulit ut tribunis plebis liceret postea alios magistratus capere: quod lege Sullae eis erat ademptum.

This Cotta, as I think you remember, carried a law that it should be permitted for the tribunes of the plebs thereafter to take up other magistracies: which had been taken away from them by Sulla’s law.

Quam diu quidem hoc animo erga vos illa plebs erit quo se ostendit esse, cum legem Aureliam, cum Rosciam non modo accepit sed etiam efflagitavit.

So long indeed as that plebs will be of this spirit toward you as it showed itself to be, when it not only accepted but even clamored for the Lex Aurelia and the Lex Roscia.

Aurelia lege communicata esse iudicia inter senatores et equestrem ordinem et tribunos aerarios quam L. Roscius (79) Otho biennio ante confirmavit, in theatro ut equitibus Romanis XIIII ordines spectandi gratia darentur.

By the Aurelian law the juries were made common between the senators, the equestrian order, and the aerarian tribunes; which L. Roscius (79) Otho confirmed two years earlier, in the theater, by providing that 14 rows be given to the Roman equites for viewing.

Memoria teneo, cum primum senatores cum equitibus Romanis lege Plotia iudicarent, hominem dis ac nobilitati perinvisum Cn. Pompeium causam lege Varia de maiestat dixisse.

I keep in memory that, when for the first time senators together with the Roman equites were judging by the Plotian law, Gnaeus Pompeius—a man exceedingly hateful to the gods and to the nobility—pleaded a cause under the Varian law concerning majesty.

M. Plautius Silvanus tribunus plebis Cn. Pompeio Strabone L. Porcio Catone coss., secundo anno belli Italici cum equester ordo in iudiciis dominaretur, legem tulit adiuvantibus nobilibus; quae lex vim eam habuit quam Cicero significat: nam ex ea lege tribus singulae ex suo numero quinos denos suffragio creabant qui eo anno iudicarent. Ex eo factum est ut senatores quoque in eo numero essent, et quidam etiam ex ipsa plebe.

Marcus Plautius Silvanus, tribune of the plebs, under the consuls Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo and Lucius Porcius Cato, in the second year of the Italic War, when the equestrian order was dominating in the courts, brought in a law with the nobles aiding; which law had the force that Cicero signifies: for by that law the tribes, each from its own number, by suffrage elected fifteen who would judge in that year. From this it came about that senators too were in that number, and certain men even from the plebs itself.

PRO CORNELIO

FOR CORNELIUS

Num in eo qui sint hi testes haesitatis? Ego vobis edam. Duo reliqui sunt de consularibus, inimici tribuniciae potestatis.

Is there any hesitation in this, who these witnesses are? I will set it forth for you. Two remain from among the consulars, enemies of the tribunician power.

Pauci praeterea adsentatores eorum atque adseculae subsequuntur.

Besides, a few of their assentators and hangers-on follow after.

M. Lucullum et M'.Lepidum significat. Quinque enim consulares, ut iam diximus, in Cornelium testimonium dixerunt: Q. Catulus, Q. Hortensius, Q. Metellus Pius pont.max, quos hac secunda oratione tractat, et duo qui nondum dixerant quos nunc significat Lucullus et Lepidus.

He means M. Lucullus and M'. Lepidus. For five consulars, as we have already said, gave testimony against Cornelius: Q. Catulus, Q. Hortensius, Q. Metellus Pius, Pontifex Maximus, whom he treats in this second oration, and two who had not yet spoken, whom he now indicates—Lucullus and Lepidus.

Quid? avunculus tuus clarissimus vir, clarissimo patre avo maioribus, credo, silentio, favente nobilitate, (80) nullo intercessore comparato populo Romano dedit et potentissimorum hominum conlegiis eripuit cooptandorum sacerdotum potestatem.

What? your uncle, a most illustrious man, with a most illustrious father, grandfather, and ancestors, I believe, without protest, the nobility favoring, (80) with no intercessor having been procured, gave to the Roman people and snatched from the colleges of the most powerful men the power of co-opting priests.

Hoc egere enarratione, quia hoc loco nomen non ponit quis fecerit, ei demum videri potest qui oblitus sit minus ante XX versus haec de eo ipso Ciceronem dixisse:

That this requires an explication, because in this place he does not set down the name of who did it, can seem only to one who has forgotten that less than 20 verses earlier Cicero said these things about that very man:

Sed si familiariter ex Q. Catulo sapientissimo viro atque humanissimo velim quaerere: utrius tandem tibi tribunatus minus probari potest, C. Corneli, an non dicam P. Sulpici, non L. Saturnini, non Gai Gracchi, non Tiberi, neminem quem isti seditiosum existimant nominabo, sed avunculi tui, Q. Catule, clarissimi patriaeque amantissimi viri? quid mihi tandem responsurum putatis?

But if I should wish to inquire familiarly from Q. Catulus, a most wise and most humane man: which tribunate, pray, can seem to you less to be approved, that of C. Cornelius, or—I will not say P. Sulpicius, not L. Saturninus, not Gaius Gracchus, not Tiberius, I will name no one whom those men deem seditious—but your uncle’s, Q. Catulus, a most illustrious man and most loving of the fatherland? what, then, do you think he will answer me?

Sequitur:

It follows:

Quid? idem Domitius M. Silanum, consularem hominem, quem ad modum tr.pl. vexavit?

What? In what way did that same Domitius, as tribune of the plebs, vex M. Silanus, a consular man?

M. Silanus quinquennio ante consul fuerat quam Domitius tr.pl. esset, atque ipse quoque adversus Cimbros rem male gesserat: quam ob causam Domitius eum apud populum accusavit. Criminabatur rem cum Cimbris iniussu populi gessisse, idque principium fuisse calamitatum quas eo bello populus accepisset; ac de eo tabellam quoque eddidit. Sed plenissime Silanus absolutus est; nam duae solae tribus eum, Sergia et Quirina, damnaverunt.

M. Silanus had been consul five years before Domitius was tribune of the plebs, and he himself too had conducted the affair badly against the Cimbri; for which cause Domitius accused him before the people. He charged that he had conducted the matter with the Cimbri without the order of the people, and that this had been the beginning of the calamities which in that war the people had incurred; and he even put the matter to a ballot. But Silanus was most fully absolved; for only two tribes condemned him, the Sergian and the Quirine.

(81) Haec est controversia eius modi ut mihi probetur tr.pl. Cn. Domitius, Catulo M. Terpolius.

(81) This is a controversy of such a kind that, to me, the tribune of the plebs Gnaeus Domitius is approved; for Catulus, Marcus Terpolius.

Contemptissimum nomen electum esse ex eis qui tr.pl. fuerant post infractam tribuniciam potestatem a Sulla, ante restitutam a Cn. Pompeio apparet. Fuit autem is tr.pl. ante XII annos D.Bruto et Mam.Lepido coss.; Cn. Domitius tribunus fuerat ante II de XL annos C. Mario II C. Fimbria coss.

It appears that a most contemptible name was chosen from those who had been tribunes of the plebs after the tribunician power had been broken by Sulla, before it was restored by Gnaeus Pompeius. Moreover, he was tribune of the plebs 12 years earlier, with Decimus Brutus and Mamercus Lepidus as consuls; Gnaeus Domitius had been tribune 38 years earlier, with Gaius Marius (for the 2nd time) and Gaius Fimbria as consuls.

Magno numero sententiarum Cornelius absolutus est.

Cornelius was acquitted by a great number of votes.

V. IN SENATU IN TOGA CANDIDA

5. IN THE SENATE IN THE WHITE TOGA OF CANDIDACY

CONTRA C. ANTONIUM ET L. CATILINAM COMPETITORES

AGAINST GAIUS ANTONIUS AND LUCIUS CATILINE, RIVAL CANDIDATES

(83) Haec oratio dicta est L. Caesare C. Figulo coss. post annum quam pro Cornelio dixerat.

(83) This oration was delivered, with L. Caesar and C. Figulus as consuls, a year after he had spoken on behalf of Cornelius.

Argumentum

Argument

Sex competitores in consulatus petitione Cicero habuit, duos patricios, P. Sulpicium Galbam, L. Sergium Catilinam; quattuor plebeios ex quibus duos nobiles, C. Antonium, M. Antoni oratoris filium, L. Cassium Longinum, duos qui tantum non primi ex familiis suis magistratum adepti erant, Q. Cornificium et C. Licinium Sacerdotem. Solus Cicero ex competitoribus equestri erat loco natus; atque in petitione patrem amisit.

Cicero had six competitors in his petition for the consulship, two patricians, P. Sulpicius Galba, L. Sergius Catilina; four plebeians, of whom two were nobles, C. Antonius, the son of the orator M. Antonius, L. Cassius Longinus, and two who were almost the first from their families to have obtained a magistracy, Q. Cornificius and C. Licinius Sacerdos. Cicero alone among the competitors had been born of equestrian rank; and during the canvass he lost his father.

Ceteri eius competitores modeste se gessere, visique sunt Q. Cornificius et Galba sobrii ac sancti viri, Sacerdos nulla improbitate notus; Cassius quamvis stolidus tum magis quam improbus videretur, post paucos menses in coniuratione Catilinae esse eum apparuit ac cruentissimarum sententiarum fuisse auctorem. Itaque hi quattuor prope iacebant.

The rest of his competitors conducted themselves modestly, and Q. Cornificius and Galba were seen as sober and saintly men; Sacerdos was marked by no improbity; Cassius, although stolid, then seemed more dull than wicked, but after a few months it appeared that he was in Catiline’s conspiracy and had been the author of the bloodiest proposals. And so these four were almost out of the running.

Catilina autem et Antonius, (83) quamquam omnium maxime infamis eorum vita esset, tamen multum poterant. Coierant enim ambo ut Ciceronem consulatu deicerent, adiutoribus usi firmissimis M. Crasso et C. Caesare. Itaque haec oratio contra solos Catilinam et Antonium est.

Catiline, however, and Antonius, (83) although their life was most infamous of all, nevertheless had much power. For the two had come together to cast Cicero down from the consulship, employing as the firmest helpers M. Crassus and C. Caesar. And so this oration is against Catiline and Antonius alone.

Causa orationis huius modi in senatu habendae Ciceroni fuit quod, cum in dies licentia ambitus augeretur propter praecipuam Catilinae et Antoni audaciam, censuerat senatus ut lex ambitus aucta etiam cum poena ferretur; eique rei Q. Mucius Orestinus tr.pl. intercesserat. Tum Cicero graviter senatu intercessionem ferente surrexit atque in coitionem Catilinae et Antoni invectus est ante dies comitiorum paucos.

The cause for Cicero’s delivering an oration of this kind in the senate was that, as day by day the license of ambitus (electoral bribery) was increasing because of the exceptional audacity of Catiline and Antonius, the senate had decreed that a law on ambitus, strengthened and with a penalty added, be carried; and against this measure Q. Mucius Orestinus, tribune of the plebs, had interposed his veto. Then, with the senate resenting the intercession, Cicero rose and inveighed against the coalition of Catiline and Antonius a few days before the days of the elections.

Enarratio

Explanation

Dico P. C. , superiore nocte cuiusdam hominis nobilis et valde in hoc largitio nis quaestu noti et cogniti domum Catilinam et Antonium cum sequestribus suis convenisse.

I say, Conscript Fathers, that on the previous night Catiline and Antonius, with their sequesters, met at the house of a certain nobleman, very well-known and recognized in this profit-making of largition.

Aut C. Caesaris aut M. Crassi domum significat. Ei enim acerrimi ac potentissimi fuerunt Ciceronis refragatores cum petiit consulatum, quod eius in dies civilem crescere dignitatem animadvertebant: et hoc ipse Cicero in expositione consiliorum suorum significat; eius quoque coniurationis quae Cotta et Torquato coss. ante annum quam haec dicerentur facta est a Catilina et Pisone arguit M. Crassum auctorem fuisse.

He means the house of either Gaius Caesar or Marcus Crassus. For they were the most ardent and most powerful refractors of Cicero when he sought the consulship, because they observed his civil dignity to be increasing day by day; and this Cicero himself signifies in the exposition of his counsels. He also alleges Marcus Crassus to have been the author of that conspiracy which, with Cotta and Torquatus as consuls, was made by Catiline and Piso a year before these things were said.

Quem enim aut amicum habere potest is qui tot (84) civis tricidavit, aut clien tem qui in sua civitate cum peregrino negavit se iudicio aequo certare posse?

Whom, indeed, can he have as a friend, who has slaughtered so many (84) citizens; or as a client—he who in his own city denied that he could contend under an equitable judgment with a foreigner?

Dicitur Catilina, cum in Sullanis partibus fuisset, crudeliter fecisse. Nominatim etiam postea Cicero dicit quos occiderit, Q. Caecilium, M. Volumnium, L. Tanusium. M. etiam Mari Gratidiani summe popularis hominis, qui ob id bis praetor fuit, caput abscisum per urbem sua manu Catilina tulerat; quod crimen saepius ei tota oratione obicit.

It is said that Catiline, when he had been in Sulla’s party, acted cruelly. Later, Cicero even names expressly whom he killed—Quintus Caecilius, Marcus Volumnius, Lucius Tanusius. Catiline had also, with his own hand, carried through the city the severed head of Marcus Marius Gratidianus, a most popular man, who on account of that was praetor twice; and this crime he more than once hurls at him throughout the whole oration.

Fuerat vero hic Gratidianus arta necessitudine Ciceroni coniunctus.

In fact, this Gratidianus had been conjoined to Cicero by a close kinship.

Clientem autem negavit habere posse C. Antonium: nam is multos in Achaia spoliaverat nactus de exercitu Sullano equitum turmas. Deinde Graeci qui spoliati erant eduxerunt Antonium in ius ad M. Lucullum praetorem qui ius inter peregrinos dicebat. Egit pro Graecis C. Caesar etiam tum adulescentulus, de quo paulo ante mentionem fecimus; et cum Lucullus id quod Graeci postulabant decrevisse, appellavit tribunos Antonius iuravitque se ideo eiurare quod aequo iure uti non posset.

He, however, denied that Gaius Antonius could have a client: for that man had despoiled many in Achaia, having gotten squadrons of cavalry from Sulla’s army. Then the Greeks who had been despoiled brought Antonius into court before Marcus Lucullus, the praetor who pronounced law among peregrines. Gaius Caesar, still then a very young man—of whom we made mention a little before—pleaded for the Greeks; and when Lucullus had decreed that which the Greeks demanded, Antonius appealed to the tribunes and swore that for that reason he would forswear, because he could not make use of equal right.

Hunc Antonium Gellius et Lentulus censores sexennio quo haec dicerentur senatu moverunt titulosque subscripserunt, quod socios diripuerit, quod iudicium recusarit, quod propter aeris alieni magnitudinem praedia manciparit bonaque sua in potestate non habeat.

This Antony, Gellius and Lentulus, censors, in the six-year period in which these things were being said, removed from the senate and inscribed notes: that he had plundered the allies, that he had refused a judgment, that, because of the magnitude of his debt, he had mancipated his estates and did not have his goods in his own power.

(85) Nec senatum respexit cum gravissimis vestris decretis absens notatus est.

(85) Nor did he regard the Senate when, in his absence, he was branded by your most grave decrees.

Catilina ex praetura Africam provinciam obtinuit: quam cum graviter vexasset, legati Afri in senatu iam tum absente illo questi sunt, multaeque graves sententiae in senatu de eo dictae sunt.

Catiline, after the praetorship, obtained the province of Africa: which, when he had grievously vexed it, the African legates complained in the senate even then with him absent, and many grave sentences in the senate were spoken about him.

In iudiciis quanta vis esset didicit cum est absolutus: si aut illud iudicium aut illa absolutio nominanda est.

He learned how great a force there was in judicial proceedings when he was absolved: if either that judgment or that absolution is to be called by that name.

Ante annum quam haec dicerentur Catilina, cum redisset ex Africa Torquato et Cotta coss., accusatus est repetundarum a P. Clodio adulescente, qui postea inimicus Ciceronis fuit.

A year before these things were said, Catiline, when he had returned from Africa, in the consulship of Torquatus and Cotta, was accused on a charge of extortion by the young Publius Clodius, who afterwards was an enemy of Cicero.

Defensus est Catilina, ut Fenestella tradit, a M. Cicerone. Quod ego ut addubitem haec ipsa Ciceronis oratio facit, maxime quod is nullam mentionem rei habet, cum potuerit invidiam facere competitori tam turpiter adversus se coeunti: praesertim cum alterum competitorem suum Antonium in eadem hac oratione sua admoneat suo beneficio eum ex ultimo loco praeturae candidatum ad tertium pervenisse.

Catiline was defended, as Fenestella relates, by M. Cicero. That I should waver about this, this very oration of Cicero makes me do, chiefly because he has no mention of the matter, although he could have brought odium upon a competitor entering the contest so disgracefully against himself: especially since, in this same oration of his, he reminds his other competitor, Antonius, that by his own benefaction he, as a candidate for the praetorship, had advanced from the last place to the third.

Nescis me praetorem primum esse factum, te concessione competitorum et collatione centuriarum et meo maxime beneficio ex postremo in tertium locum esse subiectum?

Do you not know that I was made praetor first, and that you, by the concession of your competitors and the collation of the centuries, and most of all by my benefit, were brought up from the last place into the third place?

Qui igitur Antonio suffragationem suam imputandam putat, is si defendisset Catilinam, caput eius protectum a se nonne imputaret? Quod ita esse manifestum est ex eo quod statim dicit. Q. enim Mucius tr.pl. intercedebat (86) ne lex ambitus ferretur; quod facere pro Catilina videbatur.

Therefore he who thinks that his suffragation ought to be imputed to Antony—if he had defended Catiline, would he not have imputed to himself that his head was protected by him? That this is so is manifest from what he immediately says. For Q. Mucius, tr. pl., was interceding (86) lest a law on ambitus be carried; which seemed to be done on behalf of Catiline.

Hunc Mucium in hac oratione Cicero appellans sic ait:

Cicero, addressing this Mucius in this oration, thus says:

Te tamen, Q. Muci, tam male de populo Romano existimare moleste fero qui hesterno die me esse dignum consulatu negebas. Quid? p.R. minus diligenter sibi constitueret defensorem quam tu tibi?

Nevertheless, Q. Mucius, I take it ill that you estimate so badly of the Roman people—you who yesterday were denying that I was worthy of the consulship. What? Would the Roman people constitute for itself a defender less diligently than you do for yourself?

Cum tecum furti L. Calenus ageret, me potissimum fortunarum tuarum patronum esse voluisti. Cuius tute consilium in tua turpissima causa delegisti, hunc honestissimarum rerum defensorem p.R. auctore te repudiare potest? Nisi forte hoc dicturus es, quo tempore cum L. Caleno furti depectus sis, eo tempore in me tibi parum esse auxili vidisse.

When L. Calenus was bringing a theft charge against you, you most especially wished me to be the patron of your fortunes. Whose counsel you yourself chose in your most disgraceful case—can the Roman People, with you as the author, repudiate this man as defender of the most honorable causes? Unless perhaps you are going to say this: that at the time when you compounded on the theft charge with L. Calenus, at that time you saw that there was too little help for you in me.

Vere cum egerit Muci causam Cicero sicut Catilinae egisse eum videri vult Fenestella, cur iam quamvis male existimet de causa Muci, tamen ei exprobret patrocinium suum, non idem in Catilina faciat, si modo pro eo dixit? et cur ipsum illud iudicium saepius in infamiam vocat? quod parcius videtur fuisse facturus, si in eo iudicio fuisset patronus.

Granted that Cicero pleaded Mucius’s case, just as Fenestella wants him to seem to have pleaded Catiline’s, why, now, although he may think ill of Mucius’s cause, does he nevertheless reproach him with his own patronage, and not do the same in Catiline’s case, if indeed he spoke on his behalf? And why does he more often call that very judgment into infamy—something he would seem to have done more sparingly, if he had been the patron in that judgment?

Atque ut alia omittam, hoc certe vix videtur dicturus fuisse, si illo patrono Catilina repetundarum absolutus esset:

And, to omit other things, this certainly he would scarcely seem to have been going to say, if Catiline had been acquitted on the charge of extortion by that patron:

Stupris se omnibus ac flagitiis contaminavit; caede nefaria cruentavit; diri puit socios; leges quaestiones iudicia violavit et postea:

He defiled himself with all debaucheries and flagitious crimes; he stained himself with nefarious slaughter; he despoiled his associates; he violated laws, inquiries, courts and afterwards:

Quid ego ut violaveris provinciam praedicem? Nam ut te illic gesseris non audeo dicere, quoniam (87) absolutus es. Mentitos esse equites Romanos, falsas fuisse tabellas honestissimae civitatis existimo, mentitum Q. Metellum Pium, mentitam Africam: vidisse puto nescio quid illos iudices qui te innocentem iudicarunt. O miser qui non sentias illo iudicio te non absolutum verum ad aliquod severius iudicium ac maius supplicium reservatum!

Why should I proclaim that you have violated the province? For how you conducted yourself there I do not dare to say, since (87) you have been acquitted. I suppose that the Roman equites lied, that the tablets of a most honorable city were false, that Q. Metellus Pius lied, that Africa lied: I think those judges who judged you innocent saw I know not what. O wretch, that you do not perceive that by that judgment you were not acquitted but reserved for some more severe judgment and a greater punishment!

Verine ergo simile est haec eum Catilinae obicere, si illo defendente absolutus esset? Praeterea movet me quod, cum sint commentarii Ciceronis causarum, eius tamen defensionis nullum est commentarium aut principium.

Is it then likely that he would throw these things in Catiline’s teeth, if he had been absolved with that man defending him? Moreover, I am moved by the fact that, although there are Cicero’s commentaries of causes, yet of that defense there is no commentary nor beginning.

Ita quidem iudicio absolutus est Catilina ut Clodius infamis fuerit praevaricatus esse: nam et reiectio iudicum ad arbitrium rei videbatur esse facta.

Thus indeed Catiline was acquitted at trial, to such a degree that Clodius was infamous for having prevaricated; for even the rejection of the judges seemed to have been done at the defendant’s discretion.

Populum vero cum inspectante populo collum secuit hominis maxime popula ris quanti faceret ostendit.

But as for the people, he showed how much he valued the populace when, with the people looking on, he cut the neck of a man most popular.

Diximus et paulo ante Mari caput Catilinam per urbem tulisse.

We have said also a little before that Catiline bore the head of Marius through the city.

Me qua amentia inductus sit ut contemneret constituere non possum. Utrum aequo animo laturum putavit? At in suo familiarissimo viderat me ne aliorum quidem iniurias mediocriter posse ferre.

By what madness he was induced to contemn me, I cannot determine. Did he think I would bear it with equanimity? Yet in his most intimate friend he had seen that I could not even bear the injuries of others with any moderation.

Manifestum est C. Verrem significari.

It is manifest that Gaius Verres is meant.

Alter pecore omni vendito et saltibus prope addictis pastores retinet, ex quibus ait se cum velit subito fugitivorum bellum excitaturum.

The other, with all the livestock sold and the woodland pastures almost assigned, keeps shepherds, from whom he says that, whenever he wishes, he will suddenly arouse a war of fugitives.

C. Antonium significat.

He means C. Antonius.

(88) Alter induxit eum quem potuit ut repente gladiatores populo non debitos pollicerentur; eos ipse consularis candidatus perspexit et legit et emit; id praesente populo Romano factum est.

(88) The other induced whomever he could, that they might suddenly promise gladiators not due to the people; those the consular candidate himself inspected and selected and bought; this was done with the Roman People present.

Q. Gallium, quem postea reum ambitus defendit, significare videtur. Hic enim cum esset praeturae candidatus, quod in aedilitate quam ante annum gesserat bestias non habuerat, dedit gladiatorium munus sub titulo patri se id dare.

He seems to indicate Q. Gallius, whom he later defended as a defendant on a charge of ambitus. For this man, when he was a candidate for the praetorship, because in the aedileship which he had held the year before he had not had beasts, gave a gladiatorial munus under the title that he was giving it to his father.

Quam ob rem augete etiam mercedem, si voltis, Q. Muci ut perseveret legem impedire, ut coepit senatus consultum; sed ego ea lege contentus sum qua duos consules designatos uno tempore damnari vidimus.

For which reason, increase even the remuneration, if you wish, for Q. Mucius, that he may persevere in impeding the law, as the senatorial decree has begun; but I am content with that law by which we saw two consuls-designate condemned at one time.

Legem Calpurniam significat quam C. Calpurnius Piso ante triennium de ambitu tulerat. Quod dicit autem damnatos esse designatos consules, P. Sullam et P. Autronium, de quibus iam diximus, vult intellegi.

He means the Calpurnian Law, which Gaius Calpurnius Piso had carried concerning ambitus (electoral bribery) three years earlier. But when he says that the consuls-designate were condemned, he wants it understood that he means Publius Sulla and Publius Autronius, about whom we have already spoken.

Cognomen autem Q. Mucio tribuno quem nominat fuit Orestinus.

Moreover, the cognomen of Q. Mucius, the tribune whom he names, was Orestinus.

Atque ut istum omittam in exercitu Sullano praedonem, in introitu gladiato rem, in victoria quadrigarium.

And, to pass that fellow over: in the Sullan army, a brigand; at his entrance, a gladiator; in victory, a quadriga-charioteer.

De Antonio dici manifestum est. Dicit eum in exercitu Sullae praedonem propter equitum turmas quibus Achaiam ab eo vexatam esse significavimus; in introitu gladiatorem pertinet ad invidiam proscriptionis quae tum facta est; in victoria quadrigarium, quod cum Sulla post victoriam circenses faceret ita ut honesti homines quadrigas agitarent, fuit inter eos C. Antonius.

It is manifest that this is said about Antonius. He calls him in the army of Sulla a pirate on account of the squadrons of horse with which we have indicated that Achaia was vexed by him; at the entry a gladiator pertains to the odium of the proscription which was then carried out; in victory a quadriga-driver, because when Sulla after the victory was putting on circus-games in such a way that respectable men drove quadrigae, among them was Gaius Antonius.

(89) Te vero, Catilina, consulatum sperare aut cogitare non prodigium atque portentum est? A quibus enim petis? A principibus civitatis?

(89) But you, Catiline— to hope for or even to contemplate the consulship— is it not a prodigy and a portent? From whom, indeed, do you seek it? From the principal men of the state?

qui tibi, cum L. Volcacio cos. in consilio fuissent, ne petendi quidem potestatem esse voluerunt.

who, when L. Volcacius was consul, had been on the council, did not wish that you should have even the power of petitioning.

Paulo ante diximus Catilinam, cum de provincia Africa decederet petiturus consulatum et legati Afri questi de eo in senatu graviter essent, supervenisse. Professus deinde est Catilina petere se consulatum. L. Volcacius Tullus consul consilium publicum habuit an rationem Catilinae habere deberet, si peteret consulatum: nam quaerebatur repetundarum.

A little before we said that Catiline, when he was departing from the province Africa, about to seek the consulship, and when African legates had complained about him gravely in the senate, had come in. Then Catiline declared that he was seeking the consulship. L. Volcacius Tullus, consul, held a public council as to whether he ought to take account of Catiline’s candidacy, if he should seek the consulship: for he was under inquiry for extortion (repetundae).

Catilina ob eam causam destitit a petitione.

Catiline, for that reason, desisted from the petition.

A senatoribus? qui te auctoritate sua spoliatum ornamentis omnibus vinctum paene Africanis oratoribus tradiderunt?

By the senators? who, by their authority, handed you over to the African advocates, stripped of all your ornaments and almost bound?

Diximus modo de hoC. Nam iudicium quoque secutum est repetundarum, quo ipse per infamiam liberatus est Catilina, sed ita ut senatorum urna damnaret, equitum et tribunorum absolveret.

We have just spoken about this. For a trial too followed on a charge of extortions, in which Catiline himself was acquitted with infamy, but in such a way that the senators’ ballot-box condemned, while those of the equestrians and the tribunes acquitted.

Ab equestri ordine? quem trucidasti?

By the equestrian order? whom you butchered?

Equester ordo pro Cinnanis partibus contra Sullam steterat, multique pecunias abstulerant: ex quo saccularii erant appellati, atque ob eius rei invidiam post Sullanam victoriam erant interfecti.

The equestrian order had stood for the Cinnan party against Sulla, and many had carried off monies: whence they were appellated saccularii, and, on account of the odium of this matter, after Sulla’s victory they were slain.

A plebe? cui spectaculum eius modi tua crudelitas praebuit, ut te nemo sine gemitu ac recordatione luctus aspicere possit?

From the plebs? to whom your cruelty furnished a spectacle of that sort, so that no one can behold you without a groan and a recollection of mourning?

(90) Eiusdem illius Mari Gratidiani quod caput gestarit obicit.

(90) He objects that he carried the head of that same Marius Gratidianus.

Quo loco dicit Catilinam caput M. Mari gestasse:

In which place he says that Catiline had carried about the head of M. Marius:

Quod caput etiam tum plenum animae et spiritus ad Sullam usque ab Ianiculo ad aedem Apollinis manibus ipse suis detulit.

Which head, even then full of soul and spirit, he himself with his own hands carried all the way to Sulla, from the Janiculum to the temple of Apollo.

Omnia sunt manifesta. Ne tamen erretis, quod his temporibus aedes Apollinis in Palatio fuit nobilissima, admonendi estis non hanc a Cicerone significari, utpote quam post mortem etiam Ciceronis multis annis Imp.Caesar, quem nunc Divum Augustum dicimus, post Actiacam victoriam fecerit: sed illam demonstrari quae est extra portam Carmentalem inter forum holitorium et circum Flaminium. Ea enim sola tum quidem Romae Apollinis aedes.

All things are manifest. Yet, lest you err, because in these times the temple of Apollo on the Palatine was most renowned, you are to be admonished that not this one is signified by Cicero, since that one many years even after the death of Cicero the Emperor Caesar, whom we now call the Deified Augustus, built after the victory at Actium: but that that one is demonstrated which is outside the Carmental Gate, between the greens market (Forum Holitorium) and the Circus Flaminius. For that alone at that time was a temple of Apollo at Rome.

Loquitur cum Catilina:

He speaks with Catiline:

Quid tu potes in defensione tua dicere quod illi non dixerint? at illi multa dixerunt quae tibi dicere non licebit

What can you say in your defense that they have not said? But they said many things which it will not be permitted for you to say.

et paulo post:

and a little later:

Denique illi negare potuerunt et negaverunt: tu tibi ne infitiandi quidem impudentiae locum reliquisti. Qua re praeclara dicentur iudicia tulisse si, qui infitiantem Luscium condemnarunt, Catilinam absolverint confitentem.

Finally, they were able to deny and they did deny: you have left yourself not even a place for the impudence of denial. Wherefore they will be said to have rendered most illustrious judgments if those who condemned Luscius while denying shall have absolved Catiline while confessing.

Hic quem nominat L. Luscius, notus centurio Sullanus divesque e victoria factus nam amplius centies possederat damnatus erat non multo ante quam Cicero dixit. Obiectae (91) sunt ei tres caedes proscriptorum.

This man whom L. Luscius names, a well-known Sullan centurion and made rich from the victory—for he had possessed more than ten million sesterces—had been condemned not long before Cicero spoke. There were alleged (91) against him three slayings of the proscribed.

Circa eosdem dies L. quoque Bellienus damnatus est quem Cicero ait avuncu lum esse Catilinae. Hic autem Lucretium Ofellam consulatum contra voluntatem Sullae ad turbandum statum civitatis petentem occiderat iussu Sullae tunc dictatoris. His ergo negat ignotum esse, cum et imperitos se homines esse et, si quem etiam interfecissent, imperatori ac dictatori paruisse dicerent, ac negare quoque possent: Catilinam vero infitiari non posse.

Around the same days, L. Bellienus too was condemned, whom Cicero says is Catiline’s uncle. This man, however, had killed Lucretius Ofella, who was seeking the consulship against Sulla’s will to disturb the condition of the state, by order of Sulla, then dictator. For these men, therefore, he says it was not unknown, since they were inexperienced men and said that, even if they had killed someone, they had obeyed the imperator and dictator, and they could also deny it; but that Catiline could not deny.

Huius autem criminis periculum quod obicit Cicero paucos post menses Catilina subiit. Post effecta enim comitia consularia et Catilinae repulsam fecit eum reum inter sicarios L. Lucceius paratus eruditusque, qui postea consulatum quoque petiit.

However, the peril of this charge, which Cicero alleges, Catiline underwent a few months later. For after the consular comitia had been completed and Catiline’s repulse, L. Lucceius—prepared and well-instructed, who later also sought the consulship—made him a defendant under the charge inter sicarios.

Hanc tu habes dignitatem qua fretus me contemnis et despicis, an eam quam reliqua in vita es consecutus? cum ita vixisti ut non esset locus tam sanctus quo non adventus tuus, etiam cum culpa nulla subesset, crimen afferret.

Is it this dignity you have, relying on which you contemn and despise me, or that which you have attained in the rest of your life? since you have lived in such a way that there was no place so sacred that your advent, even when no culpability underlay, did not bring a crime.

Fabia virgo Vestalia causam incesti dixerat, cum ei Catilina obiceretur, eratque absoluta. Haec Fabia quia soror erat Terentiae Ciceronis, ideo sic dixit:

Fabia, a Vestal virgin, had pleaded the case on a charge of incest, when Catiline was being charged against her, and she had been acquitted. This Fabia, because she was the sister of Cicero’s Terentia, therefore spoke thus:

etiam si culpa nulla subesset.

even if no fault were underlying.

Ita et suis perpercit et nihilo levius inimico summi opprobrii turpitudinem obiecit.

Thus she both spared her own and, no less, cast upon her enemy the turpitude of highest opprobrium.

Cum deprehendebare in adulteriis, cum deprehendebas adulteros ipse, cum ex eodem stupro tibi et uxorem et filiam invenisti.

When you were being caught in adulteries, when you yourself were catching adulterers, when from the same debauchery you found both your wife and your daughter (to be involved).

Dicitur Catilina adulterium commisisse cum ea quae ei postea socrus fuit, et ex eo natam stupro duxisse uxorem, (82) cum filia eius esset. Hoc Lucceius quoque Catilinae obicit in orationibus quas in eum scripsit. Nomina harum mulierum nondum inveni.

He is said to have committed adultery with the woman who afterwards was his mother-in-law, and to have taken to wife a girl born from that debauchery, (82) although she was his daughter. This Lucceius also objects to Catiline in the orations which he wrote against him. The names of these women I have not yet found.

Quid ego ut violaveris provinciam praedicem, cuncto populo Romano clamante ac resistente? nam ut te illic gesseris non audeo dicere, quoniam absolutus es.

Why should I proclaim that you have violated the province, while the entire Roman people cries out and resists? For how you conducted yourself there I do not dare to say, since you have been acquitted.

Dictum est iam saepius Catilinam ex praetura Africam obtinuisse et accusante eum repetundarum P. Clodio absolutum esse.

It has already been said rather often that Catiline, from the praetorship, obtained Africa, and, with P. Clodius accusing him on a charge of extortions, was acquitted.

Praetereo nefarium illum conatum tuum et paene acerbum et luctuosum rei publicae diem, cum Cn. Pisone socio, ne quem alium nominem, caedem optimatum facere voluisti.

I pass over that nefarious attempt of yours, and the almost bitter and mournful day for the Republic, when, with Gnaeus Piso as your associate—lest I name anyone else—you wished to perpetrate a massacre of the Optimates.

Quos non nominet intellegitis. Fuit enim opinio Catilinam et Cn. Pisonem, adulescentem perditum, coniurasse ad caedem senatus faciendam ante annum quam haec dicta sunt, Cotta et Torquato coss., eamque caedem ideo non esse factam quod prius quam parati essent coniuratis signum dedisset Catilina.

You understand whom he does not name. For there was an opinion that Catiline and Gnaeus Piso, a ruined young man, had conspired for the slaughter of the senate to be carried out a year before these things were said, in the consulship of Cotta and Torquatus, and that that slaughter was for this reason not done: because Catiline had given the signal to the conspirators before they were prepared.

Piso autem, cum haec dicerentur, perierat, in Hispaniam missus a senatu per honorem legationis ut avus suus ablegaretur. Ibi quidem dum iniurias provincialibus facit, occisus erat, ut quidem credebant, a Cn. Pompeii clientibus Pompeio non invito.

But Piso, when these things were being said, had perished, having been sent into Spain by the senate under the honor of a legation, as his grandfather had been dispatched. There indeed, while he was doing injuries to the provincials, he had been killed, as indeed they believed, by the clients of Cn. Pompeius, Pompeius not unwilling.

An oblitus es te ex me, cum praeturam peteremus, petisse ut tibi primum locum concederem? Quod cum saepius ageres et impudentius a me (93) conten deres, meministi me tibi respondere impudenter te facere qui id a me peteres quod a te Boculus numquam impetrasset?

Have you forgotten that you asked from me, when we were seeking the praetorship, that I concede to you the first place? And when you were pursuing this more often and more impudently, and were pressing me (93) more insistently, do you remember that I replied to you that you were acting impudently, in asking from me what Boculus would never have obtained from you?

Diximus iam supra Sullae ludis quos hic propter victoriam fecerit quadrigas C. Antonium et alios quosdam nobiles homines agitasse. Praeterea Antonius redemptas habebat ab aerario vectigales quadrigas, quam redemptionem senatori habere licet per legem. Fuit autem notissimus in circo quadrigarum agitator Boculus.

We have already said above that at Sulla’s games, which he put on on account of his victory, Gaius Antonius and certain other noble men drove quadrigae. Moreover, Antonius held under contract from the aerarium (the state treasury) the tax-farm on the quadrigae, a concession which by law it is permitted for a senator to hold. And Boculus was a very well-known charioteer of quadrigae in the circus.

Dicit de malis civibus:

He says about bad citizens:

Qui postea quam illo quo conati erant Hispaniensi pugiunculo nervos incide re civium Romanorum non potuerunt, duas uno tempore conantur in rem publicam sicas destringere.

Who, after they were unable with that Spanish little-dagger, with which they had attempted, to cut the sinews of Roman citizens, try at one and the same time to draw two sicae-daggers against the Republic.

Hispaniensem pugiunculum Cn. Pisonem appellat, quem in Hispania occisum esse dixi. Duas sicas Catilinam et Antonium appellari manifestum est.

He calls the Spanish little dagger “Cn. Piso,” whom I said was slain in Spain. It is manifest that the two daggers are called Catiline and Antonius.

Hunc vos scitote Licinium gladiatorem iam immisisse capillum Catilinae iudiC. qu Q. ve Curium hominem quaestorium.

Know that this Licinius the gladiator has already let his hair grow for Catiline’s trial (iudic.), namely that of Q. Curius, a man of quaestorian rank.

Curius hic notissimus fuit aleator, damnatusque postea est. In hunc est hendecasyllabus Calvi elegans:

This Curius was a very notorious dice-player, and afterward he was condemned. Against him there is an elegant hendecasyllable by Calvus:

Et talos Curius pereruditus.

And Curius most erudite in dice.

Huic orationi Ciceronis et Catilina et Antonius contumeliose responderunt, quod solum poterant, invecti in (94) novitatem eius. Feruntur quoque orationes nomine illorum editae, non ab ipsis scriptae sed ab Ciceronis obtrectatoribus: quas nescio an satius sit ignorare. Ceterum Cicero consul omnium consensu factus est: Antonius pauculis centuriis Catilinam superavit, cum ei propter patris nomen paulo speciosior manus suffragata esset quam Catilinae.

To this oration of Cicero both Catiline and Antonius replied contumeliously, the only thing they could, by inveighing against (94) its novelty. Reports also have it that speeches were issued under their name, not written by themselves but by detractors of Cicero—whether it is better to be ignorant of them, I do not know. Moreover, Cicero was made consul by the consent of all: Antonius surpassed Catiline by a few centuries, since on account of his father’s name a somewhat more showy band had given their suffrage to him than to Catiline.

(Deest epilogus)

(The epilogue is missing)