Cicero: ORATORIA

[1] Cum multa divinitus, pontifices, a maioribus nostris inventa atque instituta sunt, tum nihil praeclarius quam quod eosdem et religionibus deorum immortalium et summae rei publicae praeesse voluerunt, ut amplissimi et clarissimi cives rem publicam bene gerendo religiones, religiones sapienter interpretando rem publicam conservarent. Quod si ullo tempore magna causa in sacerdotum populi Romani iudicio ac potestate versata est, haec profecto tanta est ut omnis rei publicae dignitas, omnium civium salus, vita, libertas, arae, foci, di penates, bona, fortunae, domicilia vestrae sapientiae, fidei, potestati commissa creditaque esse videantur.

[1] Since many things, by divine guidance, Pontiffs, were discovered and instituted by our ancestors, yet nothing was more illustrious than that they wished the same men to preside both over the religions of the immortal gods and over the highest interests of the commonwealth, so that, as most distinguished and most illustrious citizens, by managing the commonwealth well they might preserve the religions, and by interpreting the religions wisely they might preserve the commonwealth. And if at any time a great cause has been handled within the judgment and power of the priests of the Roman people, this assuredly is so great that all the dignity of the commonwealth, the safety of all citizens, life, liberty, altars, hearths, the Penate gods, goods, fortunes, dwellings, seem to have been entrusted and committed to your wisdom, fidelity, and power.

[2] Vobis hodierno die constituendum est utrum posthac amentis ac perditos magistratus improborum ac sceleratorum civium praesidio nudare, an etiam deorum immortalium religione armare malitis. Nam si illa labes ac flamma rei publicae suum illum pestiferum et funestum tribunatum, quem aequitate humana tueri non potest, divina religione defenderit, aliae caerimoniae nobis erunt, alii antistites deorum immortalium, alii interpretes religionum requirendi; sin autem vestra auctoritate sapientiaque, pontifices, ea quae furore improborum in re publica ab aliis oppressa, ab aliis deserta, ab aliis prodita gesta sunt rescinduntur, erit causa cur consilium maiorum in amplissimis viris ad sacerdotia deligendis iure ac merito laudare possimus.

[2] It must be determined by you today whether hereafter you prefer to strip mad and utterly depraved magistrates of the protection of wicked and criminal citizens, or even to arm them with the religion of the immortal gods. For if that blot and flame of the commonwealth shall defend his own pestiferous and funest tribunate—which human equity cannot uphold—by divine religion, there will be other ceremonies for us, and other chief-priests of the immortal gods and other interpreters of religions must be sought; but if, by your authority and wisdom, pontiffs, those things which, through the frenzy of the wicked, have been done in the state—by some oppressed, by others abandoned, by others betrayed—are rescinded, there will be cause why we may rightly and deservedly praise the counsel of the ancestors in selecting the most eminent men for the priesthoods.

[3] Sed quoniam ille demens, si ea quae per hos dies ego in senatu de re publica sensi vituperasset, aliquem se aditum ad auris vestras esse habiturum putavit, omittam ordinem dicendi meum: respondebo hominis furiosi non orationi, qua ille uti non potest, sed convicio, cuius exercitationem cum intolerabili petulantia tum etiam diuturna impunitate munivit.

[3] But since that demented fellow, if he had vituperated the things which during these days I have felt in the senate about the republic, thought that he would thereby have some access to your ears, I will set aside my order of speaking: I will reply not to the oration of a frenzied man—an oration which he cannot employ—but to his reviling, the practice of which he has fortified both by intolerable petulance and also by long impunity.

Ac primum illud a te, homine vesano ac furioso, requiro, quae te tanta poena tuorum scelerum flagitiorumque vexet ut hos talis viros,--qui non solum consiliis suis sed etiam specie ipsa dignitatem rei publicae sustinent,--quod ego in sententia dicenda salutem civium cum honore Cn. Pompei coniunxerim mihi esse iratos, et aliud de summa religione hoc tempore sensuros ac me absente senserint arbitrere?

And first I demand this of you, man insane and frenzied: what so great a penalty for your crimes and flagitious deeds vexes you, that you suppose these men of such a sort,—who uphold the dignity of the republic not only by their counsels but even by their very appearance,—to be angry with me because I, in delivering my sentence, have conjoined the safety of the citizens with the honor of Pompey, and to be about to think otherwise on the supreme question of religion at this time than they thought when I was absent?

[4] 'Fuisti,' inquit, 'tum apud pontifices superior, sed iam, quoniam te ad populum contulisti, sis inferior necesse est.' Itane vero? quod in imperita multitudine est vitiosissimum, varietas et inconstantia et crebra tamquam tempestatum sic sententiarum commutatio, hoc tu ad hos transferas, quos ab inconstantia gravitas, a libidinosa sententia certum et definitum ius religionum, vetustas exemplorum, auctoritas litterarum monumentorumque deterret? 'Tune es ille,' inquit, 'quo senatus carere non potuit, quem boni luxerunt, quem res publica desideravit, quo restituto senatus auctoritatem restitutam putabamus quam primum adveniens prodidisti?' Nondum de mea sententia dico: impudentiae primum respondebo tuae.

[4] 'You were,' he says, 'then before the pontiffs superior; but now, since you have carried yourself to the people, it is necessary that you be inferior.' Indeed, is that so? That which in the unskilled multitude is most vicious—variety and inconstancy and the frequent change of opinions, as of storms—do you transfer this to these men, whom gravity deters from inconstancy, and from wanton judgment the fixed and defined law of religions, the antiquity of precedents, the authority of letters and monuments? 'Are you that man,' he says, 'without whom the senate could not do, whom the good lamented, whom the commonwealth longed for, in whose restoration we thought the authority of the senate restored, and whom, at your very first arrival, you betrayed?' I am not yet speaking about my opinion: I will first respond to your impudence.

[5] Hunc igitur, funesta rei publicae pestis, hunc tu civem ferro et armis et exercitus terrore et consulum scelere et audacissimorum hominum minis, servorum dilectu, obsessione templorum, occupatione fori, oppressione curiae domo et patria, ne cum improbis boni ferro dimicarent, cedere coegisti, quem a senatu, quem a bonis omnibus, quem a cuncta Italia desideratum, arcessitum, revocatum conservandae rei publicae causa confiteris? 'At enim in senatum venire in Capitolium turbulento illo die non debuisti.'

[5] This man, therefore, baleful pest of the republic, this citizen you compelled to withdraw—by iron and arms and the terror of the army and the crime of the consuls and the menaces of the most audacious men, by a levy of slaves, a besieging of the temples, an occupation of the forum, an oppression of the senate-house—from his home and fatherland, lest the good fight with steel against the wicked; this man whom you confess to have been longed for by the senate, summoned by all the good, recalled by all Italy, for the sake of preserving the republic? 'But indeed you ought not to have come into the senate, into the Capitol, on that turbulent day.'

[6] Ego vero neque veni et domo me tenui quam diu turbulentum tempus fuit, cum servos tuos, a te iam pridem ad bonorum caedem paratos, cum illa tua consceleratorum ac perditorum manu armatos in Capitolium tecum venisse constabat; quod cum mihi nuntiaretur, scito me domi mansisse et tibi et gladiatoribus tuis instaurandae caedis potestatem non fecisse. Postea quam mihi nuntiatum est populum Romanum in Capitolium propter metum atque inopiam rei frumentariae convenisse, ministros autem scelerum tuorum perterritos partim amissis gladiis, partim ereptis diffugisse, veni non solum sine ullis copiis ac manu, verum etiam cum paucis amicis.

[6] Indeed I neither came, and I kept myself at home as long as the time was turbulent, since it was established that your slaves—long since prepared by you for the slaughter of the good—armed with that band of your fellow-criminals and desperadoes, had come with you into the Capitol; when this was announced to me, know that I remained at home and gave neither to you nor to your gladiators the opportunity of renewing the slaughter. Afterwards, when it was reported to me that the Roman people had convened in the Capitol on account of fear and the scarcity of the grain-supply, but that the ministers of your crimes, terrified, some with their swords lost, others with them snatched away, had scattered, I came not only without any forces or armed band, but even with a few friends.

[7] An ego, cum P. Lentulus consul optime de me ac de re publica meritus, cum Q. Metellus, qui cum meus inimicus esset, frater tuus, et dissensioni nostrae et precibus tuis salutem ac dignitatem meam praetulisset, me arcesserent in senatum, cum tanta multitudo civium tam recenti officio suo me ad referendam gratiam nominatim vocaret, non venirem, cum praesertim te iam illinc cum tua fugitivorum manu discessisse constaret? Hic tu me etiam, custodem defensoremque Capitoli templorumque omnium, 'hostem Capitolinum' appellare ausus es, quod, cum in Capitolio senatum duo consules haberent, eo venerim? Vtrum est tempus aliquod quo in senatum venisse turpe sit, an ea res erat illa de qua agebatur ut rem ipsam repudiare et eos qui agebant condemnare deberem?

[7] Or should I not have come, when P. Lentulus, the consul, who had deserved exceedingly well of me and of the commonwealth, and when Q. Metellus—although he was my enemy—your brother, had preferred my safety and dignity to our dissension and to your entreaties, were summoning me into the senate; when so great a multitude of citizens, by reason of their very recent service, was calling me by name to render gratitude—especially since it was plain that you had already departed from there with your band of fugitives? Here you even dared to call me—the guardian and defender of the Capitol and of all the temples—a “Capitoline enemy,” because, when the two consuls were holding the senate on the Capitol, I came there? Is there any time at which it is shameful to have come into the senate, or was that the very matter that was being transacted, such that I ought to repudiate the matter itself and condemn those who were conducting it?

[8] Primum dico senatoris esse boni semper in senatum venire, nec cum his sentio qui statuunt minus bonis temporibus in senatum ipsum non venire, non intellegentes hanc suam nimiam perseverantiam vehementer iis quorum animum offendere voluerint et gratam et iucundam fuisse. At enim non nulli propter timorem, quod se in senatu tuto non esse arbitrabantur, discesserunt. Non reprehendo, nec quaero fueritne aliquid pertimescendum: puto suo quemque arbitratu timere oportere.

[8] First, I say that it is of a good senator always to come into the senate, nor do I agree with those who determine that in times less good one should not come into the senate itself, not understanding that this their excessive perseverance—toward those whose mind they wished to offend—has been both welcome and pleasing. But indeed some withdrew out of fear, because they judged that they were not safe in the senate. I do not censure this, nor do I inquire whether there was anything to be greatly dreaded: I think that each ought to fear according to his own arbitration.

Cur ego non timuerim quaeris? quia te illinc abisse constabat. Cur, cum viri boni non nulli putarint tuto se in senatu esse non posse, ego non idem senserim?

Why did I not fear, you ask? Because it was well established that you had departed from there. Why, when not a few good men thought that they could not be safe in the Senate, did I not feel the same?

Cur, cum ego me existimassem tuto omnino in civitate esse non posse, illi remanserunt? An aliis licet, et recte licet, in meo metu sibi nihil timere: mihi uni necesse erit et meam et aliorum vicem pertimescere?

Why, when I had judged that I could not be safe at all in the state, did they remain? Or is it permitted to others, and rightly permitted, in my fear to fear nothing for themselves: must it be necessary for me alone to dread both on my own account and on behalf of others?

[9] An quia non condemnavi sententia mea duo consules, sum reprehendendus? Eos igitur ego potissimum damnare debui quorum lege perfectum est ne ego, indemnatus atque optime de re publica meritus, damnatorum poenam sustinerem? Quorum etiam delicta propter eorum egregiam in me conservando voluntatem non modo me sed omnis bonos ferre oporteret, eorum optimum consilium ego potissimum per eos in meam pristinam dignitatem restitutus meo consilio repudiarem?

[9] Or because I did not condemn by my sentence two consuls, am I to be reprehended? Those, then, above all, ought I to have condemned—by whose law it was effected that I, uncondemned and having deserved very well of the republic, should not sustain the penalty of the condemned? Whose very delicts, on account of their outstanding will in preserving me, it would be fitting for not only me but for all good men to bear—shall I, above all, I who have been restored through them to my former dignity, by my own counsel repudiate their best counsel?

At quam sententiam dixi? Primum eam quam populi sermo in animis nostris iam ante defixerat, deinde eam quae erat superioribus diebus agitata in senatu, denique eam quam senatus frequens tum cum mihi est adsensus secutus est: ut neque adlata sit a me res inopinata ac recens, nec, si quod in sententia vitium est, maius sit eius qui dixerit quam omnium qui probarint.

But what opinion did I deliver? First, the one which the discourse of the people had already fixed in our minds before; then, the one which in the preceding days had been agitated in the senate; finally, the one which a full senate, at the time when it assented to me, followed: so that nothing was brought forward by me unexpected and new, nor, if there is any fault in the opinion, may it be greater for him who uttered it than for all who approved it.

[10] At enim liberum senatus iudicium propter metum non fuit. Si timuisse eos facis qui discesserunt, concede non timuisse eos qui remanserunt; sin autem sine iis qui tum afuerunt nihil decerni libere potuit, cum omnes adessent, coeptum est referri de inducendo senatus consulto; ab universo senatu reclamatum est. Sed quaero in ipsa sententia, quoniam princeps ego sum eius atque auctor, quid reprendatur.

[10] But indeed the senate’s judgment was not free on account of fear. If you make out that those who departed were afraid, grant that those who remained were not afraid; but if, however, without those who were then absent nothing could be decreed freely, when all were present, it began to be brought up about introducing a senatorial decree; the entire senate protested. But I inquire, in the sentence itself—since I am its chief and author—what is to be reprehended.

Vtrum causa novi consili capiendi non fuit, an meae partes in ea causa non praecipuae fuerunt, an alio potius confugiendum fuit nobis? Quae causa maior quam fames esse potuit, quam seditio, quam consilia tua tuorumque, qui facultate oblata ad imperitorum animos incitandos renovaturum te tua illis funesta latrocinia ob annonae causam putasti?

Was there not a cause for adopting a new plan, or were my parts in that cause not principal, or ought we rather to have taken refuge in some other course? What cause could be greater than hunger, than sedition, than your counsels and those of your followers—who, with the opportunity offered for inciting the minds of the inexperienced, supposed that you would renew for them your deadly latrociny on account of the grain-supply?

[11] Frumentum provinciae frumentariae partim non habebant, partim in alias terras, credo, propter avaritiam venditorum miserant, partim, quo gratius esset tum cum in ipsa fame subvenissent, custodiis suis clausum continebant, ut subito novum mitterent. Res erat non in opinione dubia, sed in praesenti atque ante oculos proposito periculo, neque id coniectura prospiciebamus, sed iam experti videbamus. Nam cum ingravesceret annona, ut iam plane inopia ac fames non caritas timeretur, concursus est ad templum Concordiae factus, senatum illuc vocante Metello consule.

[11] The grain of the grain-supplying province they in part did not have, in part, I believe, had sent into other lands on account of the avarice of the sellers, in part they were keeping shut up under their own guards, in order that it might be more welcome when they came to help in the very famine, so that they might suddenly send a new supply. The matter was not in doubtful opinion, but in a present danger set before our eyes; nor did we foresee it by conjecture, but already, having made trial, we saw it. For when the grain-supply was growing more burdensome, so that now downright scarcity and famine, not dearness, were feared, a concourse to the Temple of Concord took place, Metellus the consul summoning the senate thither.

Qui si verus fuit ex dolore hominum et fame, certe consules causam suscipere, certe senatus aliquid consili capere potuit; sin causa fuit annona, seditionis quidem instimulator et concitator tu fuisti, nonne id agendum nobis omnibus fuit ut materiem subtraheremus furori tuo?

Which, if it was genuine from the suffering of men and from hunger, surely the consuls could take up the cause, surely the senate could adopt some counsel; but if the cause was the grain-supply, you indeed were the instigator and inciter of sedition; was it not to be done by all of us that we should remove the material for your fury?

[12] Quid? si utrumque fuit, ut et fames stimularet homines et tu in hoc ulcere tamquam inguen exsisteres, nonne fuit eo maior adhibenda medicina quae et illud nativum et hoc inlatum malum sanare posset? Erat igitur et praesens caritas et futura fames; non est satis; facta lapidatio est.

[12] What? If both were the case, that hunger was stimulating the people and you, in this ulcer, were emerging as if an inguinal swelling, was there not need to apply a greater medicine which could heal both that native evil and this imported evil? There was therefore both present dearness and future famine; it is not enough; a stoning took place.

Si ex dolore plebei nullo incitante, magnum malum; si P. Clodi impulsu, usitatum hominis facinerosi scelus; si utrumque, ut et res esset ea quae sua sponte multitudinis animos incitaret, et parati atque armati seditionis duces, videturne ipsa res publica et consulis auxilium implorasse et senatus fidem? Atquin utrumque fuisse perspicuum est; difficultatem annonae summamque inopiam rei frumentariae, ut homines non iam diuturnam caritatem, sed ut famem plane timerent, nemo negat: hanc istum oti et pacis hostem causam arrepturum fuisse ad incendia caedis rapinas nolo, pontifices, suspicemini, nisi videritis.

If from the pain of the plebs with no one inciting, a great evil; if at the impulse of P. Clodius, the accustomed crime of a criminal man; if both, in that both the affair was such as of its own accord to incite the spirits of the multitude, and there were leaders of sedition prepared and armed, does it seem that the commonwealth itself implored the consul’s aid and the senate’s good faith? And indeed it is manifest that both were the case; the difficulty of the grain-supply and the utmost want of the frumentary provision, such that men now feared not a long-continued dearness, but plainly famine, no one denies: that that man, an enemy of peace and repose, would have seized upon this occasion for arsons, slaughters, and rapines, I would not have you, pontiffs, suspect, unless you yourselves have seen it.

[13] Qui sunt homines a Q. Metello, fratre tuo, consule in senatu palam nominati, a quibus ille se lapidibus adpetitum, etiam percussum esse dixit? L. Sergium et M. Lollium nominavit. Quis est iste Lollius?

[13] Who are the men openly named in the senate by Q. Metellus, your brother, the consul, by whom he said that he had been assailed with stones, even struck? He named L. Sergius and M. Lollius. Who is that Lollius?

qui sine ferro ne nunc quidem tecum est, qui te tribuno plebis, nihil de me dicam, sed qui Cn. Pompeium interficiendum depoposcit. Quis est Sergius? armiger Catilinae, stipator tui corporis, signifer seditionis, concitator tabernariorum, damnatus iniuriarum, percussor, lapidator, fori depopulator, obsessor curiae.

who not even now is with you without steel; who, when you were tribune of the plebs—I'll say nothing of myself—demanded that Gnaeus Pompeius be slain. Who is Sergius? Catiline’s armor-bearer, the bodyguard of your person, the standard-bearer of sedition, the inciter of the shopkeepers, convicted of outrages, a striker, a stone-thrower, a plunderer of the Forum, a besieger of the Curia.

His atque eius modi ducibus cum tu in annonae caritate in consules, in senatum, in bona fortunasque locupletium per causam inopum atque imperitorum repentinos impetus comparares, cum tibi salus esse in otio nulla posset, cum desperatis ducibus decuriatos ac descriptos haberes exercitus perditorum, nonne providendum senatui fuit ne in hanc tantam materiem seditionis ista funesta fax adhaeresceret?

With these and men of such a sort as leaders, when, amid the dearness of the grain‑supply, you were contriving sudden onsets against the consuls, against the senate, against the goods and fortunes of the wealthy, under the pretext of the poor and the inexperienced; when no safety could exist for you in quiet; when, with desperate leaders, you had the armies of the profligate organized into decuries and duly enrolled—was it not to be provided for by the senate, lest that baleful torch of yours should fasten upon so great a fuel of sedition?

[14] Fuit igitur causa capiendi novi consili: videte nunc fuerintne partes meae paene praecipuae. Quem tum Sergius ille tuus, quem Lollius, quem ceterae pestes in lapidatione illa nominabant? quem annonam praestare oportere dicebant?

[14] There was therefore a cause for adopting new counsel: see now whether my parts were almost principal. Whom then were that Sergius of yours, whom Lollius, whom the other pests naming in that stoning? whom did they say ought to furnish the grain-supply?

nonne me? Quid? operarum illa concursatio nocturna non a te ipso instituta me frumentum flagitabat? quasi vero ego aut rei frumentariae praefuissem, aut compressum aliquod frumentum tenerem, aut in isto genere omnino quicquam aut curatione aut potestate valuissem.

Was it not me? What? Was not that nocturnal concourse of hired hands, instituted by you yourself, demanding grain from me? as though indeed I either had been in charge of the grain-supply, or were holding some hoarded grain, or had availed anything at all in that kind, either by curatorship or by authority.

Sed homo ad caedem imminens meum nomen operis ediderat, imperitis iniecerat. Cum de mea dignitate in templo Iovis Optimi Maximi senatus frequentissimus uno isto dissentiente decrevisset, subito illo ipso die carissimam annonam necopinata vilitas consecuta est.

But the man, on the verge of bloodshed, had published my name as the author of the deed and had foisted it upon the unskilled. When, concerning my dignity, in the temple of Jupiter Best and Greatest, a most fully attended senate had decreed—with that very man alone dissenting—suddenly on that very day the very costly grain-supply was followed by an unlooked-for cheapness.

[15] Erant qui deos immortalis--id quod ego sentio--numine suo reditum meum dicerent comprobasse; non nulli autem illam rem ad illam rationem coniecturamque revocabant, qui, quod in meo reditu spes oti et concordiae sita videbatur, in discessu autem cotidianus seditionis timor, iam paene belli depulso metu commutatam annonam esse dicebant; quae quia rursus in meo reditu facta erat durior, a me, cuius adventu fore vilitatem boni viri dictitabant, annona flagitabatur. Ego denique non solum ab operis tuis impulsu tuo nominabar, sed etiam, depulsis ac dissipatis tuis copiis, a populo Romano universo, qui tum in Capitolium convenerat, cum illo die minus valerem, in senatum nominatim vocabar.

[15] There were those who said that the immortal gods—this is what I myself feel—had by their numen approved my return; but some others referred that matter back to that rationale and conjecture: because in my return a hope of otium and concord seemed to be situated, whereas in my departure there was a daily fear of sedition, once the fear of war had been almost driven off they said the grain-market had been altered; and since, again upon my return, it had become harsher, the annona was being demanded from me, of whom good men kept saying that, at my arrival, there would be cheapness. Finally, I was named not only by your work-crews, at your own instigation, but even, when your forces had been driven back and scattered, by the whole Roman people, who then had gathered on the Capitol; and since on that day I was less able, I was being called by name into the senate.

[16] Veni exspectatus; multis iam sententiis dictis rogatus sum sententiam; dixi rei publicae saluberrimam, mihi necessariam. Petebatur a me frumenti copia, annonae vilitas: possem aliquid in ea re necne ratio non habebatur. Flagitabar bonorum etulatione: improborum convicia sustinere non poteram.

[16] I came, awaited; after many opinions had already been spoken I was asked for my opinion; I stated one most healthful to the commonwealth, for me necessary. An abundance of grain was being demanded from me, a cheapness of the grain-supply: whether I could do anything in that matter or not, no consideration was had. I was being clamored for by the ululation of the good; I could not sustain the revilings of the wicked.

Delegavi amico locupletiori, non quo illi ita de me merito onus illud imponerem--succubuissem enim potius ipse--sed quia videbam id quod omnes, quod nos de Cn. Pompeio polliceremur, id illum fide consilio virtute auctoritate felicitate denique sua facillime perfecturum.

I delegated to a more opulent friend, not that I would on that account impose that burden upon him by reason of what he had merited from me—for I would rather have succumbed myself—but because I saw, what everyone saw, that what we were promising concerning Gnaeus Pompeius, he would most easily perfect by his fidelity, counsel, virtue, authority, and, finally, his felicity.

[17] Itaque sive hunc di immortales fructum mei reditus populo Romano tribuunt, ut, quem ad modum discessu meo frugum inopia, fames, vastitas, caedes, incendia, rapinae, scelerum impunitas, fuga, formido, discordia fuisset, sic reditu ubertas agrorum, frugum copia, spes oti, tranquillitas animorum, iudicia, leges, concordia populi, senatus auctoritas mecum simul reducta videantur, sive egomet aliquid adventu meo, consilio, auctoritate, diligentia pro tanto beneficio populi Romani praestare debui: praesto, promitto, spondeo,--nihil dico amplius, hoc quod satis est huic tempori dico,--rem publicam annonae nomine in id discrimen quo vocabatur non esse venturam.

[17] And so whether the immortal gods grant to the Roman people this fruit of my return, that, just as by my departure there had been scarcity of crops, famine, devastation, slaughters, burnings, rapines, impunity of crimes, flight, fear, discord, so by my return the fertility of the fields, abundance of crops, hope of leisure, tranquility of spirits, courts, laws, the concord of the people, the authority of the Senate seem to have been brought back together with me; or whether I myself, by my arrival, counsel, authority, diligence, ought to render something in return for so great a benefaction of the Roman people: I stand ready, I promise, I pledge,--I say nothing more; this I say which is enough for this time,--that the commonwealth, in the matter of the grain-supply, will not come into that crisis to which it was being called.

[18] Num igitur in hoc officio, quod fuit praecipue meum, sententia mea reprehenditur? Rem maximam fuisse summi periculi, non solum a fame, sed etiam a caede incendiis vastitate, nemo negat, cum ad causam caritatis accederet iste speculator communium miseriarum, qui semper ex rei publicae malis sceleris sui faces inflammaret. Negat oportuisse quicquam uni extra ordinem decerni.

[18] Is, then, my opinion in this office, which was especially mine, being reprehended? That the matter was very great and of the utmost peril, not only from famine, but also from slaughter, conflagrations, and devastation, no one denies, since, in addition to the cause of dearness, there was that speculator upon our common miseries, who always would inflame the torches of his own crime from the Republic’s evils. He maintains that nothing ought to have been decreed to a single man outside the regular order.

Non iam tibi sic respondebo ut ceteris, Cn. Pompeio plurima, periculosissima, maxima mari terraque bella extra ordinem esse commissa: quarum rerum si quem paeniteat, eum victoriae populi Romani paenitere.

I will no longer reply to you as to the others, that to Cn. Pompeius very many, most perilous, the greatest wars by sea and by land were entrusted outside the ordinary order: if anyone repents of these things, he repents of the victory of the Roman people.

[19] Non ita tecum ago; cum his haec a me haberi oratio potest qui ita disputant, se, si qua res ad unum deferenda sit, ad Cn. Pompeium delaturos potissimum; sed se extra ordinem nihil cuiquam dare; cum Pompeio datum sit, id se pro dignitate hominis ornare et tueri solere. Horum ego sententiam ne laudem impedior Cn. Pompei triumphis, quibus ille, cum esset extra ordinem ad patriam defendendam vocatus, auxit nomen populi Romani imperiumque honestavit: constantiam probo, qua mihi quoque utendum fuit, quo ille auctore extra ordinem bellum cum Mithridate Tigraneque gessit.

[19] I do not deal with you so; I can speak thus with those who argue that, if any matter is to be referred to one man, they will most preferably refer it to Pompey; but that they grant nothing to anyone outside the ordinary order; when something has been given to Pompey, that they are wont to ornament and protect it in proportion to the man’s dignity. I am not hindered from praising the opinion of these men by the triumphs of Pompey, by which he, when he had been called outside the normal order to defend the fatherland, increased the name of the Roman people and made the empire honorable: I approve their constancy, which I too had to employ, since it was at my urging that he waged, outside the order, war with Mithridates and Tigranes.

[20] Sed cum illis possum tamen aliquid disputare: tua vero quae tanta impudentia est ut audeas dicere extra ordinem dari nihil cuiquam oportere? qui cum lege nefaria Ptolomaeum, regem Cypri, fratrem regis Alexandrini, eodem iure regnantem causa incognita publicasses, populumque Romanum scelere obligasses, cum in eius regnum bona fortunas patrocinium huius imperi inmisisses, cuius cum patre avo maioribus societas nobis et amicitia fuisset, huius pecuniae deportandae et, si ius suum defenderet, bello gerendo M. Catonem praefecisti.

[20] But with those men I can nevertheless argue somewhat; but what so great impudence is yours that you dare to say that nothing ought to be given to anyone outside the order? You who, by a nefarious law, had declared as public property Ptolemy, king of Cyprus, the brother of the Alexandrian king, reigning by the same right, with the cause unknown, and had bound the Roman people with guilt, when into his kingdom—upon his goods and fortunes—you had thrust the patronage of this empire, with whose father, grandfather, and ancestors there had been for us alliance and amity, you put M. Cato in charge of transporting this man’s money and, if he should defend his right, of waging war.

[21] Dices: Quem virum! sanctissimum, prudentissimum, fortissimum, amicissimum rei publicae, virtute, consilio, ratione vitae mirabili ad laudem et prope singulari! Sed quid ad te, qui negas esse verum quemquam ulli rei publicae extra ordinem praefici?

[21] You will say: What a man! most holy, most prudent, bravest, most friendly to the republic, with virtue, counsel, and a plan of life marvelous for praise and almost singular! But what is that to you, who assert that it is right that no one be put in charge of any public business in an extraordinary manner?

Atque in hoc solum inconstantiam redarguo tuam: quem tu in ea re non pro illius dignitate produceres, sed pro tuo scelere subduceres, quem tuis Sergiis, Lolliis, Titiis ceterisque caedis et incendiorum ducibus obieceras, quem carnificem civium, quem indemnatorum necis principem, quem crudelitatis auctorem fuisse dixeras, ad hunc honorem et imperium extra ordinem nominatim rogatione tua detulisti. Et tanta fuisti intemperantia ut illius tui sceleris rationem occultare non posses:

And in this alone I convict your inconsistency: the man whom in that matter you would not bring forward in proportion to his dignity, but would withdraw in proportion to your crime; whom you had exposed to your Sergii, Lollii, Titii, and the other leaders of slaughter and conflagrations; whom you had said was an executioner of citizens, a chief in the killing of the uncondemned, an author of cruelty—upon this man you, by your rogation, conferred by name this honor and imperium outside the order. And you were of such intemperance that you could not conceal the rationale of that crime of yours:

[22] litteras in contione recitasti quas tibi a C. Caesare missas diceres 'Caesar Pvlchro,' cum etiam es argumentatus amoris esse hoc signum, cognominibus tantum uteretur neque adscriberet 'pro consvle' aut 'tribvno plebi'; dein gratulari tibi quod M. Catonem tribunatu tuo removisses, et quod ei dicendi in posterum de extraordinariis potestatibus libertatem ademisses. Quas aut numquam tibi ille litteras misit, aut, si misit, in contione recitari noluit. At, sive ille misit sive tu finxisti, certe consilium tuum de Catonis honore illarum litterarum recitatione patefactum est.

[22] you recited in the assembly the letter which you said had been sent to you by Gaius Caesar, 'Caesar to Pulcher,' and you even argued that this was a sign of affection, he used cognomina only and did not add 'proconsul' or 'tribune of the plebs'; then, that he congratulated you because, in your tribunate, you had removed Marcus Cato, and because you had taken away from him the freedom henceforth of speaking about extraordinary powers. Either he never sent you such a letter, or, if he did send it, he did not wish it to be recited in the assembly. But, whether he sent it or you fabricated it, certainly your plan concerning Cato’s honor was laid open by the recitation of that letter.

[23] Sed omitto Catonem, cuius eximia virtus, dignitas, et in eo negotio quod gessit fides et continentia tegere videretur improbitatem et legis et actionis tuae: quid? homini post homines natos turpissimo, sceleratissimo, contaminatissimo quis illam opimam fertilemque Syriam, quis bellum pacatissimis gentibus, quis pecuniam ad emendos agros constitutam, ereptam ex visceribus aerari, quis imperium infinitum dedit? Cui quidem cum Ciliciam dedisses, mutasti pactionem et Ciliciam ad praetorem item extra ordinem transtulisti: Gabinio pretio amplificato Syriam nominatim dedisti.

[23] But I omit Cato, whose exceptional virtue, dignity, and, in that business which he carried through, his good faith and continence (self-restraint) would seem to cloak the wickedness both of your law and of your action: what then? to a man the most disgraceful, most criminal, most contaminated that ever was born, who gave that opulent and fertile Syria, who gave war with the most peaceable peoples, who gave the money appointed for buying lands, snatched from the very vitals of the treasury, who gave an infinite imperium? To whom indeed, when you had given Cilicia, you changed the bargain and transferred Cilicia to the praetor likewise out of turn: with the price for Gabinius increased, you expressly gave Syria by name.

Quid? homini taeterrimo, crudelissimo, fallacissimo, omnium scelerum libidinumque maculis notatissimo, L. Pisoni, nonne nominatim populos liberos, multis senatus consultis, etiam recenti lege generi ipsius liberatos, vinctos et constrictos tradidisti? Nonne, cum ab eo merces tui benefici pretiumque provinciae meo sanguine tibi esset persolutum, tamen aerarium cum eo partitus es?

What then? To that most foul, most cruel, most deceitful man, L. Piso, most noted with the stains of all crimes and lusts, did you not by name hand over free peoples—declared free by many senatorial decrees, and even by a recent law of his own son-in-law—as bound and constricted? Did you not, although from him the wage of your benefaction and the price of the province had been paid to you with my blood, nevertheless share the treasury with him?

[24] Itane vero? tu provincias consularis, quas C. Gracchus, qui unus maxime popularis fuit, non modo non abstulit a senatu, sed etiam ut necesse esset quotannis constitui per senatum lege sanxit, eas lege Sempronia per senatum decretas rescidisti, extra ordinem sine sorte nominatim dedisti non consulibus, sed rei publicae pestibus: nos, quod nominatim rei maximae paene iam desperatae summum virum saepe ad extrema rei publicae discrimina delectum praefecimus, a te reprehendemur? Quid tandem?

[24] Indeed? you rescinded the consular provinces, which Gaius Gracchus, who alone was most popularis (a man of the people), not only did not take away from the senate, but even sanctioned by law that it was necessary for them to be determined every year through the senate—those, decreed through the senate by the Sempronian law, you annulled, and you assigned them out of order, without lot, by name, not to consuls, but to the pests of the commonwealth: are we to be reproved by you because, for a matter of the greatest moment, almost already despaired of, we have often appointed by name a supreme man, chosen, to the extreme crises of the republic? What, after all?

si quae tum in illis rei publicae tenebris caecisque nubibus et procellis, cum senatum a gubernaculis deiecisses, populum e navi exturbasses, ipse archipirata cum grege praedonum impurissimo plenissimis velis navigares--si quae tum promulgasti constituisti promisisti vendidisti perferre potuisses, ecqui locus orbi terrarum vacuus extraordinariis fascibus atque imperio Clodiano fuisset?

if, in those darknesses of the republic and blind clouds and tempests, when you had hurled the senate from the helm, had driven the people out of the ship, you yourself as an arch‑pirate with a most impure gang of robbers were sailing with the fullest sails—if you had been able to carry through whatever you then promulgated, constituted, promised, sold—would any place in the whole world have been left empty of extraordinary fasces and Clodian imperium?

[25] Sed excitatus aliquando Cn. Pompei--dicam ipso audiente quod sensi et sentio, quoquo animo auditurus est-- excitatus, inquam, aliquando Cn. Pompei nimium diu reconditus et penitus abstrusus animi dolor subvenit subito rei publicae, civitatemque fractam malis, imminutam ac debilitatam, abiectam metu ad aliquam spem libertatis et pristinae dignitatis erexit. Hic vir extra ordinem rei frumentariae praeficiendus non fuit? Scilicet tu helluoni spurcatissimo, praegustatori libidinum tuarum, homini egentissimo et facinerosissimo, Sex.

[25] But roused at last by Gnaeus Pompeius—I will say, with himself hearing it, what I have felt and do feel, with whatever spirit he will hear it—roused, I say, at last, the too-long hidden and deeply buried pain of mind of Gnaeus Pompeius suddenly came to the aid of the commonwealth, and raised the citizenry, broken by evils, diminished and debilitated, cast down by fear, to some hope of liberty and of its former dignity. Was this man not to be put in charge, outside the usual order, of the grain-supply? Of course—you, a most filthy glutton, the pre-taster of your lusts, a man most needy and most criminal, Sext.

Clodio, socio tui sanguinis, qui sua lingua etiam sororem tuam a te abalienavit, omne frumentum privatum et publicum, omnis provincias frumentarias, omnis mancipes, omnis horreorum clavis lege tua tradidisti; qua ex lege primum caritas nata est, deinde inopia. Impendebat fames, incendia, caedes, direptio: imminebat tuus furor omnium fortunis et bonis.

to Clodius, a partner of your blood, who by his own tongue even alienated your sister from you, you handed over by your law all grain, private and public, all the grain-bearing provinces, all the contractors, all the keys of the granaries; from which law first dearness was born, then want. Famine, burnings, slaughters, plundering were impending: your frenzy was looming over the fortunes and goods of all.

[26] Queritur etiam importuna pestis ex ore impurissimo Sex. Clodi rem frumentariam esse ereptam, summisque in periculis eius viri auxilium implorasse rem publicam a quo saepe se et servatam et amplificatam esse meminisset! Extra ordinem ferri nihil placet Clodio.

[26] The importunate pest, too, from the most unclean mouth of Sextus Clodius, complains that the grain-supply has been reft, and that, in the utmost dangers, the commonwealth implored the aid of that man by whom it often remembered itself to have been both preserved and amplified! Nothing pleases Clodius to be brought forward outside the regular order.

Quid? de me quod tulisse te dicis, patricida, fratricida, sororicida, nonne extra ordinem tulisti? An de peste civis, quem ad modum omnes iam di atque homines iudicarunt, conservatoris rei publicae, quem ad modum autem tute ipse confiteris, non modo indemnati sed ne accusati quidem, licuit tibi ferre non legem sed nefarium privilegium, lugente senatu, maerentibus bonis omnibus, totius Italiae precibus repudiatis, oppressa captaque re publica: mihi populo Romano implorante, senatu poscente, temporibus rei publicae flagitantibus, non licuit de salute populi Romani sententiam dicere?

What? That measure about me which you say you carried, patricide, fratricide, sororicide—did you not carry it outside the order? Or was it permitted to you, concerning the pest of a citizen, as all the gods and men have now judged, and concerning the preserver of the commonwealth, as you yourself confess, a man not only uncondemned but not even accused, to carry not a law but a nefarious privilege, with the senate in mourning, with all good men grieving, with the prayers of all Italy rejected, with the republic oppressed and captured: while to me, with the Roman people imploring, with the senate demanding, with the circumstances of the commonwealth clamoring, was it not permitted to declare an opinion concerning the safety of the Roman people?

[27] Qua quidem in sententia si Cn. Pompei dignitas aucta est coniuncta cum utilitate communi, certe laudandus essem si eius dignitati suffragatus viderer qui meae saluti opem et auxilium tulisset. Desinant, desinant homines isdem machinis sperare me restitutum posse labefactari quibus antea stantem perculerunt. Quod enim par amicitiae consularis fuit umquam in hac civitate coniunctius quam fuimus inter nos ego et Cn. Pompeius?

[27] In this very proposal, if the dignity of Cn. Pompeius was increased in conjunction with the common utility, surely I should be to be praised if I seemed to have supported the dignity of the man who brought help and assistance to my safety. Let them cease, let them cease to hope that I, restored, can be made to totter by the same engines with which earlier, while standing, they struck me down. For what pair of consular friendship was ever in this state more closely joined than were we between ourselves, I and Cn. Pompeius?

quis apud populum Romanum de illius dignitate inlustrius, quis <in> senatu saepius dixit? qui tantus fuit labor, quae simultas, quae contentio, quam ego non pro illius dignitate susceperim? qui ab illo in me honos, quae praedicatio de mea laude, quae remuneratio benivolentiae praetermissa est?

who before the Roman people spoke more illustriously about that man’s dignity, who more often spoke <in> the senate? what toil so great, what enmity, what contention was there, that I did not undertake for that man’s dignity? what honor from him toward me, what proclaiming of my praise, what repayment of goodwill has been omitted?

[28] Hanc nostram coniunctionem, hanc conspirationem in re publica bene gerenda, hanc iucundissimam vitae atque officiorum omnium societatem certi homines fictis sermonibus et falsis criminibus diremerunt, cum idem illum ut me metueret, me caveret, monerent, idem apud me mihi illum uni esse inimicissimum dicerent, ut neque ego ab illo quae mihi petenda essent satis audaciter petere possem, neque ille, tot suspicionibus certorum hominum et scelere exulceratus, quae meum tempus postularet satis prolixe mihi polliceretur.

[28] This our conjunction, this conspiration for managing the republic well, this most delightful fellowship of life and of all offices, certain men sundered by feigned speeches and false accusations, since these same men would warn him to fear me and to beware of me, and the same, with me, would say that he was to me alone most inimical, with the result that neither could I from him ask with sufficient boldness what ought to be asked by me, nor could he, exulcerated by the wickedness and by so many suspicions of certain men, promise me liberally enough what my time required.

[29] Data merces est erroris mei magna, pontifices, ut me non solum pigeat stultitiae meae sed etiam pudeat, qui, cum me non repentinum aliquod tempus meum, sed veteres multo ante suscepti et provisi labores cum viro fortissimo et clarissimo coniunxissent, sim passus a tali amicitia distrahi , neque intellexerim quibus aut ut apertis inimicis obsisterem aut ut insidiosis amicis non crederem. Proinde desinant aliquando me isdem inflare verbis: 'Quid sibi iste vult? nescit quantum auctoritate valeat, quas res gesserit, qua dignitate sit restitutus?

[29] A great price has been paid for my error, pontiffs, so that I am not only sorry for my stupidity but even ashamed, I who—since it was not some sudden occasion of mine, but old labors undertaken and foreseen long before had joined me with a most brave and most illustrious man—have allowed to be drawn away from such a friendship, nor did I understand by what means either to withstand open enemies or not to trust insidious friends. Therefore let them at last cease to inflate me with the same words: ‘What does this fellow want? does he not know how much he prevails by authority, what things he has accomplished, with what dignity he has been restored?’

Cur ornat eum a quo desertus est?'

'Why does he honor the man by whom he has been deserted?'

[30] Ego vero neque me tum desertum puto sed paene deditum, nec quae sint in illa rei publicae flamma gesta contra me, neque quo modo, neque per quos, patefaciundum mihi esse arbitror. Si utile rei publicae fuit haurire me unum pro omnibus illam indignissimam calamitatem, etiam hoc utile est, quorum id scelere conflatum sit, me occultare et tacere. Illud vero est hominis ingrati tacere, itaque libentissime praedicabo Cn. Pompeium studio et auctoritate aeque unum quemque vestrum, opibus, contentione, precibus, periculis denique praecipue pro salute mea laborasse.

[30] For my part, I think that at that time I was not deserted but almost delivered up; nor do I judge that it ought to be laid open by me what things were done against me in that conflagration of the republic, nor in what manner, nor by whom. If it was useful to the republic that I alone should drain on behalf of all that most unworthy calamity, it is also useful that I conceal and keep silent as to by whose crime it was kindled. But it is the mark of an ungrateful man to be silent; therefore I will most gladly proclaim that Gnaeus Pompeius, in zeal and authority equally as each one of you, and in resources, exertion, prayers, and, finally, dangers, especially labored for my safety.

Hic tuis, P. Lentule, cum tu nihil aliud dies et noctes nisi de salute mea cogitares, consiliis omnibus interfuit; hic tibi gravissimus auctor ad instituendam, fidelissimus socius ad comparandam, fortissimus adiutor ad rem perficiendam fuit; hic municipia coloniasque adiit; hic Italiae totius auxilium cupientis imploravit, hic in senatu princeps sententiae fuit; idemque cum <sententiam> dixisset, tum etiam pro salute mea populum Romanum obsecravit.

This man, P. Lentulus, while you thought of nothing else day and night except my safety, took part in all your counsels; he was to you the most weighty author for instituting it, the most faithful associate for procuring it, the bravest helper for bringing the matter to completion; he visited the municipalities and the colonies; he implored the aid of all Italy, eager to help; he in the senate was foremost in giving his opinion; and the same man, when he had delivered his <sententiam>, then also besought the Roman People for my safety.

[31] Qua re istam orationem qua es usus omittas licet, post illam sententiam quam dixeram de annona pontificum animos esse mutatos; proinde quasi isti aut de Cn. Pompeio aliter atque ego existimo sentiant, aut quid mihi pro exspectatione populi Romani, pro Cn. Pompei meritis erga me, pro ratione mei temporis faciendum fuerit ignorent, aut etiam, si cuius forte pontificis animum, quod certo scio aliter esse, mea sententia offendit, alio modo sit constituturus aut de religione pontifex aut de re publica civis quam eum aut caerimoniarum ius aut civitatis salus coegerit.

[31] Wherefore you may drop that oration which you have employed, to the effect that after that opinion which I had delivered about the grain-supply the spirits of the pontiffs were changed; just as if those men either feel about Cn. Pompeius otherwise than I deem, or are ignorant of what ought to have been done by me in answer to the expectation of the Roman people, to the merits of Cn. Pompeius toward me, to the rationale of my time; or even, if perchance my opinion offended the mind of any pontiff—which I know for certain is otherwise—he would determine in some other way either as a pontiff about religion or as a citizen about the Republic than either the law of the ceremonies or the safety of the state would compel him.

[32] Intellego, pontifices, me plura extra causam dixisse quam aut opinio tulerit aut voluntas mea; sed cum me purgatum vobis esse cuperem, tum etiam vestra in me attente audiendo benignitas provexit orationem meam. Sed hoc compensabo brevitate eius orationis quae pertinet ad ipsam causam cognitionemque vestram; quae cum sit in ius religionis et in ius rei publicae distributa, religionis partem, quae multo est verbosior, praetermittam, de iure rei publicae dicam.

[32] I understand, pontiffs, that I have said more outside the case than either expectation would have allowed or my own will; but since I wished to clear myself before you, your kindness toward me, by listening attentively, has also prolonged my speech. But I will compensate this by the brevity of that speech which pertains to the case itself and to your examination; and since it is divided into the law of religion and the law of the commonwealth, I will pass over the part of religion, which is much more verbose, and I shall speak about the law of the commonwealth.

[33] Quid est enim aut tam adrogans quam de religione, de rebus divinis, caerimoniis, sacris pontificum conlegium docere conari, aut tam stultum quam, si quis quid in vestris libris invenerit, id narrare vobis, aut tam curiosum quam ea scire velle de quibus maiores nostri vos solos et consuli et scire voluerunt? Nego potuisse iure publico, legibus iis quibus haec civitas utitur, quemquam civem ulla eius modi calamitate adfici sine iudicio: hoc iuris in hac civitate etiam tum cum reges essent dico fuisse, hoc nobis esse a maioribus traditum, hoc esse denique proprium liberae civitatis, ut nihil de capite civis aut de bonis sine iudicio senatus aut populi aut eorum qui de quaque re constituti iudices sint detrahi possit.

[33] For what is either so arrogant as to try to teach the college of the pontiffs about religion, about divine matters, ceremonies, sacred rites, or so foolish as, if anyone has found anything in your books, to relate it to you, or so curious as to wish to know those things about which our ancestors wished you alone both to be consulted and to know? I deny that by public law, by those laws which this commonwealth uses, any citizen could be afflicted with any calamity of that sort without a judgment: I say that this right existed in this state even then when there were kings, that this has been handed down to us by our ancestors, that this, finally, is the proper mark of a free commonwealth, that nothing concerning the person (caput) of a citizen or his goods can be taken away without a judgment of the senate or of the people or of those who have been constituted judges for each matter.

[34] Videsne me non radicitus evellere omnis actiones tuas neque illud agere, quod apertum est, te omnino nihil gessisse iure, non fuisse tribunum plebis, hodie esse patricium? Dico apud pontifices, augures adsunt: versor in medio iure publico.

[34] Do you see that I am not uprooting root-and-branch all your actions, nor am I pressing that point, which is open and evident, that you did absolutely nothing according to law, that you were not a tribune of the plebs, that today you are a patrician? I speak before the pontiffs, the augurs are present: I am engaged in the very midst of public law.

Quod est, pontifices, ius adoptionis? Nempe ut is adoptet qui neque procreare iam liberos possit, et cum potuerit sit expertus. Quae deinde causa cuique sit adoptionis, quae ratio generum ac dignitatis, quae sacrorum, quaeri a pontificum conlegio solet.

What is, pontiffs, the law of adoption? Namely, that he adopt who can no longer procreate children, and, when he could, has had experience of it. Then what cause each has for adoption, what rationale concerning lineages and dignity, what of the sacred rites, is wont to be inquired by the college of the pontiffs.

Quid est horum in ista adoptione quaesitum? Adoptat annos viginti natus, etiam minor, senatorem. Liberorumne causa?

What among these has been inquired in that adoption? A man twenty years old, even a minor, adopts a senator. For the sake of children?

At procreare potest; habet uxorem, suscipiet ex ea liberos; exheredabit igitur pater filium.

But he can procreate; he has a wife, he will beget children by her; therefore the father will disinherit his son.

[35] Quid? sacra Clodiae gentis cur intereunt, quod in te est? quae omnis notio pontificum, cum adoptarere, esse debuit: nisi forte ex te ita quaesitum est, num perturbare rem publicam seditionibus velles et ob eam causam adoptari, non ut eius filius esses, sed ut tribunus plebis fieres et funditus everteres civitatem.

[35] What? Why do the sacred rites of the Clodian gens perish, so far as it lies in you? all of which ought to have been under the cognizance of the pontiffs, when you were being adopted: unless perhaps the question was thus put to you, whether you wished to perturb the republic with seditions and for that cause to be adopted, not that you might be his son, but that you might become tribune of the plebs and overthrow the state from the foundations.

Respondisti, credo, te ita velle. Pontificibus bona causa visa est: adprobaverunt. Non aetas eius qui adoptabat est quaesita, ut in Cn. Aufidio, M. Pupio quorum uterque nostra memoria summa senectute alter Oresten, alter Pisonem adoptavit, quas adoptiones sicut alias innumerabilis hereditates nominis pecuniae sacrorum secutae sunt.

You answered, I believe, that you so wished. To the pontiffs the cause seemed good: they approved. The age of him who was adopting was not inquired into, as in the case of Cn. Aufidius and M. Pupius, each of whom, within our memory, in extreme old age adopted—the one Orestes, the other Piso—adoptions which, like countless others, were followed by inheritances of the name, of money, and of the sacred rites.

Tu neque Fonteius es, qui esse debebas, neque patris heres, neque amissis sacris paternis in haec adoptiva venisti. Ita perturbatis sacris, contaminatis gentibus, et quam deseruisti et quam polluisti, iure Quiritium legitimo tutelarum et hereditatium relicto, factus es eius filius contra fas cuius per aetatem pater esse potuisti.

You are neither a Fonteius, which you ought to be, nor your father’s heir, nor, with your paternal sacred rites lost, did you come into these adoptive ones. Thus, with the sacred rites thrown into disorder, the gentes defiled—both the one you deserted and the one you polluted—having left behind the lawful right of the Quirites in matters of tutelages and inheritances, you have been made the son, against divine law, of one whom by age you could have been the father.

[36] Dico apud pontifices: nego istam adoptionem pontificio iure esse factam: primum quod eae vestrae sunt aetates ut is qui te adoptavit vel filii tibi loco per aetatem esse potuerit, vel eo quo fuit: deinde quod causa quaeri solet adoptandi, ut et is adoptet qui quod natura iam adsequi non potest legitimo et pontificio iure quaerat, et ita adoptet ut ne quid aut de dignitate generum aut de sacrorum religione minuatur: illud in primis, ne qua calumnia, ne qua fraus, ne qui dolus adhibeatur: ut haec simulata adoptio filii quam maxime veritatem illam suscipiendorum liberorum imitata esse videatur.

[36] I speak before the pontiffs: I deny that that adoption was done by pontifical law: first, because such are your ages that he who adopted you could, by age, either have been in the place of a son to you, or in that which he was; then because the cause of adopting is wont to be inquired into, namely that the one adopt who seeks by legitimate and pontifical law what he can no longer attain by nature, and that he so adopt that nothing be diminished either from the dignity of lineages or from the religion of the sacred rites: this above all, that no calumny, no fraud, no deceit be employed: so that this simulated adoption of a son may seem to have imitated as far as possible that reality of taking up children.

[37] Quae maior calumnia est quam venire imberbum adulescentulum, bene valentem ac maritum, dicere filium senatorem populi Romani sibi velle adoptare; id autem scire et videre omnis, non ut ille filius instituatur, sed ut e patriciis exeat tribunus plebis fieri possit, idcirco adoptari? neque id obscure; nam adoptatum emancipari statim, ne sit eius filius qui adoptarit. Cur ergo adoptabat?

[37] What greater calumny is there than for a beardless adolescent, in good health and a married man, to come and say that he wants a senator of the Roman people to adopt him as a son; and that everyone knows and sees this, not so that that man might be established as a son, but so that he might go out from the patricians be able to become tribune of the plebs—on that account to be adopted? nor is this obscure; for the adopted person is immediately emancipated, so that he may not be the son of him who adopted. Why, therefore, was he adopting?

Probate genus adoptionis: iam omnium sacra interierint, quorum custodes vos esse debetis, iam patricius nemo relinquetur. Cur enim quisquam vellet tribunum plebis se fieri non licere, angustiorem sibi esse petitionem consulatus, in sacerdotium cum possit venire, quia patricio non sit is locus, non venire? Vt cuique aliquid acciderit qua re commodius sit esse plebeium, simili ratione adoptabitur.

Approve this kind of adoption: already the sacra of all will have perished, of which you ought to be the custodians; already no patrician will be left. For why would anyone wish that it not be permitted for him to become tribune of the plebs, that his petition for the consulship be narrower, that he not come into a priesthood, when he can—because that place is not for a patrician? As soon as anything befalls anyone by which it is more expedient to be a plebeian, by a similar rationale he will be adopted.

[38] Ita populus Romanus brevi tempore neque regem sacrorum neque flamines nec Salios habebit, nec ex parte dimidia reliquos sacerdotes neque auctores centuriatorum et curiatorum comitiorum, auspiciaque populi Romani, si magistratus patricii creati non sint, intereant necesse est, cum interrex nullus sit, quod et ipsum patricium esse et a patriciis prodi necesse est. Dixi apud pontifices istam adoptionem nullo decreto huius conlegi probatam, contra omne pontificum ius factam, pro nihilo esse habendam; qua sublata intellegis totum tribunatum tuum concidisse.

[38] Thus the Roman people in a brief time will have neither the king of sacred rites nor the flamines nor the Salii, nor even half of the remaining priests, nor the ratifiers of the centuriate and curiate assemblies; and the auspices of the Roman people, if patrician magistrates are not created, must needs perish, since there is no interrex, which too must be a patrician and be put forward by patricians. I said before the pontiffs that that adoption had been approved by no decree of this college, done against all the law of the pontiffs, and is to be held as nothing; with this removed you understand that your whole tribunate has collapsed.

[39] Venio ad augures, quorum ego libros, si qui sunt reconditi, non scrutor; non sum in exquirendo iure augurum curiosus; haec quae una cum populo didici, quae saepe in contionibus responsa sunt, novi. Negant fas esse agi cum populo cum de caelo servatum sit. Quo die de te lex curiata lata esse dicatur, audes negare de caelo esse servatum?

[39] I come to the augurs, whose books, if there are any recondite, I do not scrutinize; I am not curious in searching out the augural law; these things which I learned together with the people, which have often been responses in the assemblies, I know. They deny it is fas to transact with the people when an observation from the sky has been taken. On the day on which a curiate law is said to have been carried concerning you, do you dare to deny that an observation from the sky was taken?

Adest praesens vir singulari virtute, constantia, gravitate praeditus, M. Bibulus: hunc consulem illo ipso die contendo servasse de caelo. 'Infirmas igitur tu acta C. Caesaris, viri fortissimi?' Minime; neque enim mea iam quicquam interest, exceptis iis telis quae ex illius actionibus in meum corpus inmissa sunt.

Present here is a man endowed with singular virtue, constancy, and gravity, M. Bibulus: I contend that this consul, on that very day, observed the heavens. 'Do you then invalidate the acts of C. Caesar, a most brave man?' By no means; nor indeed does anything now concern me, except those missiles which from that man’s actions have been launched into my body.

[40] Sed haec de auspiciis, quae ego nunc perbreviter attingo, acta sunt a te. Tu tuo praecipitante iam et debilitato tribunatu auspiciorum patronus subito exstitisti; tu M. Bibulum in contionem, tu augures produxisti; tibi interroganti augures responderunt, cum de caelo servatum sit, cum populo agi non posse; tibi M. Bibulus quaerenti se de caelo servasse respondit, idemque in contione dixit, ab Appio tuo fratre productus, te omnino, quod contra auspicia adoptatus esses, tribunum non fuisse. Tua denique omnis actio posterioribus mensibus fuit, omnia quae C. Caesar egisset, quod contra auspicia essent acta, per senatum rescindi oportere; quod si fieret, dicebas te tuis umeris me custodem urbis in urbem relaturum. Videte hominis amentiam * * * per suum tribunatum Caesaris actis inligatus teneretur.

[40] But these matters about the auspices, which I now touch upon very briefly, were done by you. You, with your tribunate already rushing headlong and enfeebled, suddenly stood forth as a patron of the auspices; you brought M. Bibulus into the public assembly, you produced the augurs; to you, asking, the augurs replied that, since observation had been kept from the sky, it was not possible to transact with the people; to you, asking, M. Bibulus answered that he had kept watch from the sky, and the same man said in the assembly—brought forward by your brother Appius—that you had not been a tribune at all, because you had been adopted contrary to the auspices. Finally, all your activity in the later months was this: that all the things which Gaius Caesar had done, because they had been done against the auspices, ought to be rescinded through the senate; and if this were done, you said that with your own shoulders you would carry me, the guardian of the city, back into the city. See the man’s madness, * * * that through his own tribunate he should be held bound, entangled in Caesar’s acts.

[41] Si et sacrorum iure pontifices et auspiciorum religione augures totum evertunt tribunatum tuum, quid quaeris amplius? an etiam apertius aliquod ius populi atque legum? Hora fortasse sexta diei questus sum in iudicio, cum C. Antonium, conlegam meum, defenderem, quaedam de re publica, quae mihi visa sunt ad illius miseri causam pertinere.

[41] If both the pontiffs by the law of sacred rites and the augurs by the religion of the auspices overturn your whole tribunate, what do you seek further? Or do you also demand some more explicit right of the people and of the laws? Perhaps at the sixth hour of the day I made complaint in court, when I was defending Gaius Antonius, my colleague, about certain matters of the Republic, which seemed to me to pertain to that wretched man’s case.

Haec homines improbi ad quosdam viros fortis longe aliter atque a me dicta erant detulerunt. Hora nona illo ipso die tu es adoptatus. Si quod in ceteris legibus trinum nundinum esse oportet, id in adoptione satis est trium esse horarum, nihil reprehendo; sin eadem observanda sunt, iudicavit senatus M. Drusi legibus, quae contra legem Caeciliam et Didiam latae essent, populum non teneri.

These wicked men reported to certain brave men things far otherwise than they had been spoken by me. At the ninth hour on that very day you were adopted. If that which in other laws ought to be a three market-days period is, in adoption, sufficient to be three hours, I do not reprehend anything; but if the same observances must be kept, the Senate judged that by the laws of M. Drusus, which had been carried contrary to the Lex Caecilia and Didia, the people were not bound.

[42] Iam intellegis omni genere iuris, quod in sacris, quod in auspiciis, quod in legibus sit, te tribunum plebis non fuisse. At ego hoc totum non sine causa relinquo. Video enim quosdam clarissimos viros, principes civitatis, aliquot locis iudicasse te cum plebe iure agere potuisse; qui etiam de me ipso, cum tua rogatione funere elatam rem publicam esse dicerent, tamen id funus, etsi miserum atque acerbum fuisset, iure indictum esse dicebant; quod de me civi ita de re publica merito tulisses, funus te indixisse rei publicae, quod salvis auspiciis tulisses, iure egisse dicebant.

[42] By now you understand, by every kind of law—what holds in sacred matters, what in the auspices, what in the laws—that you were not a tribune of the plebs. But I do not leave all this aside without cause. For I see that certain most illustrious men, princes of the state, have in several places judged that you could have acted with the plebs according to law; who even about me myself, when they said that by your rogation the Republic had been carried out to a funeral, nevertheless said that that funeral, although it would have been wretched and bitter, had been lawfully proclaimed; because, since you had brought against me, a citizen—so, as if deserved on the Republic’s account—they said you had proclaimed a funeral of the Republic; and that, because you had carried it with the auspices intact, you had acted by law.

Qua re licebit, ut opinor, nobis eas actiones non infirmare, quibus illi actionibus constitutum tribunatum tuum comprobaverunt.

Wherefore it will be permitted, as I think, for us not to invalidate those actions, by which actions those men approved your tribunate as constituted.

[43] Fueris sane tribunus plebis tam iure legeque, quam fuit hic ipse vilius, vir omnibus rebus clarissimus atque amplissimus: quo iure, quo more, quo exemplo legem nominatim de capite civis indemnati tulisti? Vetant leges sacratae, vetant xii tabulae leges privatis hominibus inrogari; id est enim privilegium. Nemo umquam tulit; nihil est crudelius, nihil perniciosius, nihil quod minus haec civitas ferre possit.

[43] Granted indeed that you were tribune of the plebs as much by right and by law as was this veryvilius, a man most illustrious and most eminent in all respects: by what right, by what custom, by what precedent did you carry a law by name concerning the head (that is, the life) of an uncondemned citizen? The sacred laws forbid it, the 12 Tables forbid that laws be imposed upon private persons; for that is a privilege. No one has ever proposed such a thing; nothing is more cruel, nothing more pernicious, nothing that this commonwealth can less endure.

Proscriptionis miserrimum nomen illud et omnis acerbitas Sullani temporis quid habet quod maxime sit insigne ad memoriam crudelitatis? opinor, poenam in civis Romanos nominatim sine iudicio constitutam.44] Hanc vos igitur, pontifices, iudicio atque auctoritate vestra tribuno plebis potestatem dabitis, ut proscribere possit quos velit? Quaero enim quid sit aliud <nisi> proscribere Velitis ivbeatis vt M. Tvllivs in civitate ne sit bonaqve eivs vt mea sint: ita enim re, etsi aliis verbis, tulit.

That most wretched name of proscription and the whole bitterness of the Sullan time—what does it have that is most signal for the memory of cruelty? In my opinion, a penalty established upon Roman citizens by name without trial.44] Will you then, pontiffs, by your judgment and authority give to a tribune of the plebs this power, that he may proscribe whom he wishes? For I ask what else it is <nisi> to proscribe: Do you will and order that M. Tvllivs not be in the state, and that his goods be mine? for thus in fact, although with other words, he carried it.

Hoc plebei scitum est? haec lex, haec rogatio est? hoc vos pati potestis, hoc ferre civitas, ut singuli cives singulis versiculis e civitate tollantur?

Is this a plebeian decree? is this a law, is this a rogation? can you suffer this, can the commonwealth bear this, that individual citizens be removed from the state by single little clauses?

Equidem iam perfunctus sum; nullam vim, nullum impetum metuo; explevi animos invidorum, placavi odia improborum, saturavi etiam perfidiam et scelus proditorum; denique de mea causa, quae videbatur perditis civibus ad invidiam esse proposita, iam omnes urbes, omnes ordines, omnes di atque homines iudicaverunt.

For my part, I am now done; I fear no violence, no assault; I have filled to the full the minds of the envious, I have appeased the hatreds of the wicked, I have even satiated the perfidy and the crime of traitors; finally, concerning my case, which seemed to have been set forth by profligate citizens for envy, now all cities, all orders, all gods and men have judged.

[45] Vobismet ipsis, pontifices, et vestris liberis ceterisque civibus pro vestra auctoritate et sapientia consulere debetis. Nam cum tam moderata iudicia populi sint a maioribus constituta, primum ut ne poena capitis cum pecunia coniungatur, deinde ne improdicta die quis accusetur, ut ter ante magistratus accuset intermissa die quam multam inroget aut iudicet, quarta sit accusatio trinum nundinum prodicta die, quo die iudicium sit futurum, tum multa etiam ad placandum atque ad misericordiam reis concessa sunt, deinde exorabilis populus, facilis suffragatio pro salute, denique etiam, si qua res illum diem aut auspiciis aut excusatione sustulit, tota causa iudiciumque sublatum est: haec cum ita sint in iure, ubi crimen est, ubi accusator, ubi testes, quid indignius quam, qui neque adesse sit iussus neque citatus neque accusatus, de eius capite, liberis, fortunis omnibus conductos et sicarios et egentis et perditos suffragium ferre et eam legem putari?

[45] You ought to look after, pontiffs, your own selves, and your children and the other citizens, according to your authority and wisdom. For since such moderate judgments of the people have been established by the ancestors, first, that the penalty of the head not be conjoined with money, then that no one be accused with a day not proclaimed, that one accuse three times before the magistrates with an intervening day before he impose a mulct or adjudge it, the fourth accusation should be with a day proclaimed over three market-days (trinum nundinum), on which day the trial is to be, then many things also have been granted to the defendants for placation and for mercy, next the people are easily moved, the suffrage easy for safety, finally also, if anything has removed that day either by auspices or by excuse, the whole case and the judgment have been lifted: since these things are thus in law, where is the crime, where the accuser, where the witnesses—what is more unworthy than that, of a man who has been neither ordered to be present nor summoned nor accused, concerning his head, children, all fortunes, hirelings and sicarii and the needy and the ruined should cast a vote, and that to be thought a law?

[46] Ac si hoc de me potuit, quem honos, quem dignitas, quem causa, quem res publica tuebatur, cuius denique pecunia non expetebatur, cui nihil oberat praeter conversionem status et inclinationem communium temporum, quid tandem futurum est iis quorum vita remota ab honore populari et ab hac inlustri gratia est, pecuniae autem tantae sunt ut eas nimium multi egentes sumptuosi nobiles concupiscant?

[46] And if this could be done in my case—me whom honor, dignity, the cause, and the commonwealth were protecting, whose money, finally, was not being sought, to whom nothing was harmful except the conversion of the state and the inclination of our common times—what, pray, will befall those whose life is removed from popular honor and from this illustrious favor, but whose moneys are so great that far too many needy, spendthrift nobles covet them?

[47] Date hanc tribuno plebis licentiam, et intuemini paulisper animis iuventutem et eos maxime qui inminere iam cupiditate videntur in tribuniciam potestatem: conlegia medius fidius tribunorum plebis tota reperientur, hoc iure firmato, quae coeant de hominum locupletissimorum bonis, praeda praesertim populari et spe largitionis oblata.

[47] Grant this license to the tribune of the plebs, and consider for a little while in your minds the youth, and especially those who already seem, through desire, to be looming over the tribunician power: by my faith, entire collegia of tribunes of the plebs will be discovered, once this law is made firm, which will come together over the goods of the wealthiest men—booty, above all, popular booty—with the hope of largess held out.

At quid tulit legum scriptor peritus et callidus? Velitis ivbeatis vt M. Tvllio aqva et igni interdicatvr? Crudele, nefarium, ne in sceleratissimo quidem civi sine iudicio ferundum!

But what did the skilled and shrewd writer of laws bring forward? Do you will, do you order that M. Tullius be interdicted from water and fire? Cruel, nefarious, not to be borne even against the most criminal citizen without a trial!

Non tulit vt interdicatvr. Quid ergo? vt interdictvm sit.

He did not bring it forward that interdiction be imposed. What then? That it has been imposed.

O caenum, o portentum, o scelus! hanc tibi legem Clodius scripsit spurciorem lingua sua, ut interdictum sit cui non sit interdictum? Sexte noster, bona venia, quoniam iam dialecticus <es> et haec quoque liguris, quod factum non est, ut sit factum, ferri ad populum aut verbis ullis sanciri aut suffragiis confirmari potest?

O filth, O portent, O crime! Clodius wrote this law for you, filthier than his own tongue, that interdiction be laid upon one upon whom it has not been laid? Our Sextus, by your good leave, since you are now a dialectician and you lap up these things too, can what has not been done, in order to be as if done, be brought before the people, or be sanctioned by any words, or confirmed by suffrages?

[48] Hoc tu scriptore, hoc consiliario, hoc ministro omnium non bipedum solum sed etiam quadrupedum impurissimo, rem publicam perdidisti; neque tu eras tam excors tamque demens ut nescires Clodium esse qui contra leges faceret, alios qui leges scribere solerent; sed neque eorum neque ceterorum, in quibus esset aliquid modestiae, cuiusquam tibi potestas fuit; neque tu legum scriptoribus isdem potuisti uti quibus ceteri, neque operum architectis, neque pontificem adhibere quem velles, postremo ne in praedae quidem societate mancipem aut praedem extra tuorum gladiatorum numerum aut denique suffragi latorem in ista tua proscriptione quemquam nisi furem ac sicarium reperire potuisti.

[48] With this man as your author, this as counselor, this as minister—the filthiest of all not only bipeds but even quadrupeds—you ruined the commonwealth; nor were you so witless and so demented as not to know that Clodius was the one who would act against the laws, while there were others who were accustomed to write laws; but you had no power either over them or over the rest in whom there was any modesty; nor could you employ the same writers of laws as the others, nor the architects of works, nor bring in whatever pontiff you wished; finally, not even in the partnership of plunder could you find a contractor or a surety outside the number of your gladiators, or, in fine, any bearer of the suffrage in that proscription of yours, except a thief and an assassin.

[49] Itaque cum tu florens ac potens per medium forum scortum populare volitares, amici illi tui te uno amico tecti et beati, qui se populo commiserant, ita repellebantur ut etiam Palatinam tuam perderent; qui in iudicium venerant, sive accusatores erant sive rei, te deprecante damnabantur. Denique etiam ille novicius Ligus, venalis adscriptor et subscriptor tuus, cum M. Papiri, sui fratris, esset testamento et iudicio improbatus, mortem eius se velle persequi dixit: nomen Sex. Properti detulit: accusare alienae dominationis scelerisque socius propter calumniae metum non est ausus.

[49] And so, while you, flourishing and powerful, were flitting through the middle of the forum as a public scortum, those friends of yours—sheltered and blessed with you as their one friend—who had committed themselves to the people, were so repelled that they even lost your Palatine residence; those who had come into court, whether they were accusers or defendants, were condemned with you pleading for them. Finally, even that novice Ligus, your venal adscriber and subscriber, when in the will and by a judgment of M. Papirius, his own brother, he had been disapproved, said that he wished to prosecute his death: he brought the name of Sextus Propertius; as an associate in another’s domination and crime, because of fear of calumny he did not dare to accuse.

[50] De hac igitur lege dicimus, quasi iure rogata videatur, cuius quam quisque partem tetigit digito voce praeda suffragio, quocumque venit, repudiatus convictusque discessit?

[50] Therefore we speak about this law, as though it might seem to have been lawfully proposed, a law any part of which, whichever each person touched with finger, with voice, with plunder, with vote—wherever he came—he went away repudiated and convicted?

Quid si iis verbis scripta est ista proscriptio ut se ipsa dissolvat? est enim: Qvod M. Tvllivs falsvm senatvs consvltvm rettvlerit. Si igitur rettulit falsum senatus consultum, tum est rogatio: si non rettulit, nulla est.

What if that proscription is written in such words as to dissolve itself? For it is: “Because M. Tullius has reported a false senatorial decree.” If therefore he did report a false senatorial decree (senatus consultum), then it is a bill; if he did not report, there is none.

Satisne tibi videtur a senatu iudicatum me non modo non ementitum esse auctoritatem eius ordinis, sed etiam unum post urbem conditam diligentissime senatui paruisse? Quot modis doceo legem istam, quam vocas, non esse legem? Quid?

Does it seem enough to you that it has been adjudged by the senate that I not only did not falsify the authority of that order, but even that I, the only one since the city was founded, have most diligently obeyed the senate? In how many ways do I show that that “law” of yours, as you call it, is not a law? What?

si etiam pluribus de rebus uno sortitore tulisti, tamenne arbitraris id quod M. Drusus in legibus suis plerisque, perbonus ille vir, M. Scauro et L. Crasso consiliariis non obtinuerit, id te posse, omnium facinorum et stuprorum hominem, Decumis et Clodiis auctoribus obtinere?

if you have even carried a measure about several matters with a single lot-drawer, do you nevertheless think that that which M. Drusus, in most of his laws— that most excellent man— with M. Scaurus and L. Crassus as counselors, did not obtain, that you, a man of all crimes and debaucheries, with the Decumii and the Clodii as sponsors, can obtain?

[51] Tulisti de me ne reciperer, non ut exirem, quem tu ipse non poteras dicere non licere esse Romae. Quid enim diceres? Damnatum?

[51] You carried against me that I should not be received back, not that I should go out, I whom you yourself could not say it was not licit to be at Rome. For what, indeed, would you say? Condemned?

certe non. Expulsum? qui licuit?

Certainly not. Expelled? How was it permitted?

Sed tamen ne id quidem est scriptum, ut exirem; poena est, qui receperit, quam omnes neglexerunt; eiectio nusquam est. Verum sit: quid? operum publicorum exactio, quid?

But yet not even this is written, that I should depart; there is a penalty for whoever shall have received me, which all have neglected; expulsion is nowhere. Granted, be it so: what then? the exaction of public works, what?

nominis inscriptio tibi num aliud videtur esse ac meorum bonorum direptio? praeterquam quod ne id quidem per legem Liciniam, ut ipse tibi curationem ferres, facere potuisti. Quid?

Does the inscription of the name seem to you to be anything other than the despoiling of my goods? Except that not even that could you do under the Licinian Law, so that you yourself might confer the curatorship upon yourself. What?

hoc ipsum quod nunc apud pontifices agis, te meam domum consecrasse, te monumentum fecisse in meis aedibus, te signum dedicasse, eaque te ex una rogatiuncula fecisse, unum et idem videtur esse atque id quod de me ipso nominatim tulisti?

this very thing which you are now prosecuting before the pontiffs—that you consecrated my house, that you made a monument in my dwelling, that you dedicated a statue, and that you did these by a single little rogation—seems to be one and the same as that which you carried, naming me myself expressly?

[52] Tam hercule est unum quam quod idem tu lege una tulisti, ut Cyprius rex, cuius maiores huic populo socii atque amici semper fuerunt, cum bonis omnibus sub praeconem subiceretur et exsules Byzantium reducerentur. 'Eidem,' inquit, 'utraque de re negotium dedi.' Quid? si eidem negotium dedisset ut in Asia cistophorum flagitaret, inde iret in Hispaniam, cum Romam decessisset, consulatum ei petere liceret, cum factus esset, provinciam Syriam obtineret,--quoniam de uno homine scriberet, una res esset?

[52] By Hercules, it is just as much one as that which you likewise carried by a single law, namely, that the king of Cyprus—whose forefathers have always been allies and friends to this people—be put with all his goods under the auctioneer, and that the exiles be led back to Byzantium. ‘To the same man,’ he says, ‘I gave the commission in both matters.’ What? If he had given to the same man the charge to exact cistophori in Asia, then to go into Spain, when he had returned to Rome it should be permitted him to seek the consulship, when he had been elected he should hold the province of Syria—since he would be legislating about one man, would it be one matter?

[53] Quod si iam populus Romanus de ista re consultus esset et non omnia per servos latronesque gessisses, nonne fieri poterat ut populo de Cyprio rege placeret, de exsulibus Byzantiis displiceret? Quae est, quaeso, alia vis, quae sententia Caeciliae legis et Didiae nisi haec, ne populo necesse sit in coniunctis rebus compluribus aut id quod nolit accipere aut id quod velit repudiare?

[53] But if by now the Roman people had been consulted about that matter, and you had not transacted everything through slaves and bandits, could it not have come to pass that the people would approve concerning the king of Cyprus and disapprove concerning the exiles of Byzantium? What other force, I ask, what other intent of the Caecilian Law and the Didian Law is there except this: that it not be necessary for the people, in several matters conjoined, either to accept what it does not wish or to repudiate what it does wish?

Quid? si per vim tulisti, tamenne lex est? aut quicquam iure gestum videri potest quod per vim gestum esse constet?

What then? If you have carried it through by violence, is it nonetheless a law? Or can anything seem to have been done by right which it is established was done by violence?

An, si in ipsa latione tua capta iam urbe lapides iacti, si manus conlata non est, idcirco tu ad illam labem atque eluviem civitatis sine summa vi pervenire potuisti?

Or, if in the very carrying of your measure, with the city already captured, stones were thrown—if hands did not come to grips—for that reason were you able to arrive at that blot and deluge of the commonwealth without the utmost violence?

[54] Cum in tribunali Aurelio conscribebas palam non modo liberos sed etiam servos, ex omnibus vicis concitatos, vim tum videlicet non parabas; cum edictis tuis tabernas claudi iubebas, non vim imperitae multitudinis, sed hominum honestorum modestiam prudentiamque quaerebas; cum arma in aedem Castoris comportabas, nihil aliud nisi uti ne quid per vim agi posset machinabare; cum vero gradus Castoris convellisti ac removisti, tum, ut modeste tibi agere liceret, homines audacis ab eius templi aditu atque ascensu reppulisti; cum eos qui conventu virorum bonorum verba de salute mea fecerant adesse iussisti, eorumque advocationem manibus ferro lapidibus discussisti, tum profecto ostendisti vim tibi maxime displicere.

[54] When on the Aurelian tribunal you were enrolling openly not only free men but even slaves, roused from all the wards, evidently you were not then preparing force; when by your edicts you were ordering the shops to be shut, you were seeking not the force of an inexpert multitude, but the modesty and prudence of honorable men; when you were carrying arms into the Temple of Castor, you were contriving nothing else except that nothing could be done by force; when in truth you tore up and removed the steps of Castor’s, then, in order that it might be permitted you to act with modesty, you repelled bold men from the approach and ascent of that temple; when those who had made speeches about my safety in an assembly of good men you ordered to be present, and you shattered their advocacy with hands, iron, and stones, then indeed you showed that violence especially displeased you.

[55] Verum haec furiosa vis vaesani tribuni plebis facile superari frangique potuit virorum bonorum vel virtute vel multitudine. Quid? cum Gabinio Syria dabatur, Macedonia Pisoni, utrique infinitum imperium, ingens pecunia, ut tibi omnia permitterent, te adiuvarent, tibi manum, copias, tibi suos spectatos centuriones, tibi pecuniam, tibi familias compararent, te suis sceleratis contionibus sublevarent, senatus auctoritatem inriderent, equitibus Romanis mortem proscriptionemque minitarentur, me terrerent minis, mihi caedem et dimicationem denuntiarent, meam domum refertam viris bonis per amicos suos complerent proscriptionis metu, me frequentia nudarent virorum bonorum, me praesidio spoliarent senatus, pro me non modo pugnare amplissimum ordinem, sed etiam plorare et supplicare mutata veste prohiberent, ne tum quidem vis erat?

[55] But this frenzied force of the crazed tribune of the plebs could easily be overcome and broken by the good men either by their virtue or by their multitude. What? when Syria was being given to Gabinius, Macedonia to Piso, to each an unlimited imperium, a huge sum of money, so that they might permit everything to you, aid you, procure for you a band, forces, for you their tried centurions, for you money, for you households (servants), lift you up by their criminal mass-meetings, mock the authority of the senate, threaten Roman equestrians with death and proscription, terrify me with threats, announce to me slaughter and combat, fill my house—packed with good men—through their friends with fear of proscription, strip me of the thronging attendance of good men, despoil me of the protection of the senate, prevent the most distinguished order not only from fighting for me, but even from weeping and supplicating with garment changed—was that not violence even then?

[56] Quid igitur ego cessi, aut qui timor fuit? non dicam in me: fac me timidum esse natura: quid? illa tot virorum fortissimorum milia, quid?

[56] What then did I yield, or what fear was there? I will not speak of myself: grant that I am timid by nature: what then? those so many thousands of the bravest men, what?

nostri equites Romani, quid? senatus, quid? denique omnes boni, si nulla erat vis, cur me flentes potius prosecuti sunt quam aut increpantes retinuerunt aut irati reliquerunt?

our Roman equites, what? the senate, what? finally all the good men—if there was no force, why did they rather escort me weeping than either, rebuking, hold me back, or, angry, leave me?

An hoc timebam, si mecum ageretur more institutoque maiorum, ut possem praesens sustinere?

Was I afraid of this—that, if it were conducted with me according to the custom and established usage of the ancestors, I, present, would not be able to sustain it?

[57] Vtrum, si dies dicta esset, iudicium mihi fuit pertimescendum an sine iudicio privilegium? Iudiciumne? Causa tam turpis scilicet, homo qui eam, si iam esset ignota, dicendo non possem explicare.

[57] Which was it: if a day had been appointed, was a judgment to be dreaded by me, or, without judgment, a privilegium? A judgment? As though the case were so disgraceful— I, the man who, if it were still unknown, could not by speaking make it plain.

An quia causam probare non poteram? cuius tanta bonitas est ut ea ipsa non modo se, sed etiam me absentem per se probarit. An senatus, an ordines <omnes>, an ii qui cuncta ex Italia ad me revocandum convolaverunt, segniores me praesente ad me retinendum et conservandum fuissent, in ea causa quam ipse iam parricida talem dicat fuisse ut me ab omnibus ad meam pristinam dignitatem exspectatum atque revocatum queratur?

Or because I could not prove the cause? whose goodness is so great that that very cause has proved not only itself, but even me, absent, by itself. Or would the senate, or the orders <all>, or those who from all Italy converged to recall me, have been more slack, with me present, to retain and preserve me, in that cause which the parricide himself now says was such that he complains that I was by all awaited and recalled to my former dignity?

[58] An vero in iudicio periculi nihil fuit: privilegium pertimui, ne, mihi praesenti si multa inrogaretur, nemo intercederet? Tam inops autem ego eram ab amicis aut tam nuda res publica a magistratibus? Quid?

[58] Or indeed was there no danger in the trial: did I fear a privilege, lest, if a fine were inflicted upon me while I was present, no one would intercede? Was I so destitute of friends, or was the Republic so naked of magistrates? What?

si vocatae tribus essent, proscriptionem non dicam in me, ita de sua salute merito, sed omnino in ullo civi comprobavissent? An, si ego praesens fuissem, veteres illae copiae coniuratorum tuique perditi milites atque egentes et nova manus sceleratissimorum consulum corpori meo pepercissent? qui cum eorum omnium crudelitati scelerique cessissem, ne absens quidem luctu meo mentis eorum satiare potui.

if the tribes had been called, would they have ratified—not to say a proscription against me, they being so rightly concerned for their own safety—but a proscription at all against any citizen? Or, if I had been present, would those old forces of the conspirators and your ruined and destitute soldiers, and the new band of the most criminal consuls, have spared my body? although, when I had yielded to the cruelty and wickedness of them all, not even in my absence could I satiate their minds with my grief.

[59] Quid enim vos uxor mea misera violarat, quam vexavistis, raptavistis, omni crudelitate lacerastis? quid mea filia, cuius fletus adsiduus sordesque lugubres vobis erant iucundae, ceterorum omnium mentis oculosque flectebant? quid parvus filius, quem, quam diu afui, nemo nisi lacrimantem confectumque vidit: quid fecerat quod eum totiens per insidias interficere voluistis?

[59] For how had my wretched wife wronged you, whom you vexed, abducted, and lacerated with every cruelty? What of my daughter, whose assiduous weeping and lugubrious squalor were pleasant to you, and were bending the minds and eyes of all the others? What of my little son, whom, as long as I was away, no one saw except weeping and worn out: what had he done that you wished so often to kill him by ambush?

quid frater meus? qui cum aliquanto post meum discessum ex provincia venisset neque sibi vivendum nisi me restituto putaret, cum eius maeror, squalor incredibilis et inauditus omnibus mortalibus miserabilis videbatur, quotiens est ex vestro ferro ac manibus elapsus!

what of my brother? who, when he had come from the province some time after my departure and thought he could not live unless I were restored, since his grief, his incredible and unheard-of squalor seemed pitiable to all mortals, how many times did he slip from your steel and hands!

[60] Sed quid ego vestram crudelitatem exprobro quam in ipsum me ac meos adhibuistis, qui parietibus, qui tectis, qui columnis ac postibus meis hostificum quoddam et nefarium omni imbutum odio bellum intulistis? Non enim te arbitror, cum post meum discessum omnium locupletium fortunas, omnium provinciarum fructus, tetrarcharum ac regum bona spe atque avaritia devorasses, argenti et supellectilis meae cupiditate esse caecatum: non existimo Campanum illum consulem cum saltatore conlega, cum alteri totam Achaiam, Thessaliam, Boeotiam, Graeciam, Macedoniam omnemque barbariam, bona civium Romanorum condonasses, alteri Syriam, Babylonem, Persas, integerrimas pacatissimasque gentis, ad diripiendum tradidisses, illos tam cupidos liminum meorum et columnarum et valvarum fuisse.

[60] But why do I reproach you for the cruelty which you applied against me myself and mine, you who against my walls, against my roofs, against my columns and doorposts brought a certain hostile and nefarious war, imbued with every hatred? For I do not suppose that you—after my departure, when you had devoured in expectation and avarice the fortunes of all the wealthy, the fruits of all the provinces, the goods of tetrarchs and kings—were blinded by cupidity for my silver and furnishings; I do not imagine that that Campanian consul with a dancer for a colleague—when to the one you had bestowed all Achaia, Thessaly, Boeotia, Greece, Macedonia, and all the barbarian land, the goods of Roman citizens; to the other you had handed over Syria, Babylon, the Persians, peoples most upright and most pacific, to be plundered—was so desirous of my thresholds and columns and door-leaves.

[61] Neque porro illa manus copiaeque Catilinae caementis ac testis tectorum meorum se famem suam expleturas putaverunt; sed ut hostium urbes, nec omnium hostium, verum eorum quibuscum acerbum bellum internecivumque suscepimus, non praeda adducti sed odio solemus exscindere, quod, in quos propter eorum crudelitatem inflammatae mentes nostrae fuerunt, cum horum etiam tectis et sedibus residere aliquod bellum semper videtur * * *

[61] Nor moreover did that band and the forces of Catiline think that they would fill their hunger with the rubble and tiles of my roofs; but just as we are accustomed to extirpate the cities of enemies—not of all enemies, but of those with whom we have undertaken a bitter and internecine war—not drawn by booty but by hatred, because against those, on account of whose cruelty our minds have been inflamed, it always seems that some war resides even in their roofs and abodes * * *

[62] Nihil erat latum de me; non adesse eram iussus, non citatus afueram; eram etiam tuo iudicio civis incolumis, cum domus in Palatio, villa in Tusculano, altera ad alterum consulem transferebatur--scilicet eos consules vocabant--columnae marmoreae ex aedibus meis inspectante populo Romano ad socrum consulis portabantur, in fundum autem vicini consulis non instrumentum aut ornamenta villae, sed etiam arbores transferebantur, cum ipsa villa non praedae cupiditate --quid enim erat praedae?--sed odio et crudelitate funditus everteretur. Domus ardebat in Palatio non fortuito, sed oblato incendio; consules epulabantur et in coniuratorum gratulatione versabantur, cum alter se Catilinae delicias, alter Cethegi consobrinum fuisse diceret.

[62] Nothing had been brought forward concerning me; I had not been ordered to be present, nor had I been absent when summoned; I was even, by your judgment, a citizen unimpaired, while my house on the Palatine, my villa at Tusculum—the one was being transferred to the one consul, the other to the other—of course they called those men consuls—marble columns from my house, with the Roman People looking on, were being carried to the consul’s mother-in-law, and into the estate of the neighboring consul there were being transferred not the equipment or the ornaments of the villa, but even the trees, while the villa itself was being utterly overthrown not by the lust of prey—what, indeed, was there for booty?—but by hatred and cruelty. The house was burning on the Palatine not by chance, but by a fire laid on; the consuls were feasting and were occupied with the congratulation of the conspirators, while the one said that he had been Catiline’s pet, the other the cousin of Cethegus.

[63] Hanc ego vim, pontifices, hoc scelus, hunc furorem meo corpore opposito ab omnium bonorum cervicibus depuli, omnemque impetum discordiarum, omnem diu conlectam vim improborum, quae inveterata compresso odio atque tacito iam erumpebat nancta tam audacis duces, excepi meo corpore. In me uno consulares faces iactae manibus tribuniciis, in me omnia, quae ego quondam rettuderam, coniurationis nefaria tela adhaeserunt. Quod si, ut multis fortissimis viris placuit, vi et armis contra vim decertare voluissem, aut vicissem cum magna internecione improborum, sed tamen civium, aut interfectis bonis omnibus, quod illis optatissimum erat, una cum re publica concidissem.

[63] This violence, pontiffs, this crime, this frenzy I drove off from the necks of all good men by opposing my own body, and I received with my body the whole onset of discords, the whole long-collected force of the wicked, which, inveterate, with hatred compressed and silent, was now erupting, having found such audacious leaders. Against me alone consular torches were hurled by tribunician hands; upon me clung all the nefarious weapons of the conspiracy which I once had blunted. And if, as it pleased many most brave men, I had wished to contend against violence by force and arms, either I would have conquered with a great internecine slaughter of the wicked—yet nevertheless of citizens—or, with all the good men slain, which was most desirable to those men, I would have collapsed together with the commonwealth.

[64] Videbam vivo senatu populoque Romano celerem mihi summa cum dignitate reditum, nec intellegebam fieri diutius posse ut mihi non liceret esse in ea re publica quam ipse servassem. Quod si non liceret, audieram et legeram clarissimos nostrae civitatis viros se in medios hostis ad perspicuam mortem pro salute exercitus iniecisse: ego pro salute universae rei publicae dubitarem hoc meliore condicione esse quam Decii, quod illi ne auditores quidem suae gloriae, ego etiam spectator meae laudis esse potuissem? Itaque infractus furor tuus inanis faciebat impetus; omnem enim vim omnium sceleratorum acerbitas mei casus exceperat; non erat in tam immani iniuria tantisque ruinis novae crudelitati locus.

[64] I saw, with the senate and the Roman people alive, a swift return for me with the highest dignity, nor did I understand that it could continue any longer that I should not be permitted to be in that republic which I myself had preserved. But if it were not permitted, I had heard and read that the most renowned men of our city had thrown themselves into the midst of enemies to an evident death for the safety of the army: should I, for the safety of the entire republic, hesitate to be in a condition better than that of the Decii, because they were not even hearers of their own glory, whereas I could even be a spectator of my own praise? And so your frenzy, unbroken, was delivering empty onsets; for the bitterness of my misfortune had absorbed all the force of all the criminals; amid so monstrous an injury and such great ruins there was no place for a new cruelty.

[65] Cato fuerat proximus. Quid ageres? non erat ut, qui modus moribus fuerat, idem esset iniuriae.

[65] Cato had been closest. What would you do? It was not possible that the measure which had been formorals should be the same for injury.

Quid posses? extrudere ad Cypriam pecuniam? Praeda perierit.

What could you do? Extrude the money to Cyprus? The plunder would have perished.

Alia non deerit; hinc modo amandandus est. Sic M. Cato invisus quasi per beneficium Cyprum relegatur. Eiciuntur duo, quos videre improbi non poterant, alter per honorem turpissimum, alter per honestissimam calamitatem.

Another will not be lacking; only from here he must be sent away. Thus M. Cato, hated, is relegated to Cyprus as if by a beneficium. Two are cast out, whom the wicked could not bear to see: the one through a most disgraceful honor, the other through a most honorable calamity.

[66] Atque ut sciatis non hominibus istum sed virtutibus hostem semper fuisse, me expulso, Catone amandato, in eum ipsum se convertit quo auctore, quo adiutore in contionibus ea quae gerebat omnia quaeque gesserat se et fecisse et facere dicebat: Cn. Pompeium, quem omnium iudicio longe principem esse civitatis videbat, diutius furori suo veniam daturum non arbitrabatur. Qui ex eius custodia per insidias regis amici filium hostem captivum surripuisset, et ea iniuria virum fortissimum lacessisset, speravit isdem se copiis cum illo posse confligere quibuscum ego noluissem bonorum periculo dimicare, et primo quidem adiutoribus consulibus; postea fregit foedus Gabinius, Piso tamen in fide mansit.

[66] And so that you may know that that man has always been an enemy not to men but to virtues, when I had been expelled and Cato sent away, he turned himself against that very person by whose authority and assistance in the assemblies he used to say that he both had done and was doing all the things he was carrying on: Gnaeus Pompeius, whom by the judgment of all he saw to be by far the chief of the commonwealth, he did not think would grant indulgence to his frenzy for long. He, who had filched from his custody, by the treachery of a friendly king, the captive son of an enemy, and by that injury had provoked a most valiant man, hoped that with those same forces he could engage with him, with which I had been unwilling to fight at the peril of the good; and at first indeed with the consuls as helpers; afterwards Gabinius broke the compact, yet Piso remained in good faith.

[67] Quas iste tum caedis, quas lapidationes, quas fugas fecerit, quam facile ferro cotidianisque insidiis, cum iam a firmissimo robore copiarum suarum relictus esset, Cn. Pompeium foro curiaque privarit domique continuerit, vidistis: ex quo iudicare potestis quanta vis illa fuerit oriens et congregata, cum haec Cn. Pompeium terruerit iam distracta et exstincta.

[67] What slaughters then that fellow wrought, what stonings, what routs he caused, how easily by the sword and by daily ambushes—when he had already been deserted by the stoutest core of his forces—he deprived Cn. Pompey of the forum and the curia and kept him at home, you saw: from which you can judge how great that power was when rising and assembled, since this same, already scattered and extinguished, has terrified Cn. Pompey.

[68] Haec vidit in sententia dicenda Kalendis Ianuariis vir prudentissimus et cum rei publicae, cum mihi, tum etiam veritati amicissimus, L. Cotta, qui legem de meo reditu ferendam non censuit; qui me consuluisse rei publicae, cessisse tempestati, amiciorem vobis ceterisque civibus quam mihi exstitisse, vi, armis, dissensione hominum et caede instituta novoque dominatu pulsum esse dixit; nihil de meo capite potuisse ferri, nihil esse iure scriptum aut posse valere, omnia contra leges moremque maiorum temere, turbulente, per vim, per furorem esse gesta. Quod si illa lex esset, nec referre ad senatum consulibus nec sententiam dicere sibi licere; quorum utrumque cum fieret, non oportere ut de me lex ferretur decerni, ne illa quae nulla esset esse lex iudicaretur. Sententia verior, gravior, melior, utilior rei publicae nulla esse potuit; hominis enim scelere et furore notato similis a re publica labes in posterum demovebatur.

[68] A most prudent man, and most friendly to the commonwealth, to me, and even to truth, L. Cotta, saw these things when an opinion was to be given on the Kalends of January, and he judged that a law concerning my return ought not to be proposed; he said that I had consulted for the commonwealth, had yielded to the tempest, had shown myself more friendly to you and to the other citizens than to myself, that I had been driven out by force, by arms, by the dissension of men and a slaughter set on foot, and by a new domination; that nothing could have been carried concerning my person, that nothing had been written by right or could have validity, that all things had been done contrary to the laws and the custom of the ancestors, rashly, turbulently, by violence, by frenzy. But if that law existed, neither would it be permitted to the consuls to bring a matter before the senate nor to himself to declare an opinion; since both were being done, it ought not to be decreed that a law be carried about me, lest that which was no law be judged to be a law. No opinion could have been truer, more grave, better, more useful to the commonwealth; for, with the crime and frenzy of the man marked, a like stain was being removed from the commonwealth for the future.

[69] Neque hoc Cn. Pompeius, qui ornatissimam de me sententiam dixit, vosque, pontifices, qui me vestris sententiis auctoritatibusque defendistis, non vidistis, illam esse nullam, atque esse potius flammam temporis, interdictum sceleris, vocem furoris; sed prospexistis ne quae popularis in nos aliquando invidia redundaret, si sine populi iudicio restituti videremur. Eodemque consilio M. Bibuli, fortissimi viri, senatus sententiam secutus est, ut vos de mea domo statueretis, non quo dubitaret quin ab isto nihil legibus, nihil religionibus, nihil iure esset actum, sed ne quis oreretur aliquando in tanta ubertate improborum qui in meis aedibus aliquam religionem residere diceret. Nam legem quidem istam nullam esse, quotienscumque de me senatus sententiam dixit, totiens iudicavit.

[69] Nor did this escape Cn. Pompeius, who delivered the most adorned opinion about me, nor you, pontiffs, who defended me by your opinions and authorities, namely that was null, and was rather a flame of the moment, an interdict of crime, a voice of furor; but you looked ahead lest some popular ill-will at some time should flow back upon us, if we should seem to have been restored without the judgment of the people. And with the same counsel M. Bibulus, a most brave man, followed the senate’s opinion, that you should determine concerning my house, not because he doubted that by that fellow nothing had been done in accord with the laws, with religious obligations, or with right, but lest there should ever arise in so great an abundance of the unscrupulous someone who would say that some religious scruple remained in my dwelling. For that that statute was null, as often as the senate delivered an opinion concerning me, so often did it judge.

Quoniam quidem scripto illo istius sententiam dicere vetabatur,

Since indeed by that writing he was forbidden to speak that man’s opinion,

[70] atque hanc rem par illud simile, Piso et Gabinius, vidit, homines legum iudiciorumque metuentes, cum frequentissimus senatus eos ut de me referrent cotidie flagitaret, non se rem improbare dicebant, sed lege istius impediri. Erat hoc verum; nam impediebantur, verum ea lege quam idem iste de Macedonia Syriaque tulerat. Hanc tu, P. Lentule, neque privatus neque consul legem esse umquam putasti.

[70] and this matter that matched pair, Piso and Gabinius, saw—men fearing laws and judgments—when a very full senate daily demanded of them that they bring the matter concerning me before the house, they said they did not disapprove the measure, but were impeded by that man’s law. This was true; for they were impeded—true—by that law which this same fellow had carried about Macedonia and Syria. This, you, P. Lentulus, neither as a private citizen nor as consul ever deemed to be a law.

Nam tribunis plebis referentibus sententiam de me designatus consul saepe dixisti; ex Kalendis Ianuariis, quoad perfecta res est, de me rettulisti, legem promulgasti, tulisti; quorum tibi, si esset illa lex, nihil liceret. At etiam Q. Metellus, conlega tuus, clarissimus vir, quam legem esse homines alienissimi a P. Clodio iudicarent, Piso et Gabinius, eam nullam esse frater P. Clodi, cum de me ad senatum tecum una rettulit, iudicavit.

For when the tribunes of the plebs were bringing forward an opinion about me, you, as consul-designate, often spoke; from the Kalends of January, until the matter was completed, you brought a report about me, you promulgated a law, you carried it; of which things, if that law existed, nothing would have been permitted to you. But even Q. Metellus, your colleague, a most illustrious man—what law men most estranged from P. Clodius, Piso and Gabinius, judged to be a law—that same law the brother of P. Clodius judged to be no law, when, about me, together with you, he brought a motion before the senate.

[71] Sed vero isti qui Clodi leges timuerunt, quem ad modum ceteras observarunt? Senatus quidem, cuius est gravissimum iudicium de iure legum, quotienscumque de me consultus est, totiens eam nullam esse iudicavit. Quod idem tu, Lentule, vidisti in ea lege quam de me tulisti.

[71] But indeed those men who feared Clodius’s laws—how did they observe the others? The Senate, in truth, whose judgment concerning the legality of laws is most weighty, as often as it was consulted about me, so often judged that law to be null. The same you, Lentulus, saw in that law which you carried concerning me.

Nam non est ita latum ut mihi Romam venire liceret, sed ut venirem; non enim voluisti id quod licebat ferre ut liceret, sed me ita esse in re publica magis ut arcessitus imperio populi Romani viderer quam ad administrandam civitatem restitutus.

For it was not so carried that it might be permitted for me to come to Rome, but that I should come; for you did not wish to carry that which was licit, that it be permitted, but that I be thus in the commonwealth rather so that I seemed summoned by the imperium of the Roman people than restored to administer the state.

[72] Hunc tu etiam, portentosa pestis, exsulem appellare ausus es, cum tantis sceleribus esses et flagitiis notatus ut omnem locum quo adisses exsili simillimum redderes? Quid est enim exsul? ipsum per se nomen calamitatis, non turpitudinis.

[72] This man, you too, portentous pestilence, dared to call an exile, when you were marked with such great crimes and flagitious outrages that you made every place you came to most like to exile? For what is an exile? The very name, in and of itself, is of calamity, not of turpitude.

Quando igitur est turpe? re vera, cum est poena peccati, opinione autem hominum etiam, si est poena damnati. Vtrum igitur peccato meo nomen subeo an re iudicata?

When, then, is it shameful? In reality, when it is the punishment of sin; in the opinion of men, also, if it is the punishment of one condemned. Do I therefore incur the name by my own sin, or by a res judicata?

Peccato? Iam neque tu id dicere audes, quem isti satellites tui 'felicem Catilinam' nominant, neque quisquam eorum qui solebant. Non modo iam nemo est tam imperitus qui ea quae gessi in consulatu peccata esse dicat, sed nemo est tam inimicus patriae qui non meis consiliis patriam conservatam esse fateatur.

By a sin? Now you yourself no longer dare to say that— you, whom those satellites of yours call “happy Catiline” — nor does anyone of those who used to. Not only now is there no one so unskilled as to say that the things I accomplished in my consulate were sins, but there is no one so inimical to the fatherland as not to confess that by my counsels the fatherland has been preserved.

[73] Quod enim est in terris commune tantum tantulumve consilium, quod non de meis rebus gestis ea quae mihi essent optatissima et pulcherrima iudicarit? Summum est populi Romani populorumque et gentium omnium ac regum consilium senatus: decrevit ut omnes qui rem publicam salvam esse vellent ad me unum defendendum venirent, ostenditque nec stare potuisse rem publicam si ego non fuissem, nec futuram esse ullam si non redissem.

[73] For what common council on earth, however great or however tiny, is there that has not judged, concerning my deeds, those things which would be most desired and most beautiful to me? The Senate is the highest council of the Roman people and of all peoples and nations and kings: it decreed that all who wished the commonwealth to be safe should come to the defense of me alone, and it showed that the commonwealth could not have stood if I had not existed, nor would there be any at all if I had not returned.

[74] Proximus est huic dignitati ordo equester: omnes omnium publicorum societates de meo consulatu ac de meis rebus gestis amplissima atque ornatissima decreta fecerunt. Scribae, qui nobiscum in rationibus monumentisque publicis versantur, non obscurum de meis in rem publicam beneficiis suum iudicium decretumque esse voluerunt. Nullum est in hac urbe conlegium, nulli pagani aut montani, quoniam plebei quoque urbanae maiores nostri conventicula et quasi concilia quaedam esse voluerunt, qui non amplissime non modo de salute mea sed etiam de dignitate decreverint.

[74] Next to this dignity is the equestrian order: all the corporations of the publicani made the amplest and most honorific decrees concerning my consulship and my deeds. The scribes, who are engaged with us in the public accounts and public records, wished their own judgment and decree about my benefactions toward the republic to be anything but obscure. There is no collegium in this city, no wards or hill-districts, since our ancestors also wished the urban plebs to have gatherings and, as it were, certain councils, who have not most abundantly decreed not only concerning my safety but also my dignity.

[75] Nam quid ego illa divina atque immortalia municipiorum et coloniarum et totius Italiae decreta commemorem, quibus tamquam gradibus mihi videor in caelum ascendisse, non solum in patriam revertisse? Ille vero dies qui fuit cum te, P. Lentule, legem de me ferente populus Romanus ipse vidit sensitque quantus et quanta dignitate esset! Constat enim nullis umquam comitiis campum Martium tanta celebritate, tanto splendore omnis generis hominum aetatum ordinum floruisse.

[75] For why should I commemorate those divine and immortal decrees of the municipia and the colonies and of all Italy, by which, as by steps, I seem to have ascended into heaven, not only to have returned to my fatherland? That day indeed, when you, P. Lentulus, were bringing a law concerning me, the Roman People itself saw and felt how great it was and of what dignity! For it is agreed that at no elections ever did the Campus Martius flourish with such celebrity, with such splendor of every kind of men, of ages, of orders.

Omitto civitatium, nationum, provinciarum, regum, orbis denique terrarum de meis in omnis mortalis meritis unum iudicium unumque consensum: adventus meus atque introitus in urbem qui fuit? Vtrum me patria sic accepit ut lucem salutemque redditam sibi ac restitutam accipere debuit, an ut crudelem tyrannum, quod vos Catilinae gregales de me dicere solebatis?

I omit the single judgment and single consensus of the cities, nations, provinces, kings, and, in fine, of the orb of lands concerning my merits toward all mortals: what was my advent and entrance into the city? Did my fatherland receive me thus as it ought to receive light and safety returned and restored to itself, or as a cruel tyrant, which you, Catiline’s gang-mates, were accustomed to say about me?

[76] Itaque ille unus dies, quo die me populus Romanus a porta in Capitolium atque inde domum sua celebritate laetitiaque comitatum honestavit, tantae mihi iucunditati fuit ut tua mihi conscelerata illa vis non modo non propulsanda, sed etiam fuisse videatur. Qua re illa calamitas, si ita est appellanda, exussit hoc genus totum maledicti, ne quisquam iam audeat reprehendere consulatum meum tot tantis tam ornatis iudiciis, testimoniis, auctoritatibus comprobatum. Quod si in isto tuo maledicto probrum non modo mihi nullum obiectas, sed etiam laudem inlustras meam, quid te aut fieri aut fingi dementius potest?

[76] Therefore that single day, on which day the Roman people honored me, accompanied from the gate to the Capitol and thence home by their own celebrity and joy, was of such great delight to me that that accursed violence of yours seems to me not only not to have been to be repelled, but even . Wherefore that calamity, if it is so to be called, has burned out this whole kind of malediction, so that no one now dares to find fault with my consulship, verified by so many, so great, so adorned judgments, testimonies, and authorities. But if in that abuse of yours you not only object no disgrace to me, but even make my praise more illustrious, what can be done or be imagined more demented than you?

Vno enim maledicto bis a me patriam servatam esse concedis: semel, cum id feci quod omnes non negant immortalitati, si fieri potest, mandandum, tu supplicio puniendum putasti, iterum, cum tuum multorumque praeter te inflammatum in bonos omnis impetum meo corpore excepi, ne eam civitatem quam servassem inermis armatus in discrimen adducerem.

For by one malediction you concede that the fatherland was saved twice by me: once, when I did that which all do not deny ought, if it can be, to be consigned to immortality, you judged ought to be punished with punishment; a second time, when I caught upon my own body your attack—and that of many besides you—set ablaze against all good men, lest I, armed, should bring into jeopardy that commonwealth which I had saved unarmed.

[77] Esto, non fuit in me poena ulla peccati; at fuit iudici. Cuius? quis me umquam ulla lege interrogavit?

[77] Granted, there was upon me no penalty of any sin; but there was for the judge. Whose? Who ever interrogated me under any law?

quis postulavit? quis diem dixit? Potest igitur damnati poenam sustinere indemnatus?

Who demanded? Who set a day? Can, then, an un-condemned man sustain the penalty of the condemned?

est hoc tribunicium, est populare? Quamquam ubi tu te popularem, nisi cum pro populo fecisti, potes dicere? Sed, cum hoc iuris a maioribus proditum sit, ut nemo civis Romanus aut libertatem aut civitatem possit amittere, nisi ipse auctor factus sit, quod tu ipse potuisti in tua causa discere (credo enim, quamquam in illa adoptatione legitime factum est nihil, tamen te esse interrogatum auctorne esses, ut in te P. Fonteius vitae necisque potestatem haberet, ut in filio), quaero, si aut negasses aut tacuisses, si tamen id xxx curiae iussissent, num id iussum esset ratum?

is this tribunician, is this popular? Although when can you call yourself “popular,” except when you have acted on behalf of the people? But, since this point of law has been handed down by the ancestors, that no Roman citizen can lose either liberty or citizenship unless he himself has become the author, which you yourself could have learned in your own case (for I believe—although in that adoption nothing was done lawfully—nevertheless that you were asked whether you were the auctor, that P. Fonteius should have power of life and death over you, as over a son), I ask: if you had either denied it or kept silent, if nevertheless the 30 curiae had ordered it, would that order have been valid?

certe non. Quid ita? quia ius a maioribus nostris, qui non ficte et fallaciter populares sed vere et sapienter fuerunt, ita comparatum est ut civis Romanus libertatem nemo possit invitus amittere.

certainly not. Why so? because the law by our ancestors, who were not feigned and fallaciously “popular” but truly and wisely so, has been arranged so that a Roman citizen cannot lose his liberty against his will.

[78] Quin etiam si decemviri sacramentum in libertatem iniustum iudicassent, tamen, quotienscumque vellet quis, hoc in genere solo rem iudicatam referri posse voluerunt; civitatem vero nemo umquam ullo populi iussu amittet invitus. Qui cives Romani in colonias Latinas proficiscebantur fieri non poterant Latini, nisi erant auctores facti nomenque dederant: qui erant rerum capitalium condemnati non prius hanc civitatem amittebant quam erant in eam recepti, quo vertendi, hoc est mutandi, soli causa venerant. Id autem ut esset faciundum, non ademptione civitatis, sed tecti et aquae et ignis interdictione faciebant.

[78] Nay more, even if the decemvirs had judged the sacrament for liberty to be unjust, still they decreed that, whenever anyone wished, in this one kind alone the res judicata could be referred back; but as for citizenship, no one shall ever lose it against his will by any order of the people. Roman citizens who set out into Latin colonies could not become Latins unless they themselves had been authors of the act and had given in their names; those who had been condemned for capital matters did not lose this citizenship before they had been received into that one to which they had come for the sake of turning, that is, of changing, soil alone. And in order that this might be effected, they brought it about not by the removal of citizenship, but by an interdiction from roof, and water, and fire.

[79] Populus Romanus L. Sulla dictatore ferente comitiis centuriatis municipiis civitatem ademit: ademit eisdem agros. De agris ratum est; fuit enim populi potestas; de civitate ne tam diu quidem valuit quam diu illa Sullani temporis arma valuerunt. An vero Volaterranis, cum etiam tum essent in armis, L. Sulla victor re publica reciperata comitiis centuriatis civitatem eripere non potuit, hodieque Volaterrani non modo cives, sed etiam optimi cives fruuntur nobiscum simul hac civitate: consulari homini P. Clodius eversa re publica civitatem adimere potuit concilio advocato, conductis operis non solum egentium, sed etiam servorum, Fidulio principe, qui se illo die confirmat Romae non fuisse?

[79] The Roman People, with L. Sulla as dictator bringing the measure, by the centuriate comitia took away citizenship from the municipia: he took away their lands as well. As to the lands, it was ratified; for it was in the People’s power; as to citizenship, it did not hold even so long as the arms of that Sullan time held. Or indeed, when the Volaterrans were even then in arms, L. Sulla, though victor and the commonwealth recovered, could not by the centuriate comitia wrest away citizenship from the Volaterrans, and to this day the Volaterrans enjoy this civitas together with us not only as citizens, but as most excellent citizens: could P. Clodius, for a consular man, with the commonwealth overthrown, take away citizenship, a council having been summoned, with hired day-laborers engaged, not only of the needy but even of slaves, with Fidulius as ringleader—he who affirms that on that day he was not at Rome?

[80] Quod si non fuit, quid te audacius, qui eius nomen incideris? quid desperatius, qui ne ementiendo quidem potueris auctorem adumbrare meliorem? Sin autem is primus scivit, quod facile potuit, propter inopiam tecti in foro pernoctasset, cur non iuret se Gadibus fuisse, cum tu te fuisse Interamnae probaveris?

[80] But if he was not, what more audacious than you, you who have incised his name? what more desperate, you who were not able, even by lying, to adumbrate a better author? But if, however, he was the first to know it, which he easily could, for lack of shelter had spent the night in the Forum, why does he not swear that he was at Gades, since you have proved that you were at Interamna?

Hoc tu igitur, homo popularis, iure munitam civitatem et libertatem nostram putas esse oportere, ut, si tribuno plebis rogante 'Velitis ivbeatisne' Fidulii centum se velle et iubere dixerint, possit unus quisque nostrum amittere civitatem? Tum igitur maiores nostri populares non fuerunt, qui de civitate et libertate ea iura sanxerunt quae nec vis temporum nec potentia magistratuum nec <praetorum decreta> nec denique universi populi Romani potestas, quae ceteris in rebus est maxima, labefactare possit.

Do you then, man of the people, think that our commonwealth and our liberty ought to be fortified by law on this footing, that, if at the asking of a tribune of the plebs, “Do you will and do you order,” a hundred Fidulii shall have said that they will and order, each one of us can lose his citizenship? Then, forsooth, our ancestors were not populares, who sanctioned by statute those rights concerning citizenship and liberty which neither the force of the times nor the power of magistrates nor the decrees of the praetors nor, finally, the power of the whole Roman people, which in other matters is greatest, can cause to totter.

[81] At tu etiam, ereptor civitatis, legem de iniuriis publicis tulisti Anagnino nescio cui Menullae pergratam, qui tibi ob eam legem statuam in meis aedibus posuit, ut locus ipse in tanta tua iniuria legem et inscriptionem statuae refelleret; quae res municipibus Anagninis multo maiori dolori fuit quam quae idem ille gladiator scelera Anagniae fecerat.

[81] But you also, despoiler of citizenship, carried a law concerning public injuries, most pleasing to some Anagnine, I know not which, Menulla, who on account of that law set up for you a statue in my house, so that the very place, amid so great your injury, might refute both the law and the inscription of the statue; which matter was to the municipal citizens of Anagnia a much greater grief than the crimes which that same gladiator had committed at Anagnia.

[82] Quid? si ne scriptum quidem umquam est in ista ipsa rogatione, quam se Fidulius negat scivisse, tu autem, ut acta tui praeclari tribunatus hominis dignitate cohonestes, auctorem amplexeris--sed tamen, si nihil de me tulisti quo minus essem non modo in civium numero, sed etiam in eo loco in quo me honores populi Romani conlocarunt, tamenne eum tua voce violabis quem post nefarium scelus consulum superiorum tot vides iudiciis senatus, populi Romani, Italiae totius honestatum, quem ne tunc quidem cum aberam negare poteras esse tua lege senatorem? Vbi enim tuleras ut mihi aqua et igni interdiceretur?

[82] What? if not even anything was ever written in that very rogation, which Fidulius says he did not know, but you, in order to dignify the acts of your illustrious tribunate with a man’s dignity, have embraced an author—yet nevertheless, if you carried nothing against me to prevent my being not only in the number of citizens, but also in that position in which the honors of the Roman people have placed me, will you still with your voice violate him whom, after the nefarious crime of the former consuls, you see honored by so many judgments of the senate, of the Roman people, of all Italy—whom not even then, when I was away, you were able, by your own law, to deny to be a senator? Where, indeed, had you passed that I should be interdicted from water and fire?

quod C. Gracchus de P. Popilio, Saturninus de Metello tulit, homines seditiosissimi de optimis ac fortissimis civibus: non ut esset interdictum, quod ferri non poterat, tulerunt, sed ut interdiceretur. Vbi cavisti ne meo me loco censor in senatum legeret? quod de omnibus, etiam quibus damnatis interdictum est, scriptum est in legibus.

what C. Gracchus proposed against P. Popilius, what Saturninus proposed against Metellus—men most seditious against the best and bravest citizens: they did not bring it as an accomplished interdict, which could not be carried, but that it should be interdicted. Where did you provide against the censor’s enrolling me in the senate in my own rank?—a provision which is written in the laws concerning all, even those condemned upon whom an interdict has been laid.

[83] Quaere haec ex Clodio, scriptore legum tuarum, iube adesse; latitat omnino, sed, si requiri iusseris, invenient hominem apud sororem tuam occultantem se capite demisso. Sed si patrem tuum, civem medius fidius egregium dissimilemque vestri, nemo umquam sanus exsulem appellavit, qui, cum de eo tribunus plebis promulgasset, adesse propter iniquitatem illius Cinnani temporis noluit, eique imperium est abrogatum --si in illo poena legitima turpitudinem non habuit propter vim temporum, in me, cui dies dicta numquam est, qui reus non fui, qui numquam sum a tribuno plebis citatus, damnati poena esse potuit, ea praesertim quae ne in ipsa quidem rogatione praescripta est?

[83] Ask these things of Clodius, the scribe of your laws; order him to be present. He is utterly in hiding; but, if you order that he be sought for, they will find the man skulking at your sister’s house, with his head cast down. But if your father—by my good faith, an excellent citizen and unlike you—no one ever in his senses called an exile, who, when a tribune of the plebs had promulgated a bill concerning him, did not wish to appear because of the iniquity of that Cinnan time, and his imperium was abrogated—if in his case a lawful penalty carried no disgrace because of the compulsion of the times, how could there be inflicted upon me the penalty of a condemned man, upon me to whom a day was never appointed, who was not a defendant, who was never summoned by a tribune of the plebs, especially a penalty which is not even prescribed in the proposal itself?

[84] Ac vide quid intersit inter illum iniquissimum patris tui casum et hanc fortunam condicionemque nostram. Patrem tuum, civem optimum, clarissimi viri filium, qui si viveret, qua severitate fuit, tu profecto non viveres, L. Philippus censor avunculum suum praeteriit in recitando senatu. Nihil enim poterat dicere qua re rata non essent quae erant acta in ea re publica, in qua se illis ipsis temporibus censorem esse voluisset: me L. Cotta, homo censorius, in senatu iuratus dixit se, si censor tum esset cum ego aberam, meo loco senatorem recitaturum fuisse.

[84] And see what difference there is between that most iniquitous mischance of your father and this our fortune and condition. Your father, a most excellent citizen, the son of a most illustrious man—who, if he were alive, given the severity he had, you assuredly would not be alive—Lucius Philippus, censor, passed over his own maternal uncle in reciting the senate. For he could say nothing whereby the things that had been done in that commonwealth should not be ratified, in which commonwealth he would have wished himself to be censor in those very times: as for me, Lucius Cotta, a man of censorial rank, in the senate swore and said that, if he had been censor at the time when I was away, he would have recited me as senator in my place.

[85] Quis in meum locum iudicem subdidit? quis meorum amicorum testamentum discessu meo fecit qui mihi non idem tribuerit quod [et] si adessem? quis me non modo civis, sed socius recipere contra tuam legem et iuvare dubitavit?

[85] Who substituted a judge in my place? which of my friends, in making a testament during my departure, did not grant to me the same as if I were present? who hesitated to receive me not only as a citizen but as an ally, against your law, and to aid me?

Denique universus senatus, multo ante quam est lata lex de me, gratias agendas censuit civitatibus iis quae M. Tullium--tantumne? immo etiam--civem optime de re publica meritum, recepissent. Et tu unus pestifer civis eum restitutum negas esse civem quem eiectum universus senatus non modo civem, sed etiam egregium civem semper putavit?

Finally, the entire senate, long before the law about me was passed, resolved that thanks should be given to those cities which had received M. Tullius--so much only? nay, even--as a citizen who had deserved most excellently of the commonwealth. And do you alone, a pestiferous citizen, deny him, now restored, to be a citizen, whom, when he was ejected, the entire senate always considered not only a citizen but even a distinguished citizen?

[86] At vero, ut annales populi Romani et monumenta vetustatis loquuntur, Kaeso ille Quinctius et M. Furius Camillus et C. Servilius Ahala, cum essent optime de re publica meriti, tamen populi incitati vim iracundiamque subierunt, damnatique comitiis centuriatis cum in exsilium profugissent, rursus ab eodem populo placato sunt in suam pristinam dignitatem restituti. Quod si his damnatis non modo non imminuit calamitas clarissimi nominis gloriam, sed etiam honestavit (nam etsi optabilius est cursum vitae conficere sine dolore et sine iniuria, tamen ad immortalitatem gloriae plus adfert desideratum esse a suis civibus quam omnino numquam esse violatum), mihi sine ullo iudicio populi profecto, cum amplissimis omnium iudiciis restituto, maledicti locum aut criminis obtinebit?

[86] But in truth, as the annals of the Roman people and the monuments of antiquity declare, that Kaeso Quinctius and M. Furius Camillus and C. Servilius Ahala, though they had deserved most excellently of the commonwealth, nevertheless underwent the force and wrath of an incited populace, and, condemned by the Centuriate Assemblies, when they had fled into exile, were again by that same people, appeased, restored to their former dignity. And if for these men, though condemned, calamity not only did not lessen the glory of a most illustrious name, but even ennobled it (for although it is more to be wished to complete the course of life without pain and without injury, yet for the immortality of glory it brings more to have been longed for by one’s fellow-citizens than never to have been violated at all), then for me—assuredly with no judgment of the people at all, yet restored by the most august judgments of all—will there be room for abuse or for an accusation?

[87] Fortis et constans in optima ratione civis P. Popilius semper fuit; tamen eius in omni vita nihil est ad laudem inlustrius quam calamitas ipsa; quis enim iam meminisset eum bene de re publica meritum, nisi et ab improbis expulsus esset et per bonos restitutus? Q. Metelli praeclarum imperium in re militari fuit, egregia censura, omnis vita plena gravitatis; tamen huius viri laudem ad sempiternam memoriam temporis calamitas propagavit. Quod si [et] illis, qui expulsi sunt inique, sed tamen legibus, reducti inimicis interfectis rogationibus tribuniciis, non auctoritate senatus, non comitiis centuriatis, non decretis Italiae, non desiderio civitatis, iniuria inimicorum probro non fuit, in me, qui profectus sum integer, afui simul cum re publica, redii cum maxima dignitate te vivo, fratre tuo , altero consule reducente, altero [praetore] patiente, tuum scelus meum probrum putas esse oportere?

[87] P. Popilius was always a brave and constant citizen in the best rationale; yet in his whole life nothing is more illustrious for praise than the calamity itself; for who by now would remember that he had deserved well of the commonwealth, unless he had both been driven out by the wicked and restored by the good? Q. Metellus had a very distinguished command in military affairs, an excellent censorship, a whole life full of gravitas; yet the calamity of the time propagated this man’s praise to everlasting memory. But if for those who were expelled unjustly, yet still by laws, and brought back, their enemies slain, by tribunician bills—not by the authority of the senate, not by the comitia centuriata, not by the decrees of Italy, not by the desire of the state—the injury of enemies was no disgrace, in my case—who set out unimpeached, was absent together with the commonwealth, returned with the greatest dignity, with you alive, your brother , one consul bringing me back, the other [a praetor] permitting—do you think that your crime ought to be my disgrace?

[88] Ac si me populus Romanus, incitatus iracundia aut invidia, e civitate eiecisset idemque postea mea in rem publicam beneficia recordatus se conlegisset, temeritatem atque iniuriam suam restitutione mea reprehendisset, tamen profecto nemo tam esset amens qui mihi tale populi iudicium non dignitati potius quam dedecori putaret esse oportere. Nunc vero cum me in iudicium populi nemo omnium vocarit, condemnari non potuerim qui accusatus non sim, denique ne pulsus quidem ita sim ut, si contenderem, superare non possem, contraque a populo Romano semper sim defensus, amplificatus, ornatus, quid est qua re quisquam mihi se ipsa populari ratione anteponat?

[88] And if the Roman people, incited by ire or envy, had cast me out of the state, and the same people afterwards, recalling my benefactions to the commonwealth, had collected themselves, and by my restoration had reproved their own rashness and injury, nevertheless surely no one would be so demented as not to think that such a judgment of the people ought to be to my dignity rather than to my disgrace. Now indeed, since no one at all has called me into the people’s judgment, I could not have been condemned, I who have not been accused; and, finally, I was not even so overborne that, if I had contested it, I could not have prevailed; and on the contrary I have always been defended, amplified, adorned by the Roman people—what is there, on account of which anyone should set himself before me by that very popular rationale?

[89] An tu populum Romanum esse illum putas qui constat ex iis qui mercede conducuntur, qui impelluntur ut vim adferant magistratibus, ut obsideant senatum, optent cotidie caedem, incendia, rapinas? quem tu tamen populum nisi tabernis clausis frequentare non poteras, cui populo duces Lentidios, Lollios, Plaguleios, Sergios praefeceras. O speciem dignitatemque populi Romani, quam reges, quam nationes exterae, quam gentes ultimae pertimescant, multitudinem hominum ex servis, ex conductis, ex facinerosis, ex egentibus congregatam!

[89] Or do you think that that is the Roman people, which consists of those who are hired for pay, who are driven to bring force against the magistrates, to besiege the senate, to demand daily slaughter, fires, rapines? which “people” you nevertheless could not get to assemble unless the shops were closed; to which populace you had appointed as leaders the Lentidii, Lollii, Plaguleii, Sergii. O the look and the dignity of the Roman people, at which kings, foreign nations, farthest peoples tremble in dread—a crowd of men gathered from slaves, from hirelings, from criminals, from the needy!

[90] Illa fuit pulchritudo populi Romani, illa forma quam in campo vidisti tum cum etiam tibi contra senatus totiusque Italiae auctoritatem et studium dicendi potestas fuit. Ille populus est dominus regum, victor atque imperator omnium gentium, quem illo clarissimo die, scelerate, vidisti tum cum omnes principes civitatis, omnes ordinum atque aetatum omnium suffragium se non de civis sed de civitatis salute ferre censebant, cum denique homines in campum non tabernis sed municipiis clausis venerant.

[90] That was the beauty of the Roman people, that the form which you saw in the field then, when even to you there was the power of speaking against the authority of the senate and of all Italy and their zeal. That people is lord of kings, victor and emperor of all nations, whom on that most illustrious day, you criminal, you saw, then when all the chiefs of the state, all the of every order and of every age judged that they were casting their suffrage not about the safety of a citizen but of the commonwealth; when, finally, men had come into the field not with the shops closed but with the municipalities closed.

[91] Hoc ego populo, si tum consules aut fuissent in re publica aut omnino non fuissent, nullo labore tuo praecipiti furori atque impio sceleri restitissem. Sed publicam causam contra vim armatam sine publico praesidio suscipere nolui, non quo mihi P. Scipionis, fortissimi viri, vis in Ti. , privati hominis, displiceret, sed Scipionis factum statim P. Mucius consul, qui in gerenda re [publica] putabatur fuisse segnior, gesta multis senatus consultis non modo defendit, sed etiam ornavit: mihi aut te interfecto cum consulibus, aut te vivo et tecum et cum illis armis decertandum fuit.

[91] For this people, if at that time the consuls had either been in the republic or had not been at all, I would, with no labor on your part, have stood against your headlong frenzy and impious crime. But I was unwilling to undertake a public cause against armed force without public protection, not that the force of P. Scipio, a most brave man, against Ti. , a private man, displeased me, but the deed of Scipio was immediately not only defended but even adorned by P. Mucius the consul—who was thought to have been more sluggish in managing the republic—by measures and many decrees of the Senate: for me it had to be fought out either, you having been slain, along with the consuls; or, with you alive, to fight it out with arms both with you and with them.

[92] Erant eo tempore multa etiam alia metuenda. Ad servos medius fidius res publica venisset; tantum homines impios ex vetere illa coniuratione inustum nefariis mentibus bonorum odium tenebat.

[92] At that time there were many other things also to be feared. By my faith, the Republic would have come to the slaves; so greatly did the hatred of the good, branded into their nefarious minds from that old conspiracy, hold those impious men.

Hic tu me etiam gloriari vetas; negas esse ferenda quae soleam de me praedicare, et homo facetus inducis etiam sermonem urbanum ac venustum, me dicere solere esse me Iovem, eundemque dictitare Minervam esse sororem meam. Non tam insolens sum, quod Iovem esse me dico, quam ineruditus, quod Minervam sororem Iovis esse existimo; sed tamen ego mihi sororem virginem adscisco, tu sororem tuam virginem esse non sisti. Sed vide ne tu te soleas Iovem dicere, quod tu iure eandem sororem et uxorem appellare possis.

Here you even forbid me to glory; you say that the things I am wont to proclaim about myself are not to be endured, and, being a facetious man, you even introduce an urbane and charming discourse, that I am accustomed to say that I am Jove, and that I keep asserting the same, that Minerva is my sister. I am not so insolent, in that I say I am Jove, as unlearned, in that I suppose Minerva to be the sister of Jove; but yet I affiliate to myself a sister a virgin, you do not establish that your sister is a virgin. But see lest you be the one who is accustomed to call yourself Jove, because you can by right call the same woman both your sister and your wife.

[93] Et quoniam hoc reprehendis, quod solere me dicas de me ipso gloriosius praedicare, quis umquam audivit cum ego de me nisi coactus ac necessario dicerem? Nam si, cum mihi furta largitiones libidines obiciuntur, ego respondere soleo meis consiliis periculis laboribus patriam esse servatam, non tam sum existimandus de gestis rebus gloriari quam de obiectis confiteri. Sed si mihi ante haec durissima rei publicae tempora nihil umquam aliud obiectum est nisi crudelitas eius unius temporis, cum a patria perniciem depuli, quid?

[93] And since you censure this, that you say I am wont to proclaim about myself too gloriously, who ever has heard me speak about myself except when compelled and of necessity? For if, when thefts, largesses, and lusts are thrown at me, I am accustomed to reply that by my counsels, perils, and labors the fatherland has been preserved, I am to be thought not so much to glory in deeds done as to confess with respect to the things alleged. But if, before these most harsh times of the commonwealth, nothing else was ever objected to me save the cruelty of that single time when I drove ruin away from the fatherland, what?

me huic maledicto utrum non respondere an demisse respondere decuit?

Was it proper for me not to respond to this slander, or to respond modestly?

[94] Ego vero etiam rei publicae semper interesse putavi me illius pulcherrimi facti, quod ex auctoritate senatus consensu bonorum omnium pro salute patriae gessissem, splendorem verbis dignitatemque retinere, praesertim cum mihi uni in hac re publica audiente populo Romano opera mea hanc urbem et hanc rem publicam esse salvam iurato dicere fas fuisset. Exstinctum est iam illud maledictum crudelitatis, quod me non ut crudelem tyrannum, sed ut mitissimum parentem omnium civium studiis desideratum, repetitum, arcessitum vident.

[94] I indeed have always thought it to be also in the interest of the commonwealth to retain in words the splendor and the dignity of that most beautiful deed, which I had carried out by the authority of the senate and the consensus of all the good men for the safety of the fatherland, especially since to me alone in this republic, with the Roman people listening, it had been permitted to say on oath that by my efforts this city and this republic were safe. That slander of cruelty is now extinguished, since they see me not as a cruel tyrant, but as the gentlest parent, desired, demanded back, summoned by the zeal of all the citizens.

[95] Aliud exortum est: obicitur mihi meus ille discessus: cui ego crimini respondere sine mea maxima laude non possum. Quid enim, pontifices, debeo dicere? Peccatine conscientia me profugisse?

[95] Another has arisen: that withdrawal of mine is objected to me; to which charge I cannot respond without my very greatest praise. For what, Pontiffs, ought I to say? Was it by a conscience of sin that I fled?

at id quod mihi crimini dabatur non modo peccatum non erat, sed erat res post natos homines pulcherrima. Iudicium populi pertimuisse? at id nec propositum ullum fuit, et, si fuisset, duplicata gloria discessissem.

but that which was being given me as a crime was not only not a sin, but was the most beautiful deed since men were born. To have been terrified at the judgment of the people? but that was no plan at all, and, if it had been, I would have departed with doubled glory.

Bonorum mihi praesidium defuisse? falsum est. Me mortem timuisse?

That the protection of the good was lacking to me? It is false. That I feared death?

turpe est.

it is shameful.

[96] Dicendum igitur est id, quod non dicerem nisi coactus, --nihil enim umquam de me dixi sublatius adsciscendae laudis causa potius quam criminis depellendi,--dico igitur, et quam possum maxima voce dico: cum omnium perditorum et coniuratorum incitata vis, duce tribuno plebis, consulibus auctoribus, adflicto senatu, perterritis equitibus Romanis, suspensa ac sollicita tota civitate, non tam in me impetum faceret quam per me in omnis bonos, me vidisse, si vicissem, tenuis rei publicae reliquias, si victus essem, nullas futuras. Quod cum iudicassem, deflevi coniugis miserae discidium, liberorum carissimorum solitudinem, fratris absentis amantissimi atque optimi casum, subitas fundatissimae familiae ruinas; sed his omnibus rebus vitam anteposui meorum civium, remque publicam concidere unius discessu quam omnium interitu occidere malui. Speravi, id quod accidit, me iacentem posse vivis viris fortibus excitari; si una cum bonis interissem, nullo modo posse recreari.

[96] It must therefore be said that which I would not say unless compelled,--for I have never at any time said anything about myself more loftily for the sake of adopting praise rather than of driving off a charge,--I say, therefore, and with the greatest voice I can I say: when the stirred-up force of all the ruined and the conspirators, with a tribune of the plebs as leader, with the consuls as instigators, the senate shattered, the Roman equites terrified, the whole commonwealth suspended and anxious, made not so much an assault on me as through me on all good men, I saw that, if I had conquered, there would be meager remnants of the republic, if I had been conquered, there would be none. And when I had judged this, I wept over the separation from my wretched wife, the desolation of my dearest children, the misfortune of my most loving and excellent absent brother, the sudden ruins of a most well-founded household; but to all these things I preferred the life of my fellow-citizens, and I chose that the republic collapse by the withdrawal of one rather than die by the destruction of all. I hoped—what happened—that I, lying low, could be roused by brave men still alive; if I had perished together with the good, in no way could the be restored.

[97] Accepi, pontifices, magnum atque incredibilem dolorem: non nego, neque istam mihi adscisco sapientiam quam non nulli in me requirebant, qui me animo nimis fracto esse atque adflicto loquebantur. An ego poteram, cum a tot rerum tanta varietate divellerer, quas idcirco praetereo quod ne nunc quidem sine fletu commemorare possum, infitiari me esse hominem et communem naturae sensum repudiare? Tum vero neque illud meum factum laudabile nec beneficium ullum a me in rem publicam profectum dicerem, si quidem ea rei publicae causa reliquissem quibus aequo animo carerem, eamque animi duritiam, sicut corporis, quod cum uritur non sentit, stuporem potius quam virtutem putarem.

[97] I have received, Pontiffs, a great and incredible grief: I do not deny it, nor do I ascribe to myself that wisdom which some were requiring in me, who were saying that my spirit was too broken and afflicted. Could I, when I was being torn away by so great a variety of so many things—which I therefore pass over because not even now can I commemorate them without weeping—deny that I am a man and repudiate the common sense of nature? Then indeed I would say neither that that deed of mine was laudable nor that any beneficium from me had proceeded to the commonwealth, if indeed for the sake of the republic I had left behind those things which I could lack with an even mind; and I would deem such hardness of soul, like that of a body which, when it is burned, does not feel, to be stupor rather than virtue.

[98] Suscipere tantos animi dolores, atque ea quae capta urbe accidunt victis stante urbe unum perpeti, et iam se videre distrahi a complexu suorum, disturbari tecta, diripi fortunas, patriae denique causa patriam ipsam amittere, spoliari populi Romani beneficiis amplissimis, praecipitari ex altissimo dignitatis gradu, videre praetextatos inimicos nondum morte complorata arbitria petentis funeris: haec omnia subire conservandorum civium causa, atque id cum dolenter adsis non tam sapiens quam ii qui nihil curant, sed tam amans tuorum ac tui quam communis humanitas postulat, ea laus praeclara atque divina est. Nam qui ea quae numquam cara ac iucunda duxit animo aequo rei publicae causa deserit, nullam benivolentiam insignem in rem publicam declarat; qui autem ea relinquit rei publicae causa a quibus cum summo dolore divellitur, ei cara patria est, cuius salutem caritati anteponit suorum.

[98] To take upon oneself such great pains of spirit, and for one man, with the city still standing, to endure those things which befall the conquered when a city has been taken, and already to see himself torn from the embrace of his own, his roofs thrown into disorder, his fortunes plundered, and, for the sake of the fatherland, to lose the fatherland itself, to be despoiled of the most ample benefactions of the Roman people, to be hurled headlong from the highest step of dignity, to see enemies in the purple-bordered toga, before the death has yet been bewailed, seeking the arbitrium of the funeral: to undergo all these things for the sake of preserving the citizens, and to do this while you are in pain, being not so “wise” as those who care for nothing, but as loving of your own and of yourself as common humanity demands—that praise is illustrious and divine. For he who, for the sake of the commonwealth, abandons with an even mind those things which he never deemed dear and pleasant, declares no marked benevolence toward the commonwealth; but he who, for the sake of the commonwealth, leaves behind those things from which he is torn with the utmost pain, to him his fatherland is dear, whose safety he sets before the affection for his own.

[99] Qua re dirumpatur licet ista furia atque , audiet haec ex me, quoniam lacessivit: bis servavi , qui consul togatus armatos vicerim, privatus consulibus armatis cesserim. Vtriusque temporis fructum tuli maximum: superioris, quod ex senatus auctoritate et senatum et omnis bonos meae salutis causa mutata veste vidi, posterioris, quod et senatus et populus Romanus et omnes mortales et privatim et publice iudicarunt sine meo reditu rem publicam salvam esse non posse.

[99] Wherefore let that Fury and burst as it may; she shall hear these things from me, since she has provoked me: twice I saved the , in that, as consul in the toga, I defeated armed men; as a private citizen, I yielded to armed consuls. Of each time I bore the greatest fruit: of the former, because by the authority of the senate I saw both the senate and all good men, for the sake of my safety, with their dress changed; of the latter, because both the senate and the Roman people and all mortals, both privately and publicly, judged that without my return the commonwealth could not be safe.

[100] Sed hic meus reditus, pontifices, vestro iudicio continetur. Nam si vos me in meis aedibus conlocatis, id quod in omni mea causa semper studiis consiliis auctoritatibus sententiisque fecistis, video me plane ac sentio restitutum; sin mea domus non modo mihi non redditur, sed etiam monumentum praebet inimico doloris mei, sceleris sui, publicae calamitatis, quis erit qui hunc reditum potius quam poenam sempiternam putet? In conspectu prope totius urbis domus est mea, pontifices; in qua si manet illud non monumentum virtutis, sed sepulcrum inimico nomine inscriptum, demigrandum potius aliquo est quam habitandum in ea urbe in qua tropaea de me et de re publica videam constituta.

[100] But this my return, pontiffs, is contained in your judgment. For if you settle me in my own house—this which in my whole case you have always done by your zeal, counsels, authorities, and votes—I clearly see and perceive myself restored; but if my house is not only not given back to me, but even supplies to my enemy a monument of my grief, of his crime, of the public calamity, who will there be who would think this a return rather than an everlasting penalty? My house is almost in the sight of the whole city, pontiffs; in which, if that remains—not a monument of virtue, but a sepulcher inscribed with an enemy’s name—one ought rather to remove elsewhere than to dwell in that city in which I see trophies set up over me and over the commonwealth.

[101] An ego tantam aut animi duritiam habere aut oculorum impudentiam possim ut, cuius urbis servatorem me esse senatus omnium adsensu totiens iudicarit, in ea possim intueri domum meam eversam, non ab inimico meo sed ab hoste communi, et ab eodem exstructam et positam in oculis civitatis, ne umquam conquiescere possit fletus bonorum? Sp. Maeli regnum adpetentis domus est complanata, et, quia illud 'aequum' accidisse populus Romanus 'Maelio' iudicavit, nomine ipso 'Aequimaeli' iustitia poenae comprobata est. Sp. Cassi domus ob eandem causam eversa atque in eo loco aedis posita Telluris.

[101] Can I have such hardness of spirit or such impudence of eyes that, though the senate, with the assent of all, has so often judged me the savior of this city, I can in that city look upon my house overthrown, not by my enemy but by a common enemy, and by that same man a built and set before the eyes of the citizenry, so that the weeping of the good may never be able to come to rest? The house of Sp. Maelius, who was aspiring to kingship, was leveled, and because the Roman people judged that that “aequum” befell “Maelio,” by the very name “Aequimaeli” the justice of the punishment was approved. The house of Sp. Cassius for the same cause demolished, and in that place a temple of Tellus was set up.

In Vacci pratis domus fuit M. Vacci, quae publicata est et eversa ut illius facinus memoria et nomine loci notaretur. M. Manlius cum ab ascensu Capitoli Gallorum impetum reppulisset, non fuit contentus benefici sui gloria; regnum adpetisse est iudicatus; ergo eius domum eversam duobus lucis convestitam videtis. Quam igitur maiores nostri sceleratis ac nefariis civibus maximam poenam constitui posse arbitrati sunt, eandem ego subibo ac sustinebo, ut apud posteros nostros non exstinctor coniurationis et sceleris sed auctor et dux fuisse videar?

In the meadows of Vaccius there was the house of M. Vaccius, which was made public property and razed, so that his crime might be marked by memory and by the name of the place. M. Manlius, when he had repelled the onrush of the Gauls from their ascent of the Capitoline, was not content with the glory of his benefaction; he was judged to have aspired to kingship; therefore you see the site of his overthrown house clothed with two groves. What penalty, then, our ancestors thought could be established as the greatest for wicked and nefandous citizens, shall I undergo and sustain that same one, so that among our posterity I may seem not the extinguisher of conspiracy and crime but their author and leader?

[102] Hanc vero, pontifices, labem turpitudinis et inconstantiae poterit populi Romani dignitas sustinere, vivo senatu, vobis principibus publici consili, ut domus M. Tulli Ciceronis cum domo Fulvi Flacci ad memoriam poenae publice constitutae coniuncta esse videatur? M. Flaccus quia cum C. Graccho contra salutem rei publicae fecerat ex senatus sententia est interfectus; eius domus eversa et publicata est; in qua porticum post aliquanto Q. Catulus de manubiis Cimbricis fecit. Ista autem fax ac furia patriae cum urbem Pisone et Gabinio ducibus cepisset, occupasset, teneret, uno eodemque tempore et clarissimi viri mortui monumenta delebat et meam domum cum Flacci domo coniungebat, ut, qua poena senatus adfecerat eversorem civitatis, eadem iste oppresso senatu adficeret eum quem patres conscripti custodem patriae iudicassent.

[102] Will the dignity of the Roman people, indeed, pontiffs, be able to sustain this stain of turpitude and inconstancy, with the senate alive, you being the principals of public counsel, that the house of M. Tullius Cicero seem to be conjoined with the house of Fulvius Flaccus for the memorial of a penalty established publicly? M. Flaccus, because together with C. Gracchus he had acted against the safety of the commonwealth, was slain by decree of the senate; his house was razed and confiscated; upon its site, after some time, Q. Catulus made a portico from the Cimbrian spoils. But that torch and fury of the fatherland, when with Piso and Gabinius as leaders he had seized the city, had occupied it, and was holding it, at one and the same time was both blotting out the monuments of most illustrious dead men and was conjoining my house with Flaccus’s house, so that, with the same punishment by which the senate had afflicted the overthrower of the state, that fellow, the senate being suppressed, might afflict him whom the Conscript Fathers had judged the guardian of the fatherland.

[103] Hanc vero in Palatio atque in pulcherrimo urbis loco porticum esse patiemini, furoris tribunici, sceleris consularis, crudelitatis coniuratorum, calamitatis rei publicae, doloris mei defixum indicium ad memoriam omnium gentium sempiternam? quam porticum, pro amore quem habetis in rem publicam et semper habuistis, non modo sententiis sed, si opus esset, manibus vestris disturbare cuperetis, nisi quem forte illius castissimi sacerdotis superstitiosa dedicatio deterret.

[103] Will you indeed allow a portico on the Palatine and in the most beautiful place of the city, a fixed indication of tribunitian fury, consular crime, the cruelty of the conspirators, the calamity of the republic, my grief, for the sempiternal memory of all nations?—a portico which, for the love you have and have always had toward the commonwealth, you would desire to demolish not only by your votes but, if there were need, with your own hands, unless perhaps the superstitious dedication of that most chaste priest deters someone.

[104] O rem quam homines soluti ridere non desinant, tristiores autem sine maximo dolore audire non possint! Publiusne Clodius, qui ex pontificis maximi domo religionem eripuit, is in meam intulit? Huncin vos, qui estis antistites caerimoniarum et sacrorum, auctorem habetis et magistrum publicae religionis?

[104] O a thing that men unbound do not cease to laugh at, while the more downcast cannot hear it without the greatest grief! Was it Publius Clodius, who tore religion from the house of the pontifex maximus, that brought it into my own? Is it this man that you, who are overseers of ceremonies and sacred rites, have as the author and teacher of the public religion?

O di immortales!--vos enim haec audire cupio--P. Clodius vestra sacra curat, vestrum numen horret, res omnis humanas religione vestra contineri putat? Hic non inludit auctoritati horum omnium qui adsunt summorum virorum, non vestra, pontifices, gravitate abutitur? Ex isto ore religionis verbum excidere aut elabi potest?

O immortal gods!—for you I want to hear this—does P. Clodius take care of your sacred rites, does he shudder at your numen, does he think all human affairs are contained by your religion? Does he not mock the authority of all these most eminent men who are present, does he not abuse your gravity, pontiffs? From that mouth can a word of religion fall out or slip away?

quam tu eodem ore, accusando senatum quod severe de religione decerneret, impurissime taeterrimeque violasti.

which you, with that same mouth, by accusing the senate because it was decreeing severely concerning religion, violated most impurely and most foully.

[105] Aspicite, pontifices, hominem religiosum et, si vobis videtur, quod est bonorum pontificum, monete eum modum quendam esse religionis: nimium esse superstitiosum non oportere. Quid tibi necesse fuit anili superstitione, homo fanatice, sacrificium quod alienae domi fieret invisere? quae autem te tanta mentis imbecillitas tenuit ut non putares deos satis posse placari nisi etiam muliebribus religionibus te implicuisses?

[105] Behold, pontiffs, the religious man, and, if it seems good to you—which is the part of good pontiffs—admonish him that there is a certain measure of religion: that it is not fitting to be excessively superstitious. What need had you, with old-womanly superstition, you fanatic fellow, to visit a sacrifice that was being performed in another’s house? And what so great a weakness of mind held you that you did not think the gods could be sufficiently appeased unless you also entangled yourself in womanish religions?

Quem umquam audisti maiorum tuorum, qui et sacra privata coluerunt et publicis sacerdotiis praefuerunt, cum sacrificium Bonae Deae fieret interfuisse? neminem, ne illum quidem qui caecus est factus. Ex quo intellegitur multa in vita falso homines opinari, cum ille, qui nihil viderat sciens quod nefas esset, lumina amisit, istius, qui non solum aspectu sed etiam incesto flagitio et stupro caerimonias polluit, poena omnis oculorum ad caecitatem mentis est conversa.

Whom have you ever heard among your ancestors, who both cultivated private sacred rites and presided over public priesthoods, to have been present when the sacrifice of the Bona Dea was being performed? No one, not even that man who was made blind. Whence it is understood that men in life form many opinions falsely, since that man, who had seen nothing knowingly of what was nefas, lost his lights (eyes); whereas this fellow, who polluted the ceremonies not only by his gaze but also by incestuous flagitiousness and stuprum, has had all the punishment of the eyes turned into blindness of the mind.

Hoc auctore tam casto, tam religioso, tam sancto, tam pio potestis, pontifices, non commoveri, cum suis dicat se manibus domum civis optimi evertisse et eam isdem manibus consecrasse?

With such an author, so chaste, so religious, so holy, so pious, can you, pontiffs, not be moved, when he says that with his own hands he has overthrown the house of a most excellent citizen and with the same hands has consecrated it?

[106] Quae tua fuit consecratio? 'Tuleram,' inquit, 'ut mihi liceret.' Quid? non exceperas ut, si quid ius non esset rogari, ne esset rogatum?

[106] What was your consecration? 'I had carried [a measure],' he says, 'that it might be permitted to me.' What? Had you not excepted that, if anything were not lawful to be proposed, it should not be proposed?

Ius igitur statuetis esse unius cuiusque vestrum sedis, aras, focos, deos penatis subiectos esse libidini tribuniciae? in quem quisque per homines concitatos inruerit, quem impetu perculerit, huius domum non solum adfligere, quod est praesentis insaniae quasi tempestatis repentinae, sed etiam in posterum tempus sempiterna religione obligare?

Will you therefore establish as law that the dwelling, altars, hearths, the Penates—the household gods—of each one of you be subjected to tribunician whim? That whomever anyone, with men incited, has rushed upon, whomever he has smitten by an onrush, this man’s house is not only to be thrown down—which is the act of present insanity, as of a sudden tempest—but also to be bound, for time to come, by an everlasting religious sanction?

[107] Equidem sic accepi, pontifices, in religionibus suscipiendis caput esse interpretari quae voluntas deorum immortalium esse videatur; nec est ulla erga deos pietas honesta de numine eorum ac mente opinio, ut expeti nihil ab iis, quod sit iniustum atque inhonestum, arbitrere. Hominem invenire ista labes, tum cum omnia tenebat, neminem potuit cui meas aedis addiceret, cui traderet, cui donaret. Ipse cum loci illius, cum aedium cupiditate flagraret ob eamque causam unam funesta illa rogatione sua vir bonus dominum se in meis bonis esse voluisset, tamen illo ipso in furore suo non est ausus meam domum, cuius cupiditate inflammatus erat, possidere: deos immortalis existimatis, cuius labore et consilio sua ipsi templa tenuerunt, in eius domum adflictam et eversam per [vim] hominis sceleratissimi nefarium latrocinium inmigrare voluisse?

[107] Indeed thus have I received, pontiffs: in the undertaking of religious matters the chief point is to interpret what the will of the immortal gods seems to be; nor is there any piety toward the gods an honorable opinion about their divine power and mind, so that you judge that nothing should be sought from them which is unjust and dishonorable, but . That stain could find no man—at the time when he held everything—to whom he could adjudge my house, to whom he could hand it over, to whom he could donate it. He himself, though he was blazing with desire for that place, for those buildings, and for that one cause by that baleful bill of his the “good man” had wished to be master over my goods, nevertheless, even in that very frenzy of his he did not dare to possess my house, with the desire of which he was inflamed: do you think that the immortal gods, by whose labor and counsel they themselves have held their own temples, wished to migrate into the house of the man who had been afflicted and overthrown through the [violence] of a most criminal man’s nefarious brigandage?

[108] Civis est nemo tanto in populo, extra contaminatam illam et cruentam P. Clodi manum, qui rem ullam de meis bonis attigerit, qui non pro suis opibus in illa tempestate me defenderit. At qui aliqua se contagione praedae, societatis, emptionis contaminaverunt, nullius neque privati neque publici iudici poenam effugere potuerunt. Ex his igitur bonis, quibus nemo rem ullam attigit qui non omnium iudicio sceleratissimus haberetur, di immortales domum meam concupiverunt?

[108] There is no citizen in so great a populace, outside that contaminated and blood-stained band of P. Clodius, who has touched any matter of my goods, who did not, according to his own resources, defend me in that tempest; but those who have stained themselves by some contagion of booty, partnership, or purchase were able to escape the penalty of no judgment, whether private or public. From these goods, then—out of which no one touched anything who would not be held most criminal by the judgment of all—the immortal gods coveted my house?

Ista tua pulchra Libertas deos penatis et familiaris meos lares expulit, ut se ipsa tamquam in captivis sedibus conlocaret?

Did that beautiful Liberty of yours expel my Penates (household gods) and my familiar Lares, so that she herself might settle as though in captive dwellings?

[109] Quid est sanctius, quid omni religione munitius quam domus unius cuiusque civium? Hic arae sunt, hic foci, hic di penates, hic sacra, religiones, caerimoniae continentur; hoc perfugium est ita sanctum omnibus ut inde abripi neminem fas sit. Quo magis est istius furor ab auribus vestris repellendus qui, quae maiores nostri religionibus tuta nobis et sancta esse voluerunt, ea iste non solum contra religionem labefactavit, sed etiam ipsius religionis nomine evertit.

[109] What is more sacred, what more fortified by every religion than the house of each citizen? Here are altars, here hearths, here the Penates, here sacred rites, religions, ceremonies are contained; this refuge is so sacred for all that it is not permitted by divine law that anyone be snatched away from it. All the more must that man’s frenzy be repelled from your ears, he who has not only, contrary to religion, undermined those things which our ancestors wished to be safeguarded for us and held sacred by religious obligations, but has even overthrown them under the very name of religion itself.

[110] At quae dea est? Bonam esse oportet, quoniam quidem est abs te dedicata. 'Libertas,' inquit, 'est.' Tu igitur domi meae conlocasti, quam ex urbe tota sustulisti?

[110] But what goddess is it? She ought to be good, since indeed she has been dedicated by you. 'Liberty,' he says, 'it is.' Have you therefore installed in my house her whom you have removed from the whole city?

Tu cum conlegas tuos summa potestate praeditos negares liberos esse, cum in templum Castoris aditus esset apertus nemini, cum hunc clarissimum virum, summo genere natum, summis populi beneficiis usum, pontificem et consularem et singulari bonitate et modestia praeditum, quem satis mirari quibus oculis aspicere audeas non queo, audiente populo Romano a pedisequis conculcari iuberes, cum indemnatum <me> exturbares privilegiis tyrannicis inrogatis, cum principem orbis terrae virum inclusum domi contineres, cum forum armatis catervis perditorum hominum possideres, Libertatis simulacrum in ea domo conlocabas, quae domus erat ipsa indicium crudelissimi tui dominatus et miserrimae populi Romani servitutis? Eumne potissimum Libertas domo sua debuit pellere, qui nisi fuisset in servorum potestatem civitas tota venisset?

You, while you denied that your colleagues endowed with the highest power were free, when access into the Temple of Castor was open to no one, when you ordered that this most illustrious man, born of the highest lineage, having enjoyed the greatest benefactions of the people, a pontifex and a consular and endowed with singular goodness and modesty, whom I cannot enough marvel with what eyes you dare to look upon, be trampled underfoot by lackeys with the Roman people listening, when you drove out indemnate <me> by the imposition of tyrannical privileges, when you kept confined at home the man who is the prince of the whole world, when you occupied the Forum with armed bands of desperadoes, were you placing the simulacrum of Liberty in that house which was itself a proof of your most cruel dominion and of the most wretched slavery of the Roman people? Was Liberty above all bound to drive from her own house that man, who, if he had not existed, the whole commonwealth would have come into the power of slaves?

[111] At unde est ista inventa Libertas? quaesivi enim diligenter. Tanagraea quaedam meretrix fuisse dicitur.

[111] But whence is that invented Liberty? for I inquired diligently. It is said to have been a certain Tanagran courtesan.

Eius non longe a Tanagra simulacrum e marmore in sepulcro positum fuit. Hoc quidam homo nobilis, non alienus ab hoc religioso Libertatis sacerdote, ad ornatum aedilitatis suae deportavit; etenim cogitarat omnis superiores muneris splendore superare. Itaque omnia signa, tabulas, ornamentorum quod superfuit in fanis et locis communibus in tota Graecia atque insulis omnibus honoris populi Romani causa sane frugaliter domum suam deportavit.

Ere long, a simulacrum of her, in marble, had been set up in a sepulchre not far from Tanagra. This a certain noble man, not unconnected with this religious priest of Liberty, carried off for the adornment of his aedileship; for indeed he had thought to surpass all his predecessors by the splendor of the munus. And so all the statues, the panels, whatever of ornaments had remained in the temples and in public places throughout all Greece and in all the islands, for the sake of the honor of the Roman people, he very frugally transported to his own house.

[112] Is postea quam intellexit posse se interversa aedilitate a L. Pisone consule praetorem renuntiari, si modo eadem prima littera competitorem habuisset aliquem, aedilitatem duobus in locis, partim in arca, partim in hortis suis conlocavit: signum de busto meretricis ablatum isti dedit, quod esset signum magis istorum quam publicae libertatis. Hanc deam quisquam violare audeat, imaginem meretricis, ornamentum sepulcri, a fure sublatam, a sacrilego conlocatam? haec me domo mea pellet?

[112] After he understood that, with his aedileship turned aside, he could be proclaimed praetor by Lucius Piso, consul, provided only he had had some competitor with the same first letter, he “placed” his aedileship in two locations—partly in his coffer, partly in his own gardens: he gave to that fellow a statue taken from the bustum of a harlot, since it was a sign more of those men than of public Liberty. Would anyone dare to violate this “goddess,” an image of a harlot, an ornament of a sepulcher, stolen by a thief, set up by a sacrilegious man? Will this drive me from my own house?

haec victrix adflictae civitatis rei publicae spoliis ornabitur? haec erit in eo monumento quod positum est ut esset indicium oppressi senatus ad memoriam sempiternae turpitudinis?

Will this victress be adorned with the spoils of the republic of an afflicted city? Will this be in that monument which has been set up so that it might be an indication of the oppressed senate, for the memory of sempiternal turpitude?

[113] O Q. Catule!--patremne appellem an filium? recentior enim memoria fili est et cum meis rebus gestis coniunctior--tantumne te fefellit, cum mihi summa et cotidie maiora praemia in re publica fore putabas? Negabas fas esse duo consules esse in hac civitate inimicos rei publicae: sunt inventi qui senatum tribuno furenti constrictum traderent, qui pro me patres conscriptos deprecari et populo supplices esse edictis atque imperio vetarent, quibus inspectantibus domus mea disturbaretur, diriperetur, qui denique ambustas fortunarum mearum reliquias suas domos comportari iuberent.

[113] O Q. Catulus!--shall I call the father first or the son? for the memory of the son is fresher and more closely conjoined with my achievements--were you so mistaken, when you supposed that the highest and daily greater rewards in the republic would be mine? You used to deny that it was fas that there be two consuls in this city enemies to the republic: yet there have been found men who would hand over the senate, bound, to a raging tribune; who, by edicts and authority, would forbid the Conscript Fathers to plead on my behalf and to be suppliant to the people; in whose sight my house was torn down, was plundered; who, finally, ordered the charred remnants of my fortunes to be carried into their own homes.

[114] Venio nunc ad patrem. Tu, Q. Catule, M. Fulvi domum, cum is fratris tui socer fuisset, monumentum tuarum manubiarum esse voluisti, ut eius qui perniciosa rei publicae consilia cepisset omnis memoria funditus ex oculis hominum ac mentibus tolleretur. Hoc si quis tibi aedificanti illam porticum diceret, fore tempus cum is tribunus plebis, qui auctoritatem senatus, iudicium bonorum omnium neglexisset, tuum monumentum consulibus non modo inspectantibus verum adiuvantibus disturbaret, everteret, idque cum eius civis qui rem publicam ex senatus auctoritate consul defendisset domo coniungeret, nonne responderes id nisi eversa civitate accidere non posse?

[114] I come now to the father. You, Q. Catulus, wanted the house of M. Fulvius, since he had been your brother’s father-in-law, to be a monument of your manubial spoils, so that all memory of the man who had adopted pernicious counsels for the commonwealth might be utterly removed from the eyes and minds of men. If, while you were constructing that portico, someone were to say to you that a time would come when that tribune of the plebs, who had neglected the authority of the senate and the judgment of all the good men, would, with the consuls not only looking on but even aiding, dismantle and overthrow your monument, and would couple that with the house of that citizen who, as consul, had defended the commonwealth by the authority of the senate—would you not answer that this could not occur unless the state were overturned?

[115] At videte hominis intolerabilem audaciam cum proiecta quadam et effrenata cupiditate. Monumentum iste umquam aut religionem ullam excogitavit? Habitare laxe et magnifice voluit duasque et magnas et nobilis domos coniungere.

[115] But see the man’s intolerable audacity, with a certain cast-off and unbridled cupidity. Did that fellow ever excogitate a monument or any religion at all? He wished to dwell spaciously and magnificently, and to conjoin two large and noble houses.

Eodem puncto temporis quo meus discessus isti causam caedis eripuit, a Q. Seio contendit ut sibi domum venderet: cum ille id negaret, primo se luminibus eius esse obstructurum minabatur. Adfirmabat Postumus se vivo illam domum istius numquam futuram. Acutus adulescens ex ipsius sermone intellexit quid fieri oporteret; hominem veneno apertissime sustulit; emit domum licitatoribus defatigatis prope dimidio carius quam aestimabatur.

At that same point of time at which my departure snatched from that man the cause of murder, he pressed Q. Seius to sell him the house; when the latter refused, at first he threatened that he would block his lights. Postumus kept affirming that, while he lived, that house would never be that fellow’s. The acute adolescent understood from his very speech what ought to be done; he removed the man most openly by poison; he bought the house, the bidders wearied out, for nearly by a half dearer than it was appraised.

Quorsum igitur haec oratio pertinet?

To what, therefore, does this oration pertain?

[116] Domus illa mea prope tota vacua est; vix pars aedium mearum decima ad Catuli porticum accessit. Causa fuit ambulatio et monumentum et ista Tanagraea oppressa libertate Libertas. In Palatio pulcherrimo prospectu porticum cum conclavibus pavimentatam trecentum pedum concupierat, amplissimum peristylum, cetera eius modi facile ut omnium domos et laxitate et dignitate superaret.

[116] That house of mine is almost wholly empty; scarcely a tenth part of my rooms reached to Catulus’s Portico. The motive was the promenade and the monument and that Tanagran Liberty—Liberty with freedom oppressed. On the Palatine, with a most beautiful prospect, he had coveted a portico with rooms, paved, of three hundred feet, a most ample peristyle, and the rest of such a kind, so that it would easily surpass the houses of all in roominess and in dignity.

Et homo religiosus cum aedis meas idem emeret et venderet, tamen illis tantis tenebris non est ausus suum nomen emptioni illi adscribere. Posuit Scatonem illum, hominem sua virtute egentem, ut is qui in Marsis, ubi natus est, tectum quo imbris vitandi causa succederet iam nullum haberet, aedis in Palatio nobilissimas emisse se diceret. Inferiorem aedium partem adsignavit non suae genti Fonteiae, sed Clodiae, quam reliquit, quem in numerum ex multis Clodiis nemo nomen dedit nisi aut egestate aut scelere perditus.

And the religious man, although the same man was both buying and selling my houses, nevertheless in those such great darknesses did not dare to inscribe his own name to that purchase. He put forward that Scato, a man lacking in his own virtue (credit), so that he—who among the Marsi, where he was born, now had no roof to which he might retire for the sake of avoiding the rain—would say that he had bought the most noble houses on the Palatine. He assigned the lower part of the house not to his own clan, the Fonteian, but to Clodia, whom he left—into which number, out of the many Clodii, no one entered his name unless undone either by destitution or by crime.

Hanc vos, pontifices, tam variam, tam novam in omni genere voluntatem, impudentiam, audaciam, cupiditatem comprobabitis?

Will you, pontiffs, approve this will, this impudence, this audacity, this cupidity—so various, so novel in every kind?

[117] 'Pontifex,' inquit, 'adfuit.' Non te pudet, cum apud pontifices res agatur, pontificem dicere et non conlegium pontificum adfuisse, praesertim cum tribunus plebis vel denuntiare potueris vel etiam cogere? Esto, conlegium non adhibuisti: quid? de conlegio quis tandem adfuit?

[117] 'The pontifex,' he says, 'was present.' Are you not ashamed, when the matter is being conducted before the pontiffs, to say that a pontifex, and not the college of pontiffs, was present, especially when, as tribune of the plebs, you could either have given formal notice or even compelled them? Be it so, you did not summon the college: what then? From the college, who, pray, was present?

Opus erat enim auctoritate, quae est in his omnibus, sed tamen auget et aetas et honos dignitatem; opus erat etiam scientia, quam si omnes consecuti sunt, tamen certe peritiores vetustas facit.

For authority was needed, which is in all these matters, yet nevertheless both age and honor augment dignity; knowledge was needed as well, which, even if all have attained it, yet certainly long-standing experience makes men more expert.

[118] Quis ergo adfuit? 'Frater,' inquit, 'uxoris meae.' Si auctoritatem quaerimus, etsi id est aetatis ut nondum consecutus sit, tamen, quanta est in adulescente auctoritas, ea propter tantam coniunctionem adfinitatis minor est putanda; sin autem scientia est quaesita, quis erat minus peritus quam is qui paucis illis diebus in conlegium venerat? qui etiam tibi erat magis obstrictus beneficio recenti, cum se fratrem uxoris tuae fratri tuo germano antelatum videbat.

[118] Who, then, was present? 'The brother,' he says, 'of my wife.' If we are seeking authority, although he is of such an age that he has not yet attained it, nevertheless, whatever authority there is in an adolescent, by reason of so great a conjunction of affinity is to be accounted the less; but if it was knowledge that was sought, who was less expert than the man who had only in those few days entered into the college? who also was more bound to you by a recent benefice, since he saw himself—the brother of your wife—preferred to your own germane brother.

Etsi in eo providisti ne frater te accusare possit. Hanc tu igitur dedicationem appellas, ad quam non conlegium, non honoribus populi Romani ornatum pontificem, non denique adulescentem quemquam~, cum haberes in conlegio familiarissimos, adhibere potuisti? Adfuit is, si modo adfuit, quem tu impulisti, soror rogavit, mater coegit.

Although in this you took precautions lest your brother be able to accuse you. This, then, you call a dedication, to which you could not bring in the college, nor a pontiff adorned with the honors of the Roman people, nor, finally, any adolescent~, when you had in the college your most intimate friends? He was present, if indeed he was present, whom you impelled; your sister asked, your mother compelled.

[119] Videte igitur, pontifices, quid statuatis in mea causa de omnium fortunis: verbone pontificis putetis, si is postem tenuerit et aliquid dixerit, domum unius cuiusque consecrari posse, an istae dedicationes et templorum et delubrorum religiones ad honorem deorum immortalium sine ulla civium calamitate a maioribus nostris constitutae sint. Est inventus tribunus plebis qui, consularibus copiis instructus, omni impetu furoris in eum civem inruerit quem perculsum ipsa res publica suis manibus extolleret.

[119] See therefore, Pontiffs, what you establish in my case concerning the fortunes of all: do you think that by the mere word of a pontiff, if he has held the doorpost and said something, the home of each and every person can be consecrated, or whether those dedications and the religious rites of temples and shrines were established by our ancestors for the honor of the immortal gods without any calamity to citizens. There was found a tribune of the plebs who, equipped with consular forces, rushed with every onrush of frenzy against that citizen whom, though struck down, the commonwealth itself with its own hands was lifting up.

[120] Quid? si qui similis istius --neque enim iam deerunt qui imitari velint--aliquem mei dissimilem, cui res publica non tantum debeat, per vim adflixerit, domum eius per pontificem dedicaverit, id vos ista auctoritate constituetis ratum esse oportere? Dicitis: 'Quem reperiet pontificem?' Quid?

[120] What? If someone similar to that man --for indeed there will not now be lacking those who will wish to imitate-- should by force afflict someone unlike me, to whom the republic does not owe so much, and should have dedicated his house through a pontiff, will you by that authority of yours determine that it ought to stand ratified? You say: 'What pontiff will he find?' What?

pontifex et tribunus plebis idem esse non potest? M. Drusus, ille clarissimus vir, tribunus plebis, pontifex fuit. Ergo si is Q. Caepionis, inimici sui, postem aedium tenuisset et pauca verba fecisset, aedes Caepionis essent dedicatae?

What? Can the same man not be both pontifex and tribune of the plebs? Marcus Drusus, that most illustrious man, a tribune of the plebs, was a pontifex. Therefore, if he had held the doorpost of Quintus Caepio’s house, his enemy, and had spoken a few words, would Caepio’s house have been dedicated?

[121] Nihil loquor de pontificio iure, nihil de ipsius verbis dedicationis, nihil de religione, caerimoniis; non dissimulo me nescire ea quae, etiam si scirem, dissimularem, ne aliis molestus, vobis etiam curiosus viderer; etsi effluunt multa ex vestra disciplina quae etiam ad nostras auris saepe permanant. Postem teneri in dedicatione oportere videor audisse templi; ibi enim postis est ubi templi aditus et valvae. Ambulationis postis nemo umquam tenuit in dedicando; simulacrum autem aut aram si dedicasti, sine religione loco moveri potest.

[121] I say nothing about pontifical law, nothing about the very words of dedication, nothing about religion, ceremonies; I do not dissemble that I do not know those things which, even if I knew, I would dissemble, lest I seem troublesome to others, and to you even over‑curious; and yet many things flow forth from your discipline which even often reach our ears. I seem to have heard that, in the dedication of a temple, the doorpost ought to be held; for the doorpost is there where the entrance of the temple and the doors are. No one has ever held the doorposts of an ambulatory in dedicating; but if you have dedicated a simulacrum or an altar, it can, without religious scruple, be moved from its place.

Sed iam hoc dicere tibi non licebit, quoniam pontificem postem tenuisse dixisti.

But now you will not be permitted to say this, since you said that the pontiff held the doorpost.

[122] Quamquam quid ego de dedicatione loquor, aut quid de vestro iure et religione contra quam proposueram disputo? Ego vero, si omnia sollemnibus verbis, veteribus et traditis institutis acta esse dicerem, tamen me rei publicae iure defenderem. An cum tu, eius civis discessu cuius unius opera senatus atque omnes boni civitatem esse incolumem totiens iudicassent, oppressam taeterrimo latrocinio cum duobus sceleratissimis consulibus rem publicam teneres, domum eius qui patriam a se servatam perire suo nomine noluisset per pontificem aliquem dedicasses, posset recreata res publica sustinere?

[122] Although why am I speaking about dedication, or why am I disputing about your law and religion contrary to what I had proposed? For my part, even if I were to say that everything had been done with solemn words, by ancient and handed‑down institutes, nevertheless I would defend myself by the right of the republic. Or, when you, at the departure of that citizen by whose single effort the senate and all the good had so often judged the state to be unharmed, held the republic, oppressed by a most loathsome latrociny, together with two most criminal consuls, had you dedicated through some pontiff the house of him who would not have wished that the fatherland saved by himself should perish under his name, could the revived republic have borne it?

[123] Date huic religioni aditum, pontifices: iam nullum fortunis communibus exitum reperietis. An si postem tenuerit pontifex et verba ad religionem deorum immortalium composita ad perniciem civium transtulerit, valebit in iniuria nomen sanctissimum religionis: si tribunus plebis verbis non minus priscis et aeque sollemnibus bona cuiuspiam consecrarit, non valebit? Atqui C. Atinius patrum memoria bona Q. Metelli, qui eum ex senatu censor eiecerat, avi tui, Q. Metelle, et tui, P. Servili, et proavi tui, P. Scipio, consecravit foculo posito in rostris adhibitoque tibicine.

[123] Grant access to this Religion, pontiffs: you will now find no exit for our common fortunes. Or if a pontifex shall have held the doorpost and shall have transferred words composed for the Religion of the immortal gods to the perdition of citizens, will the most holy name of Religion have force in an injury; but if a tribune of the plebs, with words no less ancient and equally solemn, shall have consecrated someone’s goods, will it not have force? And yet Gaius Atinius, within our fathers’ memory, consecrated the goods of Quintus Metellus—who, as censor, had cast him out of the senate—your grandfather, Quintus Metellus, and yours, Publius Servilius, and your great‑grandfather, Publius Scipio, a little brazier having been set on the Rostra and a piper having been summoned.

Quid tum? num ille furor tribuni plebis ductus ex non nullis perveterum temporum exemplis fraudi Metello fuit, summo illi et clarissimo viro?

What then? Was that frenzy of a tribune of the plebs, drawn from several examples of bygone times, a detriment to Metellus, that most exalted and most illustrious man?

[124] Certe non fuit. Vidimus hoc idem Cn. Lentulo censori tribunum plebis facere: num qua igitur is bona Lentuli religione obligavit? Sed quid ego ceteros?

[124] Certainly it was not. We saw this same thing the tribune of the plebs do to Gnaeus Lentulus, the censor: did he, then, in any way obligate Lentulus’s goods by religion? But why do I mention the others?

Tu, tu, inquam, capite velato, contione advocata, foculo posito bona tui Gabini, cui regna omnia Syrorum Arabum Persarumque donaras, consecrasti. Quod si tum nihil est actum, quid in meis bonis agi potuit? sin est ratum, cur ille gurges, helluatus tecum simul rei publicae sanguine, ad caelum tamen exstruit villam in Tusculano visceribus aerari, mihi meas ruinas, quarum ego similem totam urbem esse passus non sum, aspicere non licuit?

You—you, I say— with head veiled, with a contio summoned, with a little brazier set in place, consecrated the goods of your Gabinius, to whom you had donated all the kingdoms of the Syrians, Arabs, and Persians. But if then nothing was done, what could be done in regard to my goods? If, however, it is ratified, why does that gulf, gorged along with you on the blood of the commonwealth, nevertheless build up to the sky a villa at Tusculum from the very entrails of the treasury, while to me it was not permitted to behold my own ruins—ruins the like of which I did not suffer the whole city to be?

[125] Omitto Gabinium; quid? exemplo tuo bona tua nonne L. Ninnius, vir omnium fortissimus atque optimus, consecravit? Quod si, quia ad te pertinet, ratum esse negas oportere, ea iura constituisti in praeclaro tribunatu tuo quibus in te conversis recusares, alios everteres; sin ista consecratio legitima est, quid est quod profanum in tuis bonis esse possit?

[125] I omit Gabinius; what then? Was it not by your example that L. Ninnius, a man the bravest and best of all, consecrated your goods? But if, because it pertains to you, you deny that it ought to be ratified, you established in your illustrious tribunate those laws which, when turned against you, you would refuse, while you would overturn others; but if that consecration is legitimate, what is there that could be profane in your goods?

An consecratio nullum habet ius, dedicatio est religiosa? Quid ergo illa tua tum obtestatio tibicinis, quid foculus, quid preces, quid <verba> prisca valuerunt? ementiri, fallere, abuti deorum immortalium numine ad hominum timorem quid voluisti?

Or has consecration no legal force, and is dedication a religious act? What then did that obtestation of yours with the flute-player amount to, what the little brazier, what the prayers, what the ancient <words> avail? To feign, to falsify, to abuse the numen of the immortal gods for the fear of men—what did you intend?

Nam si est illud ratum--mitto Gabinium--tua domus certe et quicquid habes aliud Cereri est consecratum; sin ille ludus fuit, quid te impurius, qui religiones omnis pollueris aut ementiundo aut stuprando?

For if that is ratified--I pass over Gabinius--your house surely, and whatever else you have, has been consecrated to Ceres; but if that was a mere farce, what is more impure than you, you who have polluted all religions either by lying or by debauching?

[126] 'Iam fateor,' inquit, 'me in Gabinio nefarium fuisse.' Quippe vides poenam illam a te in alium institutam in te ipsum esse conversam. Sed, homo omnium scelerum flagitiorumque documentum, quod in Gabinio fateris, cuius impudicitiam pueritiae, libidines adulescentiae, dedecus et egestatem reliquae vitae, latrocinium consulatus vidimus, cui ne ista quidem ipsa calamitas iniuria potuit accidere, id in me infirmas, et gravius esse dicis quod uno adulescente quam quod contione tota teste fecisti?

[126] 'Now I confess,' he says, 'that in the case of Gabinius I was nefarious.' Indeed you see that that punishment instituted by you against another has been turned back upon yourself. But, you man who are the proof of all crimes and disgraces, that which you confess in Gabinius—whose impudicity of boyhood, the lusts of youth, the disgrace and destitution of the rest of his life, the brigandage of his consulship we have seen, to whom not even that very disaster could befall unjustly—that you try to fasten upon me, and you say it is graver what you did with one adolescent as witness than what you did with the whole assembly as witness?

[127] 'Dedicatio magnam,' inquit, 'habet religionem.' Nonne vobis Numa Pompilius videtur loqui? Discite orationem, pontifices, et vos, flamines; etiam tu, rex, disce a gentili tuo, quamquam ille gentem istam reliquit, sed tamen disce ab homine religionibus dedito ius totum omnium religionum. Quid?

[127] 'The dedication,' he says, 'has great religion.' Does not Numa Pompilius seem to be speaking to you? Learn the speech, pontiffs, and you, flamens as well; you too, king, learn from your fellow clansman, although that man left that clan, yet still learn from a man devoted to religions the whole law of all religions. What?

in dedicatione nonne et quis dedicet et quid et quo modo quaeritur? An tu haec ita confundis et perturbas ut, quicumque velit, quod velit quo modo velit possit dedicare? Quis eras tu qui dedicabas?

In a dedication, is it not asked both who should dedicate, and what, and in what mode? Or do you so confound and perturb these things that whoever wishes, whatever he wishes, in whatever way he wishes, can dedicate? Who were you who were dedicating?

Quo iure? qua lege? quo exemplo?

By what right? By what law? By what precedent?

qua potestate? Vbi te isti rei populus Romanus praefecerat? Video enim esse legem veterem tribuniciam quae vetet iniussu plebis aedis, terram, aram consecrari; neque tum hoc ille Q. Papirius, qui hanc legem rogavit, sensit, neque suspicatus est fore periculum ne domicilia aut possessiones indemnatorum civium consecrarentur.

by what authority? Where had the Roman people appointed you over that matter? For I see that there is an old tribunician law which forbids a temple, land, an altar to be consecrated without the order of the plebs; nor then did that Q. Papirius, who proposed this law, perceive this, nor did he suspect that there would be danger lest the domiciles or possessions of uncondemned citizens be consecrated.

Neque enim id fieri fas erat, neque quisquam fecerat, neque erat causa cur prohibendo non tam deterrere videretur quam admonere.

For it was not permitted by divine law for that to be done, nor had anyone done it, nor was there a cause why by prohibiting he would seem not so much to deter as to admonish.

[128] Sed quia consecrabantur aedes, non privatorum domicilia, sed quae sacrae nominantur, consecrabantur agri, non ita ut nostra praedia, si qui vellet, sed ut imperator agros de hostibus captos consecraret, statuebantur arae, quae religionem adferrent ipsi loco essent consecratae, haec nisi plebs iussisset fieri vetuit. Quae si tu interpretaris de nostris aedibus atque agris scripta esse, non repugno; sed quaero quae lex lata sit ut tu aedis meas consecrares, ubi tibi haec potestas data sit, quo iure feceris. Neque ego nunc de religione sed de bonis omnium nostrum, nec de pontificio sed de iure publico disputo.

[128] But because shrines were consecrated—not the domiciles of private persons, but those which are called sacred—fields were consecrated, not at all as with our estates, whenever someone might wish, but as when a general consecrates fields captured from enemies; altars were set up, which would bring religion, a sacred obligation, upon that very place where they had been consecrated; this the plebs forbade to be done unless the plebs had ordered it. Which things, if you interpret as having been written about our houses and fields, I do not object; but I ask what law was passed that you should consecrate my house, where this power was given to you, by what right you did it. Nor am I now disputing about religion but about the goods of us all, nor about pontifical law but about public law.

Lex Papiria vetat aedis iniussu plebis consecrari. Sit sane hoc de nostris aedibus ac non de publicis templis: unum ostende verbum consecrationis in ipsa tua lege, si illa lex est ac non vox sceleris et crudelitatis tuae.

The Papirian law forbids houses to be consecrated without the plebs’ order. Granted, let this concern our houses and not public temples: show a single word of consecration in your very law itself, if that is a law and not the voice of your wickedness and cruelty.

[129] Quod si tibi tum in illo rei publicae naufragio omnia in mentem venire potuissent, aut si tuus scriptor in illo incendio civitatis non syngraphas cum Byzantiis exsulibus et cum legatis Brogitari faceret, sed vacuo animo tibi ista non scita sed portenta conscriberet, esses omnia, si minus re, at verbis legitimis consecutus. Sed uno tempore cautiones fiebant pecuniarum, foedera feriebantur provinciarum, regum appellationes venales erant, servorum omnium vicatim celebrabatur tota urbe discriptio, inimici in gratiam reconciliabantur, imperia scribebantur nova iuventuti, Q. Seio venenum misero parabatur, de Cn. Pompeio, propugnatore et custode imperi, interficiendo consilia inibantur, senatus ne quid esset, ut lugerent semper boni, ut capta res publica consulum proditione vi tribunicia teneretur. Haec cum tot tantaque agerentur, non mirum est, praesertim in furore animi et caecitate, multa illum et te fefellisse.

[129] But if at that time, in that shipwreck of the republic, everything could have come to your mind, or if your scribe, in that conflagration of the state, had not been making syngraphs with the exiles of Byzantium and with the legates of Brogitarus, but with an unencumbered mind had written out for you those things, not enactments but portents, you would have achieved everything, if not in reality, yet by lawful words. But at one and the same time sureties for monies were being made, treaties were being struck for the provinces, the appellations of kings were for sale, the discription—registration—of all slaves by neighborhoods was being conducted throughout the whole city, enemies were being reconciled into favor, new commands were being written out for the youth, poison was being prepared for poor Q. Seius, plans were being entered upon for the killing of Cn. Pompeius, the defender and guardian of the empire, and that the senate might count for nothing, so that the good might be ever in mourning, so that the captured commonwealth might be held by tribunician force through the betrayal of the consuls. While so many and so great things were being transacted, it is no marvel, especially in frenzy and blindness of mind, that many things deceived both him and you.

[130] At videte quanta sit vis huius Papiriae legis in re tali, non qualem tu adfers sceleris plenam et furoris. Q. Marcius censor signum Concordiae fecerat idque in publico conlocarat. Hoc signum C. Cassius censor cum in curiam transtulisset, conlegium vestrum consuluit num quid esse causae videretur quin id signum curiamque Concordiae dedicaret.

[130] But see how great is the force of this Papirian law in such a matter, not the kind you bring forward, full of crime and frenzy. Q. Marcius, censor, made a statue of Concord and had placed it in a public place. When C. Cassius, censor, had transferred this statue into the curia, he consulted your college whether there seemed to be any cause why he should not dedicate that statue and the Curia of Concord.

Quaeso, pontifices, et hominem cum homine et tempus cum tempore et rem cum re comparate. Ille erat summa modestia et gravitate censor: hic tribunus plebis scelere et audacia singulari. Tempus illud erat tranquillum et in libertate populi et gubernatione positum senatus: tuum porro tempus libertate populi Romani oppressa, senatus auctoritate deleta.

I ask, pontiffs, compare man with man, and time with time, and matter with matter. That one was a censor of the highest modesty and gravity; this one a tribune of the plebs with singular crime and audacity. That time was tranquil and set in the freedom of the people and in the governance of the senate; but your time, with the liberty of the Roman people oppressed, with the authority of the senate destroyed.

[131] Res illa plena iustitiae, sapientiae, dignitatis (censor enim, penes quem maiores nostri, id quod tu sustulisti, iudicium senatus de dignitate esse voluerunt, Concordiae signum volebat in curia curiamque ei deae dedicare), praeclara voluntas atque omni laude digna; praescribere enim se arbitrabatur ut sine studiis dissensionis sententiae dicerentur, si sedem ipsam ac templum publici consili religione Concordiae devinxisset. Tu cum ferro, cum metu, cum edictis, cum privilegiis, cum praesentibus copiis perditorum, absentis exercitus terrore et minis, consulum societate et nefario foedere servitute oppressam civitatem teneres, Libertatis signum posuisti magis ad ludibrium impudentiae quam ad simulationem religionis. Ille in curia quae poterat sine cuiusquam incommodo dedicari, tu in civis optime de re publica meriti cruore ac paene ossibus simulacrum non libertatis publicae, sed licentiae conlocasti.

[131] That was a matter full of justice, wisdom, dignity (for the censor— in whose control our ancestors wished there to be the judgment of the senate concerning dignity, which you have abolished— desired a sign of Concord in the curia and to dedicate the curia to that goddess), a splendid will and worthy of every laud; for he thought he was prescribing in advance that opinions be spoken without the partisanships of dissension, if he had bound the very seat and temple of public counsel by the religion of Concord. You— with iron, with fear, with edicts, with privileges, with the present forces of profligates, with the terror and threats of an absent army, with the alliance of the consuls and a nefarious pact— while you held a city oppressed by servitude, set up the sign of Liberty more for the mockery of impudence than for a simulation of religion. He, in the curia, which could be dedicated without inconvenience to anyone; you, on the blood and almost the bones of a citizen most excellently deserving of the republic, placed a simulacrum not of public liberty, but of license.

[132] Atque ille tamen ad conlegium rettulit, tu ad quem rettulisti? Si quid deliberares, si quid tibi aut piandum aut instituendum fuisset religione domestica, tamen instituto ceterorum vetere ad pontificem detulisses: novum delubrum cum in urbis clarissimo loco nefando quodam atque inaudito instituto inchoares, referendum ad sacerdotes publicos non putasti? At si conlegium pontificum adhibendum non videbatur, nemone horum tibi idoneus visus est, qui aetate honore auctoritate antecellunt, cum quo dedicatione communicares?

[132] And yet that man referred it to the college; you—to whom did you refer it? If you were deliberating anything, if there was anything for you either to be expiated or to be instituted by domestic religion, nevertheless by the ancient practice of the rest you would have brought it before the pontifex: when you were beginning a new shrine in the most illustrious place of the city by a certain nefarious and unheard-of precedent, did you not think it should be referred to the public priests? But if the college of pontiffs did not seem to be called in, did none of these men, who excel in age, honor, and authority, seem to you suitable, with whom you might confer the dedication?

Quorum quidem tu non contempsisti sed pertimuisti dignitatem. An tu auderes quaerere ex P. Servilio aut ex M. Lucullo, quorum ego consilio atque auctoritate rem publicam consul ex vestris manibus ac faucibus eripui, quibusnam verbis aut quo ritu-- primum hoc dico--civis domum consecrares, deinde civis eius cui princeps senatus, tum autem ordines omnes, deinde Italia tota, post cunctae gentes testimonium huius urbis atque imperi conservati dedissent?

Of whom, indeed, you did not despise but rather dreaded the dignity. Or would you dare to ask from Publius Servilius or from Marcus Lucullus—by whose counsel and authority I, as consul, snatched the republic from your hands and jaws—with what words or by what rite-- first I say this--a citizen’s house you would consecrate; then, that citizen to whom the princeps of the Senate, then moreover all the orders, then all Italy, afterward all the nations, had given testimony of the preservation of this city and empire?

[133] Quid diceres, o nefanda et perniciosa labes civitatis? 'Ades, Luculle, ades Servili, dum dedico domum Ciceronis, ut mihi praeeatis postemque teneatis!' Es tu quidem cum audacia tum impudentia singulari, sed tibi tamen oculi, vultus, verba cecidissent, cum te viri, qui sua dignitate personam populi atque auctoritatem imperi sustinerent, verbis gravissimis proterruissent, neque sibi fas esse dixissent furori interesse tuo atque in patriae parricidio exsultare.

[133] What would you say, O unspeakable and pernicious stain of the commonwealth? “Be present, Lucullus, be present, Servilius, while I dedicate Cicero’s house, so that you may go before me and hold the doorpost!” You are indeed of singular audacity and shamelessness; yet your eyes, your countenance, your words would have fallen, when men who by their dignity sustained the persona of the Roman people and the authority of the empire had driven you off with the weightiest words, and had said that it was not lawful for them to take part in your fury and to exult in parricide of the fatherland.

[134] Quae cum videres, tum te ad tuum adfinem non delectum a te, sed relictum a ceteris contulisti. Quem ego tamen credo, si est ortus ab illis quos memoriae proditum est ab ipso Hercule perfuncto iam laboribus sacra didicisse, in viri fortis aerumnis non ita crudelem fuisse ut in vivi etiam et spirantis capite bustum suis manibus imponeret; qui aut nihil dixit nec fecit omnino, poenamque hanc maternae temeritatis tulit ut mutam in delicto personam nomenque praeberet, aut, si dixit aliquid verbis haesitantibus postemque tremebunda manu tetigit, certe nihil rite, nihil caste, nihil more institutoque perfecit. Viderat ille Murenam, vitricum suum, consulem designatum, ad me consulem cum Allobrogibus communis exiti indicia adferre, audierat ex illo se a me bis salutem accepisse, separatim semel, iterum cum universis.

[134] When you saw these things, then you betook yourself to your affine (in‑law), not selected by you, but left over by the others. Whom I nevertheless believe, if he is sprung from those whom memory records to have learned sacred rites from Hercules himself, his labors now completed, not to have been so cruel, in the hardships of a brave man, as to set with his own hands a funeral mound upon the very head of one living and breathing; who either said and did nothing at all, and bore this penalty of his mother’s temerity, namely, to offer a mute persona and a name in the delict; or, if he said anything with hesitating words and touched the doorpost with a trembling hand, certainly he accomplished nothing according to rite, nothing chastely, nothing by custom and established usage. He had seen Murena, his stepfather, consul‑designate, bring to me, the consul, together with the Allobroges, the proofs of a common destruction; he had heard from that man that he himself had received safety from me twice—separately once, again together with all.

[135] Qua re quis est qui existimare possit huic novo pontifici, primam hanc post sacerdotium initum religionem instituenti vocemque mittenti, non et linguam obmutuisse et manum obtorpuisse et mentem debilitatam metu concidisse, praesertim cum ex conlegio tanto non regem, non flaminem, non pontificem videret, fierique particeps invitus alieni sceleris cogeretur, et gravissimas poenas adfinitatis impurissimae sustineret?

[135] For which reason, who is there who could think that for this new pontiff—who, after the priesthood had been entered upon, was instituting this first observance of religion and sending forth his voice—his tongue did not fall mute, his hand not grow torpid, and his mind, debilitated by fear, not collapse, especially since in so great a college he saw neither king, nor flamen, nor pontiff, and was being forced to become an unwilling participant in another’s crime, and was enduring the most grievous penalties of a most impure affinity?

[136] Sed ut revertar ad ius publicum dedicandi, quod ipsi pontifices semper non solum ad suas caerimonias sed etiam ad populi iussa adcommodaverunt, habetis in commentariis vestris C. Cassium censorem de signo Concordiae dedicando ad pontificum conlegium rettulisse, eique M. Aemilium pontificem maximum pro conlegio respondisse, nisi eum populus Romanus nominatim praefecisset atque eius iussu faceret, non videri eam posse recte dedicari. Quid? cum Licinia, virgo Vestalis summo loco nata, sanctissimo sacerdotio praedita, T. Flaminio Q. Metello consulibus aram et aediculam et pulvinar sub Saxo dedicasset, nonne eam rem ex auctoritate senatus ad hoc conlegium Sex.

[136] But to return to the public law of dedicating, which the pontiffs themselves have always accommodated not only to their own ceremonies but also to the people’s commands, you have in your commentaries that Gaius Cassius, censor, referred to the college of pontiffs about dedicating a sign of Concord, and that Marcus Aemilius, pontifex maximus, replied for the college that, unless the Roman people had expressly appointed him by name and he did it by their order, it did not seem that it could be rightly dedicated. What? when Licinia, a Vestal virgin, born of the highest rank, endowed with the most sacrosanct priesthood, in the consulship of T. Flaminius and Q. Metellus, had dedicated an altar and a little shrine and a pulvinar beneath the Rock, did not that matter, by the authority of the senate, come to this college by Sext.

Iulius praetor rettulit? cum P. Scaevola pontifex maximus pro conlegio respondit, Qvod in loco pvblico Licinia, Gai filia, inivssv popvli dedicasset, sacrvm non viderier. Quam quidem rem quanta <tractaverit> severitate quantaque diligentia senatus, ex ipso senatus consulto facile cognoscetis.

Did the praetor Julius refer it? when P. Scaevola, the pontifex maximus, replied on behalf of the college, that what Licinia, daughter of Gaius, had dedicated in a public place without the order of the people did not seem sacred. And indeed with how great severity and how great diligence the senate handled that matter, you will easily learn from the senatorial decree itself.

[137] Videtisne praetori urbano negotium datum ut curaret ne id sacrum esset, et ut, si quae essent incisae aut inscriptae litterae, tollerentur? O tempora, o mores! Tum censorem, hominem sanctissimum, simulacrum Concordiae dedicare pontifices in templo inaugurato prohibuerunt, post autem senatus in loco augusto consecratam iam aram tollendam ex auctoritate pontificum censuit neque ullum est passus ex ea dedicatione litterarum exstare monumentum: tu, procella patriae, turbo ac tempestas pacis atque oti, quod in naufragio rei publicae, tenebris offusis, demerso populo Romano, everso atque eiecto senatu dirueris, aedificaris, religione omni violata religionis tamen nomine contaminaris, in visceribus eius qui urbem suis laboribus ac periculis conservasset monumentum deletae rei publicae conlocaris, ~ab aequitum nota doloris bonorum omnium sublato Q. Catuli nomine incideris, id sperasti rem publicam diutius quam quoad mecum simul expulsa careret his moenibus esse laturam?

[137] Do you see that the urban praetor was given the charge to take care that that not be sacred, and that, if there were any letters incised or inscribed, they be removed? O times, O morals! Then the pontifices forbade a censor, a most holy man, to dedicate a simulacrum of Concord in an inaugurated temple; afterwards, however, the senate, on the authority of the pontifices, resolved that an altar already consecrated in an august place be taken down, nor did it allow any monument of letters from that dedication to stand forth: you, blast of the fatherland, whirlwind and tempest of peace and repose, who, when the commonwealth suffered shipwreck, darkness being cast over it, the Roman people sunk, the senate overturned and cast out, tear down, build up, with all religion violated are nevertheless contaminated by the very name of religion, in the very vitals of him who had preserved the city by his labors and dangers you place a monument of a deleted commonwealth, ~by the mark of the equites, the grief of all good men, with the name of Q. Catulus removed, you engrave it,—did you hope that the commonwealth was going to bear this any longer than until such time as, expelled together with me, it would be bereft of these walls?

[138] Ac si, pontifices, neque is cui licuit, neque id quod fas fuit dedicavit, quid me attinet iam illud tertium quod proposueram docere, non iis institutis ac verbis quibus caerimoniae postulant dedicasse? Dixi a principio nihil me de scientia vestra, nihil de sacris, nihil de abscondito pontificum iure dicturum. Quae sunt adhuc a me de iure dedicandi disputata, non sunt quaesita ex occulto aliquo genere litterarum, sed sumpta de medio, ex rebus palam per magistratus actis ad conlegiumque delatis, ex senatus consulto, ex lege.

[138] And if, pontiffs, neither did he whom it was permitted, nor did he dedicate that which was according to divine right, what concern is it of mine now to prove that third point which I had proposed—that he did not dedicate with those institutions and words which the ceremonies demand? I said at the beginning that I would say nothing about your knowledge, nothing about sacred things, nothing about the hidden law of the pontiffs. The matters that have thus far been argued by me concerning the right of dedicating have not been sought from some occult kind of writings, but taken from the common stock—from things done openly through the magistrates and delivered to the college, from a senatorial decree, from the law.

Illa interiora iam vestra sunt, quid dici, quid praeiri, quid tangi, quid teneri ius fuerit.

Those inner matters are now yours, what by right was to be said, what to be pre-recited, what to be touched, what to be held.

[139] Quae si omnia e Ti. Coruncani scientia, qui peritissimus pontifex fuisse dicitur, acta esse constaret, aut si M. Horatius ille Pulvillus, qui, cum eum multi propter invidiam fictis religionibus impedirent, restitit et constantissima mente Capitolium dedicavit, huius modi alicui dedicationi praefuisset, tamen in scelere religio non valeret, ne valeat id quod imperitus adulescens, novus sacerdos, sororis precibus, matris minis adductus, ignarus, invitus, sine conlegis, sine libris, sine auctore, sine fictore, furtim, mente ac lingua titubante fecisse dicatur: praesertim cum iste impurus atque impius hostis omnium religionum, qui contra fas et inter viros saepe mulier et inter mulieres vir fuisset, ageret illam rem ita raptim et turbulente uti neque mens neque vox neque lingua consisteret?

[139] And even if it were established that all these things were done by the expertise of Tiberius Coruncanius, who is said to have been a most skilled pontiff, or if that Marcus Horatius Pulvillus, who—when many, because of envy, were hindering him with feigned religiones—stood firm and with most constant mind dedicated the Capitol, had presided over some dedication of this sort, nevertheless in crime religio would not have force; nor let that be valid which an unskilled youth, a novice priest, led on by a sister’s entreaties and a mother’s threats, ignorant, unwilling, without colleagues, without books, without an auctor, without a framer, stealthily, with mind and tongue stumbling, is said to have done: especially since that impure and impious enemy of all religiones—who, against what is right, had often been a woman among men and a man among women—was transacting that matter so hastily and turbulently that neither mind nor voice nor tongue could stand firm?

[140] Delata tum sunt ad vos, pontifices, et post omnium sermone celebrata, quem ad modum iste praeposteris verbis, ominibus obscenis, identidem se ipse revocans, dubitans, timens, haesitans omnia aliter ac vos in monumentis habetis et pronuntiarit et fecerit. Quod quidem minime mirum est, in tanto scelere tantaque dementia ne audaciae quidem locum ad timorem comprimendum fuisse. Etenim si nemo umquam praedo tam barbarus atque immanis fuit, qui cum fana spoliasset, deinde aram aliquam in litore deserto somniis stimulatus aut religione aliqua consecraret, non horreret animo cum divinum numen scelere violatum placare precibus cogeretur, qua tandem istum perturbatione mentis omnium templorum atque tectorum totiusque urbis praedonem fuisse censetis, cum pro detestatione tot scelerum unam aram nefarie consecraret?

[140] Then were brought before you, pontiffs, and afterwards were bandied about in the talk of all, how that fellow, with preposterous words, obscene omens, again and again calling himself back, doubting, fearing, hesitating, both pronounced and did everything otherwise than you have in your monuments. Which indeed is by no means a wonder, that in so great a crime and so great a madness there was not even room for audacity to check fear. For if no brigand was ever so barbarous and savage who, after he had despoiled shrines, then, stimulated by dreams or by some religious scruple, would consecrate some altar on a deserted shore, would he not shudder in spirit when he was forced to appease with prayers the divine numen profaned by his crime, with what agitation of mind, pray, do you suppose that man—plunderer of all the temples and the roofs of the whole city—to have been, when, instead of a detestation of so many crimes, he was nefariously consecrating a single altar?

[141] Non potuit ullo modo--quamquam et insolentia dominatus extulerat animos et erat incredibili armatus audacia--non in agendo ruere ac saepe peccare, praesertim illo pontifice et magistro qui cogeretur docere ante quam ipse didicisset. Magna vis est cum in deorum immortalium numine tum vero in ipsa re publica. Di immortales, suorum templorum custodem ac praesidem sceleratissime pulsum cum viderent, ex suis templis in eius aedis immigrare nolebant, itaque istius vaecordissimi mentem cura metuque terrebant; res vero publica quamquam erat exterminata mecum, tamen obversabatur ante oculos exstinctoris sui, et ab istius inflammato atque indomito furore iam tum se meque repetebat.

[141] He could in no way—although both the insolence of his domination had lifted his spirits and he was armed with incredible audacity—fail, in acting, to rush headlong and often to err, especially with that pontifex and “teacher” who was being forced to teach before he himself had learned. Great is the force both in the numen of the immortal gods and indeed in the commonwealth itself. The immortal gods, when they saw the guardian and protector of their temples most criminally driven out, were unwilling to immigrate from their own temples into his house, and so they kept terrifying the mind of that most witless man with care and fear; while the commonwealth, although it had been banished with me, nevertheless kept presenting itself before the eyes of its destroyer, and, in face of that man’s inflamed and indomitable frenzy, was already then reclaiming both itself and me.

Qua re quid est mirum si iste metu <exagitatus>, furore instinctus, scelere praeceps, neque institutas caerimonias persequi neque verbum ullum sollemne potuit effari?

Wherefore, what is there to wonder at if that man, harried by fear, instigated by frenzy, headlong through crime, could neither pursue the instituted ceremonies nor utter any solemn word?

[142] Quae cum ita sint, pontifices, revocate iam animos vestros ab hac subtili nostra disputatione ad universam rem publicam, quam antea cum viris fortibus multis, in hac vero causa solis vestris cervicibus sustinetis. Vobis universi senatus perpetua auctoritas, cui vosmet ipsi praestantissime semper in mea causa praefuistis, vobis Italiae magnificentissimus ille motus municipiorumque concursus, vobis campus centuriarumque una vox omnium, quarum vos principes atque auctores fuistis, vobis omnes societates, omnes ordines, omnes qui aut re aut spe denique sunt bona, omne suum erga meam dignitatem studium et iudicium non modo commissum verum etiam commendatum esse arbitrabuntur.

[142] Since these things are so, pontiffs, recall now your minds from this subtle disputation of ours to the whole commonwealth, which formerly you sustained with many brave men, but in this case indeed you are bearing upon your own necks alone. To you the perpetual authority of the entire senate, over which you yourselves have most excellently always presided in my cause, to you that most magnificent movement of Italy and the concourse of the municipalities, to you the Campus and the single voice of all the centuries, of which you were the leaders and authors, to you all societies, all orders, all who either in reality or in hope, finally, are assets, will deem that all their zeal and judgment toward my dignity has been not only entrusted but even commended.

[143] Denique ipsi di immortales qui hanc urbem atque hoc imperium tuentur, ut esset omnibus gentibus posteritatique perspicuum divino me numine esse rei publicae redditum, idcirco mihi videntur fructum reditus et gratulationis meae ad suorum sacerdotum potestatem iudiciumque revocasse. Hic est enim reditus, pontifices, haec restitutio in domo, in sedibus, in aris, in focis, in dis penatibus reciperandis; quorum si iste suis sceleratissimis manibus tecta sedisque convellit, ducibusque consulibus tamquam urbe capta hanc unam domum quasi acerrimi propugnatoris sibi delendam putavit, iam illi di penates ac familiares mei per vos in meam domum mecum erunt restituti.

[143] Finally, the immortal gods themselves, who watch over this city and this empire, in order that it might be perspicuous to all nations and to posterity that by a divine numen I have been restored to the commonwealth, therefore seem to me to have referred the fruit of my return and of my congratulation back to the power and judgment of their priests. For this is the return, pontiffs, this the restitution in the home, in the seats, in the altars, in the hearths, in the household gods to be recovered; and if that man with his most criminal hands wrenched roofs and seats, and, the consuls as his leaders, as though the city had been taken, thought that this one house, as of the fiercest champion, should be destroyed for himself, now those household Penates and my familiars through you into my house, with me, will have been restored.

[144] Quocirca te, Capitoline, quem propter beneficia populus Romanus Optimum, propter vim Maximum nominavit, teque, Iuno Regina, et te, custos urbis, Minerva, quae semper adiutrix consiliorum meorum, testis laborum exstitisti, precor atque quaeso, vosque qui maxime repetistis atque revocastis, quorum de sedibus haec mihi est proposita contentio, patrii penates familiaresque, qui huic urbi et rei publicae praesidetis, vos obtestor, quorum ego a templis atque delubris pestiferam illam et nefariam flammam depuli, teque, Vesta mater, cuius castissimas sacerdotes ab hominum amentium furore et scelere defendi, cuiusque ignem illum sempiternum non sum passus aut sanguine civium restingui aut cum totius urbis incendio commisceri,

[144] Wherefore you, Capitoline, whom on account of benefactions the Roman people named the Best, on account of force the Greatest, and you, Juno the Queen, and you, guardian of the city, Minerva, who have ever stood forth as helper of my counsels and witness of my labors, I pray and I beseech; and you who most especially sought back and recalled, about whose seats this contention has been proposed to me, ancestral and familiar Penates, who preside over this city and the commonwealth, I call you to witness, from whose temples and shrines I drove away that pestiferous and nefarious flame; and you, Mother Vesta, whose most chaste priestesses I defended from the frenzy and crime of mad men, and whose eternal fire I did not permit either to be quenched by the blood of citizens or to be mingled with a conflagration of the whole city,

[145] ut, si in illo paene fato rei publicae obieci meum caput pro vestris caerimoniis atque templis perditissimorum civium furori atque ferro, et si iterum, cum ex mea contentione interitus bonorum omnium quaereretur, vos sum testatus, vobis me ac meos commendavi, meque atque meum caput ea condicione devovi ut, si et eo ipso tempore et ante in consulatu meo commodis meis omnibus, emolumentis, praemiis praetermissis cura, cogitatione, vigiliis omnibus nihil nisi de salute meorum civium laborassem, tum mihi re publica aliquando restituta liceret frui, sin autem mea consilia patriae non profuissent, ut perpetuum dolorem avulsus a meis sustinerem: hanc ego devotionem capitis mei, cum ero in meas sedis restitutus, tum denique convictam esse et commissam putabo.

[145] that, if in that near-doom of the commonwealth I exposed my head for your ceremonies and temples to the fury and steel of the most profligate citizens, and if again, when through my contention the destruction of all good men was being sought, I called you to witness, I commended myself and mine to you, and I devoted myself and my head on this condition: that, if both at that very time and before, in my consulship, with all my advantages, emoluments, and rewards set aside, by care, reflection, and all my vigils I had labored at nothing except the safety of my fellow citizens, then, the commonwealth at length restored, it might be permitted me to enjoy it; but if, however, my counsels had not profited the fatherland, that, torn from my own, I should endure perpetual grief: this self-devotion of my head I will then at last judge to have been proven and consummated, when I shall have been restored into my seats.

[146] Nam nunc quidem, pontifices, non solum domo, de qua cognostis, sed tota urbe careo, in quam videor esse restitutus. Vrbis enim celeberrimae et maximae partes adversum illud non monumentum, sed vulnus patriae contuentur. Quem cum mihi conspectum morte magis vitandum fugiendumque esse videatis, nolite, quaeso, eum cuius reditu restitutam rem publicam fore putastis non solum dignitatis ornamentis, sed etiam urbis patriae usu velle esse privatum.

[146] For now indeed, pontiffs, I am deprived not only of the house about which you have come to know, but of the whole city into which I seem to have been restored. For the most celebrated and greatest parts of the City gaze upon that, not as a monument, but as a wound of the fatherland. Since you see that the sight of it must be shunned and fled from by me rather than death, do not, I beg, wish that he whose return you thought would render the commonwealth restored be deprived not only of the ornaments of dignity but even of the use of the city of his fatherland.

Non me bonorum direptio, non tectorum excisio, non depopulatio praediorum, non praeda consulum ex meis fortunis crudelissime capta permovet: caduca semper et mobilia haec esse duxi, non virtutis atque ingeni, sed fortunae et temporum munera, quorum ego non tam facultatem umquam et copiam expetendam putavi quam et in utendo rationem et in carendo patientiam.

Not the despoiling of my goods, not the pulling down of my roofs, not the devastation of my estates, not the booty of the consuls most cruelly taken from my fortunes moves me: I have always held these to be perishable and changeable, gifts not of virtue and of genius, but of fortune and of the times; of which I have thought that what was to be sought was not so much capacity and abundance as both reason in using them and patience in doing without them.

[147] Etenim ad nostrum usum prope modum iam est definita moderatio rei familiaris, liberis autem nostris satis amplum patrimonium paterni nominis ac memoriae nostrae relinquemus: domo per scelus erepta, per latrocinium occupata, per religionis vim sceleratius etiam aedificata quam eversa, carere sine maxima ignominia rei publicae, meo dedecore ac dolore non possum. Quapropter si dis immortalibus, si senatui, si populo Romano, si cunctae Italiae, si provinciis, si exteris nationibus, si vobismet ipsis, qui in mea salute principem semper locum auctoritatemque tenuistis, gratum et iucundum meum reditum intellegitis esse, quaeso obtestorque vos, pontifices, ut me, quem auctoritate studio sententiis restituistis, nunc, quoniam senatus ita vult, manibus quoque vestris in sedibus meis conlocetis.

[147] For indeed, for our use the moderation of our household property is by now pretty much determined, and to our children we shall leave a sufficiently ample patrimony of our paternal name and our memory; but to be without my house—snatched away by crime, seized by brigandage, and, by the force of religion, rebuilt more criminally even than it was overthrown—I cannot, without the greatest ignominy to the commonwealth, and my own disgrace and pain. Wherefore, if you understand my return to be grateful and pleasant to the immortal gods, to the senate, to the Roman people, to all Italy, to the provinces, to foreign nations, to you yourselves, who in my safety have always held the foremost place and authority, I beg and adjure you, pontiffs, that me, whom you have restored by your authority, zeal, and votes, now, since the senate so wills, you would with your hands also place in my own abode.