Pro Caelio Flashcards
51.
sed quoniam emersisse iam e vadis et scopulos praetervecta esse videtur oratio mea, perfacilis mihi reliquus cursus ostenditur.
duo sunt enim crimina una in muliere summorum facinorum, auri quod sumptum a Clodia dicitur, et veneni quod eiusdem Clodiae necandae causa parasse Caelium criminantur.
aurum sumpsit, ut dicitis, quod Lucii Luccei servis daret, per quos Alexandrinus Dio, qui tum apud Lucceium habitabat, necaretur.
magnum crimen vel in legatis insidiandis vel in servis ad hospitem domini necandum sollicitandis, plenum sceleris consilium, plenum audaciae!
51.
But since my speech now seems to have arisen from the shallows and sailed on past the crags, the rest of my course is very easily shown to me.
For there are two charges of the most serious crimes against one woman, one in respect of the gold which is said to have been taken from Clodia, and one in respect of the poison which they accuse Caelius of having prepared for the purpose of killing the same Clodia.
He took the gold to give to the slaves of Lucius Lucceius, by whom Dio of Alexandria was killed, who was living at that time at Lucceius’ house.
It is a great crime either to plot against ambassadors or to induce slaves to murder the guest-friend of their master, a design full of wickedness and full of audacity.
52.
quo quidem in crimine primum illud requiro, dixeritne Clodiae quam ob rem aurum sumeret, an non dixerit.
si non dixit, cur dedit?
si dixit, eodem se conscientiae scelere devinxit. tune aurum ex armario tuo promere ausa es, tune Venerem illam tuam spoliare ornamentis, spoliatricem ceterorum, cum scires, quantum ad facinus aurum hoc quaereretur, ad necem legati, ad Lucii Luccei, sanctissimi hominis atque integerrimi, labem sceleris sempiternam?
huic facinori tanto tua mens liberalis conscia, tua domus popularis ministra, tua denique hospitalis illa Venus adiutrix esse non debuit
52.
In the matter of this charge, I will first of all ask this: did he tell Clodia why he was taking the gold, or did he not tell her?
If he did not tell her, why did she give it?
If he did tell her, then she has implicated herself in the same crime by means of her complicity. Did you dare to take gold out of your strong-box? Did you dare to strip that Venus statue of yours of her ornaments, the despoiler of the rest? When you knew for what an enormous crime this gold was being requested, for the murder of an ambassador, for the everlasting stain of criminality of Lucius Lucceius, a most pious and upright man,
that generous mind of yours should not have been accessory to such a terrible crime, your popular home should not openly have been an instrument in it, nor finally that welcoming Venus of yours the accomplice.
vidit hoc Balbus; celatam esse Clodiam dixit, atque ita Caelium ad illam attulisse se ad ornatum ludorum aurum quaerere.
si tam familiaris erat Clodiae, quam tu esse vis, cum de libidine eius tam multa dicis, dixit profecto, quo vellet aurum; si tam familiaris non erat, non dedit.
ita, si verum tibi Caelius dixit, o immoderata mulier, sciens tu aurum ad facinus dedisti; si non est ausus dicere, non dedisti.
quid ego nunc argumentis huic crimini, quae sunt innumerabilia, resistam? possum dicere mores Caeli longissime a tanti sceleris atrocitate esse disiunctos; minime ninime esse credendum homini tam ingenioso tamque prudenti non venisse in mentem rem tanti sceleris ignotis alienisque servis non esse credendam possum etiam alia et ceterorum patronorum et mea consuetudine ab accusatore perquirere, ubi sit congressus cum servis Luccei Caelius, qui ei fuerit aditus; si per se, qua temeritate; si per alium, per quem?
possum omnes latebras suspicionum peragrare dicendo; non causa, non locus, non facultas, non conscius, non perficiendi, non occultandi maleficii spes, non ratio ulla, non vestigium maximi facinoris reperietur.
Balbus perceived this. He said that Clodia was kept in the dark, and that Caelius had alleged to that woman that he wanted the gold for the purpose of adorning the games.
If he was as intimate with Clodia as you wish to be the case when you say so much about his sexual appetite, he, no doubt, told her what he wanted the gold for. If he was not so intimate with her, then she did not give it.
Therefore, if Caelius told you the truth, o, intemperate woman, you knowingly gave the gold for the purpose of committing a crime; if he did not dare to say, then you did not give it. Why should I now refrain from the defences to this charge, which are countless? I can say that Caelius’ moral character is far removed from the sort of nature that commits such a terrible crime. It is in no way credible that it did not occur to a man, who is so naturally talented and so wise that such a terrible crime should not be entrusted to slaves who were unknown and who belonged to another man. I can also enquire of the accuser the other things according to the custom of the other defence counsels and my own: when did Caelius meet with the slaves of Lucceius? what access did he have to them? if in person, by what rashness? if through someone else, then who?
I can go through all the hiding places of suspicion. No reason, no place, no opportunity, no accomplice, no hope of completing or concealing the crime, not any motive, no trace of the greatest crime will be found.
54.
sed haec, quae sunt oratoris propria, quae mihi non propter ingenium meum, sed propter hanc exercitationem usumque dicendi fructum aliquem ferre potuissent, cum a me ipso elaborata proferri viderentur, brevitatis causa relinquo omnia.
habeo enim, iudices, quem vos socium vestrae religionis iurisque iurandi facile esse patiamini, Lucium Lucceium sanctissimum hominem et gravissimum testem, qui tantum facinus in famam atque fortunas suas neque non audisset illatum a Caelio neque neglexisset neque tulisset.
an ille vir lla humanitate praeditus, illis studiis, llis artibus atque doctrina illius ipsius periculum, quem propter haec ipsa studia diligebat, neglegere potuisset et, quod facinus in alienum hominem intentum severe acciperet, id omisisset curare in hospitem?
quod per ignotos actum si comperisset, doleret, id a suis servis temptatum esse neglegeret? quod in agris locisve publicis factum reprehenderet, id in urbe ac domi suae coeptum esse leniter ferret? quod in alicuius agrestis periculo non praetermitteret, id homo eruditus in insidiis doctissimi hominis dissimulandum putaret?
54.
But for the sake of brevity, I leave aside all the things, these things which are the stock-in-trade of an orator, which could have brought some profit to me, not because of my own intelligence, but because of this training and practice of speaking, since the matters brought forward might appear to have been worked out by my own self.
For I have, judges, Lucius Lucceius, whom you may easily allow to be the ally of your religious duty and sworn oath, a most sacred man and a very serious witness, who could not have not heard about such a great slur brought against his good name and against his fortunes by Caelius, neither could he have ignored it, nor could he have tolerated it.
Or could that man who is endowed with that kindness, those studious pursuits, those skills and that learning have ignored the danger which threatened that very man whom he esteemed because of those very interests, nor could he have failed to deal with a crime plotted against a guest, which he would have taken seriously had it been committed against a stranger?
Would he ignore a crime when attempted by his own slaves, at which he would be aggrieved, had he discovered that it had been carried out by unknown men? Would he calmly endure in his own home and city the inception of a crime, which he would condemn had it been committed in the fields or public places? Would a man with his education ever think he should hide a plot that was directed against a man of the highest scholarship, which he would not turn a blind eye in the case of danger to some countryman?
55.
sed cur diutius vos, iudices, teneo? ipsius iurati religionem auctoritatemque percipite atque omnia diligenter testimonii verba cognoscite. recita. LUCII LUCCEI TESTIMONIVM.
quid exspectatis amplius? an aliquam vocem putatis ipsam pro se causam et veritatem posse mittere? haec est innocentiae defensio, haec ipsius causae oratio, haec una vox veritatis.
in crimine ipso nulla suspicio est, in re nihil est argumenti, in negotio, quod actum esse dicitur, nullum vestigium sermonis, loci, temporis; nemo testis, nemo conscius nominatur, totum crimen profertur ex inimica, ex infami, ex crudeli, ex facinerosa, ex libidinosa domo; domus autem illa, quae temptata esse scelere isto nefario dicitur, plena est integritatis, dignitatis, officii, religionis; ex qua domo recitatur vobis iure iurando devincta auctoritas ut res minime dubitanda in contentione ponatur, utrum temeraria, procax, irata mulier finxisse crimen, an gravis sapiens moderatusque vir religiose testimonium dixisse videatur.
55.
But why do I keep you any longer, judges? Perceive the reverence for the gods and the influence of that man himself on oath and carefully understand all the words of the testimony. Read it out. The testimony of Lucius Lucceius.
What more are you waiting for? Or do you think that the case and the truth itself can dispatch some response on its own behalf? This is the defence of innocence, this is the speech of the case itself, this is the only voice of truth.
There is no suspicion in the crime itself, there is no proof in the case and in the transaction which is said to have taken place there is no trace of conversation, of place, of time. No one is named as a witness, no one is named as an accomplice, the whole accusation is brought forward from a hostile, disreputable, cruel, criminal, licentious house; however, that (other) house, which is alleged to have been disturbed by that wicked crime is full of integrity, honour, sense of duty, religious scruples. From this house a statement bound by sworn oath is read out to you, with the result that a matter about which there should be very little doubt is under dispute, whether a rash, angry, wanton woman seems to have fabricated the charge, or a serious, wise, and controlled man has delivered his evidence conscientiously.
56.
reliquum est igitur crimen de veneno; cuius ego nec principium invenire neque evolvere exitum possum.
quae fuit enim causa, quam ob rem isti mulieri venenum dare vellet Caelius? ne aurum redderet? num petivit? ne crimen haereret? num quis obiecit? num quis denique fecisset mentionem, si hic nullius nomen detulisset?
quin etiam Lucium Herennium dicere audistis verbo se molestum non futurum fuisse Caelio, nisi iterum eadem de re suo familiari absoluto nomen hic detulisset.
credibile est igitur tantum facinus nullam ob causam esse commissum? et vos non videtis fingi sceleris maximi crimen ut alterius sceleris suscipiendi causa fuisse videatur?
56.
Therefore, there remains then the accusation about poison. Of this I can find neither the beginning or unravel the end.
For what reason was there on account of which Caelius would wish to give poison to a woman of that kind? So as not to give back the gold? Surely, she didn’t ask for it? So that the accusation would not stick? Surely no one brought it against him? To sum up, surely no one would have made mention of it, had he not brought a prosecution against anyone?
Indeed, you heard Lucius Herennius say that in a word he would not have been troublesome to Caelius, if he had not again brought an accusation about the same matter against his friend who had been acquitted.
Therefore, is it believable that such a great crime was committed for no reason? Do you also not see that an accusation of the most serious crime is being made up so that there might seem to have been a motive for committing the second crime?
57.
cui denique commisit, quo adiutore usus est, quo socio, quo conscio, cui tantum facinus, cui se, cui salutem suam credidit? servisne mulieris? sic enim obiectum est.
et erat tam demens is cui vos ingenium certe tribuitis, etiamsi cetera inimica oratione detrahitis ut omnes suas fortunas alienis servis committeret? at quibus servis? refert enim magnopere id ipsum.
eisne, quos intellegebat non communi condicione servitutis uti, sed licentius, liberius, familiarius cum domina vivere?
quis enim hoc non videt, iudices, aut quis ignorat, in eius modi domo, in qua mater familias meretricio more vivat, in qua nihil geratur, quod foras proferendum sit, in qua inusitatae libidines, luxuries, omnia denique inaudita vitia ac flagitia versentur, hic servos non esse servos, quibus omnia committantur, per quos gerantur, qui versentur isdem in voluptatibus, quibus occulta credantur, ad quos aliquantum etiam ex cotidianis sumptibus ac luxurie redundet? id igitur Caelius non videbat?
Finally, to whom did he entrust (the matter), whom did he use as an assistant, whom as an ally, whom as an accomplice, to whom did he entrust such a great crime, to whom did he entrust himself, to whom his own safety? To the slaves of that woman? For it was presented as such.
Was that man so mad, to whom you [the prosecutors] certainly attribute natural talent - even if you disparage him in the rest of your hostile speech - that he would entrust all his fortunes to the slaves of another? But to which slaves? For this point is itself highly significant.
To those whom he knew were not enjoying the normal condition of slavery, but were living with greater licence, liberty, familiarity with their mistress?
For who does not see, judges, or who is unaware that in a house of that sort, in which the female head of the family lives in the manner of a whore, in which nothing happens which ought to be talked about out of doors, in which unusual lusts, debauchery, and, ultimately, every kind of unheard-of voces and shameful behaviours are perpetrated, that here the slaves are not the kind of slaves, to whom all things are entrusted, through whom they are carried out, who are occupied with the same pleasures, to whom secrets are entrusted, to whom even a considerable amount of the daily expenses and extravagance overflows? Therefore did Caelius not used to see that?
58.
si enim tam familiaris erat mulieris, quam vos vultis, istos quoque servos familiares dominae esse sciebat.
sin ei tanta consuetudo, quanta a vobis inducitur, non erat, quae cum servis potuit familiaritas esse tanta?
ipsius autem veneni quae ratio fingitur? ubi quaesitum est, quem ad modum paratum, quo pacto, cui, quo in loco traditum?
habuisse aiunt domi vimque eius esse expertum in servo quodam ad eam rem ipsam parato; cuius perceleri interitu esse ab hoc comprobatum venenum.
58.
For if was such an intimate friend of the woman, as you desire, he knew that those slvaes were also intimate friends of their mistress.
But if he did not have such great familiarity, as is represented by you, what such great familiarity with the slaves could there have been?
Regarding the poison itself, what account is being invented? Where was it sourced, how was it prepared, how, to whom, and where was it handed over?
They allege he kept it at home and that he tested its strength on a certain slave prepared for that very purpose. They say by this sudden death of whom, the poison was approved.
61:
sed tamen venenum unde fuerit, quem ad modum paratum sit, non dicitur.
datum esse aiunt huic Publio Licinio, pudenti adulescenti et bono, Caeli familiari; constitutum esse cum servis ut venirent ad balneas Senias; eodem Licinium esse venturum atque eis veneni pyxidem traditurum.
hic primum illud requiro, quid attinuerit ferri in eum locum constitutum, cur illi servi non ad Caelium domum venerint. si manebat tanta illa consuetudo Caeli, tanta familiaritas cum Clodia, quid suspicionis esset, si apud Caelium mulieris servus visus esset?
sin autem iam suberat simultas, exstincta erat consuetudo, discidium exstiterat, ‘hinc illae lacrimae’ nimirum, et haec causa est omnium horum scelerum atque criminum.
61:
But, however, where the poison was from, how it was prepared, is not mentioned.
They say that it was given to Publius Licinius here, a modest and good young man, a friend of Caelius; that it was decided with the slaves that they should come to the Senian baths; that Licinius would come to the same place and would hand to them a small box of poison.
At this point I ask the following first of all, why it was important for them that it [i.e. the poison] be brought into that appointed place, why those slaves did not come to Caelius at his house. If that intimacy of Caelius, that familiarity with Clodia remained so great, what suspicion would there have been, if the woman’s slave had been seen at Caelius’ house?
However, if the hatred already existed, if the intimacy had been extinguished, separation had existed, doubtless “Henceforth those tears…”, and this is the cause of all the crimes and accusations.
62:
‘immo,’ inquit, ‘cum servi ad dominam rem totam et maleficium Caeli detulissent, mulier ingeniosa praecepit his ut omnia Caelio pollicerentur; sed ut venenum, cum a Licinio traderetur, manifesto comprehendi posset, constitui locum iussit balneas Senias, ut eo mitteret amicos, qui delitiscerent, deinde repente, cum venisset Licinius venenumque traderet, prosilirent hominemque comprehenderent.’
quae quidem omnia, iudices, perfacilem rationem habent reprehendendi. cur enim potissimum balneas publicas constituerat?
in quibus non invenio quae latebra togatis hominibus esse posset. nam si essent in vestibulo balnearum, non laterent; sin se in intimum conicere vellent, nec satis commode calceati et vestiti id facere possent et fortasse non reciperentur, nisi forte mulier potens quadrantaria illa permutatione familiaris facta erat balneatori.
62:
‘No’, he says, ‘when the slaves had reported the whole matter and the wrongdoing of Caelius to their mistress, the ingenious woman ordered them to promise all sorts of things to Caelius; but so that the poison could clearly be seized, when it was being handed over by Licinius, she ordered that the Senian baths be decided upon as the meeting place, so that she might send friends there to lie hidden, then suddenly, when Licinius had arrived and was handing over the poison, to leap out and arrest the man.’
Indeed, all this offers me a very simple means of refuting, judges. For why had she first and foremost decided upon public baths?
I do not find in them what hiding places there could be for men wearing a toga. For if they were in the entrance hall of the baths, they were not hidden. But if they wanted to rush into the innermost parts, sufficiently and suitably clothed and with their shoes on, they would not have been able to do that and perhaps they would not have been admitted, unless perhaps the powerful woman had become an intimate friend of the bath keeper in exchange for the entrance fee.
63.
atque equidem vehementer exspectabam, quinam isti viri boni testes huius manifesto deprehensi veneni dicerentur; nulli enim sunt adhuc nominati.
sed non dubito quin sint pergraves, qui primum sint talis feminae familiares, deinde eam provinciam susceperint ut in balneas contruderentur, quod illa nisi a viris honestissimis ac plenissimis dignitatis, quam velit sit potens, numquam impetravisset.
sed quid ego de dignitate istorum testium loquor? virtutem eorum diligentiamque cognoscite. ‘in balneis delituerunt.’ testes egregios! ‘dein temere prosiluerunt.’ homines temperantes!
sic enim fingitis, cum Licinius venisset, pyxidem teneret in manu, conaretur tradere, nondum tradidisset, tum repente evolasse istos praeclaros testes sine nomine; Licinium autem, cum iam manum ad tradendam pyxidem porrexisset, retraxisse atque ex illo repentino hominum impetu se in fugam coniecisse.
o magnam vim veritatem, quae contra hominum ingenia, calliditatem, sollertiam contraque fictas omnium insidias facile se per se ipsa defendat!
Indeed, I was eagerly waiting to see who on those good men were, who would be said to be witnesses of the poison being clearly apprehended. Yet none of them have been named.
But I have no doubt that they are men of great importance, firstly, since they are intimate friends of such a woman, then because they undertook that task to be crowded together into the baths, a thing which she would never have accomplished, however powerful she might wish herself to be, except with the help of men who are most honourable and possessed of the highest dignity.
But why do I speak about the dignity of witnesses of that sort? Learn about their virtue and their diligence. ‘They hid themselves in the baths’. Excellent witnesses! ‘They leapt out rashly’. Self-controlled men!
For you invent as follows, that when Licinius had arrived, when he was holding the box in his hand, trying to hand it over, had not yet handed it over, then suddenly those famous witnesses with no name flew out. But Licinius, when he had already stretched out his hand to hand over the small box, he had withdrawn it and hurled himself into flight as a result of that sudden charge of men.
O mighty force of truth, since she herself by her own power could defend against the ingenuity, cleverness and cunning of men against the made-up plots of all these men.
64.
velut haec tota fabella veteris et plurimarum fabularum poetriae quam est sine argumento, quam nullum invenire exitum potest! quid enim?
isti tot viri (nam necesse est fuisse non paucos ut et comprehendi Licinius facile posset et res multorum oculis esset testatior) cur Licinium de manibus amiserunt?
qui minus enim Licinius comprehendi potuit cum se retraxit ne pyxidem traderet, quam si tradidisset? erant enim illi positi ut comprehenderent Licinium, ut manifesto Licinius teneretur, aut cum retineret venenum aut cum tradidisset.
hoc fuit totum consilium mulieris, haec istorum provincia, qui rogati sunt; quos quidem tu quam ob rem temere prosiluisse dicas atque ante tempus, non reperio.
fuerant ad hoc rogati, fuerant ad hanc rem collocati ut venenum, ut insidiae, facinus denique ipsum ut manifesto comprehenderetur.
By comparison, how devoid of plot is this whole little drama of the experienced poetess of very many stories, how entirely impossible it is to find an ending! How come?
Why did those numerous men (for it is necessary for there not to have been a few, so that Licinius could easily be captured and the matter could be more evident to the eyes of many) lose Licinius from their hands?
For why was Licinius less able to be arrested when he withdrew so as not to hand over the box, than if he had handed it over? For those men had been positioned there to arrest Licinius, so that he could be manifestly caught either when he was still holding the poison or when he had just handed it over.
This was the woman’s entire plan, this was the business of those men who were asked [to carry it out]. I do not know why you are saying that those men leapt our rashly and ahead of time. They had been requested for this very task/asked to do this, they had been stationed to achieve this very object, that the poison be clearly seized, the plots manifestly detected, and finally that the crime itself be openly exposed
potueruntne magis tempore prosilire quam cum Licinius venisset, cum in manu teneret veneni pyxidem? quae cum iam erat tradita servis, si evasissent subito ex balneis mulieris amici Liciniumque comprehendissent, imploraret hominum fidem atque a se illam pyxidem traditam pernegaret.
quem quo modo illi reprehenderent? vidisse se dicerent? primum ad se revocarent maximi facinoris crimen; deinde id se vidisse dicerent quod, quo loco collocati fuerant, non potuissent videre.
tempore igitur ipso se ostenderunt, cum Licinius venisset, pyxidem expediret, manum porrigeret, venenum traderet. mimi ergo est iam exitus, non fabulae; in quo cum clausula non invenitur, fugit aliquis e manibus, deinde scabilla concrepant, aulaeum tollitur.
65.
Could they have leapt out at a better time than when Licinius had arrived, when he was holding the small box of poison in his hand? When it [the box] had already been handed over to the slaves, had the woman’s friends burst out from the baths and arrested Licinius, he would be begging for the men’s good faith and he would be strongly denying that the box had been handed over by him.
How were they to reproach him? Were they to say that they had seen him? Firstly, they would be calling down upon themselves the charge of a very great crime; secondly, they would be claiming that they had seen what they could not possibly have seen from the place where they’d been stationed.
Therefore they revealed themselves at the very time when Licinius had come, was getting out the small box, was stretching out his hand, was handing over the poison. So now is the end of a comic mime, not a story. When no conclusion is found to this, someone flees from their hands, the clappers rattle, the curtain is raised.
66.
quaero enim cur Licinium titubantem, haesitantem, cedentem, fugere conantem mulieraria manus ista de manibus emiserit, cur non comprehenderint, cur non ipsius confessione, multorum oculis, facinoris denique voce tanti sceleris crimen expresserint. an timebant ne tot unum, valentes imbecillum, alacres perterritum superare non possent?
nullum argumentum in re, nulla suspicio in causa, nullus exitus criminis reperietur. itaque haec causa ab argumentis, a coniectura, ab eis signis, quibus veritas illustrari solet, ad testes tota traducta est. quos quidem ego, iudices, testes non modo sine ullo timore, sed etiam cum aliqua spe delectationis exspecto.
66.
For I am enquiring as to why that womanly band of men let Licinius slip from their hands whilst wavering, hesitating, withdrawing, trying to flee, why did they not seize him, why by a confession of the man himself, by sight of many, and finally by the voice of the crime itself, did they not force out of him the guilt of such great wickedness? Or were they afraid that so many could not overcome one, that strong men could not overcome a weak man, that lively men could not overcome a terrified one?
No proof will be found in the event, no suspicion in the case, no end to the accusation. And so, this case has been entirely transferred over from arguments, reasoned inference, and those proofs through which the truth is generally highlighted to witnesses. Indeed, judges, I await these witnesses not only without any fear, but even with some hope of pleasure.
67:
praegestit animus iam videre primum lautos iuvenes mulieris beatae ac nobilis familiares, deinde fortes viros ab imperatrice in insidiis atque in praesidio balnearum collocatos; ex quibus requiram, quem ad modum latuerint aut ubi, alveusne ille an equus Troianus fuerit, qui tot invictos viros muliebre bellum gerentes tulerit ac texerit.
illud vero respondere cogam, cur tot viri ac tales hunc et unum et tam imbecillum, quam videtis, non aut stantem comprehenderint aut fugientem consecuti sint; qui se numquam profecto, si in istum locum processerint, explicabunt. quam volent in conviviis faceti, dicaces, non numquam etiam ad vinum diserti sint, alia fori vis est, alia triclinii, alia subselliorum ratio, alia lectorum; non idem iudicum comissatorumque conspectus; lux denique longe alia est solis, alia lychnorum.
quam ob rem excutiemus omnes istorum delicias, omnes ineptias, si prodierint. sed me audiant, navent aliam operam, aliam ineant gratiam, in aliis se rebus ostentent, vigeant apud istam mulierem venustate, dominentur sumptibus, haereant, iaceant, deserviant; capiti vero innocentis fortunisque parcant
My spirit is now very eager to see first of all the clean-cut young men, acquaintances of the blessed and noble woman, and secondly the brave men stationed in ambush by the dominatrix and in the garrison of the baths. I will ask of them how they hid or where, whether it was that bathtub or the Trojan horse, which carried and concealed so many invincible men waging a woman’s war.
Indeed, I shall compel them to reply to the following: why so many men and of such calibre, neither arrested this man both alone and so weak, as you see, while he was standing there or pursued him as he was fleeing; who will certainly never explain themselves, if they ever advance [into this place].
However witty they might be, however talkative, however eloquent at times over wine, the force of the forum is one thing, that of the dining room another, the business of the judges’ benches is one thing, that of the dining couches another; the perspective of judges is not the same as that of revellers; and finally, the light of the sun is a very different thing to that from lamps.
Which is why we will shake off all of their delicate airs, all of their follies, if they come forward. But let them listen to me: let them eagerly give their assistance to some other task, let them curry favour elsewhere, let them show off in other affairs, let them flourish in their charms in that woman’s house, let them be supreme in their spending, let them cling to her, lie with her, be her servants; but let them spare the life and fortunes of an innocent man.
68.
at sunt servi illi de cognatorum sententia, nobilissimorum et clarissimorum hominum, manu mis tandem aliquid invenimus quod ista mulier de suorum propinquorum, fortissimorum virorum, sententia atque auctoritate fecisse dicatur. sed scire cupio quid habeat argumenti ista manumissio; in qua aut crimen est Cae quaesitum aut quaestio sublata aut multarum rerum consciis servis cum causa praemium persolutum. ‘at propinquis’ inquit ‘placuit.’ cur non placeret, cum rem tute ad eos non ab aliis tibi adlatam, sed a te ipsa compertam deferre diceres?
But they say those slaves were set free in agreement with the opinion of her relatives, most noble and most famous of men. At last we have found something which that woman is said to have done as a result of the opinion and authority of her relatives, very brave men. But I wish to know on what grounds this manumission came about. Through this act either, a charge was procured against Caelius or the possibility of examination was removed or a reward was paid out with good reason to slaves who were privy to her many affairs. ‘But it pleased my kinsmen’, she said. But why would it not please them, since you were saying that you were reporting the matter to them which had not been brought to you by others, but had been discovered by your yourself?
