Pro Milone

Question 1

(24 - 1) Publius Clodius, cum statuisset omni scelere in praetura vexare rem publicam videretque ita tracta esse comitia anno superiore ut non multos menses praeturam gerere posset, qui non honoris gradum spectaret, ut ceteri,

Answer 1

When Publius Clodius had decided to harass the state with all sorts of wickedness during his praetorship and saw that the elections in the previous year had been so protracted that he would not be able to hold the praetorship for many months, since he did not respect the degree of honour, like the rest,

Question 2

(24 - 2) sed et Lucium Paulum conlegam effugere vellet, singulari virtute civem, et annum integrum ad dilacerandam rem publicam quaereret, subito reliquit annum suum seseque in proximum transtulit,

Answer 2

but both wanted to avoid having Lucius Paulus as his colleague, a citizen of singular virtue, and sought a whole year to tear apart the state, suddenly he abandoned his own year and transferred himself to the next,

Question 3

(24 - 3) non, ut fit, religione aliqua, sed ut haberet, quod ipse dicebat, ad praeturam gerendam, hoc est ad evertendam rem publicam, plenum annum atque integrum.

Answer 3

not, as usually happens, by some religious scruple, but so that he might have a full and entire year, as he himself said, to carry out the praetorship, in other words to overturn the state.

Question 4

(25 - 1) occurrebat ei mancam ac debilem praeturam futuram suam consule Milone; eum porro summo consensu populi Romani consulem fieri videbat.

Answer 4

It occurred to him that his praetorship would be crippled and feeble with Milo as consul; furthermore, he saw that he was being made consul with the greatest consensus of the Roman people.

Question 5

(25 - 2) contulit se ad eius competitores, sed ita totam ut petitionem ipse solus etiam invitis illis gubernaret, tota ut comitia suis, ut dictitabat, umeris sustineret.

Answer 5

He attached himself to his rivals, but in such a way that he alone directed the whole campaign, even against their will, that he might carry, as he repeatedly said, the whole elections on his shoulders.

Question 6

(25 - 3) convocabat tribus, se interponebat, Collinam novam dilectu perditissimorum civium conscribebat. quanto ille plura miscebat, tanto hic magis in dies convalescebat.

Answer 6

He called together the tribes, he positioned himself as a middleman, he was enrolling a new Colline tribe from the recruitment of the most immoral of the citizens. As much as that man caused more disarray, so much more did this man gain strength day by day.

Question 7

(25 - 4) ubi vidit homo ad omne facinus paratissimus fortissimum virum, inimicissimum suum, certissimum consulem, idque intellexit non solum sermonibus, sed etiam suffragiis populi Romani saepe esse declaratum, palam agere coepit et aperte dicere occidendum Milonem.

Answer 7

When a person very ready for every kind of crime saw that a very brave man, his arch enemy, was a most certain consul, and realised that this had often been declared not only by the conversations of the Roman people, but also by their votes, he began to act openly and to say frankly that Milo needed to be slaughtered.

Question 8

(26 - 1) servos agrestes et barbaros, quibus silvas publicas depopulatus erat Etruriamque vexarat, ex Appennino deduxerat, quos videbatis. res erat minime obscura.

Answer 8

He had brought down rustic and barbarian slaves from the Apennines, with whom he had pludered public woodland and harassed Etruria, and whom you saw. It was not at all a secret matter.

Question 9

(26 - 2) etenim dictitabat palam consulatum Miloni eripi non posse, vitam posse. significavit hoc saepe in senatu, dixit in contione;

Answer 9

For indeed he kept on saying openly that the consulship could not be snatched away from Milo, but that his life could. He often indicated this in the senate, he said it in the public assembly;

Question 10

(26 - 3) quin etiam Marco Favonio, fortissimo viro, quaerenti ex eo qua spe fureret Milone vivo, respondit triduo illum aut summum quadriduo esse periturum; quam vocem eius ad hunc Marcum Catonem statim Favonius detulit.

Answer 10

why, he even replied to Marcus Favonius, a very brave man, when he asked him for what hope he was raging while Milo was alive, that he would be dead within three days, or four days at most; Favonius immediately reported this speech of his to Marcus Cato here.

Question 11

(27 - 1) interim cum sciret Clodius – neque enim erat id difficile scire – iter sollemne, legitimum, necessarium ante diem xiii Kalendas Februarias Miloni esse Lanuvium ad flaminem prodendum,

Answer 11

Meanwhile, since Clodius knew - for it was not difficult to know it - that Milo had to make a formal, lawful, necessary journey to Lanuvium on the 20th January, to appoint a priest,

Question 12

(27 - 2) quod erat dictator Lanuvi Milo, Roma subito ipse profectus pridie est ut ante suum fundum, quod re intellectum est, Miloni insidias conlocaret;

Answer 12

because Milo was the dictator at Lanuvium, suddenly he himself set out from Rome the day before in order to arrange an ambush for Milo in front of his farm, a fact which has been understood from the affair;

Question 13

( 27 - 3) atque ita profectus est ut contionem turbulentam in qua eius furor desideratus est, quae illo ipso die habita est, relinqueret, quam, nisi obire facinoris locum tempusque voluisset, numquam reliquisset.

Answer 13

and he set out in such a way that he abandoned the rowdy meeting in which his rage was missed, which was held on that very day, which he would never have left, unless he had wanted to arrive at the place and time of the crime.

Question 14

(28 - 1) Milo autem cum in senatu fuisset eo die quoad senatus est dimissus, domum venit, calceos et vestimenta mutavit,

Answer 14

However, since Milo had been in the senate on that day until the senate had been dismissed, he came home, he changed his shoes and clothes,

Question 15

(28 - 2) paulisper, dum se uxor, ut fit, comparat, commoratus est, dein profectus id temporis cum iam Clodius, si quidem eo die Romam venturus erat, redire potuisset.

Answer 15

he delayed a little, while his wife prepared herself, as is usual, then set out at the time when Clodius already could have returned, if indeed he had intended to come to Rome on that day.

Question 16

(28 - 3) obviam fit ei Clodius, expeditus, in equo, nulla raeda, nullis impedimentis, nullis Graecis comitibus, ut solebat, sine uxore, quod numquam fere:

Answer 16

Clodius went to meet him, unencumbered, on horse, with no carriage, with no impediments, with no Greek companions, as was customary, without his wife, which was almost never the case:

Question 17

(28 - 4) cum hic insidiator, qui iter illud ad caedem faciendam apparasset, cum uxore veheretur in raeda, paenulatus, magno et impedito et muliebri ac delicato ancillarum puerorumque comitatu.

Answer 17

while this plotter, who had evidently planned that journey in order to commit slaughter, travelled with his wife in a carriage, wearing a heavy cloak, with a large and cumbersome and womanly and delicate retinue of slave-girls and boy slaves.

Question 18

(29 - 1) fit obviam Clodio ante fundum eius hora fere undecima aut non multo secus. statim complures cum telis in hunc faciunt de loco superiore impetum; adversi raedarium occidunt.

Answer 18

He went to meet Clodius in front of his farm at around the 11th hour, or not far off. Several men with weapons immediately charged towards him from a higher spot; those facing the driver killed him.

Question 19

(29 - 2) cum autem hic de raeda reiecta paenula desiluisset seque acri animo defenderet, illi qui erant cum Clodio gladiis eductis, partim recurrere ad raedam ut a tergo Milonem adorirentur, partim, quod hunc iam interfectum putarent, caedere incipiunt eius servos qui post erant;

Answer 19

However, when this man here had jumped down from the carriage, having thrown back his heavy coat, and was defending himself with a keen spirit, some of those who were with Clodius, swords drawn, ran behind the carriage in order to attack Milo from the rear, others, because they thought he was already killed, began to slaughter his slaves who were behind;

Question 20

(29 - 3) ex quibus qui animo fideli in dominum et praesenti fuerunt, partim occisi sunt, partim, cum ad raedam pugnari viderent, domino succurrere prohiberentur, Milonem occisum et ex ipso Clodio audirent et re vera putarent,

Answer 20

out of these, the ones who were of a mind which was loyal towards their master and resolute, some were killed, some, when they saw the fighting at the carriage, were prevented from bringing help to their master, and heard from Clodius himself that Milo had been killed and thought it really true,

Question 21

(29 - 4) fecerunt id servi Milonis – dicam enim aperte non derivandi criminis causa, sed ut factum est – nec imperante nec sciente nec praesente domino, quod suos quisque servos in tali re facere voluisset.

Answer 21

Milo’s slaves did this - for I will describe it openly, not for the sake of diverting blame for the crime, but as it took place - with their master not giving orders, nor knowing, nor being present, a thing which everyone would have wished his slaves to do in such a situation.

Question 22

(30 - 1) haec sicuti exposui ita gesta sunt, iudices: insidiator superatus est, vi victa vis vel potius oppressa virtute audacia est. nihil dico quid res publica consecuta sit, nihil quid vos, nihil quid omnes boni:

Answer 22

I have laid out these things just as they happened, jurors: the plotter was overcome, violence was overcome by violence, or rather boldness was overcome by courage. I say nothing about what the state gained, nothing about what you gained, nothing about what good men gained:

Question 23

(30 - 2) nihil sane id prosit Miloni, qui hoc fato natus est ut ne se quidem servare potuerit quin una rem publicam vosque servaret. si id iure fieri non potuit, nihil habeo quod defendam.

Answer 23

but let this not reasonably count in Milo’s favour, who was born with this destiny, that he could not even save himself without simultaneously saving the republic and you. If this was unable to happen justifiably, I having nothing which I may offer in defence.

Question 24

(30 - 3) sin hoc et ratio doctis et necessitas barbaris et mos gentibus et feris etiam beluis natura ipsa praescripsit ut omnem semper vim quacumque ope possent a corpore, a capite, a vita sua propulsarent,

Answer 24

But if reason has prescribed this for educated people, and necessity for barbarians, and custom for mankind, and even nature herself for fierce beasts, that they should always repel all violence in whatever way they can away from their bodies, from their beings, from their own lives,

Question 25

(30 - 4) non potestis hoc facinus improbum iudicare quin simul iudicetis omnibus qui in latrones inciderint aut illorum telis aut vestris sententiis esse pereundum.

Answer 25

you cannot judge this a wicked act, without at the same time judging that all those who fall among bandits should die, either by their weapons or by your sentences.

Question 26

(31 - 1) quod si ita putasset, certe optabilius Miloni fuit dare iugulum Publio Clodio, non semel ab illo neque tum primum petitum, quam iugulari a vobis, quia se non iugulandum illi tradidisset.

Answer 26

But if he had thought this, surely it would have been preferable for Milo to offer his throat to Publius Clodius, sought not only once by him then nor then for the first time, than to be slaughtered by you, because he had not given himself up to be slaughtered by him.

Question 27

(31 - 2) sin hoc nemo vestrum ita sentit, illud iam in iudicium venit, non occisusne sit, quod fatemur, sed iure an iniuria, quod multis in causis saepe quaesitum est. insidias factas esse constat, et id est quod senatus contra rem publicam factum iudicavit;

Answer 27

But if none of you feels this way, the question which now comes to the courts is, not was he killed, which we admit, but rightly or wrongly, something which is often asked in my cases. It is agreed that a trap was laid, and it is this which the senate has declared a crime against the state;

Question 28

(31 - 3) ab utro factae sint incertum est. de hoc igitur latum est ut quaereretur. ita et senatus rem, non hominem notavit et Pompeius de iure, non de facto quaestionem tulit.

Answer 28

it is uncertain by which of the two men it was done. Therefore on this matter it was proposed that there should be an inquiry. Thus both the senate has condemned the event and not the person, and Pompey has proposed an enquiry about the legality, not the deed.

Question 29

(31 - 4) num quid igitur aliud in iudicium venit, nisi uter utri insidias fecerit? profecto nihil: si hic illi, ut ne sit impune; si ille huic, ut scelere solvamur.

Answer 29

Surely nothing else therefore comes into the court, except which man laid a trap for the other? Nothing, obviously: if this man here laid a trap for that man, let it be that he is not unpunished; if that man for this one, then may we be acquitted of the crime.

Question 30

(32 - 1) quonam igitur pacto probari potest insidias Miloni fecisse Clodium? satis est in illa quidem tam audaci, tam nefaria belua docere, magnam ei causam, magnam spem in Milonis morte propositam, magnas utilitates fuisse.

Answer 30

Therefore how on earth can it be proven that Clodius had laid a trap for Milo? In fact it is enough in the case of such a bold, such a wicked monster as that to demonstrate that he had great reason, great hope offered in the death of Milo, great advantages.

Question 31

(32 - 2) itaque illud Cassianum ‘cui bono fuerit’ in his personis valeat, etsi boni nullo emolumento impelluntur in fraudem, improbi saepe parvo.

Answer 31

And so that saying of Cassius, “who benefited?”, may be valid in the case of these characters: although good men are not driven to fraught by any profit, dishonest men often are by a small one.

Question 32

(32 - 3) atqui Milone interfecto Clodius haec adsequebatur, non modo ut praetor esset non eo consule quo sceleris facere nihil posset sed etiam ut eis consulibus praetor esset quibus si non adiuvantibus, at coniventibus certe speraret se posse eludere in illis suis cogitatis furoribus:

Answer 32

But if Milo had been killed, Clodius stood to gain this: not only as he would be praetor without that man as consul, under whom he could commit no wickedness, but also as he would be praetor with those men as consuls, with whose certain connivance, if not assistance, he might hope that he could cheat in those planned, frenzied actions of his:

Question 33

(32 - 4) cuius illi conatus, ut ipse ratiocinabatur, nec cuperent reprimere, si possent, cum tantum beneficium ei se debere arbitrarentur, et, si vellent, fortasse vix possent frangere hominis sceleratissimi conroboratam iam vetustate audaciam.

Answer 33

Those men, so he himself calculated, would not want to check his attempts, if they could, when they considered the great favour that they owed to him, and, if they were willing, perhaps would scarcely be able to shatter the audacity of a most wicked man, strengthened already through its long existence.

Question 34

(34 - 1) audistis, iudices, quantum Clodi interfuerit occidi Milonem: convertite animos nunc vicissim ad Milonem. quid Milonis intererat interfici Clodium? quid erat cur Milo non dicam admitteret, sed optaret?

Answer 34

You have heard, jurors, how much it was in Clodius’ interests that Milo be slain: now direct your minds in turn to Milo. What was in Milo’s interests that Clodius be killed? What reason was there why Milo should, I will not say commit it, but wish for it?

Question 35

(34 - 2) ‘obstabat in spe consulatus Miloni Clodius.’ at eo repugnante fiebat, immo vero eo fiebat magis, nec me suffragatore meliore utebatur quam Clodio.

Answer 35

“Clodius stood in the way of Milo in his hope of the consulship.” But with him fighting against becoming the consul he was becoming it, or rather, in fact, he was becoming consul all the more because of this, and he was not using me as a better supporter than Clodius.

Question 36

(34 - 3) valebat apud vos, iudices, Milonis erga me remque publicam meritorum memoria, valebant preces et lacrimae nostrae, quibus ego tum vos mirifice moveri sentiebam, sed plus multo valebat periculorum impendentium timor.

Answer 36

The memory of Milo’s services towards me and the republic held weight among you, jurors; our entreaties and tears held weight, by which I felt at the time that you were miraculously moved; but the fear of imminent dangers held much more weight.

Question 37

(34 - 4) quis enim erat civium qui sibi solutam Publi Clodi praeturam sine maximo rerum novarum metu proponeret? solutam autem fore videbatis, nisi esset is consul qui eam auderet possetque constringere.

Answer 37

For what citizen was there who pictured to himself the unrestrained praetorship of Publius Clodius without the greatest fear of revolution? Moreover you saw that it would be unrestrained, unless that man, who dared and was able to constrain it, was consul.

Question 38

(34 - 5) eum Milonem unum esse cum sentiret universus populus Romanus, quis dubitaret suffragio suo se metu, periculo rem publicam liberare? at nunc, Clodio remoto, usitatis iam rebus enitendum est Miloni ut tueatur dignitatem suam;

Answer 38

Since the entire Roman people felt that Milo alone was that man, who would doubt in his vote to free himself from fear, and the republic from danger? As it is, with Clodius removed, Milo has to distinguished himself now by the usual means in order to protect his position;

Question 39

(34 - 6) singularis illa et huic uni concessa gloria quae cotidie augebatur frangendis furoribus Clodianis iam Clodi morte cecidit. vos adepti estis ne quem civem metueretis; hic exercitationem virtutis, suffragationem consulatus, fontem perennem gloriae suae perdidit.

Answer 39

That unique glory, granted to this man alone, which was daily being enhanced by shattering Clodius’ frenzies, has now sunk with Clodius’ death. You have gained that you fear no citizen; this man has lost the exercise of his valour, the support of his consulship, the eternal well of his own glory.

Question 40

(34 - 7) itaque Milonis consulatus qui vivo Clodio labefactari non poterat mortuo denique temptari coeptus est. non modo igitur nihil prodest sed obest etiam Clodi mors Miloni.

Answer 40

Thus Milo’s consulship, which could not be shaken with Clodius alive, has finally begun to be tested now that he is dead. Therefore not only is the death of Clodius no use to Milo, it is a nuisance.

Question 41

(35 - 1) ‘at valuit odium, fecit iratus, fecit inimicus, fuit ultor iniuriae, punitor doloris sui.’ quid? si haec non dico maiora fuerunt in Clodio quam in Milone, sed in illo maxima, nulla in hoc, quid vultis amplius?

Answer 41

“But hatred prevailed, he did it in anger, he did it as an enemy, he was an avenger for his injuries, a punisher for his sufferings.” What? If these things existed, I do not say to a greater extent in Clodius than in Milo, but to the greatest extent in Clodius, not at all in this Milo, what more do you want?

Question 42

(35 - 2) quid enim odisset Clodium Milo, segetem ac materiam suae gloriae, praeter hoc civile odium quo omnes improbos odimus?

Answer 42

For why would Milo have hated Clodius, the food and fuel of his glory, more than this civic-minded hatred with which we hate all wicked men?

Question 43

(35 - 3) illi erat ut odisset primum defensorem salutis meae, deinde vexatorem furoris, domitorem armorum suorum, postremo etiam accusatorem suum;

Answer 43

There was a reason for that man to hate him, first as a defender of my safety, then as a disturber of his fury, as a tamer of his weapons, at last also as his accuser;

Question 44

(35 - 4) reus enim Milonis lege Plotia fuit Clodius quoad vixit. quo tandem animo hoc tyrannum illum tulisse creditis? quantum odium illius et in homine iniusto quam etiam iustum fuisse?

Answer 44

For as long as Clodius lived, he was liable to the prosecution of Milo under the Plotian law. Lastly, with what attitude do you suppose that tyrant tolerated this? How great do you suppose the hatred of that man was, and, in an unjust person, even how justified?

Question 45

(43 - 1) hunc igitur diem campi speratum atque exoptatum sibi proponens Milo, cruentis manibus scelus et facinus prae se ferens et confitens ad illa augusta centuriarum auspicia veniebat?

Answer 45

So did Milo, while picturing to himself this hoped-for and longed-for day of election, try to come, with blood-stained hands carrying before himself and confessing his wickedness and crime, to those sacred auspices of the centuries?

Question 46

(43 - 2) quam hoc non credibile est in hoc, quam idem in Clodio non dubitandum, qui se ipse interfecto Milone regnaturum putaret!

Answer 46

How unbelievable this is in this man, how the same thing should not be doubted in Clodius, who was hoping that he himself would rule with Milo killed!

Question 47

(43 - 3) quid? quod caput est audaciae, iudices, quis ignorat maximam inlecebram esse peccandi impunitatis spem? in utro igitur haec fuit?

Answer 47

What? This is the source of recklessness, jurors, who does not know that the greatest incentive for sinning is the anticipation of impunity? Therefore in which of the two men did this exist?

Question 48

(43 - 4) in Milone qui etiam nunc reus est facti aut praeclari aut certe necessarii, an in Clodio qui ita iudicia poenamque contempserat ut eum nihil delectaret quod aut per naturam fas esset aut per leges liceret?

Answer 48

In Milo, who even now is accused of a deed either noble or at least necessary, or in Clodius, who had so despised the courts and the punishment that nothing pleased him which was either right through nature or permitted through the laws?

Question 49

(44 - 1) sed quid ego argumentor, quid plura disputo? te, Quinte Petili, appello, optimum et fortissimum civem; te, Marce Cato, testor, quos mihi divina quaedam sors dedit iudices.

Answer 49

But why am I arguing, why am I disputing further? I appeal to you, Quintus Petilius, an excellent and very brave citizen; I call you as witness, Marcus Cato, you whom a certain divine fate has given to me as jurors.

Question 50

(44 - 2) vos ex Marco Favonio audistis Clodium sibi dixisse, et audistis vivo Clodio, periturum Milonem triduo.

Answer 50

You have heard it from Marcus Favonius, and you heard it while Clodius was alive, that Clodius had said to him that Milo would be dead within three days.

Question 51

(44 - 3) post diem tertium gesta res est quam dixerat. cum ille non dubitarit aperire quid cogitaret, vos potestis dubitare quid fecerit?

Answer 51

On the third day after, the deed, of which he had spoken, was carried out. When that man did not hesitate to disclose what he was considering, can you doubt what he did?

Question 52

(45 - 1) quem ad modum igitur eum dies non fefellit? dixi equidem modo? dictatoris Lanuvini stata sacrificia nosse negoti nihil erat. vidit necesse esse Miloni proficisci Lanuvium illo ipso quo est profectus die: itaque antevertit.

Answer 52

So, how did the day not deceive him? Indeed, I have said just now. It was no trouble to have known the fixed sacrifices of the dictator of Lanuvium. He saw that it was necessary for Milo to set out to Lanuvium on that very day on which he did set out: and so he anticipated it.

Question 53

(45 - 2) at quo die? quo, ut ante dixi, fuit insanissima contio ab ipsius mercennario tribuno plebis concitata: quem diem ille, quam contionem, quos clamores, nisi ad cogitatum facinus approperaret, numquam reliquisset.

Answer 53

But on what day? On the one which, as I have said before, there was the hysterical public meeting, stirred up by a hired tribune of the plebs of Clodius himself: that day, that public meeting, that uproar he never would have abandoned unless he was hastening to a premeditated crime.

Question 54

(45 - 3) ergo illi ne causa quidem itineris, etiam causa manendi; Miloni manendi nulla facultas, exeundi non causa solum sed etiam necessitas fuit.

Answer 54

Therefore he had not even a reason for a journey, but also a reason for remaining; for Milo there was no opportunity for remaining, and not only a reason for leaving but also a need.

Question 55

(45 - 4) quid si, ut ille scivit Milonem fore eo die in via, sic Clodium Milo ne suspicari quidem potuit?

Answer 55

What if this were the case? Since he knew that Milo would be on the road on that day, so Milo could not even suppose that Clodius would be?

Question 56

(46 - 1) primum quaero qui id scire potuerit? quod vos idem in Clodio quaerere non potestis. ut enim neminem alium nisi Titum Patinam, familiarissimum suum, rogasset, scire potuit illo ipso die Lanuvi a dictatore Milone prodi flaminem necesse esse.

Answer 56

Firstly I ask who was able to know it? You can not ask this same question in the case of Clodius. For even if he had asked no one else except Titus Patina, his very intimate friend, he could have known that on that very day it was essential that a priest be appointed at Lanuvium by Milo as dictator.

Question 57

(46 - 2) sed erant permulti alii ex quibus id facillime scire posset: omnes scilicet Lanuvini. Milo de Clodio reditu unde quaesivit?

Answer 57

But there were very many others from whom he very easily could have known this: certainly everyone at Lanuvium. From whom did Milo ask about the return of Clodius?

Question 58

(46 - 3) quaesierit sane - videte quid vobis largiar - servum etiam, ut Quintus Arrius, amicus meus, dixit, corruperit. legite testimonia testium vestrorum.

Answer 58

Suppose he asked - see what I am granting to you - even suppose that he bribed a slave, as my friend Quintus Arrius said. Read the testimonies of your own witnesses.

Question 59

(46 - 4) dixit Gaius Causinius Schola, Interamnanus, familiarissimus et idem comes Clodi, Publium Clodium ille die in Albano mansurum fuisse, sed subito ei esse nuntiatum Cyrum architectum esse mortuum, itaque repente Romam consituisse profisci.

Answer 59

Gaius Causinius Schola, of Interamna, a very intimate friend and likewise a friend of Clodius, said that Publius Clodius had intended to say on his Alban estate on that day, but suddenly it was reported to him that Cyrus his architect had died, and so he immediately had decided to set out to Rome.

Question 60

(46 - 5) dixit hoc item comes Publi Clodi, Gaius Clodius.

Answer 60

Gaius Clodius, a friend of Publius Clodius, similarly said this.

Question 61

(47 - 1) videte, iudices, quantae res his testimoniis sint confectae. primum certe liberatur Milo non eo consilio profectus esse ut insidiaretur in via Clodio: quippe, si ille obvius ei futurus omnino non erat.

Answer 61

See, jurors, what great results have been effected by these testimonies. Firstly, surely Milo is acquitted of having set out with that intention to lay a trap on the road for Clodius: obviously, if he was not going to meet him at all.

Question 62

(47 - 2) deinde - non enim video cur non meum quoque agam negotium - scitis, iudies, fuisse qui in hac rogatione suadenda dicerent Milonis manu caedem esse factam, consilio vero maioris alicuius.

Answer 62

Then - for I do not see why I should not also promote my own interests - you know, jurors, that there had been those who said, in advocating this bill, that the murder was committed by the hand of Milo, but by the plan of someone more important.

Question 63

(47 - 3) me videlicet latronem ac sicarium abiecti homines et perditi describebant. iacent suis testibus qui Clodium negant eo die Romam, nisi de Cyro auidisset, fuisse rediturum.

Answer 63

Evidently those abject and desperate men were identifying me as a bandit and as an assassin. They are floored by their own witnesses, who deny that Clodius would have returned to Rome on that day, unless he had heard about Cyrus.

Question 64

(47 - 4) respiravi, liberatus sum; non vereor ne, quod ne suspicari quidem potuerim, videar id cogitasse.

Answer 64

I have breathed again, I have been released; I am no longer in fear lest I might seem to have considered it, at thing which I could not even not even suppose.

Question 65

(48 - 1) nunc persequar cetera; nam occurrit illud: ‘igitur ne Clodius quidem de insidiis cogitavit, quoniam fuit in Albano mansurus’ – si quidem exiturus ad caedem e villa non fuisset.

Answer 65

Now I will follow up the other points; for this objection occurs to me: ‘Therefore not even Clodius thought about an ambush, since he was intending to stay in his Alban estate’ - indeed, if he not been intending to go out of his villa with a view to murder.

Question 66

(48 - 2) video enim illum qui dicatur de Cyri morte nuntiasse non id nuntiasse, sed Milonem appropinquare. nam quid de Cyro nuntiaret, quem Clodius Roma proficiscens reliquerat morientem?

Answer 66

For I see that the man who is said to have brought the news of the death of Cyrus did not report that, but that Milo was approaching. For why should he bring the news about Cyrus, whom Clodius had abandoned, dying, as he was setting out to Rome?

Question 67

(48 - 3) una fui, testamentum simul obsignavi; testamentum autem palam fecerat et illum heredem et me scripserat.

Answer 67

I was with him, I signed his will at the same time; moreover he had made his will openly and had appointed Clodius as his heir and me.

Question 68

(48 - 4) quem pridie hora tertia animam efflantem reliquisset, eum mortuum postridie hora decima denique ei nuntiabatur?

Answer 68

He had abandoned him, breathing out his soul, the day before at the third hour, was it finally announced to him the next day at the tenth hour that he was dead?

Question 69

(49 - 1) age, sit ita factum: quae causa fuit cur Romam properaret, cur in noctem se coniceret? quid adferebat festinationis quod heres erat?

Answer 69

Come, let it have happened in this way: what reason was there why he should hasten to Rome, why should he plunge into the night? What urgency did the fact that he was an heir bring?

Question 70

(49 - 2) primum nihil erat cur properato opus esset; deinde si quid esset, quid tandem erat quod ea nocte consequi posset, amitteret autem, si postridie Romam mane venisset?

Answer 70

Firstly, there was no reason why there was a need for haste, secondly, if there was a reason, what on earth was there which he could obtain that night, but would lose, if he had come to Rome the next day in the morning?

Question 71

(49 - 3) atqui ut illi nocturnus ad urbem adventus vitandus potius quam expetendus fuit, sic Miloni, cum insidiator esset, si illum ad urbem noctu accessurum sciebat, subsidendum atque exspectandum fuit.

Answer 71

And as an arrival at night to the city was to be avoided by him rather than sought, so Milo, since he was the plotter, should have lain in ambush and waited for him, if he knew that Clodius was going to come to the city by night.

Question 72

(50 - 1) noctu occidisset: insidioso et pleno latronum in loco occidisset. nemo ei neganti non credidisset quem esse omnes salvum etiam confitentem volunt.

Answer 72

He would have killed him at night: he would have killed him in a place suitable for an ambush and full of bandits. No one would have disbelieved him if he denied it, he whom everyone wishes to be acquitted even when he is confessing it.

Question 73

(50 - 2) sustinuisset crimen primum ipse ille latronum occultator et receptor locus, tum neque muta solitudo indicasset neque caeca nox ostendisset Milonem;

Answer 73

Firstly, the place itself would have borne the accusation, that concealer and receiver of bandits, at that time neither its silent solitude would have pointed Milo out, nor the blind night revealed him;

Question 74

(50 - 3) deinde multi ab illo violati, spoliati, bonis expulsi, multi haec etiam timentes in suspicionem caderent, tota denique rea citaretur Etruria.

Answer 74

Secondly, the many people who had been violated, plundered, deprived of their possessions by him, even the many fearing these things would have fallen into suspicion, finally the whole of Etruria would have been summoned to trial.

Question 75

(51 - 1) atque illo die certe Aricia rediens devertit Clodius ad se in Albanum. quod ut sciret Milo, illum Ariciae fuisse, suspicari tamen debuit eum, etiam si Romam illo die reverti vellet,

Answer 75

And surely on that day Clodius turned aside into his Alban estate while returning from Aricia. Although Milo knew this, that he was at Aricia, he still should have suspected that he, even if he wanted to return to Rome on that day,

Question 76

(51 - 2) ad villam suam quae viam tangeret deversurum. cur nec ante occurrit ne ille in villa resideret, nec eo in loco subsedit quo ille noctu venturus esset?

Answer 76

would turn aside into his own villa which bordered on the road. Why did he neither meet him before so that Clodius did not settle in his villa, nor lie in wait in that place to where Clodius was intending to come by night?

Question 77

(52 - 1) video adhuc constare, iudices, omnia: Miloni etiam utile fuisse Clodium vivere, illi ad ea quae concupierat optatissimum interitum Milonis;

Answer 77

I see that everything corresponds thus far, jurors: that it was even advantageous for Milo that Clodius was alive, for Clodius the death of Milo was most preferable, with regards to those things which he had coveted.

Question 78

(52 - 2) odium fuisse illius in hunc acerbissimum, nullum huius in illum; consuetudinem illius perpetuam in vi inferenda, huius tantum in repellenda;

Answer 78

The hatred of Clodius against Milo was most bitter, there was none of Milo’s against Clodius. That man’s constant habit was in inflicting violence, but Milo’s in repelling it;

Question 79

(52 - 3) mortem ab illo Miloni denuntiatam et praedicatam palam, nihil umquam auditum ex Milone; profectionis huius diem illi notum, reditum illius huic ignotum fuisse;

Answer 79

death for Milo was threatened and predicted openly by him, nothing was ever heard from Milo; the day of Milo’s departure was known to him, Clodius’ return was not known to Milo;

Question 80

(52 - 4) huius iter necessarium, illius etiam potius alienum; hunc prae se tulisse se illo die exiturum, illum eo die se dissimulasse rediturum; hunc nullius rei mutasse consilium, illum causam mutandi consili finxisse;

Answer 80

Milo’s journey was necessary, Clodius’ even rather strange; Milo had openly declared that he would leave on that day, Clodius had concealed that he would return on that day; Milo had changed his plan in no respect, Clodius had contrived a reason for changing his plan;

Question 81

(52 - 5) huic, si insidiaretur, noctem prope urbem exspectandam, illi, etiam si hunc non timeret, tamen accessum ad urbem nocturnum fuisse metuendum.

Answer 81

Milo, if he were laying a trap, should have waited for night near the city, however Clodius, even if he did not fear Milo, should have feared an arrival to the city at night.