--- title: "On His House · De domo sua" author: "Cicero" translator: "Charles Duke Yonge" languages: [la, en] shelf: "Classical Latin" section: 5 of 5 url: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-de-domo-sua/5/ cite: "Cicero, tr. Charles Duke Yonge, On His House · De domo sua, section 5. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-de-domo-sua/5/" --- # On His House · De domo sua *Cicero, tr. Charles Duke Yonge* Cicero asks the priests to undo Clodius’ consecration of the site of his demolished house. > Latin: ed. William Peterson, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-latinLit, phi0474.phi020, CC BY-SA 4.0). > English: Charles Duke Yonge, from the Perseus Digital Library (phi0474.phi020.perseus-eng1). Notes are not included. > Rows follow the references the two texts share (chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence. ## 5. Sections 121–147 Source: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-de-domo-sua/5/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-de-domo-sua/5/#p-N [¶0] 121. I say nothing about religion, or religious ceremonies; I do not deny that I am ignorant of those matters, of which I should conceal my knowledge, even if I were acquainted with them, that I might not appear troublesome to others, and over curious to you; although many particulars of your usages do escape, and often reach the ears of the laity. I think, for instance, that I have heard that at the dedication of a temple, a door-post must be taken hold of. For the door-post is there where the entrance to the temple and its folding-door are. But no one ever took hold of the posts of a promenade in dedicating that; but if you have dedicated a statue or an altar, that cannot be moved from its place afterwards without impiety. But you will not be able now to allege this, since you have said that the priest did lay hands on the post. Although, why do I say anything about the dedication? or why do I discuss your right and the religious features of the case, contrary to my original intention? > Latin: 121. 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. teneri in dedicatione oportere videor audisse templi; ibi enim postis est ubi templi aditus et valvae. postis nemo umquam tenuit in dedicando; simulacrum autem aut aram si dedicasti, sine religione loco moveri potest. iam hoc dicere tibi non licebit, quoniam pontificem postem tenuisse dixisti. [¶1] 122. But, even if I were to allow that everything had been done with the regularities of expression, according to ancient and established usages, I should still defend myself by the common law of the republic. When, after the departure of that citizen, to whose single exertions the senate and all good men had so often decided that the safety of the state was owing, you, with the aid of two most wicked consuls, were keeping down the republic which was groaning under the oppression of your most shameful robberies; when you had dedicated, with the countenance of some obscure priest, the house of that man who was unwilling that the country which had been preserved by him should perish on any pretence connected with him; could the republic when it had recovered itself endure that? > Latin: 122. quid ego de dedicatione loquor, aut quid de vestro iure et religione contra quam proposueram disputo? vero, si omnia sollemnibus verbis, veteribus et traditis institutis acta esse dicerem, tamen me rei publicae iure defenderem. 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? [¶2] 123. Once, O priests, give an opening for such religious acts as this, and you will very soon find no escape at all for any one's property. If a priest has laid his hand on a door-post, and has transferred expressions intended for the honour of the immortal gods to the injury of the citizens, will the holy name of religion avail to procure the ratification of such an injury, and yet will it not avail if a tribune of the people consecrates the goods of any citizen with a form of words no less ancient and almost equally solemn? But Caius Atinius, within the recollection of our fathers, consecrated the property of Quintus Metellus, who, as censor, had expelled him from the senate (your grandfather, O Quintus Metellus, and yours, O Publius Servilius, and your great-grandfather, O Publius Scipio;) placing a little brazier on the rostra and summoning a flute-player to assist him. What then? Did that frenzy of a tribune of the people, derived from some precedents of extreme antiquity, do any injury to Quintus Metellus, that great and most illustrious man? > Latin: 123. huic religioni aditum, pontifices: iam nullum fortunis communibus exitum reperietis. 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? 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. tum? num ille furor tribuni plebis ductus ex non nullis perveterum temporum exemplis fraudi Metello fuit, summo illi et clarissimo viro? [¶3] 124. Certainly not. We have seen a tribune of the people do the same thing to Cnaeus Lentulus the censor. Did he then at all bind the property of Lentulus to any peculiar sanctity? But why should I speak of other men? You yourself; I say, with your head veiled, having summoned an assembly, having placed a brazier on the spot, consecrated the property of your dear friend Gabinius, to whom you had given all the kingdoms of the Syrians, and Arabians, and Persians. But if nothing was really effected at that time, why should my property be affected by the same measures? if, on the other hand, that consecration was valid, why did that abyss of a man, who had swallowed up with you all the blood of the republic, raise a villa as high as the heavens on my Tusculan estate, out of the funds of the public treasury? And why have I not been allowed to look upon the ruins of my property,—I, who am the only person who prevented the whole city from being in a similar condition? > Latin: 124. non fuit. hoc idem Cn. Lentulo censori tribunum plebis facere: num qua igitur is bona Lentuli religione obligavit? quid ego ceteros?, tu, inquam, capite velato, contione advocata, foculo posito bona tui Gabini, cui regna omnia Syrorum Arabum Persarumque donaras, consecrasti. 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? [¶4] 125. I say nothing about Gabinius. Why? Did not Lucius Munius, the most fearless and most excellent of all men, consecrate your property by your own precedent? And if, because you yourself are concerned, you say that that action ought not to be ratified, did you in that splendid tribuneship of yours establish laws which, the moment that they were turned against yourself, you repudiated, though you made use of them to ruin other people? If that consecration be legal, then what is there in your property which can be applied to other than holy uses? Or has a consecration no power, while a dedication draws with it the sanctions of religion? What then was the meaning of your summoning that flute-player to be a witness? What was the object of your brazier? What became of your prayers? What was the meaning of all your old-fashioned expressions? Did you wish to lie, to deceive, to abuse the divine reverence due to the immortal gods, in order to strike terror into men? For if that act is once ratified—I say nothing about Gabinius,—most certainly your house and whatever else you have is consecrated to Ceres. But if that was a joke of yours, what can be more impure than you who have polluted every sort of religion by lies and adulteries? > Latin: 125. Gabinium; quid? exemplo tuo bona tua nonne L. Ninnius, vir omnium fortissimus atque optimus, consecravit? 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? consecratio nullum habet ius, dedicatio est religiosa? 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? 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? [¶5] 126. “Well, I confess,” says he, “that in the case of Gabinius I did behave wickedly.” You see now that the punishment which was established by you with reference to another has been turned against yourself. But, O man, O you who are the very model of every possible crime and wickedness, do you deny with respect to me that which you admit in the case of Gabinius,—a man the immodesty of whose childhood, the lust of whose youth, the disgrace and indigence of whose subsequent life, the open robberies of whose consulship, we have seen,—a man to whom even calamity itself could not happen undeservedly? Did do you? that that was a more solemn act which you performed with one young man alone for your witness, than it would have been if you had had the whole assembly in that character? “Oh,” says he, “a dedication is an act which carries the greatest possible quantity of sanctity with it.” > Latin: 126. “fateor,” inquit, “me in Gabinio nefarium fuisse.” vides poenam illam a te in alium institutam in te ipsum esse conversam., 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? [¶6] 127. Does not Numa Pompilius appear to be speaking to you? Learn his speech by heart, O priests, and flamens. Do you too, O king of the sacrifices, learn of the man of your own family; although, indeed, he has quitted that family; but still learn from a man entirely devoted to religious observances, and just, and deeply skilled in all questions of religion. What? in the case of a dedication do not people inquire who says such and such a thing, and what he says, and how? Do you so confuse and mix up these matters, that whoever chooses can dedicate whatever he chooses, and in whatever manner he chooses? Who were you who performed the dedication? By what right did you do so? By what law? According to what precedent? By what power? When and where had the Roman people appointed you to manage that business? For I see that there is an old tribunitian law, which forbids any one to consecrate any house, land, or altar, without the order of the Roman people. Quintus Papirius, who proposed this law, did not perceive nor suspect that there would be danger lest hereafter the houses or possessions of citizens who had not been condemned might be consecrated. For that could not lawfully be done; nor had any one ever done such a thing; nor was there any reason why a prohibition should be issued, the effect of which appeared likely to be not so much to deter people from an action as to remind them of it. > Latin: 127. “magnam,” inquit, “habet religionem.” vobis Numa Pompilius videtur loqui? 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.? in dedicatione nonne et quis dedicet et quid et quo modo quaeritur? tu haec ita confundis et perturbas ut, quicumque velit, quod velit quo modo velit possit dedicare? eras tu qui dedicabas? iure? qua lege? quo exemplo? qua potestate? Vbi te isti rei populus Romanus praefecerat? 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. enim id fieri fas erat, neque quisquam fecerat, neque erat causa cur prohibendo non tam deterrere videretur quam admonere. [¶7] 128. But because buildings were consecrated,—I do not mean the licenses of private persons, but those which are called sacred buildings,—and because lands were consecrated, not in such a way that any one who chose might consecrate our farms, but that a general might consecrate lands taken from the enemy; and because altars were erected, which carried with them a degree of sanctity to the place in which they were consecrated; he forbade all these things to be done unless the people ordered them. And if your interpretation of these edicts be that they were framed with reference to our houses and lands, I make no objection. But I ask, what law was passed that you should consecrate my house? where this power was given to you? and by what right you did it? And I am not now arguing about religion, but about the property of all of us; nor about the sacerdotal law, but about the common law. The Papirian law forbids any building to be consecrated without the command of the people. Grant that that law refers to our houses, and not to the public temples. Show me one word of consecration in that law of yours—if it is a law, and not merely an expression of your wickedness and cruelty. > Latin: 128. 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 ⟨ei⟩ loco ⟨quo⟩ essent consecratae, haec nisi plebs iussisset fieri vetuit. 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. ego nunc de religione sed de bonis omnium nostrum, nec de pontificio sed de iure publico disputo. Papiria vetat aedis iniussu plebis consecrari. 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. [¶8] 129. But if then, at the time of that shipwreck of the republic, everything necessary had occurred to you, or if the man who drew that law for you at the time of that general conflagration of the state had not been making contracts with the Byzantine exiles and with the royal ambassadors, but had his mind at leisure to attend to (what I will not call the ordinances, but) the monstrous papers which he was drawing, then you would have done what you wanted, if not in fact at all events as far as regular legal language went. But at one and the same time bonds for money were being drawn, treaties with provinces were being entered into, titles of kings were being put up for sale, the numbering of all the slaves was going on over the whole city street by street enemies were being reconciled, new commands were being given to the Roman youth, poison was being prepared for that unhappy Quintus Seius, designs were being formed for assassinating Cnaeus Pompeius, the bulwark and protector of the empire, and to prevent the senate from having any power, and to cause the good to mourn for ever, and to reduce the captive republic, by the treachery of the consuls, to a state of subjection to the violence of the tribunes. When such numerous and such important designs were all on foot, it is no wonder, especially while you were both in such a state of frenzy and blindness, that many things escaped both his notice and yours. > Latin: 129. 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. 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. cum tot tantaque agerentur, non mirum est, praesertim in furore animi et caecitate, multa illum et te fefellisse. [¶9] 130. But take notice now, what the effect of this Papirian law is in such a case as this; not such a case as you bring forward, full of wickedness and frenzy. Quintus Marcius the censor had made a statue of Concord, and had erected it in a public place. When Caius Cassius the censor had transported it into the senate-house, he consulted your college, and asked whether there was any reason why he should not dedicate that statue and the senate-house to Concord. I beseech you, O priests, compare man with man, the one time with the other, this case with that case. The one man was a censor of the greatest moderation and of the highest character; the other was a tribune of the people, of preeminent wickedness and audacity. That period was one of tranquillity, when the people enjoyed a full measure of liberty, and the senate all its legitimate authority; but your time was a time when the liberty of the Roman people was oppressed, and when the authority of the senate was destroyed. > Latin: 130. 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. signum C. Cassius censor cum in curiam transtulisset, conlegium vestrum consuluit num quid esse causae videretur quin id signum curiamque Concordiae dedicaret., pontifices, et hominem cum homine et tempus cum tempore et rem cum re comparate. erat summa modestia et gravitate censor: hic tribunus plebis scelere et audacia singulari. illud erat tranquillum et in libertate populi et gubernatione positum senatus: tuum porro tempus libertate populi Romani oppressa, senatus auctoritate deleta. [¶10] 131. The proposed measure was one full of justice, wisdom, and dignity. For the censor, to whose power (though you have abolished that) our ancestors chose to commit the decision respecting the dignity of each member of the senate, wished the statue of Concord to be in the senate-house, and wished also to dedicate the senate-house to that goddess. It was a noble intention, and one worthy of all praise. For he thought that by that measure he was enjoining that opinions should be delivered without party spirit or dissension, if he bound the place itself and the temple of public counsel by the religions reverence due to the goddess Concord. You, when you were keeping down the enslaved and oppressed city by the sword, by fear, by edicts, by privileges, by bands of abandoned men constantly present, and by the fear of the army which was absent and by threats of bringing it up, and by the assistance of the consuls, and by your nefarious agreement with them, erected a statue of Liberty in a mocking and shameless spirit, rather than with even any pretence to religion. He was dedicating a thing in the senate-house, which he was able to dedicate without any inconvenience to any one. You have erected an image not of public Liberty, but of licentiousness, on what I may call the blood and bones of that citizen who of all others has deserved best of the republic. > Latin: 131. 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. 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, signum posuisti magis ad ludibrium impudentiae quam ad simulationem religionis. 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. [¶11] 132. And moreover he referred his design to the sacred college: to whom did you refer yours? If you deliberated at all, if you had anything which you wished to expiate, or any domestic sacrifice which you desired to institute, still according to the ancient practice of other men you should have referred the matter to the priests. When you were beginning a new temple in the most beautiful spot in the city, with some wicked and unheard of object, did you not think that you ought to refer the matter to the public priests? But if you did not think it desirable to consult the whole college of priests, was there no single one of them who seemed to you a suitable man (of those who are eminent among all the citizens for age and honour and authority) for you to communicate your intention about the dedication to him? The truth was, not that you despised, but that you were afraid of their dignity. Could you have dared to ask Publius Servilius or Marcus Lucullus, (men by the assistance of whose wisdom and authority I as consul snatched the republic out of your hands, out of your jaws,) with what words or with what ceremony you could consecrate the house of a citizen? (that is my first point;) and in the next place, of that citizen, to whom the chief of the senate, to whom all ranks of men, to whom all Italy, to whom every nation upon earth, bore testimony that he had saved this city and empire? What would you say, O you most wicked and mischievous disgrace to the city? > Latin: 132. ille tamen ad conlegium rettulit, tu ad quem rettulisti? 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? si conlegium pontificum adhibendum non videbatur, nemone horum tibi idoneus visus est, qui aetate honore auctoritate antecellunt, cum quo ⟨de⟩ dedicatione communicares? quidem tu non contempsisti sed pertimuisti dignitatem. 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? [¶12] 133. “Come forward, come forward, Lucullus, Servilius, while I dedicate the house of Cicero. Come, stand before me, and take hold of the door-post.” You are, in truth, a man of extraordinary audacity and impudence, but still your eyes, and countenance, and voice would have failed you while those men who, by their dignity, upheld the character of the Roman people and the authority of the empire, were striking terror into you by their dignified language, and saying that it would be impious for them to be present at your frantic deeds, and at such wicked and parricidal attacks on the country. > Latin: 133. diceres, o nefanda et perniciosa labes civitatis? “, Luculle, ades Servili, dum dedico domum Ciceronis, ut mihi praeeatis postemque teneatis!” tu quidem cum audacia tum impudentia singulari, sed tibi tamen oculi, vultus, verba cecidissent, cum te viri, qui sua dignitate personam populi ⟨Romani⟩ atque auctoritatem imperi sustinerent, verbis gravissimis proterruissent, neque sibi fas esse dixissent furori interesse tuo atque in patriae parricidio exsultare. [¶13] 134. And when you saw this, then you betook yourself to your kinsman,—not that he was selected by you, but that he was left you by the rest. And yet I believe that he,—if he is really descended from those men who, it is traditionally reported, learnt their sacred ceremonies from Hercules himself; after he had completed his labours,—would not have been so cruel with respect to the distress of a brave man, as with his own hands to place a tomb on the head of a man still living and breathing; as he either actually said and did nothing at all, and bore this as a punishment for the rashness of his mother, that he lent his presence though mute, and his name to this sin; or, if he did say anything in a few faltering words, and if he did touch the door-post with trembling hand, at all events he did nothing regularly or solemnly, nothing according to proper usages or established forms. He had seen Murena, his stepfather, the consul elect in company with the Allobroges, bring to me when I was consul the proofs of the conspiracy for the general destruction. He had heard from him that he had twice received safety from me, once as an individual, and a second time in common with the whole body of citizens. > Latin: 134. cum videres, tum te ad tuum adfinem non delectum a te, sed relictum a ceteris contulisti. ego tamen credo, si est ortus ab illis quos memoriae proditum est ab ipso 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. 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. [¶14] 135. Who is there, then, who can think that this new priest, performing this his first religious ceremony, and uttering these his first official words since his admission to the priesthood, would not have felt his tongue grow mute, and his hand grow torpid, and his mind become weakened and fail through fear; especially when out of all that numerous college he saw neither king, nor flamen, nor priest and was compelled against his will to become a partner in another's wickedness, and was enduring the most terrible punishment of his most disgraceful relationship? > Latin: 135. 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? [¶15] 136. But to return to the question of the vindication of the public rights, which the priests themselves have always adapted not only to their own ceremonies, but also to the commands of the people. You have a statement in your records, that Caius Cassius the censor consulted the pontifical college about dedicating the statue of Concord, and that Marcus Aemilius, the Pontifex Maximus, answered him on behalf of the college, that unless the Roman people had appointed him by name to superintend that business, it did not appear to them that the statue could properly be consecrated. What more? When Licinia,—a vestal virgin, a woman of the highest rank, and invested with the most holy of all priesthoods,—in the consulship of Titus Flamininus and Quintus Metellus, had dedicated an altar, and a little chapel, and a cushion at the foot of the sacred rock; did not Sextus Julius the praetor refer that matter to this college, in obedience to the authority of the senate? when Publius Scaevola, the Pontifex Maximus, answered on behalf of the college, “that what Licinia, the daughter of Caius, had dedicated in a public place without the authority of the people, did not appear to be holy.” And with what impartiality and with what diligence the senate annulled that act, you will easily see from the words of the resolution of the senate. Read the resolution of the senate. [The resolution of the senate is read.] > Latin: 136. 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.? cum Licinia, virgo Vestalis summo loco nata, sanctissimo sacerdotio praedita, T. Flaminio Q. Metello consulibus aram et aediculam et pulvinar sub dedicasset, nonne eam rem ex auctoritate senatus ad hoc conlegium Sex. Iulius praetor rettulit? cum P. Scaevola pontifex maximus pro conlegio respondit, in loco pvblico Licinia, Gai filia, inivssv popvli dedicasset, sacrvm non viderier. quidem rem quanta ⟨tractaverit⟩ severitate quantaque diligentia senatus, ex ipso senatus consulto facile cognoscetis. [¶16] 137. Do not you see that a commission is given to the praetor of the city, to take care that that which she had consecrated should not be accounted holy? and that, if any letters had been engraved or inscribed upon it, they should be removed? Shame on the times, and on their principles! Then the priests forbade the censor, a most holy man, to dedicate it statue to Concord in a temple which had not been duly consecrated. And after that the senate voted that that altar, which had been consecrated on a most venerable spot, should be taken down in obedience to the authority of the priests, and did not permit any memorial of writing to exist as a relic of that dedication. You, O storm ravaging your country,—you whirlwind and tempest dispelling peace and tranquillity,—did you hope that the republic would endure what you (in the shipwreck of the state, when darkness was spread over the republic, when the Roman people was overwhelmed, when the senate was overturned and expelled,) pulled down and built up? what you, after having violated every feeling of religion, still polluted under the name of religion? that it would endure the monument of the destruction of the republic which you erected in the house of this citizen who is now speaking, and in the city which he had preserved by his own exertions and dangers, to the disgrace of the knights and the grief of all virtuous men; that it would endure the inscription which you had placed there after having erased the name of Quintus Catulus, one moment longer than the time that it was absent from these walls, from which it had been driven at the same time that I myself was? But if, O priests, you decide that no man who had a right to do so by law performed this dedication, and that nothing was dedicated which lawfully might be; then why need I prove that third point which I originally proposed to establish; namely, that he did not dedicate it with those forms and words which such ceremonies require? > Latin: 137. praetori urbano negotium datum ut curaret ne id sacrum esset, et ut, si quae essent incisae aut inscriptae litterae, tollerentur? O tempora, o mores! 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? [¶17] 138. I said at the beginning, that I was not going to say anything about your peculiar science; nor about the sacrifices, nor about the recondite laws of the priests. The arguments which I have hitherto advanced about the right of dedication, have not been drawn from any secret description of books, but are taken from common sources, from things openly done by the magistrates and referred to the sacred college, from resolutions of the senate, and from the law. Those inner mysteries, what ought to be said, or enjoined, or touched, or taken hold of are still your own. > Latin: 138. 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? a principio nihil me de scientia vestra, nihil de sacris, nihil de abscondito pontificum iure dicturum. 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. interiora iam vestra sunt, quid dici, quid praeiri, quid tangi, quid teneri ius fuerit. [¶18] 139. But if it were proved that all these things had been done in a manner equal to the knowledge of Coruncanius, who is said to have been the most experienced of priests; or if that great man Marcus Horatius Pulvillus, who when many men out of envy endeavoured to hinder his dedication by false pretences about religion, resisted them, and with the greatest firmness dedicated the Capitol, had himself presided at such a dedication as this, still I say that accuracy of religious observance would not hallow a wicked act; much less can that act have any validity which an unskillful young man, a new priest, influenced by the prayers of his sister and the threats of his mother, ignorant and unwilling, without colleagues, without books, without any adviser or assistant, is said to have performed by stealth, with trembling heart and faltering tongue; especially when that impure and impious enemy of all religion, who in defiance of all that is right or holy had often been as a woman among men, and a man among women, completed the business in so hurried and disorderly a manner, that neither his senses, nor his voice, nor his language, had any consistency in them. > Latin: 139. si omnia e Ti. Coruncani scientia, qui peritissimus pontifex fuisse dicitur, acta esse constaret, aut si M. Horatius ille, 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? [¶19] 140. It was then reported to you, O priests, and after that it became a common topic of conversation, how he, with preposterous language with ill-omened auspices, at times interrupting himself, doubting, fearing, hesitating, pronounced and did everything in a manner wholly different from that which you have recorded as proper in your books. It is, indeed, not very strange that in doing an act of such wickedness and such insanity, even his audacity could not wholly repress his fear. In truth, if no robber was ever so savage and inhuman, as, when he had plundered temples, and then, having been excited by dreams or some superstitious feelings, consecrated some altar on a desert shore, not to shudder in his mind when compelled to propitiate with his prayers the deity whom he has insulted by his wickedness; what do you suppose must have been the agitation of mind of that plunderer of every temple, and of every house, and of the whole city, when he was consecrating one single altar to avert the vengeance due to his numberless acts of wickedness? > Latin: 140. tum sunt ⟨ea⟩ 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. quidem minime mirum est, in tanto scelere tantaque dementia ne audaciae quidem locum ad timorem comprimendum fuisse. 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? [¶20] 141. He could not possibly (although the insolence of power had elated his mind, and although he was armed by nature with incredible audacity) fail to blunder in his proceedings, or to keep constantly making mistakes, especially when he had a priest and teacher who was compelled to teach before he had learnt himself. There is great power, not only in the divinity of the immortal gods, but also in the republic itself. When the immortal gods saw the guardian and protector of their temples driven away in a most wicked manner, they were unwilling to quit their temples and to remove into his house. Therefore they alarmed the mind of that most insensible man with fear and anxiety. But the republic, although that was banished at the same time with myself, was still constantly present to the eyes of its destroyer, and from his excited and kindled frenzy was constantly demanding my restoration and its own. What marvel then is it, if he, urged on by the insanity of fear and drawn on headlong by wickedness, was neither able properly to perform the ceremonies which he had begun, nor to utter one single word in due order with proper solemnity? > Latin: 141. 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. 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. re quid est mirum si iste metu ⟨exagitatus⟩, furore instinctus, scelere praeceps, neque institutas caerimonias persequi neque verbum ullum sollemne potuit effari? [¶21] 142. And as this is the case, O priests, recall now your attention from this subtle argument of ours to the general state and interests of the republic, which you have before now had many gallant men to assist you in supporting, but which in this cause you are upholding on your own shoulders alone. To you the whole future authority of the senate, which you yourselves always led in a most admirable manner during the discussion of my case; to you that most glorious agitation of Italy, and that thronging hither of all the municipal towns; to you the Campus Martius, and the unanimous voice of all the centuries, of which you were the chiefs and leaders; to you every company in the city every rank of men all men who have any property or any hopes, think that all their zeal for my dignity, all their decisions in my favour are not only entrusted, but put wholly under your protection. > Latin: 142. 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. 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. [¶22] 143. Lastly the immortal gods themselves, who protect this city and empire, appear to me to have claimed the credit of my return and of the happiness which it has diffused as due to the power and judicial sentence of their priests in order to make it evident to all nations and to all posterity that I had been restored to the republic by divine agency. For this return of mine, O priests and this restoration consists in recovering my house, my possessions, my altars, my hearths, and my household gods. And if that fellow with his most wicked hands tears up their dwellings and abodes and with the consuls for his leaders, as if the city were taken, has thought it becoming to destroy this house alone, as if it were the house of its most active defender, still those household gods, those deities of my family, will be by you replaced in my house at the same time as myself. > Latin: 143. 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. 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. [¶23] 144. Wherefore, O I pray and entreat you, O thou great God of the Capitol, thee whom the Roman people has styled, on account of your kindnesses to us, All Good, and, on account of your might All Powerful; and you, O royal Juno; and you, O guardian of the city, O Minerva, you who have at all times been my assistant in my counsels, and the witness of my exertions; and you too, you who above all others have claimed me back and recalled me, you, for the sake of whose habitations most especially it is that I am engaged in this contest, O household gods of my fathers, and of my family; and you too, who preside over this city and this republic, you do I entreat, from whose spires and temples I once repelled that fatal and impious flame, you too do I supplicate, O Vesta, whose chaste priestesses I have defended from the rage and frenzy and wickedness of men whose renowned and eternal fire I could not suffer either to be extinguished in the blood of the citizens or to be confused with the conflagration of the whole city, I entreat you all that,— > Latin: 144. te, Capitoline, quem propter beneficia populus Romanus, propter vim nominavit, teque, Iuno Regina, et te, custos urbis, Minerva, quae semper adiutrix consiliorum meorum, testis laborum exstitisti, precor atque quaeso, vosque qui maxime ⟨me⟩ 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, [¶24] 145. if at that almost fatal crisis of the republic I exposed my life, in defence of your ceremonies and temples, to the rage and arms of abandoned citizens; and it at a subsequent time, when the destruction of all good men was aimed at through my ruin, I invoked your aid, I recommended myself and my family to your protection, I devoted myself and my life, on condition that it both at that moment, and previously, and in my consulship, disregarding all my own advantage, all my own interests, and all reward for my exertions, I strove with all my anxiety and thoughts and vigilance for nothing but the safety of my fellow-citizens, I might be allowed some day or other to enjoy my country restored to me; but if my counsels had been of no service to my country, then, that I might endure everlasting misery, separated from all my friends;—I may be allowed to think this devotion of my life accepted and approved by the gods, when I am by your favour restored to my home. > Latin: 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. [¶25] 146. For at present, O priests, I am not only deprived of my house, which you are at present inquiring into, but of the whole city, to which I appear to be restored. In the most frequented and finest part of the city, look to that (I will not say monument, but) wound of the country. And as you must see that that sight is to me one which is more to be detested and avoided than death itself; do not, I entreat you, allow that man by whose return you have thought that the republic too would be restored, to be deprived not only of the ornaments suited to his dignity, but even of his part in the city. I am not moved by the plundering of my property, nor by the razing of my houses, nor by the devastation of my farms, nor by the booty most cruelly taken by the consuls out of my possessions. I have always considered these as perishable and fleeting gifts of fortune and of the times, and not as proofs of virtue or genius; and they are things, too, of which I have never thought it becoming to wish for plenty and abundance, so much as for moderation in enjoying them, and patience if deprived of them. > Latin: 146. 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. 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. 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. [¶26] 147. In truth, the moderate amount of my family property very nearly corresponds to my necessities; and I shall leave a sufficiently ample patrimony to my children in the name and memory of their father. But I cannot without great discredit to the republic, and great shame and misery to myself, continue deprived of my house, which has been taken from me by wickedness, and, under pretence of religion, built up again with even more impiety than it was pulled down. Wherefore, if you consider that my return is pleasing and acceptable to the immortal gods, to the senate, to the Roman people, to all Italy, to the provinces, to foreign nations, and to yourselves who have always taken the lead in and exercised a principal influence over all measures connected with my safety, I beg and entreat you, O priests, now, since it is the will of the senate that you should do so, to place me, whom you have restored by your authority and zeal and votes to my country, with your own hands in my house. > Latin: 147. 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. 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.