---
title: "For Balbus · Pro L. Cornelio Balbo"
author: "Cicero"
translator: "Charles Duke Yonge"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Classical Latin"
url: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-balbo/
cite: "Cicero, tr. Charles Duke Yonge, For Balbus · Pro L. Cornelio Balbo. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-balbo/"
---

# For Balbus · Pro L. Cornelio Balbo

*Cicero, tr. Charles Duke Yonge*

Was the Spaniard Balbus lawfully made a Roman citizen?

> Latin: ed. William Peterson, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-latinLit, phi0474.phi026, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: Charles Duke Yonge, from the Perseus Digital Library (phi0474.phi026.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.

## Contents

1. [Sections 1–34](https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-balbo/1.md)
2. [Sections 35–65](https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-balbo/2.md)

## 1. Sections 1–34

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-balbo/1/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-balbo/1/#p-N

[¶0] 1. If the authority of those who are advocates in a person's defence be of any weight, the cause of Lucius Cornelius has been defended by the most honourable men; if their experience is to be regarded, it has been defended by the most skillful lawyers; if we look to their ability, by the most eloquent of orators; or if it is their sincerity and zeal that we should regard, it has been upheld by those who are his greatest friends, and who are united to Lucius Cornelius not merely by mutual services, but by the greatest intimacy. What part, then, have I in this defence? That which is given to me by such influence as you have been pleased to allow me; by moderate experience; and by an ability which is by no means equal to my inclination to serve him. For as to the other men by whom he has been defended, I see that to them he is under great obligations; but how much I am under obligations to him I will explain to you at another time. This I assert at the beginning of my speech,—that if I cannot by my exertions properly requite all those men who have been friendly to my safety and to my dignity, I will at all events recompense them as far as in my power by at all times both feeling and declaring my obligations and my gratitude.

> Latin: 1. auctoritates patronorum in iudiciis valent, ab amplissimis viris L. Corneli causa defensa est; si usus, a peritissimis; si ingenia, ab eloquentissimis; si studia, ab amicissimis et cum beneficiis cum L. Cornelio tum maxima familiaritate coniunctis. sunt igitur meae partes? tantae quantam vos in me esse voluistis, usus mediocris, ingeni minime voluntati paris. ceteris a quibus est defensus hunc debere plurimum video; ego quantum ei debeam, alio loco; principio orationis hoc pono, me omnibus qui amici fuerint saluti et dignitati meae, si minus referenda gratia satis facere potuerim, praedicanda et habenda certe satis esse facturum.

[¶1] 2. How great was the energy displayed by Cnaeus Pompeius in speaking yesterday, O judges, how great his fluency, how great the riches of his eloquence, was shown plainly enough, not only by the secret feelings of your minds, but by your evident and unconcealed admiration. For I never heard anything which appeared to me more acute as regards the state of the law, … I never heard a more copious recollection of precedents; I never heard a more skillful argument concerning treaties, nor any statements of more illustrious authority concerning our wars, or of more weight and dignity with reference to the general interests of the republic; I never heard any one speak more modestly concerning himself, or more eloquently concerning the cause and the charge.

> Latin: 2. fuerit hesterno die Cn. Pompei gravitas in dicendo, iudices, quae facultas, quae copia, non opinione tacita vestrorum animorum, sed perspicua admiratione declarari videbatur. enim umquam audivi quod mihi de iure subtilius dici videretur, nihil memoria maiore de exemplis, nihil peritius de foederibus, nihil inlustriore auctoritate de bellis, nihil de re publica gravius, nihil de ipso modestius, nihil de causa et crimine ornatius:

[¶2] 3. So that that saying appeared to me to be a true one, which though some men devoted to literature and to learned studies were said to have given utterance to it, appeared nevertheless to be something incredible; namely, that the man whose soul contained every virtue, could with the most perfect ease do everything which he might wish to do. For how could there have been a greater fertility and variety and richness of eloquence in Lucius Crassus, a man born to a most singular gift of oratory if even he had pleaded this cause than was displayed by that man who was able to devote just so much time to this study as he spared from the uninterrupted succession of wars and victories in which his life has been passed from childhood up to this time?

> Latin: 3. ut mihi iam verum videatur illud esse quod non nulli litteris ac studiis doctrinae dediti quasi quiddam incredibile dicere putabantur, ei qui omnis animo virtutes penitus comprehendisset omnia quae faceret ⟨recte procedere⟩. enim in L. Crasso potuit, homine nato ad dicendi singularem quandam facultatem, si hanc causam ageret, maior esse ubertas, varietas, copia quam fuit in eo qui tantum potuit impertire huic studio temporis quantum ipse a pueritia usque ad hanc aetatem a continuis bellis et victoriis conquievit?

[¶3] 4. And all this makes my task of summing up the more difficult. For, in truth, I am coming after an oration which has not just passed by your ears, but has sunk deep into the minds of all of you, so that you may very probably derive more pleasure from the recollection of that speech, than you can from the hearing not only of mine, but of any one else's speech whatever. But in this I am forced to comply with the wishes not only of Cornelius, whose desires I cannot possibly thwart in this his hour of danger, but also with those of Cnaeus Pompeius, who has wished me the panegyrist of and the assistant in this action, and this determination, and this kindness of his, as I lately was in another cause which was pleaded before you, O judges.

> Latin: 4. mihi difficilior est hic extremus perorandi locus. ei succedo orationi quae non praetervecta sit auris vestras, sed in animis omnium penitus insederit, ut plus voluptatis ex recordatione illius orationis quam non modo ex mea, sed ex cuiusquam oratione capere possitis. mos est gerundus non modo Cornelio, cuius ego voluntati in eius periculis nullo modo deesse possum, sed etiam Cn. Pompeio, qui sui facti, sui iudici, sui benefici voluit me esse, ut apud eosdem vos, iudices, nuper in alia causa fuerim, et praedicatorem et actorem.

[¶4] 5. And it appears to me that this is what the defendant himself deserves, that this is what the unexampled renown of this excellent man deserves, that this is what essentially belongs to the discharge of your duty, and that this is due to the cause itself, that, what it is quite notorious that Cnaeus Pompeius did, all men should allow he had a lawful right to do. For there is nothing more true than that which he himself said yesterday, that Lucius Cornelius had now all his fortunes at stake, without being accused of any single crime of any description. For he is not said to have stolen the rights of a citizen, nor to have given any false account of his family, nor to have proceeded in an underhand manner by any shameless falsehood, nor to have crept fraudulently into the register. One thing alone is imputed to him, that he was born at Gades; a fact which no one denies. All the rest the prosecutor admits. He admits that he served in Spain, in a most severe war, with Quintus Metellus, with Caius Memmius; that he served both in the fleet and in the army; and, when Pompeius came into Spain and began to have Memmius for his quaestor, that he never left Memmius; that he went to take possession of Carthage; that he was present at those two hardly contested and most important battles of Sucro and the Durius; that he remained with Pompeius to the end of the war.

> Latin: 5. mihi quidem hoc dignum re publica videtur, hoc deberi huius excellentis viri praestantissimae gloriae, hoc proprium esse vestri offici, hoc satis esse causae ut, quod fecisse Cn. Pompeium constet, id omnes ei licuisse concedant. verius nihil est quam quod hesterno die dixit ipse, ita L. Cornelium de fortunis omnibus dimicare ut nullius in delicti crimen vocaretur. enim furatus esse civitatem, non genus suum ementitus, non in aliquo impudenti mendacio delituisse, non inrepsisse in censum dicitur: unum obicitur, natum esse Gadibus, quod negat nemo. accusator fatetur, hunc in Hispania durissimo bello cum Q. Metello, cum C. Memmio et in classe et in exercitu fuisse; ut Pompeius in Hispaniam venerit Memmiumque habere quaestorem coeperit, numquam a Memmio discessisse, Carthagine esse obsessum, acerrimis illis proeliis et maximis, Sucronensi et Turiensi, interfuisse, cum Pompeio ad extremum belli tempus fuisse.

[¶5] 6. These are the battles of Cornelius. Such were his exertions; such was his industry; such were his dangers encountered on behalf of our republic; such was his valour, worthy of a general; while his hopes were hopes of a reward in proportion to his dangers. The rewards themselves are not the actions of him who obtained them, but of him who conferred them. Therefore on account of this conduct he was presented by Cnaeus Pompeius with the freedom of the city. That the prosecutor does not deny; but he finds fault with it, in such a manner that, as far as Balbus himself is concerned, his cause is approved of even at the moment that it is sought to punish him; in the case of Pompeius, his conduct is disapproved of, but no punishment is designed for him. And this is the way in which they wish to condemn the fame and fortune of a most innocent man and the conduct of a most admirable commander. Therefore it is the status of Cornelius as a citizen, and the action of Pompeius that are now on their trial before this court. For you admit that this man was born of a most honourable rank in that state to which he belongs, and that from his earliest manhood disregarding all his private affairs, he has passed his whole time in our wars in the company of our own generals, and that he has been absent from no labour, from no siege, and from no battle. All these things are full of glory, and are the peculiar glory of Cornelius; nor is there any crime in any part of such conduct.

> Latin: 6. sunt propria Corneli, pietas in rem publicam nostram, labor, adsiduitas, dimicatio, virtus digna summo imperatore, spes pro periculis praemiorum; praemia quidem ipsa non sunt in eius facto qui adeptus est, sed in eius qui dedit. Donatus igitur est ob eas causas a Cn. Pompeio civitate. accusator non negat, sed reprehendit, ut in Cornelio causa ipsius probetur, poena quaeratur, in Pompeio causa laedatur, poena sit nulla nisi famae: sic innocentissimi hominis fortunas, praestantissimi imperatoris factum condemnari volunt. in iudicium caput Corneli, factum Pompei vocatur. enim in ea civitate in qua sit natus honestissimo loco natum esse concedis, et ab ineunte aetate relictis rebus suis omnibus in nostris bellis nostris cum imperatoribus esse versatum, nullius laboris, nullius obsessionis, nullius proeli expertem fuisse. sunt omnia cum plena laudis tum propria Corneli, nec in iis rebus crimen est ullum.

[¶6] 7. Where then is his crime? Is it because Pompeius presented him with the freedom of the city? Is that a crime of Balbus's? By no means, unless honour is to be accounted ignominy. Whose crime is it then? In reality nobody's at all; but if we look at the pleading of the prosecutor, it is clearly the crime of that man alone who gave him the freedom of the city. But if he had been influenced by interest, he would probably have selected some less worthy man for that reward. Even had he selected a good man, he would not have chosen one who had deserved as well of the state as Balbus; even if his action had been one of which it could not have been said that it was contrary to what was lawful, it would have been said that it was contrary to what was becoming. But all such vituperation would have deserved to be rejected by you, O judges.

> Latin: 7. igitur est crimen? eum Pompeius civitate donavit. crimen?, nisi honos ignominia putanda est. igitur? vera nullius, actione accusatoris eius unius qui donavit; qui si adductus gratia minus idoneum hominem praemio adfecisset, quin etiam si virum bonum sed non ita meritum, si denique aliquid non contra ac liceret factum diceretur, sed contra atque oporteret, tamen esset omnis eius modi reprehensio a vobis, iudices, repudianda.

[¶7] 8. But at present what is it that is said? What does the prosecutor say? That Pompeius did what it was not lawful for him to do; which is a more serious charge than if he were to say that that had been done by him which was not expedient. For there are things which are not expedient even if they are lawful. But whatever is not lawful is most certainly not expedient. Am I now, O judges, to hesitate to urge that it is impossible to doubt that we ought to confess that what it is notorious that Cnaeus Pompeius did was not only lawful, but also expedient for him to do?

> Latin: 8. vero quid dicitur? ait accusator? Pompeium quod ei facere non licuerit; quod gravius est quam si id factum ab eo diceret quod non oportuisset. enim aliquid quod non oporteat, etiam si licet; quicquid vero non licet, certe non oportet. ego nunc cuncter sic agere, iudices, non esse fas dubitari quin, quod Cn. Pompeium fecisse constet, id non solum licuisse sed etiam decuisse fateamur?

[¶8] 9. For what qualification is wanting in this man, that, if he had it, we should consider that this liberty might lawfully be given and allowed to him? Is it experience in affairs? a man who during even the latter days of his childhood was beginning his course of the most important wars and commands? most of whose equals in age have seen a camp less frequently than he has celebrated a triumph? who has celebrated as many triumphs as there are countries and parts of the world? who has won as many victories in war as there are kinds of war in the nature of things? Is it ability? when even the very results and terminations of transactions have been, not the guides, but the companions of his counsels? a man in whom the most extraordinary good fortune has so kept pace with extraordinary valour, that, in the opinion of all men, more credit was due to the man than to the goddess; Have modesty, or integrity, or religion, or diligence ever been wanting in that man? a man than whom our provinces, and all free nations, and all kings, and the very most distant people of the earth have not only never seen one more chaste, more moderate, and more religious, but have never in their hopes or wishes even imagined one.

> Latin: 9. enim abest huic homini quod, si adesset, iure haec ei tribui et concedi putaremus? Vsusne rerum? qui pueritiae tempus extremum principium habuit bellorum atque imperiorum maximorum, cuius plerique aequales minus saepe castra viderunt quam hic triumphavit, qui tot habet triumphos quot orae sunt partesque terrarum, tot victorias bellicas quot sunt in rerum natura genera bellorum. ingenium? quin etiam ipsi casus eventusque rerum non duces, sed comites eius consiliorum fuerunt: in quo uno ita summa fortuna cum summa virtute certavit ut omnium iudicio plus homini quam deae tribueretur. pudor, an integritas, an religio in eo, an diligentia umquam requisita est? provinciae nostrae, quem liberi populi, quem reges, quem ultimae gentes castiorem, moderatiorem, sanctiorem non modo viderunt, sed aut sperando umquam aut optando cogitaverunt?

[¶9] 10. Why need I speak of his authority, which is as great as it ought to be, springing from such great virtue and glory? Is it not then, O judges, a shameful thing for the Roman people, that after the senate and people of Rome have conferred on that man the rewards of the most honourable dignity; when he not only did not ask for commands, but when he even refused them, an inquiry into his conduct should be now taking place, in such terms that there should be a discussion as to whether it was lawful for him to do what he has done; or whether, I will not say, it was lawful, but whether it was impious for him to do so? (for he is said to have done it in contravention of a treaty,—that is to say, in contradiction to the religion and good faith of the Roman people.) Is it not disgraceful to you yourselves?

> Latin: 10. dicam de auctoritate? quae tanta est quanta in his tantis virtutibus ac laudibus esse debet. senatus populusque Romanus amplissimae dignitatis praemia dedit non postulanti, imperia vero etiam recusanti, huius de facto, iudices, ita quaeri ut id agatur, licueritne ei facere quod fecit, an vero non dicam non licuerit, sed nefas fuerit— contra foedus enim, id est contra populi Romani religionem et fidem fecisse dicitur—non turpe rei publicae, nonne vobis?

[¶10] 11. I, when a boy, have heard my father say this. When Quintus Metellus, the son of Lucius, was prosecuted for extortion and peculation, he, that man to whom the safety of his country was dearer than the sight of it, who had rather abandon his city than his opinion; when he, I say, was before the court, and when his account-books were being carried round to the judges that they might see the entry of one item, I have heard that there was not one judge among them Roman knights, most excellent men as they were, who did not avert his eyes, and turn himself altogether away, lest any one of them should appear for a moment to have doubted whether what such a man had entered in his public accounts was true or false. And shall we open the question of the legality of a decree of Cnaeus Pompeius, pronounced in accordance with the vote of the senate? Shall we compare it with the words of the laws? with the treaties? Shall we scrutinise everything with the most unfriendly minuteness?

> Latin: 11. hoc de parente meo puer, cum Q. Metellus Luci filius causam de pecuniis repetundis diceret, ille, ille vir, cui patriae salus dulcior quam conspectus fuit, qui de civitate decedere quam de sententia maluit—hoc igitur causam dicente, cum ipsius tabulae circumferrentur inspiciendi nominis causa, fuisse iudicem ex illis equitibus Romanis gravissimis viris neminem quin removeret oculos ⟨et⟩ se totum averteret, ne forte, quod ille in tabulas publicas rettulisset, dubitasse quisquam verumne an falsum esset videretur: nos Cn. Pompei decretum, iudices, de consili sententia pronuntiatum recognoscemus, cum legibus conferemus, cum foederibus, omnia acerbissima diligentia perpendemus?

[¶11] 12. They say that at Athens, when some man, who had lived among the Athenians with a high character for piety and wisdom, had given his evidence in public, and (as is the custom of the Greeks) was approaching the altar for the purpose of taking an oath in confirmation of it, all the judges cried out that he need not take the oath. When Greeks were unwilling to appear to imagine that the good faith of a well-proved man felt itself more bound by the formality of an oath than by the simple obligation of truth, shall we have a doubt as to what sort of man Cnaeus Pompeius has been in respect of his regard for the religious observance of laws and treaties?

> Latin: 12. Athenis aiunt, cum quidam apud eos qui sancte graviterque vixisset testimonium publice dixisset et, ut mos Graecorum est, iurandi causa ad aras accederet, una voce omnis iudices ne is iuraret reclamasse. ⟨⟩ Graeci homines spectati viri noluerunt religione videri potius quam veritate fidem esse constrictam: nos etiam in ipsa religione et legum et foederum conservanda qualis fuerit Cn. Pompeius dubitabimus?

[¶12] 13. For do you mean that he acted in violation of the treaties ignorantly, or knowingly? If you say that he did so knowingly, O, for the name of our empire! O, for the preeminent dignity of the Roman people! O, for the glory of Cnaeus Pompeius, so widely and universally diffused, in such a manner that the home of his renown has but the same boundaries and limits as our common empire! O you nations and cities; and peoples, and kings, and tetrarchs, and tyrants, you witnesses not only of the valour of Cnaeus Pompeius in war, but also of his conscientiousness in peace! You too I implore, you, O voiceless lands, and you, O soil of the most remote districts; you, O seas, O harbours, O islands, O shores! For what land is there what place of habitation what spot in which there are not the deeply imprinted traces of this man's courage, and humanity, and spirit and wisdom? Will any one venture to say that this man endued with such incredible and unheard of dignity and wisdom and virtue and consistency, has knowingly neglected and violated and broken treaties!

> Latin: 13. enim inscientem vultis contra foedera fecisse an scientem? scientem,—O nomen nostri imperi! O populi Romani excellens dignitas! O Cn. Pompei sic late longeque diffusa laus ut eius gloriae domicilium communis imperi finibus terminetur! O nationes, urbes, populi, reges, tetrarchae, tyranni,—testes Cn. Pompei non solum virtutis in bello sed etiam religionis in pace! denique, mutae regiones, imploro, et sola terrarum ultimarum; vos, maria, portus, insulae, litora! est enim ora, quae sedes, qui locus in quo non exstent huius cum fortitudinis tum vero humanitatis, cum animi tum consili impressa vestigia? quisquam, incredibili quadam atque inaudita gravitate virtute constantia praeditum, foedera scientem neglexisse violasse rupisse dicere audebit?

[¶13] 14. The prosecutor indulges me with a gesture. He intimates that Cnaeus Pompeius acted ignorantly. As if it were a lighter charge, when one has been occupied in affairs of state in so important a republic, and been presiding over the most serious transactions, to do anything which you know not to be legal, or to be utterly ignorant what is legal. Do you really mean that he did not know, he who had waged a most formidable and important war in Spain, what were the rights of the city of Gades? or that he did not catch the correct interpretation of a treaty made with the people, as not understanding their language? Will any one then dare to say that Cnaeus Pompeius is ignorant of that which the most ordinary men, men of no knowledge of the world, of no military experience, which every common amanuensis professes to be acquainted with?

> Latin: 14. mihi gestu accusator: inscientem Cn. Pompeium fecisse significat,—quasi vero levius sit, cum in tanta re publica versere et maximis negotiis praesis, facere aliquid quod scias non licere, quam omnino non scire quid liceat! utrum ⟨qui in⟩ Hispania bellum acerrimum et maximum gesserat quo iure Gaditana civitas esse nesciebat, an, cum ius illius populi nosset, interpretationem foederis non tenebat? igitur quisquam Cn. Pompeium ignorasse dicere audebit quod mediocres homines, quod nullo usu, nullo studio praediti militari, quod librarioli denique scire ⟨se⟩ profiteantur?

[¶14] 15. I, indeed, think on the contrary, O judges, that while Cnaeus Pompeius excels in every kind and variety of accomplishment, even of those which are not easily learnt without the most perfect leisure for their study, his most extraordinary credit and his most admirable knowledge consists in his thorough acquaintance with the treaties, and agreements, and conditions of other peoples, kings, and foreign nations, in short, with the entire laws of war and peace; unless, indeed, you mean to make out that the things which our books teach us while in the shade and at our leisure, Cnaeus Pompeius was incapable of learning, either from books, when he was in the enjoyment of peace, or from the actual transactions, when he was engaged in the business of the state. It is my opinion, O judges, this action is more to be attributed to the fault of the times than of the individual. Nor will I say any more about a trial of so scandalous a description. For it is the stain and disgrace of this age to envy virtue, and to seek to crush the budding flower of worth and dignity. In truth, if Cnaeus Pompeius had lived five hundred years ago, that man from whom, while a young man and a Roman knight, the senate had often sought aid for the general safety; whose exploits had had all nations for their stage, being crowned everywhere by the most illustrious victories, both by land and sea; of which three triumphs had been the witnesses, proving that the whole world was made subject to our empire; whom the Roman people had distinguished with unexampled honours, in that case if it were now said among you that anything that he had done had been done in contravention of a treaty, who would listen to such a statement?

> Latin: 15. contra existimo, iudices, cum in omni genere ac varietate artium, etiam illarum quae sine summo otio non facile discuntur, Cn. Pompeius excellat, singularem quandam laudem et praestabilem ⟨eius⟩ esse scientiam in foederibus, pactionibus, condicionibus populorum, regum, exterarum nationum, in universo denique belli iure atque pacis; nisi forte ea quae nos libri docent in umbra atque otio, ea Cn. Pompeium neque cum requiesceret litterae, neque cum rem gereret regiones ipsae docere potuerunt., ut ego sentio, iudices, causa dicta est. magis ego nunc vitiis quam genere iudici plura dicam; est enim haec saeculi quaedam macula atque labes, virtuti invidere, velle ipsum florem dignitatis infringere. si Pompeius abhinc annos quingentos fuisset, is vir a quo senatus adulescentulo atque equite Romano saepe communi saluti auxilium expetisset, cuius res gestae omnis gentis cum clarissima victoria terra marique peragrassent, cuius tres triumphi testes essent totum orbem terrarum nostro imperio teneri, quem populus Romanus ⟨honoribus⟩ in⟨signibus⟩ singularibusque decorasset,—si nunc apud nos id quod is fecisset contra foedus factum diceretur, quis audiret?

[¶15] 16. No one. For his death would have put an end to the envy of him, his achievements would rest in the glory of his undying name. As then his virtue, if it were only heard of by us, would leave no room for doubt or question, shall it when present among us, when it has been experienced and beheld by ourselves, be injured by the voice of detractors?

> Latin: 16. profecto; mors enim cum exstinxisset invidiam, res eius gestae sempiterni nominis gloria niterentur. igitur audita virtus dubitationi locum non daret, huius ⟨visa⟩ atque perspecta obtrectatorum voce laedetur?

[¶16] 17. I will, therefore, say nothing about Pompeius in the rest of my speech; but I entreat you, O judges, to retain in your minds and memories what I have said. On the subject of the law, of the treaty, of precedents and of the uninterrupted usage of our state, I shall repeat those things which have been said already. For neither has Marcus Crassus who, as was natural to expect from his eloquence and from his honesty, has in the most careful manner explained the whole bearings of the case to you nor has Cnaeus Pompeius whose speech abounded in every possible ornament of oratory, left me anything new, anything untouched by them to dilate upon: but since, though I drew back, they both wished that this last labour of putting, as it were, a finishing stroke to their work, should be undertaken by me, I beg of you that you will consider that I have undertaken this office and employment more out of regard for what I thought my duty, than from any desire of making a display as an orator.

> Latin: 17. igitur Pompeium iam oratione mea reliqua, sed vos, iudices, animis ac memoria tenetote. lege, de foedere, de exemplis, de perpetua consuetudine civitatis nostrae renovabo ea quae dicta sunt; nihil enim mihi novi, nihil integri neque M. Crassus, qui totam causam et pro facultate et pro fide sua diligentissime vobis explicavit, neque Cn. Pompeius, cuius oratio omnibus ornamentis abundavit, ad dicendum reliquit. quoniam me recusante placuit ambobus adhiberi hunc a me quasi perpoliendi quendam operis extremum laborem, peto a vobis ut me offici potius quam dicendi studio hanc suscepisse operam ac munus putetis.

[¶17] 18. And, before I approach the law of the case and the cause of Cornelius, it seems to me desirable to say a little about the common condition of all of us, for the sake of deprecating the malevolence of any one. If, O judges, whatever may be the rank in which any one is born or whatever the station in which he is placed by birth in respect of fortune that same station he ought to maintain to his old age, and if all men whom either fortune has raised or whom their own labour or industry has ennobled, are to be visited with punishment, then there does not appear to have been a more severe law or condition of life imposed on Lucius Cornelius than on many other virtuous and gallant men. But if the virtue and genius and humanity of many men, though born in the meanest class of life, and in the lowest degree of fortune, has not only obtained them friendship and a plentiful estate, but has gained them also the greatest praise and honour and glory and dignity, then I cannot understand why envy should be more prompt to attack Lucius Cornelius, than your justice should to come to the assistance of his modesty.

> Latin: 18. prius quam adgrediar ad ius causamque Corneli, quiddam de communi condicione omnium nostrum deprecandae malivolentiae causa breviter commemorandum videtur. quo quisque loco nostrum est, iudices, natus, aut si, in qua fortuna est nascendi initio constitutus, hunc vitae statum usque ad senectutem obtinere debet, et si omnes quos aut fortuna extulit aut ipsorum inlustravit labor et industria poena sunt adficiendi, non gravior L. Cornelio quam multis viris bonis atque fortibus constitui lex vitae et condicio videretur: sin autem multorum virtus, ingenium, humanitas ex infimo genere et fortunae gradu non modo amicitias et rei familiaris copias consecuta est, sed summam laudem, honores, gloriam, dignitatem, non intellego cur potius invidia violatura virtutem L. Corneli quam aequitas vestra pudorem eius adiutura videatur.

[¶18] 19. And therefore I do not ask of you what it is very important to ask, in order that I may not seem to throw any doubts on your wisdom or your humanity; but I must beg of you not to feel any hatred towards genius, not to be enemies of industry, not to think that humanity deserves to be oppressed, or virtue to be punished. This I beg also; that if you see that my client's cause is of itself a sound and just one, you will allow his personal good qualities and accomplishments to be an assistance to him now that he is on his trial, rather than a hindrance. The cause of Cornelius, O judges, arises from the law which Lucius Gellius and Cnaeus Cornelius passed in accordance with the resolution of the senate. By that law we see that it is provided that those men shall be Roman citizens whom Cnaeus Pompeius shall separately present with the freedom of the city in accordance with the opinion of his council. Pompeius here in court asserts that Lucius Cornelius was so presented with it. The public records prove this to be the fact: the prosecutor admits it. But he says that no man of a people joined to us by treaty was capable by law of becoming one of our citizens, unless his own people ratified the measure.

> Latin: 19. quod maxime petendum est a vobis idcirco non peto, iudices, ne de vestra sapientia atque de vestra humanitate dubitare videar: est autem petendum ne oderitis ingenium, ne inimici sitis industriae, ne humanitatem opprimendam, ne virtutem puniendam putetis. peto, ut, si causam ipsam per se firmam esse et stabilem videritis, hominis ipsius ornamenta adiumento causae potius quam impedimento esse malitis., iudices, causa Corneli ex ea lege quam L. Gellius Cn. Cornelius ex senatus sententia tulerunt; qua lege videmus ⟨rite⟩ esse sanctum ut cives Romani sint ii quos Cn. Pompeius de consili sententia singillatim civitate donaverit. Donatum esse L. Cornelium praesens Pompeius dicit, indicant publicae tabulae. fatetur, sed negat ex foederato populo quemquam potuisse, nisi is populus fundus factus esset, in hanc civitatem venire.

[¶19] 20. Oh what a splendid interpreter of the law! what a fine authority on points of antiquity! what an admirable corrector and reformer of our state, to imagine that treaties impose such a penalty on those who are bound by them, as to make them all incapable of receiving our rewards and kindnesses! For what can possibly be said more ignorant than that it is requisite for the federate cities to ratify such a transaction? For that is not a right peculiar to federate cities, but to all free nations. But the whole of this, O judges, has at all times depended on this consideration, and on this intention,—that when the Roman people had ordered anything, if the allied peoples and the Latins had adopted and ratified it, and if the law which we had among ourselves was in this manner established among some people on a firm footing, then that people should be bound by the obligations of that law; not in such a manner as to detract in the least from our privileges, but that those nations might enjoy either that law which was established among us, or some other advantage and benefit.

> Latin: 20. O praeclarum interpretem iuris, auctorem antiquitatis, correctorem atque emendatorem nostrae civitatis, qui hanc poenam foederibus adscribat, ut omnium praemiorum beneficiorumque nostrorum expertis faciat foederatos! enim potuit dici imperitius quam foederatos populos fieri fundos oportere? nam id non magis est proprium foederatorum quam omnium liberorum. totum hoc, iudices, in ea fuit positum semper ratione atque sententia ut, cum iussisset populus Romanus aliquid, si id adscivissent socii populi ac Latini, et si ea lex, quam nos haberemus, eadem in populo aliquo tamquam in fundo resedisset, ut tum lege eadem is populus teneretur, non ut de nostro iure aliquid deminueretur, sed ut illi populi aut iure eo quod a nobis esset constitutum aut aliquo commodo aut beneficio uterentur.

[¶20] 21. Caius Furius, in the time of our ancestors, passed a law concerning wills Quintus Voconius passed another concerning the inheritances of women; innumerable other laws have been passed about civil law; the Latins have adopted whatever of them they have chosen; even by the Julian law itself, by which the rights of citizenship were given to the allies and to the Latins, it was decreed that those people who did not ratify the law should not have the freedom of the city, which circumstance gave rise to a great contention among the people of Heraclea, and among the people of Neapolis, as a great part of the population in those states preferred the liberty which they enjoyed by virtue of their treaty with us to the rights of citizenship. Lastly, this is the meaning both of that law and of that expression, that the peoples who do ratify it enjoy its advantages owing to our kindness, and not owing to any right of their own.

> Latin: 21. apud maiores nostros legem C. Furius de testamentis, tulit Q. Voconius de mulierum hereditatibus; innumerabiles aliae leges de civili iure sunt latae; quas Latini voluerunt, adsciverunt; ipsa denique Iulia, qua lege civitas est sociis et Latinis data, qui fundi populi facti non essent civitatem non haberent. quo magna contentio Heracliensium et Neapolitanorum fuit, cum magna pars in iis civitatibus foederis sui libertatem civitati anteferret. haec vis est istius et iuris et verbi, ut fundi populi beneficio nostro, non suo iure fiant.

[¶21] 22. When the Roman people has enacted anything, if it be a matter of that sort, that it appears it may be granted also to some other nations, whether joined to us by a treaty, or free to decide themselves which law they prefer using, not about our affairs, but about their own; then it seems necessary to inquire whether they have adopted and ratified our law, or not; but the senate never intended that those peoples should have the power of ratifying or declining to ratify measures which concern our republic, our empire our wars, our victory, and our safety. But if it is not to be lawful for our generals, and for the senate, and for the Roman people, by holding out rewards to them, to tempt all the bravest and most virtuous men out of the cities of our allies and friends to encounter dangers in behalf of our safety, then we shall be deprived of what is a most exceeding advantage to us, and of what has often been a very great protection and support to us in dangerous and critical times.

> Latin: 22. aliquid populus Romanus iussit, id si est eius modi ut quibusdam populis, sive foederatis sive liberis, permittendum esse videatur ut statuant ipsi non de nostris sed de suis rebus, quo iure uti velint, tum utrum fundi facti sint an non quaerendum esse videatur; de nostra vero re publica, de nostro imperio, de nostris bellis, de victoria, de salute fundos populos fieri noluerunt. si imperatoribus nostris, si senatui, si populo Romano non licebit propositis praemiis elicere ex civitatibus sociorum atque amicorum fortissimum atque optimum quemque ad subeunda pro salute nostra pericula, summa utilitate ac maximo saepe praesidio periculosis atque asperis temporibus carendum nobis erit.

[¶22] 23. But, in the name of the immortal gods! what sort of alliance, what sort of friendship, what sort of treaty is that by virtue of which our city in its time of danger is to have no defender from Massilia, or from Gades, or from Saguntum; or, if there should arise an assistant to us from those cities, any one who may have aided our generals with the help afforded by his labour, or by his riches, or by his personal danger,—any one who may have often fought hand to hand in our ranks against our enemies, who may have repeatedly exposed himself to the weapons of the enemy, to battle for his life, to imminent death,—that such a one can by no possible means be rewarded with the honours contained in our rights of citizenship?

> Latin: 23. , per deos immortalis, quae est ista societas, quae amicitia, quod foedus, ut aut nostra civitas careat in suis periculis Massiliensi propugnatore, careat Gaditano, careat Saguntino, aut, si quis ex his populis sit exortus qui nostros duces auxilio laboris, commeatus periculo suo iuverit, qui cum hoste nostro comminus in acie saepe pugnarit, qui se saepe telis hostium, qui dimicationi capitis, qui morti obiecerit, nulla condicione huius civitatis praemiis adfici possit?

[¶23] 24. For it is a very serious consideration for the Roman people, if they are not to be able to avail themselves of the help of allies who are endued with any extraordinary virtue, and who may be willing to join themselves to us, and to consider our danger their own; and it is also an injurious and insulting thing towards the allies, and for those federate states that we are now discussing, that our most faithful and united allies should be shut out from these rewards and from these honours, which are open to our mercenary troops, which are open to our enemies, which are open often even to our slaves. For we see that mercenary troops in numbers from Africa, Sicily, Sardinia and other provinces have had the freedom of the city conferred on them, and we know that those enemies who have come over to our commanders and have been of great use to our republic have been made citizens and lastly that slaves,—beings whose rights, and fortune, and condition are the lowest of all,—who have deserved well of the republic we see constantly presented publicly with liberty, that is to say, with the rights of citizenship.

> Latin: 24. in populum Romanum grave est non posse uti sociis excellenti virtute praeditis, qui velint cum periculis nostris sua communicare; in socios vero ipsos, et in eos de quibus agimus foederatos, iniuriosum et contumeliosum est iis praemiis et iis honoribus exclusos esse fidelissimos et coniunctissimos socios quae pateant stipendiariis, pateant hostibus, pateant saepe servis. stipendiarios ex Africa, Sicilia, Sardinia, ceteris provinciis multos civitate donatos videmus, et, qui hostes ad nostros imperatores perfugissent et magno usui rei publicae nostrae fuissent, scimus civitate esse donatos; servos denique, quorum ius, fortuna, condicio infima est, bene de re publica meritos persaepe libertate, id est civitate, publice donari videmus.

[¶24] 25. Do you then, O you patron of all treaties and federate states, lay down this as the condition of the people of Gades, your fellow-citizens, that what is lawful for those nations which we have subdued with our arms, and reduced under our dominion, having the people of Gades for our assistants while doing so, namely, that if the Roman people shall permit it, they may have the rights of citizenship conferred on them by the senate or by our generals,—is not to be lawful for the men of Gades themselves? Suppose they had determined by their own decrees or laws that no one of their fellow citizens should enter the camp of a general of the Roman people, that no one should incur any personal risk or danger of his life in defence of our empire, that we should not be allowed to avail ourselves of the assistance of the people of Gades whenever we chose, and that in his private capacity no individual, being eminent for courage and valour, should dare to struggle to his own personal danger, in defence of our empire; we should naturally be very indignant at that, at the resources of the Roman people being diminished, at the courage of brave men being damped, and at our being deprived of the aid afforded us by the zeal of nations unconnected with us in our behalf, and by the valour of foreign peoples.

> Latin: 25. tu igitur, patrone foederum ac foederatorum, condicionem statuis Gaditanis, tuis civibus, ut, quod iis quos magnis adiutoribus tuis ⟨usi civibus⟩ armis subegimus atque in dicionem nostram redegimus liceat, si populus Romanus permiserit, ut ab senatu, etiam per imperatores nostros civitate donentur, id ne liceat ipsis? si suis decretis legibusve sanxissent ne quis suorum civium castra imperatorum populi Romani iniret, ne quis se pro nostro imperio in periculum capitis atque in vitae discrimen inferret, Gaditanorum auxiliis, cum vellemus, uti nobis ut liceret, privatus vero ne quis vir et animo et virtute praecellens pro nostro imperio periculo suo dimicaret, graviter id iure ferremus, minui auxilia populi Romani, debilitari animos fortissimorum virorum, alienigenarum nos hominum studiis atque paterna virtute privari.

[¶25] 26. But it makes no difference, O judges, whether the federate states enact these laws that no one shall be permitted to leave those states for the purpose of sharing in the dangers of our wars, or that those things cannot possibly be ratified which we have given to their citizens on account of their virtue. For we should not any the more have the advantage of these men for our assistants if we once take away all the rewards of virtue, than we should if we were to make it absolutely unlawful for them to meddle at all in our laws. In truth, as, ever since the original birth of man, there have been but few men found, who, without any hope of reward, have been willing to expose their lives to the weapons of the enemy even for the sake of their own country, do you suppose that there will be any one who will expose himself to dangers in the defence of a republic with which he has not any connection, when not only no reward is held out to him, but when all reward for such conduct is prohibited from being bestowed?

> Latin: 26. nihil interest, iudices, utrum haec foederati iura constituant, ut ne cui liceat ex iis civitatibus ad nostrorum bellorum pericula accedere, an, quae nos eorum civibus virtutis causa tribuerimus, ea rata esse non possint; nihil enim magis uteremur iis adiutoribus, sublatis virtutis praemiis, quam si omnino iis versari in nostris bellis non liceret. cum pro sua patria pauci post genus hominum natum reperti sint qui nullis praemiis propositis vitam suam hostium telis obiecerint, pro aliena re publica quemquam fore putatis qui se opponat periculis non modo nullo proposito praemio, sed etiam interdicto?

[¶26] 27. But not only was that a most ignorant thing to say, which was said, about states ratifying and accepting our laws, as that is a privilege common to all free peoples, and not peculiar to federate cities; from which it must inevitably be understood, either that no one of the allies can be made a Roman citizen, or else that an inhabitant of the federate states may likewise be made one; but this great teacher of ours is ignorant also of the whole bearings of the law respecting a man's change of citizenship; which, O judges, is a thing which is not only clearly laid down in the public laws, but which depends also on the inclination of individuals. For, according to our law, no one can change his city against his will, nor can he be prevented from changing it, if he pleases, provided only that he be adopted by that state of which he wishes to become a citizen. As, for instance, if the people of Gades passed a bill concerning any Roman citizen by name, that he should become a citizen of Gades, our citizen would in consequence of that bill acquire a complete power of changing his city, and would not be hindered by any treaty from becoming a citizen of Gades after having been a citizen of Rome.

> Latin: 27. cum est illud imperitissime dictum de populis fundis, quod commune liberorum est populorum, non proprium foederatorum,—ex quo intellegi necesse est aut neminem ex sociis civem fieri posse aut etiam posse ex foederatis,— tum vero ius omne noster iste magister mutandae civitatis ignorat, quod est, iudices, non solum in legibus publicis positum, sed etiam in privatorum voluntate. enim nostro neque mutare civitatem quisquam invitus potest, neque si velit mutare non potest, modo adsciscatur ab ea civitate cuius esse se civitatis velit: ut, si Gaditani sciverint nominatim de aliquo cive Romano ut sit is civis Gaditanus, magna potestas sit nostro civi mutandae civitatis, nec foedere impediatur quo minus ex civi Romano civis Gaditanus possit esse.

[¶27] 28. According to our civil law, no one can be a citizen of two cities at the same time; a man cannot be a citizen of this city, who has dedicated himself to another city. And he may do so not only by dedication, which is a thing which we have seen happen in their misfortunes to most illustrious men, to Quintus Maximus, and Caius Laenas, and Quintus Philippus at Nuceria, and to Caius Cato at Tarraco, to Quintus Caepio and Publius Rutilius at Smyrna, who all became citizens of those cities. (They could not lose their rights of citizenship here, before they had as it were changed their country by their change of citizenship.) But a change of citizenship can also take place by a man's returning to his original city. Nor was it without reason that a motion was submitted to the people concerning Cnaeus Publicius Menander, a freedman, whom in the time of our ancestors some ambassadors of ours when going into Greece wished to take with them as an interpreter, that that Publicius if he returned to his home, and after that again came back to Rome, should still be a Roman citizen. For, in the recollection of earlier times, many Roman citizens of their own free will, not having been condemned by any process of law, nor having been in danger, have left our state and joined themselves as citizens to other cities.

> Latin: 28. civitatum civis noster esse iure civili nemo potest: non esse huius civitatis qui se alii civitati dicarit potest. solum dicatione, quod in calamitate clarissimis viris Q. Maximo, C. Laenati, Q. Philippo Nuceriae, C. Catoni Tarracone, Q. Caepioni, P. Rutilio Zmyrnae vidimus accidisse, ut earum civitatum fierent cives, ⟨cum⟩ hanc ante amittere non potuissent quam hoc solum civitatis mutatione vertissent, sed etiam postliminio potest civitatis fieri mutatio. enim sine causa de Cn. Publicio Menandro, libertino homine, quem apud maiores legati nostri in Graeciam proficiscentes interpretem secum habere voluerunt, ad populum latum ⟨est⟩ ut is Publicius, si domum revenisset et inde Romam redisset, ne minus civis esset. etiam superiore memoria cives Romani sua voluntate, indemnati et incolumes, his rebus relictis alias se in civitates contulerunt.

[¶28] 29. But if it is lawful for a Roman citizen to become a citizen of Gades, either by exile, or by a return to his original city, or by a discarding of his rights of citizenship here, (to come now to the treaty, which, however, in fact has nothing to do with the cause in hand; for what we are discussing is the right of citizenship, and not the treaties,) what reason is there why a citizen of Gades may not be allowed to become a citizen of this city? My opinion, indeed, goes quite the other way. For as there is a path from all cities to our city, and as the road to all other cities is open to our citizens, so also, in proportion as each city is more closely united with us in alliance and friendship, by agreement, and covenant, and treaty, the more does that state appear to me to be entitled to a participation in our kindness and in our rewards. … But all other cities would without any hesitation receive our men into the rights of citizenship with them if we also had the same laws that other nations have. But we cannot he citizens of this city and of any other city at the same time though in all other cities this is allowed.

> Latin: 29. si civi Romano licet esse Gaditanum sive exsilio sive postliminio sive reiectione huius civitatis,—ut iam ad foedus veniam, quod ad causam nihil pertinet: de civitatis enim iure, non de foederibus disceptamus,—quid est quam ob rem civi Gaditano in hanc civitatem venire non liceat? longe secus sentio. cum ex omnibus civitatibus via sit in nostram, cumque nostris civibus pateat ad ceteras iter civitates, tum vero, ut quaeque nobiscum maxime societate amicitia sponsione pactione foedere est coniuncta, ita mihi maxime communione beneficiorum praemiorum civitatis contineri videtur. ceterae civitates omnes non dubitarent nostros homines recipere in suas civitates, si idem nos iuris haberemus quod ceteri; sed nos non possumus et huius esse civitatis et cuiusvis praeterea, ceteris concessum est.

[¶29] 30. Therefore in the Greek cities we see that Rhodians and Lacedaemonians and men from all quarters are enrolled among the citizens of Athens, and that the same individuals are citizens of many cities at the same time. And I have seen some ignorant men, citizens of ours, led by this mistake, sitting at Athens among the judges and members of the Areopagus, in a regular tribe and class of Athenian citizens, being ignorant that it they acquired the rights of citizenship there they lost their rights here, unless they recovered them by a subsequent return to their rights here, and a renunciation of the others. But no one who had any acquaintance with our laws or our customs, who wished to retain his rights as a citizen of Rome, ever dedicated himself to another city. But the whole of this topic of my speech, and the whole of this discussion, O judges, has reference to the common right of changing one's city; it has nothing in it which is peculiar to the religious observance of treaties. For I am defending the universal principle, that there is no nation on the whole face of the earth,—whether at variance with the Roman people through some quarrel and hatred, or, on the other hand, united with us by the closest loyalty and mutual good-will,—as to which we are forbidden to adopt any one of its citizens as our own, or to present any one of them with the freedom of our city.

> Latin: 30. in Graecis civitatibus videmus Atheniensis, Rhodios, Lacedaemonios, ceteros undique adscribi multarumque esse eosdem homines civitatum. errore ductos vidi egomet non nullos imperitos homines, nostros civis, Athenis in numero iudicum atque Areopagitarum, certa tribu, certo numero, cum ignorarent, si illam civitatem essent adepti, hanc se perdidisse nisi postliminio reciperassent. vero nostri moris ac iuris nemo umquam, qui hanc civitatem retinere vellet, in aliam se civitatem dicavit. hic totus locus disputationis atque orationis meae, iudices, pertinet ad commune ius mutandarum civitatum: nihil habet quod sit proprium religionis ac foederum. enim rem universam, nullam esse gentem ex omni regione terrarum, neque tam dissidentem a populo Romano odio quodam atque discidio, neque tam fide benivolentiaque coniunctam, ex qua nobis interdictum sit ne quem adsciscere civem aut civitate donare possimus.

[¶30] 31. Oh how admirable are our laws, and with what god-like wisdom were they established by our ancestors from the very first beginning of the Roman name, especially the law that no one of our people can be a citizen of more than one city, (for it is inevitable that dissimilar states must have a great variety in their laws,) and that no one can be compelled against his will to change his city, nor against his will to remain a citizen of any city. For these are the firmest foundations of our liberty, that every individual should have it in his own power to retain or abandon his privileges. And without any dispute, that has been the most solid foundation of our empire, and the thing which has above all others increased the renown of the Roman name, that that first man, the creator of this city, Romulus, taught by the treaty which he made with the Sabines, that it was expedient to increase the population of this city by the adoption of even enemies as citizens. And in compliance with his authority and with the precedent which he established, the presentation of the freedom of our city to others has never been interrupted by our ancestors. Therefore, many tribes from Latium, the people of Tusculum, the people of Lanuvium, and all other peoples of all other races, have been received into the privileges of our city;—as, for instance, the Sabines, the Hernici, and the Volsci; the citizens of which cities were not compelled to change the city to which they belonged, if they were unwilling to do so; nor if any of them had acquired the privileges of our citizens by the kindness of the Roman people, would the treaty made with them appear to have been violated.

> Latin: 31. O iura praeclara atque divinitus iam inde a principio Romani nominis a maioribus nostris comparata, ne quis nostrum plus quam unius civitatis esse possit,—dissimilitudo enim civitatum varietatem iuris habeat necesse est,—ne quis invitus civitate mutetur neve in civitate maneat invitus! sunt enim fundamenta firmissima nostrae libertatis, sui quemque iuris et retinendi et dimittendi esse dominum. vero sine ulla dubitatione maxime nostrum fundavit imperium et populi Romani nomen auxit, quod princeps ille creator huius urbis, Romulus, foedere Sabino docuit etiam hostibus recipiendis augeri hanc civitatem oportere; cuius auctoritate et exemplo numquam est intermissa a maioribus nostris largitio et communicatio civitatis. et ex Latio multi, ut Tusculani, ut Lanuvini, et ex ceteris generibus gentes universae in civitatem sunt receptae, ut Sabinorum, Volscorum, Hernicorum; quibus ex civitatibus nec coacti essent civitate mutari, si qui noluissent, nec, si qui essent civitatem nostram beneficio populi Romani consecuti, violatum foedus eorum videretur.

[¶31] 32. But some treaties are in existence, as for instance those with the Germans, the Insubres, the Helvetians, and the Iapidae, and with some of the barbarian tribes in Gaul in which there is a special exception made that no one of them is to be received by us as a citizen of Rome. And if the exception prevents such a step from being lawful, it is quite evident that it is lawful where there is no such exception made. Where, then, is the exception made in the treaty between us and the city of Gades, that the Roman people is not to receive any one of the citizens of Gades into their citizenship? Nowhere. And if there were any such clause, the Gellian and Cornelian law would have annulled it which expressly gave to Pompeius a power of giving the freedom of the city to anybody whatever. “The whole treaty,” says the prosecutor, “is such an exception, because it was ratified with solemn oaths.” I can excuse you if you do not know much about the laws of the Carthaginians, for you had left your own city; and you were not able to examine our laws very strictly; for they prevented your having any opportunity of instituting such an examination by a public sentence.

> Latin: 32. quaedam foedera exstant, ut Cenomanorum, Insubrium, Helvetiorum, Iapydum, non nullorum item ex Gallia barbarorum, quorum in foederibus exceptum est ne quis eorum a nobis civis recipiatur. si exceptio facit ne liceat, ubi ⟨non sit exceptum, ibi⟩ necesse est licere. Vbi est igitur ⟨in⟩ foedere Gaditano, ne quem populus Romanus Gaditanum recipiat civitate?. sicubi esset, lex id Gellia et Cornelia, quae definite potestatem Pompeio civitatem donandi dederat, sustulisset. “,” inquit, “est foedus, Si qvid sacrosanctvm est.” tibi, si neque Poenorum iura calles (reliqueras enim civitatem tuam) neque nostras potuisti leges inspicere; ipsae enim te a cognitione sua iudicio publico reppulerunt.

[¶32] 33. What was there in that enactment which was passed concerning Pompeius by Gellius and Lentulus in their consulship in which any exception appears to have been made of treaties which had been ratified by an oath? For first of all, nothing can be ratified in such a manner except what the burgesses or the common people have so ratified. In the second place, such ratifications are to be accounted sacred, either because of the form of ratification itself, or because the invocation of the gods and dedication of the law, … or else, because of some punishment to which the life of that man is devoted who acts in contravention of it. What argument, then, of this sort can you allege with respect to our treaty with the city of Gades? Do you assert that that treaty was solemnly ratified by the devotion of the life of any offender against it, or by any invocation of the gods to uphold the law? I assert that nothing was ever submitted to the burgesses or to the common people with respect to that treaty [I assert that no law was enacted, and no punishment appointed.] When, therefore even if it had been enacted that we were not to receive any man as a citizen, still that would have been ratified which the people enacted subsequently, nor would any exception have appeared to have been made by that expression, “If anything had been formally ratified by an oath,” do you venture to say that anything is formally ratified in this way, with respect to which the Roman people has never come to any decision at all?

> Latin: 33. fuit in rogatione ea quae de Pompeio a Gellio et a Lentulo consulibus lata est, in quo aliquid sacrosanctum exceptum videretur? enim sacrosanctum esse nihil potest nisi quod populus plebesve sanxit; deinde sanctiones sacrandae sunt aut genere ipso aut obtestatione et consecratione legis aut poenae, cum caput eius qui contra fecerit consecratur. habes igitur dicere de Gaditano foedere eius modi? utrum capitis consecratione an obtestatione legis sacrosanctum esse confirmas? omnino umquam de isto foedere ad populum, nihil ad plebem latum esse neque legem neque poenam consecratam esse dico. quibus igitur etiam si latum esset ne quem civem reciperemus, tamen id esset quod postea populus iussisset ratum, nec quicquam illis verbis Si qvid sacrosanctvm est exceptum videretur, de iis, cum populus Romanus nihil umquam iusserit, quicquam audes dicere sacrosanctum fuisse?

[¶33] 34. Nor, O judges, has this argument of mine any tendency to invalidate our treaty with the city of Gades. For it would not become me to say anything against the rights of a city which has deserved very well at our hands, against the invariable opinion of antiquity, and against the authority of the senate. For once, at a very critical period of this republic, when Carthage, being exceedingly powerful by sea and land, relying on the two Spains, was threatening this empire, and when those two thunderbolts of our empire, Cnaeus and Publius Scipio, had suddenly perished in Spain, Lucius Marcius, a centurion of the first division, is said to have made a treaty with the people of Gades. And as this treaty was maintained more in consequence of the loyalty of that people, of our justice, and, indeed, of its own antiquity, than because it was ratified by any public bond of religion, the people of Gades, being wise men and well instructed in public law, when Marcus Lepidus and Quintus Catulus were consuls, made a request to the senate for a more regular treaty; and then the treaty was renewed or made (whichever you please to call it) with the men of Gades. And concerning that treaty the Roman people never recorded any vote; and they cannot possibly be bound by any religious obligation which has been contracted without their orders.

> Latin: 34. vero oratio mea ad infirmandum foedus Gaditanorum, iudices, pertinet; neque enim est meum contra ius optime meritae civitatis, contra opinionem vetustatis, contra auctoritatem senatus dicere. Duris enim quondam temporibus rei publicae nostrae, cum praepotens terra marique Carthago nixa duabus Hispaniis huic imperio immineret, et cum duo fulmina nostri imperi subito in Hispania, Cn. et P. Scipiones, exstincti occidissent, L. Marcius, primi pili centurio, cum Gaditanis foedus fecisse dicitur. cum magis fide illius populi, iustitia nostra, vetustate denique ipsa quam aliquo publico vinculo religionis teneretur, sapientes homines et publici iuris periti, Gaditani, M. Lepido Q. Catulo consulibus a senatu de foedere postulaverunt. est cum Gaditanis foedus vel renovatum vel ictum; de quo foedere populus Romanus sententiam non tulit, qui iniussu suo nullo pacto potest religione obligari.

## 2. Sections 35–65

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-balbo/2/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-balbo/2/#p-N

[¶0] 35. And so the city of Gades obtained what it was well entitled to obtain by its services done to our republic, by the testimony borne in its favour by our commanders by the antiquity of its alliance with us, by the authority of Quintus Catulus, a most illustrious man by the formal decision of the senate, and by a regular treaty; but it has not received any additional sanction from any public religious ceremonies of ratification. For the people has in no respect whatever bound itself, nor is the cause of the men of Gades any the worse for that; for it is upheld by many and those the very wealthiest of circumstances. But however there is at present no room for that discussion; for nothing can be so ratified as to be sacred unless it be something that has been adopted by the burgesses or by the common people. But if this treaty, which the Roman people, with the authority of the senate with the recommendation and decision of antiquity in its favour approves not only by its tacit inclination, but also by its open expression of opinion, had been also sanctioned by its votes, what reason was there, from the words of the treaty itself, why it should not have been lawful to receive a citizen of Gades into our city? For there is nothing else provided for in the treaty except that there be a pious and everlasting peace. What has that to do with the rights of citizenship? That also is added which does not occur in every treaty: “Preserve, with all courtesy and respect, the majesty of the Roman people.” And that expression carries this force with it, that it shows that the people of Gades is the inferior party in the treaty.

> Latin: 35. Gaditana civitas, quod beneficiis suis erga rem publicam nostram consequi potuit, quod imperatorum testimoniis, quod vetustate, quod Q. Catuli, summi viri, auctoritate, quod iudicio senatus, quod foedere, consecuta est; quod publica religione sanciri potuit, id abest; populus enim se nusquam obligavit. ideo est Gaditanorum causa deterior; gravissimis enim et plurimis rebus est fulta. isti disputationi ⟨hic⟩ certe nihil est loci; sacrosanctum enim nihil potest esse nisi quod per populum plebemve sanctum est. si hoc foedus, quod populus Romanus auctore senatu, commendatione et iudicio vetustatis, voluntate et sententiis suis comprobat, idem suffragiis comprobasset, quid erat cur ex ipso foedere Gaditanum in civitatem nostram recipi non liceret? est enim aliud in foedere nisi ut pia et aeterna pax sit. id ad civitatem? illud etiam est, quod non est in omnibus foederibus: Maiestatem popvli Romani comiter conservanto. habet hanc vim, ut sit ille in foedere inferior.

[¶1] 36. First of all, the very description of word used “Preserve” which is a form that we are more accustomed to use in laws than in treaties is an expression of one giving a command, not of one addressing an entreaty. In the next place, as the majesty of the one people is ordered to be preserved and no mention is made of the other, most certainly that people is placed on the higher footing and in the superior condition whose majesty is defended by the sanction of the treaty. And in respect of this the interpretation of the prosecutor is quite undeserving of any reply, who said that the expression “with courtesy and respect,” meant the same as “respectively” just as if he were explaining some ancient and nearly obsolete word. Men are called courteous, kind, affable, pleasant.
A man who courteously points out the way to a wanderer:
—good-naturedly, not sulkily;—“respectively” has surely no connection with the rest of the sentence, or with the subject.

> Latin: 36. verbi genus hoc “conservanto,” quo magis in legibus quam in foederibus uti solemus, imperantis est, non precantis. cum alterius populi maiestas conservari iubetur, de altero siletur, certe ille populus in superiore condicione causaque ponitur cuius maiestas foederis sanctione defenditur. quo erat accusatoris interpretatio indigna responsione, qui ita dicebat, “comiter” esse “communiter,” quasi vero priscum aliquod aut insolitum verbum interpretaretur. Comes benigni, faciles, suaves homines esse dicuntur; “qui erranti comiter monstrat viam,” benigne, non gravate; “communiter” quidem certe non convenit.

[¶2] 37. And, at the same time, it is a perfect absurdity for a provision to be made in the treaty that they should “respectively” preserve the majesty of the Roman people; that is to say, that the Roman people is to wish its own majesty to be uninjured. And if it were so now, as it cannot be, still the fact would remain, that provision had been made for our majesty, but none at all for theirs. Can our majesty then be preserved with good feeling by the people of Gades, if we are not able to tempt the men of Gades by rewards to be anxious for its preservation? Can there, in fact be any majesty at all, if we are prevented from availing ourselves of the consent of the Roman people to confer on our commander-in-chief the power of distributing honours and kindnesses as a reward of virtue?

> Latin: 37. simul absurda res est caveri foedere ut maiestatem populi Romani “communiter” conservent, id est ut populus Romanus suam maiestatem esse salvam velit. si iam ita esset, ut esse non potest, tamen de nostra maiestate, nihil de illorum caveretur. igitur nostra maiestas ⟨a⟩ Gaditanis benigne conservari, si ad eam retinendam Gaditanos praemiis elicere non possumus? esse ulla denique maiestas, si impedimur quo minus per populum Romanum beneficiorum virtutis causa tribuendorum potestatem imperatoribus nostris deferamus?

[¶3] 38. But why am I arguing against statements which it would seem to me might be uttered with truth, if the people of Gades were speaking against me? for, if they were to demand back Lucius Cornelius, I should reply, that the Roman people had enacted a law with respect to giving the freedom of the city; and that there was no occasion, nor was it usual for the entire people to ratify laws of this sort; that Cnaeus Pompeius, in accordance with the advice of his council, had given the freedom of the city to this man, and that the people of Gades had no single law whatever of the Roman people in their favour. Therefore, that nothing had been sanctified by any peculiar solemnity, which appeared to be excepted against by the law; that if there were, still there had been no provision made in the treaty respecting anything but peace. That this clause also was added, that they were bound to preserve our majesty unimpaired; which certainly would be diminished, if it was unlawful either for us to avail ourselves of the citizens of those nations as assistants in our wars, or if we were to have no power whatever of rewarding them.

> Latin: 38. quid ego disputo quae mihi tum, si Gaditani contra me dicerent, vere posse dici viderentur? enim repetentibus L. Cornelium responderem legem populum Romanum iussisse de civitate tribuenda; huic generi legum fundos populos fieri non solere; Cn. Pompeium de consili sententia civitatem huic dedisse, nullum populi nostri iussum Gaditanos habere; itaque nihil esse sacrosanctum quod lege exceptum videretur; si esset, tamen in foedere nihil esse cautum praeter pacem; additum esse etiam illud, ut maiestatem illi nostram conservare deberent, quae certe minueretur si aut adiutoribus illorum civibus uti in bellis nobis non liceret aut praemi tribuendi potestatem nullam haberemus.

[¶4] 39. But, now, why should I speak against the people of Gades, when the very thing which I am defending is sanctioned by their desire, by their authority, and by a deputation which they have sent hither on purpose? For they, from the very first beginning of their existence as a separate people, and of their republic, have turned all their affections from zeal for the Carthaginians and eagerness in their cause, to the upholding of our empire and name. And accordingly, when the Carthaginians were waging most tremendous wars against us, they excluded them from their city, they pursued them with their fleets, they repelled them with their personal exertions, and with all their resources and power. They have at all times considered that phantom of a treaty made by Marcius as more inviolable than any citadel; and by this treaty and by that of Catulus, and by the authority of the senate, they have considered themselves as most intimately connected with us. Their ambition, and our ancestors' wish, has been, that their walls, their temples, their lands, should be the boundaries of the Roman name and Roman empire, as Hercules wished them to be of his journeys and of his labours.

> Latin: 39. vero quid ego contra Gaditanos loquar, cum id quod defendo voluntate eorum, auctoritate, legatione ipsa comprobetur? qui a principio sui generis aut studio rei publicae †ii ab omni studio sensuque Poenorum mentis suas ad nostrum imperium nomenque flexerunt; qui, cum maxima bella nobis inferrentur, moenibus ⟨hostem⟩ excluserunt, classibus insecuti sunt, corporibus opibus copiis depulerunt; qui et veterem illam speciem foederis Marciani semper omni sanctiorem arce duxerunt, et hoc foedere Catuli senatusque auctoritate se nobiscum coniunctissimos esse arbitrati sunt; quorum moenia, delubra, agros ut Hercules itinerum ac laborum suorum, sic maiores nostri imperi ac nominis populi Romani terminos esse voluerunt.

[¶5] 40. They invoke as witnesses our deceased generals, whose memory and glory survive for everlasting,—the Scipios, the Bruti, the Horatii, the Cassii, the Metelli, and this man also, Cnaeus Pompeius whom you see before you; whom when he was carrying on a great and formidable war far from their walls, they assisted with supplies and money and at this very time they invoke as witnesses the Roman people whom now, at a time of great dearness of provisions they have relieved with a large supply of corn as they had often done before. They call them, I say, to witness that they wish this to be their privilege,—to have a place permitted to them and to their children, whenever there are any of distinguished virtue in our camps and in the tent of the general and among our standards; and in our line of battle; and that by these steps they should have a power of rising up to the freedom of the city.

> Latin: 40. et mortuos nostros imperatores, quorum vivit immortalis memoria et gloria, Scipiones, Brutos, Horatios, Cassios, Metellos, et hunc praesentem Cn. Pompeium, quem procul ab illorum moenibus acre et magnum bellum gerentem commeatu pecuniaque iuverunt, et hoc tempore ipsum populum Romanum, quem in caritate annonae, ut saepe ante fecerant, frumento suppeditato levarunt, se hoc ius esse velle, ut sibi et liberis, si qui eximia virtute fuerit, sit in nostris castris, sit in imperatorum praetoriis, sit denique inter signa atque in acie locus, sit his gradibus ascensus etiam ad civitatem.

[¶6] 41. And if it be lawful to Africans, to Sardinians, to Spaniards,—men who have been punished by the deprivation of their lands and by the imposition of tribute,—to acquire the rights of citizenship among us by their virtue, but if it be not allowed to the men of Gades, who are united to us by duty, and by the antiquity of their alliance with us, and by their loyalty, and by our mutual dangers, and by an express treaty, to acquire the same rights, then they will think that they have not a treaty with us, but that most iniquitous laws have been imposed on them by us. And, O judges, the very circumstances of this case show that this assertion is not one just invented by me for the purpose, but that I am saying what the men of Gades have instructed me to say. I say that the men of Gades publicly entered into a connection of mutual hospitality many years before this time with Lucius Cornelius. I will produce witnesses, I will produce ambassadors who will prove this; I will bring forward panegyrists, whom you see here, having been sent expressly to this trial,—men of the highest character and of the most noble birth,—to seek to avert the danger of my client by their prayers. Lastly, by an act perfectly unheard-of among the people of Gades before this time, the moment that it was known that the prosecutor was preparing to bring Balbus before this court, the men of Gades passed most solemn resolutions of their senate respecting their own fellow-citizen.

> Latin: 41. si Afris, si Sardis, si Hispanis agris stipendioque multatis virtute adipisci licet civitatem, Gaditanis autem officiis vetustate fide periculis foedere coniunctis hoc idem non licebit, non foedus sibi nobiscum ⟨ictum⟩ sed iniquissimas leges impositas a nobis esse arbitrabuntur. hanc, iudices, non a me fingi orationem, sed me dicere quae Gaditani iudicarint res ipsa declarat. multis annis ante hoc tempus cum L. Cornelio Gaditanos fecisse publice dico. Proferam tesseram; legatos excito; laudatores ad hoc iudicium, summos homines ac nobilissimos, deprecatores huius periculi missos videtis; re denique multo ante Gadibus inaudita, fore ut huic ab illo periculum crearetur … gravissima autem in istum civem suum Gaditani senatus consulta fecerunt.

[¶7] 42. Could the people of Gades have ratified this act of Pompeius more decidedly, (since I have taken a great fancy to the expression,)—if what is meant by ratifying is, to approve of our decrees and commands by its decision,—than when it enters into connections of hospitality for the express purpose of admitting, by so doing, that Balbus had changed his city, and of showing that it considered him entirely worthy of the honour of this city? Was it possible for it to exhibit its own opinion and inclination more undeniably, than when it imposed a fine and a penalty on my client's prosecutor? Was it possible for it to give its decision on the subject more plainly, than when it sent its most honourable citizens as deputies to this trial which is now taking place before you, to be the witnesses of Balbus's rights, and the panegyrists of his conduct through life, and his saviours from danger by their prayers?

> Latin: 42. magis fundus populus Gaditanus fieri, quoniam hoc magno opere delectare verbo, si tum fit fundus cum scita ac iussa nostra sua sententia comprobat, quam cum hospitium fecit, ut et civitate illum mutatum esse fateretur et huius civitatis honore dignissimum iudicaret? certius interponere iudicium voluntatis suae quam cum etiam accusatorem huius multa et poena notavit? magis de re iudicare quam cum ad vestrum iudicium civis amplissimos legavit testis huius iuris, vitae laudatores, periculi deprecatores?

[¶8] 43. In truth, who is there so insane as not to perceive that it is an object with the men of Gades to retain this right, and to prevent the road to this the most honourable reward which the city can confer from being closed against them for ever? and that they have cause to rejoice exceedingly that this goodwill of Lucius Cornelius towards his friends is still in existence at Gades, and that his interest and power of serving his friends is now settled in this city? For who is there of us to whom that city of Gades is not the more recommended owing to his zeal and care and diligence? I say nothing of the great distinction with which Caius Caesar, when he was praetor in Spain, loaded that people;— how he put an end to their disputes, how he established laws among them with their own permission, how he eradicated from the manners and customs of the citizens of Gades a sort of barbarism that had become almost inveterate among them; and how, at the request of this my client, he displayed the greatest zeal for and conferred the greatest services on that city. I pass over many things which they obtain every day in consequence of this man's exertions and zeal either wholly, or at all events with more facility than they otherwise would have done. Therefore the chief men of the city are here to stand by him and to defend him: with affection, as being their fellow citizen with their evidence as a citizen of ours; with kindness, as one who is now their most religiously-connected friend, from having been one of their noblest citizens; and with earnestness as a most diligent advocate of all their interests.

> Latin: 43. quis est tam demens quin sentiat ius hoc Gaditanis esse retinendum, ne saeptum sit iis iter ⟨in⟩ perpetuum ad hoc amplissimum praemium civitatis, et magno opere iis esse laetandum huius L. Corneli benivolentiam erga suos remanere Gadibus, gratiam et facultatem commendandi in hac civitate versari? est enim nostrum cui non illa civitas sit huius studio, cura, diligentia commendatior? quantis ornamentis populum istum C. Caesar, cum esset in Hispania praetor, adfecerit, controversias sedarit, iura ipsorum permissu statuerit, inveteratam quandam barbariam ex Gaditanorum moribus disciplinaque delerit, summa in eam civitatem huius rogatu studia et beneficia contulerit. praetereo quae cotidie labore huius et studio aut omnino aut certe facilius consequantur. et adsunt principes civitatis et defendunt amore ut suum civem, testimonio ut nostrum, officio ut ex nobilissimo civi sanctissimum hospitem, studio ut diligentissimum defensorem commodorum suorum.

[¶9] 44. And that the people of Gades may not think,—although they suffer no actual personal inconvenience,—if it is lawful for their citizens to acquire the freedom of our city as a reward for their virtue, that still in this respect their treaty is a more unfavourable one than that which has been made with the other states, I will console those who are present here,—most excellent men,—and also that city which has ever been most faithful and most friendly to us, and at the same time I will put you in mind, O judges, though you are not ignorant of the truth, that there has never hitherto been the slightest doubt expressed about that privilege concerning which this trial has been appointed.

> Latin: 44. ne ipsi Gaditani arbitrentur, quamquam nullo incommodo adficiantur, si liceat eorum civis virtutis causa in nostram civitatem venire, tamen hoc ipso inferius esse suum foedus quam ceterorum, consolabor et hos praesentis, viros optimos, et illam fidelissimam atque amicissimam nobis civitatem, simul et vos non ignorantis, iudices, admonebo, quo de iure hoc iudicium constitutum sit, de eo numquam omnino esse dubitatum.

[¶10] 45. Who, then are the men whom we consider the wisest interpreters of treaties and the men of the greatest experience in military law, and the most diligent authorities in examining into the different conditions and states of towns? Surely those men who have already been placed in command and have had the conduct of wars. In truth if that celebrated augur Quintus Scaevola, when he was consulted about the laws relating to mortgages;—a man most skillful in law,—occasionally referred those who consulted him to Furius and Cascellius as men who had invested their money in such securities and if we in the transaction referring to our aqueduct consulted Marcus Tugio, rather than Caius Aquillius, because constant practice devoted to one particular line of business often proves superior to ability and to general information, who can hesitate to prefer our generals to all the most experienced lawyers on earth in any case respecting treaties, and the whole state of the law of peace and war?

> Latin: 45. igitur prudentissimos interpretes foederum, quos peritissimos bellici iuris, quos diligentissimos in exquirendis condicionibus civitatum atque causis esse arbitramur? eos profecto qui iam imperia ac bella gesserunt. si Q. Scaevola ille augur, cum de iure praediatorio consuleretur, homo iuris peritissimus, consultores suos non numquam ad Furium et Cascellium praediatores reiciebat, si nos de aqua nostra Tusculana M. Tugionem potius quam C. Aquilium consulebamus, quod adsiduus usus uni rei deditus et ingenium et artem saepe vincit, quis dubitet de foederibus et de toto iure pacis et belli omnibus iuris peritissimis imperatores nostros anteferre?

[¶11] 46. May I not therefore, mention, with your approbation, Caius Marius, the original author of that conduct and of that precedent which is found so much fault with by you? Do you require any more weighty example? any one of more consistent wisdom? any one more eminent for virtue and prudence, and conscientiousness and equity? Did he, then, confer the freedom of the city on Marcus Annius Appius, a most gallant man, and one endued with the most admirable virtue, when he knew that the treaty made with Camertum had been most solemnly ratified, and was in all respects a most equitable one? Is it possible, then, O judges, that Lucius Cornelius should be condemned, without condemning also the conduct of Caius Marius?

> Latin: 46. igitur tibi probare auctorem exempli atque facti illius quod a te reprenditur, C. Marium? aliquem graviorem, constantiorem, praestantiorem virtute, prudentia, religione? igitur Iguvinatem M. Annium Appium, fortissimum virum ⟨summa⟩ virtute praeditum, civitate donavit: ⟨idem cohortis duas universas Camertium civitate donavit,⟩ cum Camertinum ⟨foedus omnium⟩ foederum sanctissimum atque aequissimum sciret esse. igitur, iudices, L. Cornelius condemnari, ut non C. Mari factum condemnetur?

[¶12] 47. Let then, that great man be present for a while to your thoughts, as he cannot appear before you in reality, so that you may behold him with your minds whom you cannot behold with your eyes. Let him state to you that he has not been altogether unversed in treaties, nor wholly inexperienced in the nature of precedents, nor entirely ignorant of war; that he was the pupil and soldier of Publius Africanus; that he was trained in campaigns and in many warlike lieutenancies; that if he had read of as many wars as he has served in and conducted, and brought to a termination,—that if he had served under consuls as often as he himself was consul, he might have learnt and become thoroughly acquainted with all the laws of war; that he never doubted for a moment that no treaty could hinder him from doing anything which was for the advantage of the republic; that he carefully selected all the bravest men out of every city which was closely connected with and friendly to us; that none of the people of Iguvium or of Camertum were excepted by treaty, so that their citizens were incapable of receiving from the Roman people the rewards of their virtue.

> Latin: 47. ergo ille vir parumper cogitatione vestra, quoniam re non potest, ut conspiciatis eum mentibus, quoniam oculis non potestis; dicat se non imperitum foederis, non rudem exemplorum, non ignarum belli fuisse; se P. Africani discipulum ac militem, se stipendiis, se legationibus bellicis eruditum, se, si tanta bella attigisset quanta gessit ⟨et⟩ confecit, si tot consulibus meruisset quotiens ipse consul fuit, omnia iura belli perdiscere ac nosse potuisse; sibi non fuisse dubium quin nullo foedere a re publica bene gerenda impediretur; a se ex coniunctissima atque amicissima civitate fortissimum quemque esse delectum; neque Iguvinatium neque Camertium foedere esse exceptum, quo minus eorum civibus a populo Romano praemia virtutis tribuerentur.

[¶13] 48. Therefore, when, a few years after this present of the freedom of the city, a very important and strenuously-contested question arose concerning the rights of citizenship according to the previsions of the Licinian and Mucian law, was any prosecution instituted against any one of those men of the federate states who had had the freedom of the city conferred on him? For Titus Matrinius, of Spoletum, one of those men whom Caius Marius had presented with the freedom of the city, was indeed prosecuted, being a man of a Latin colony, which was among the first for vigour and high character. And when Lucius Antistius, a very eloquent man, prosecuted him, he never said that the people of Spoletum had not ratified the deed of Marius; for he saw that states were accustomed to ratify laws which concerned their own rights, not those which affected ours. But as colonies had not been established by the law of Appuleius, by which law Saturninus had carried, in favour of Marius, a proposition that he should have authority to make three Roman citizens in every colony, he said that this power which was so granted could have no validity, since the case for which it had been intended to provide did not exist.

> Latin: 48. cum paucis annis post hanc civitatis donationem acerrima de civitate quaestio Licinia et Mucia lege venisset, num quis eorum, qui de foederatis civitatibus esset civitate donatus, in iudicium est vocatus? Spoletinus T. Matrinius, unus ex iis quos C. Marius civitate donasset, dixit causam ex colonia Latina in primis firma et inlustri. cum disertus homo L. Antistius accusaret, non dixit fundum Spoletinum populum non esse factum,—videbat enim populos de suo iure, non de nostro fundos fieri solere,—sed cum lege Apuleia coloniae non essent deductae, qua lege Saturninus C. Mario tulerat ut in singulas colonias ternos civis Romanos facere posset, negabat hoc beneficium re ipsa sublata valere debere.

[¶14] 49. There is no resemblance to this case in the present prosecution. But still so great was the authority of Caius Marius, that he did not employ true oratory of Lucius Crassus his own relation, a man of extraordinary eloquence, but himself in a few words defended his conduct with the weight and wisdom which belonged to him, and proved his case to everybody's satisfaction. For who could there be, O judges who would wish that the power of selecting men for distinction on account of their valour in war, in the line of battle, and in the army, should be taken from our generals; or that all hope of rewards for the energy shown in defending the republic should be taken from our allies, and from the federate states? But if the countenance of Caius Marius, and his voice,—if that quickness of eye so advantageous to a general,—if his recent triumphs, and the authority of his presence, had such influence, then let his authority, and his exploits, and his memory, and the undying name of that most illustrious man, prevail still. Let there be this difference between agreeable citizens and brave ones,—that the former, while living, may have all the enjoyment of their influence, but that the authority of the latter may flourish without decay even after they are dead themselves, (if indeed any defender of this empire can be properly said to die at all.)

> Latin: 49. habet similitudinis ista accusatio; sed tamen tanta auctoritas in C. Mario fuit ut non per L. Crassum, adfinem suum, hominem incredibili eloquentia, sed paucis ipse verbis causam illam gravitate sua defenderit et probarit. enim esset, iudices, qui imperatoribus nostris in bello, in acie, in exercitu dilectum virtutis, qui sociis, qui foederatis in defendenda re publica nostra spem praemiorum eripi vellet? si vultus C. Mari, si vox, si ille imperatorius ardor oculorum, si recentes triumphi, si praesens valuit aspectus, valeat auctoritas, valeant res gestae, valeat memoria, valeat fortissimi et clarissimi viri nomen aeternum. hoc discrimen inter gratiosos civis atque fortis, ut illi vivi fruantur opibus suis, horum etiam mortuorum, si quisquam huius imperi defensor mori potest, vivat auctoritas immortalis.

[¶15] 50. What? Did not Cnaeus Pompeius, the father of this man, after he had performed mighty achievements in the Italian war, present Publius Caesius, a Roman knight and a virtuous man, who is still alive, a native of Ravenna, a city of a federate state, with the freedom of the city of Rome? What? did he not give the same gift also to two entire troops of the Camertines? What? Did not Publius Crassus, that most distinguished man, give the same gift to Alexas, the Heraclean, a man of that city with which there was a treaty, such as I may almost say there is no other instance of, made in the time of Pyrrhus, by Caius Fabricius, the consul? What? did not Sulla do the same to Aristo of Massilia? What? Since we are speaking of the people of Gades, did not that same man make nine men of the citizens of Gades, citizens of Rome at the same time? What? Did not that most scrupulously correct man, that most conscientious and modest man, Quintus Metellus Pius, give the freedom of the city to Quintus Fabius, of Saguntum? What? Did not this very man who is here in court, by whom all these cases, which I am now lightly running over, were all most carefully wrought up and set before you; did not Marcus Crassus give the freedom of the city to a man of Aletrium, which is a federate town,—Marcus Crassus, I say, a man not only eminent for wisdom and sobriety of conduct but also one who is usually even too sparing in admitting men as citizens of Rome?

> Latin: 50. ? Cn. Pompeius pater rebus Italico bello maximis gestis P. Caesium, equitem Romanum, virum bonum, qui vivit, Ravennatem foederato ex populo nonne civitate donavit?? cohortis duas universas Camertium ⟨C. Marius⟩?? Heracliensem Alexam P. Crassus, vir amplissimus, ex ea civitate quacum prope singulare foedus Pyrrhi temporibus C. Fabricio consule ictum putatur?? Massiliensem Aristonem ⟨L.⟩ Sulla?? quoniam de Gaditanis agimus, idem ⟨serv⟩os novem Gaditanos?? vir sanctissimus et summa religione ac modestia, Q. Metellus Pius, Q. Fabium Saguntinum?? hic qui adest, a quo haec quae ego nunc percurro subtilissime sunt omnia perpolita, M. Crassus, non Aveniensem foederatum civitate donavit, homo cum gravitate et prudentia praestans, tum vel nimium parcus in largienda civitate?

[¶16] 51. And do you now attempt to disparage Cnaeus Pompeius's kindness, or I should rather say, his discretion and conduct, in doing what he had heard that Caius Marius had done; and what he had actually seen done in his own town by Publius Crassus, by Lucius Sulla, by Quintus Metellus; and, though last not least, what he had a family precedent for in his own father? Nor was Cornelius the only instance of his doing this. For he also presented Hasdrubal, of Saguntum, after that important war in Africa, and several of the Mamertines who came across him, and some of the inhabitants of Utica, and the Fabii from Saguntum, with the freedom of the city. In truth, as those men are worthy of all other rewards too who defend our republic with their personal exertions and at the expense of their own personal danger, so certainly those men are of all others the most worthy of being presented with the freedom of the city in defence of which they have encountered dangers and wounds. And I wish that those men in all quarters of the world who are the defenders of this empire, could all enter this city as citizens, and, on the other hand, that all the enemies of the republic could be got rid or out of it. Nor, indeed did that great poet of our country intend that exhortation which he put into the mouth of Hannibal to be peculiarly his language, but rather the common address of all generals
The man who slays a foe, whate'er his race,
Come whence he will, I call my countryman.
And from what country an ally comes, all men consider and always have considered unimportant. Therefore, they have at all times adopted brave men as citizens from all quarters, and have often preferred the valour of men who may have been meanly born to the inactivity of the nobility.

> Latin: 51. tu Cn. Pompei beneficium vel potius iudicium et factum infirmare conaris, qui fecit quod C. Marium fecisse audierat, fecit quod P. Crassum, quod L. Sullam, quod Q. Metellum, ⟨quod M. Crassum,⟩ quod denique domesticum auctorem patrem suum facere viderat? vero id in uno Cornelio fecit; nam et Gaditanum Hasdrubalem ex bello illo Africano et Mamertinos Ovios et quosdam Vticensis et Saguntinos Fabios civitate donavit. cum ceteris praemiis digni sunt qui suo labore et periculo nostram rem publicam defendunt, tum certe dignissimi sunt qui civitate ea donentur pro qua pericula ac tela subierunt. utinam qui ubique sunt propugnatores huius imperi possent in hanc civitatem venire, et contra oppugnatores rei publicae de civitate exterminari! enim ille summus poeta noster Hannibalis illam magis cohortationem quam communem imperatoriam voluit esse:
qui feriet, erit, inquit, mihi Carthaginiensis,
erit. civitatis sit, id habent hodie leve et semper habuerunt, itaque et civis undique fortis viros adsciverunt et hominum ignobilium virtutem persaepe nobilitatis inertiae praetulerunt.

[¶17] 52. You have before you the interpretation put upon the law and upon treaties by the most consummate generals, by the wisest men and the most illustrious citizens. I will add now that given by the judges who presided at this investigation; I will add that of the whole Roman people; I will add the most conscientious and sensible decision of the senate. When the judges were stating openly and were explaining without any disguise what they intended to decide with respect to the Papian law in the case of Marcus Crassus, when the Mamertines claimed him back as a citizen of theirs, the Mamertines, though they had commenced the cause under the sanction of the public authority of their state abandoned it.

> Latin: 52. imperatorum summorum et sapientissimorum hominum, clarissimorum virorum, interpretationem iuris ac foederum: dabo etiam iudicum qui huic quaestioni praefuerunt, dabo universi populi Romani, dabo sanctissimum et sapientissimum iudicium etiam senatus. cum prae se ferrent palamque loquerentur quid essent lege Papia de M. Cassio Mamertinis repetentibus iudicaturi, Mamertini publice suscepta causa destiterunt. in civitatem recepti ex liberis foederatisque populis [liberati ] sunt: nemo umquam est de civitate accusatus, quod aut populus fundus factus non esset, aut quod foedere civitatis mutandae ius impediretur.

[¶18] 53. Many men who had been admitted to the freedom of this city from the free states, or the federate cities, were released from all apprehension on the subject. No one was ever prosecuted on account of his rights as a citizen, either because his own state had not ratified his admission, or because his right to change his city was hindered by any treaty. I will venture also to assert even this, that no one ever lost his action who was proved to have been presented with the freedom of the city by any one of our generals. Listen now to the decision of the Roman people given on many different occasions, and approved of in the most important causes, in consequence both of the facts of the case, and of precedent. Who is there that does not know that a treaty was made with all the Latins in the consulship of Spurius Cassius and Postumus Cominius?

> Latin: 53. etiam hoc contendere, numquam esse condemnatum quem constaret ab imperatore nostro civitate donatum. nunc populi Romani iudicium multis rebus interpositum atque in maximis causis re ipsa atque usu comprobatum. Cum Latinis omnibus foedus esse ictum Sp. Cassio Postumo Cominio consulibus quis ignorat? quod quidem nuper in columna ahenea meminimus post rostra incisum et perscriptum fuisse. modo igitur L. Cossinius Tiburs, pater huius equitis Romani, optimi atque ornatissimi viri, damnato T. Caelio, quo modo ex eadem civitate T. Coponius, civis item summa virtute et dignitate,—nepotes T. et C. Coponios nostis,—damnato C. Masone civis Romanus est factus?

[¶19] 54. Which, indeed, we recollect to have been in existence till quite lately, engraved and written on a brazen column at the back of the rostra. How then was Lucius Cossinius, a man of Tibur, the father of our present Roman knight of the same name, a most excellent and most accomplished man, after Titus Caelius had been condemned; and how was Titus Coponius, of the same city, he also being a citizen of the very greatest virtue and dignity, (his grandsons Titus and Caius Coponius you are all acquainted with,) after Caius Masso had been condemned, made a Roman citizen? Are we going to affirm that the path to the freedom of the city is open to eloquence and genius, but shall not be open to courage and virtue? Was it lawful for the federate states to acquire spoils from us, and shall it not be lawful for them to carry them off from the enemy? Or shall it be impossible for them to acquire by fighting what they are enabled to acquire by speaking? Or did our ancestors intend that the rewards of a prosecutor should be greater than those of a warrior? But if by that most severe Servilian law, the chief men of the city, men of the greatest dignity, citizens of the most profound wisdom, allowed this road to the freedom of the city to be opened, in accordance with the resolution of the people, to the Latins, that is to say to the federate states, and if this was found no fault with by the Licinian and Mucian law, especially when the very nature and name of a prosecution, and the reward which no one could obtain except through the misfortune of some senator, could not be over pleasant either to a senator or to any virtuous man; was it possible to doubt that the decisions of our generals were to be of force with respect to that kind of reward in which the decisions of the judges had already been ratified? Do we suppose, then, that the sanction of the Latin tribes was given to the Servilian law, or to the other laws in which the reward of the freedom of the city was held out to men of the Latin towns, as an encouragement to such and such conduct?

> Latin: 54. lingua et ingenio patefieri aditus ad civitatem potuit, manu et virtute non potuit? de nobis trahere spolia foederatis licebat, de hostibus non licebat? quod adipisci poterant dicendo, id eis pugnando adsequi non licebat? accusatori maiores nostri maiora praemia quam bellatori esse voluerunt? si acerbissima lege Servilia principes viri ac gravissimi et sapientissimi cives hanc Latinis, id est foederatis, viam ad civitatem populi iussu patere passi sunt, neque ius est hoc reprehensum Licinia et Mucia lege, cum praesertim genus ipsum accusationis et nomen ⟨et⟩ eius modi praemium quod nemo adsequi posset nisi ex senatoris calamitate neque senatori neque bono cuiquam nimis iucundum esse posset, dubitandum fuit quin, quo in genere iudicum praemia rata essent, in eodem iudicia imperatorum valerent? fundos igitur factos populos Latinos arbitramur aut Serviliae legi aut ceteris quibus Latinis hominibus erat propositum aliqua ex re praemium civitatis?

[¶20] 55. Listen now to the decision of the senate, which has at all times been approved of by the decision of the people. Our ancestors, O judges, ordained that the sacred rites of Ceres should be performed with the very strictest religious reverence and the greatest solemnity; which, as they had been originally derived from the Greeks, had always been conducted by Greek priestesses, and were called Greek rites. But when they were selecting a priestess from Greece to teach us that Greek sacred ceremony, and to perform it, still they thought it right that it should be a citizen who was sacrificing for citizens, in order that she might pray to the immortal gods with knowledge, indeed, derived from a distant and foreign source but with feelings belonging to one of our own people and citizens. I see that these priestesses were for the most part Neapolitans or Velians, and those are notoriously federate cities. I am not speaking of any ancient cases, I am only mentioning things that have happened lately, as, for instance, that before the freedom of the city was conferred on the Velians, Caius Valerius Flaccus being the city praetor, did, in accordance with a resolution passed by the senate, submit a motion to the people concerning a woman of Velia, called Calliphana, mentioning her expressly by name, for the purpose of making her a Roman citizen. Are we then to suppose that the Velians ratified the law which was then passed about her; or that that priestess was not made a Roman citizen; or that the treaty was violated by the senate and people of Rome?

> Latin: 55. nunc iudicium senatus, quod semper iudicio est populi comprobatum. Cereris, iudices, summa maiores nostri religione confici caerimoniaque voluerunt; quae cum essent adsumpta de Graecia, et per Graecas curata sunt semper sacerdotes et Graeca omnino nominata. cum illam quae Graecum illud sacrum monstraret et faceret ex Graecia deligerent, tamen sacra pro civibus civem facere voluerunt, ut deos immortalis scientia peregrina et externa, mente domestica et civili precaretur. sacerdotes video fere aut Neapolitanas aut Veliensis fuisse, foederatarum sine dubio civitatum. Mitto vetera; proxime dico ante civitatem Veliensibus datam de senatus sententia C. Valerium Flaccum, praetorem urbanum, nominatim ad populum de Calliphana Veliense, ut ea civis Romana esset, tulisse. igitur aut fundos factos Veliensis, aut sacerdotem illam civem Romanam factam non esse, aut foedus et a senatu et a populo Romano violatum arbitramur?

[¶21] 56. I am aware, O judges, that in a cause that is so plain and so little liable to any doubt, many more arguments have been adduced and more men of great experience have spoken than the case at all required. But that has been done, not in order by our speaking to prove to you a matter which required proof so little, but in order to check the hostile disposition of all spiteful, and wicked, and envious men, whom the prosecutor has sought to inflame, hoping that some of the reports current among men who grieve over the prosperity of another might reach your ears, and have their effect on the result of this trial; and on that account you saw aspersions scattered about with great art in every part of his speech; especially with respect to the riches of Lucius Cornelius, which do not deserve to be brought into odium, and which, whatever their amount may be, are such as to seem to have been rather acquired by care than by any illicit or unfair means; and with respect to his luxury, which he attacked, not by bringing any definite charge of licentiousness against him, but by mere general abuse. Then, too, he attacked him about his farm at Tusculum, which he recollected had belonged to Quintus Metellus, and to Lucius Crassus; but he was not aware that Crassus had bought it of a man who was a freedman, Sotericus Marcius by name; that it had come to Metellus as part of the property of Venonius Vindicius; and also, he did not know that lands do not belong to any particular family, that they are accustomed to pass by sale to strangers, often even to the very lowest people, not being protected by the laws like guardianships.

> Latin: 56. , iudices, in causa aperta minimeque dubia multo et plura et a pluribus peritissimis esse dicta quam res postularet. id factum est, non ut vobis rem tam perspicuam dicendo probaremus, verum ut omnium malivolorum iniquorum invidiosorum animos frangeremus; quos ut accusator incenderet, ut aliqui sermones hominum alienis bonis maerentium etiam ad vestras auris permanarent et in iudicio ipso redundarent, idcirco illa in omni parte orationis summa arte adspergi videbatis; tum pecuniam L. Corneli, quae neque invidiosa est et, quantacumque est, eius modi est ut conservata magis quam correpta esse videatur; tum luxuriam, quae non crimine aliquo libidinis, sed communi maledicto notabatur; tum Tusculanum, quod Q. Metelli fuisse meminerat et L. Crassi, Crassum emisse de libertino homine, Soterico Marcio, ad Metellum pervenisse de Vennoni Vindici bonis non tenebat. illud nesciebat, praediorum nullam esse gentem, emptionibus ea solere saepe ad alienos homines, saepe ad infimos, non legibus tamquam tutelas pervenire.

[¶22] 57. It has been imputed to him also that he has become one of the tribe Crustumina, a privilege which he obtained by means of the law concerning bribery, and which is less invidious than the advantages acquired by those men who, by the assistance of the laws, obtain the power of delivering their opinion as praetor, and of wearing the praetexta. And then, too, the adoption of Theophanus was discussed; by means of which Cornelius gained nothing beyond being confirmed in his possession of the inheritances of his own relations. Although it is not a very difficult matter to propitiate the minds of those men who themselves are envious of Cornelius. They show their envy in the ordinary way; they attack him at their feasts; they abuse him at their conversations; they carp at him, not in a downright hostile spirit, but in a disparaging manner.

> Latin: 57. est etiam quod in tribum Clustuminam pervenerit; quod hic adsecutus est legis de ambitu praemio minus invidioso quam qui legum praemiis praetoriam sententiam et praetextam togam consequuntur. adoptatio Theophani agitata est, per quam Cornelius nihil est praeterquam propinquorum suorum hereditates adsecutus. istorum animos, qui ipsi Cornelio invident, non est difficillimum mitigare. hominum invident, in conviviis rodunt, in circulis vellicant: non illo inimico, sed hoc malo dente carpunt.

[¶23] 58. They who are enemies to the friends of Lucius Cornelius, or who envy them, are much more greatly to be feared by him. For who has ever been found who would confess himself an enemy to the man himself? Or who could be so with any reason? What good man has he not cultivated the friendship of? Who is there whose fortune and dignity he has not promoted? Living in the closest intimacy with the most influential man in the state, at a time of our greatest misfortunes and most bitter dissensions, he has never offended any one of either party, either by act or word, or even by a look. It was my fate, or the fate of the republic, that the whole weight of distress and ill-will at that time should fall upon me alone. Cornelius was so far from exulting in my disasters or in your dissensions, that while I was absent, he aided all my friends with his kind assistance, with his tears, with his exertions, and with consolation.

> Latin: 58. amicis L. Corneli aut inimici sunt aut invident, ii sunt huic multo vehementius pertimescendi. huic quidem ipsi quis est umquam inventus inimicus aut quis iure esse potuit? bonum non coluit, cuius fortunae dignitatique non concessit? in intima familiaritate hominis potentissimi, in maximis nostris malis atque discordiis neminem umquam alterius rationis ac partis non re, non verbo, non vultu denique offendit. hoc sive meum sive rei publicae fatum, ut in me unum omnis illa inclinatio communium temporum incumberet. modo non exsultavit in ruinis nostris vestrisque sordibus Cornelius, sed omni officio,—lacrimis, opera, consolatione,—omnis me absente meos sublevavit.

[¶24] 59. And I have been induced by their testimony in his behalf, and by their entreaties, to offer him my service now, which he has so well deserved, and which on my part is only a repayment of just and reasonable gratitude. And I hope, O judges, as you love and consider dear to you those men who were the chief agents in my preservation and safety, and in the restoration of my dignity, that so also the things which were done by this man to the extent of his power and of the opportunities which were afforded him, will be grateful to and approved of by you. He, then, is not now attacked by his own enemies, for he has none, but by those of his friends; enemies who are both numerous and powerful; men whom yesterday Cnaeus Pompeius, in a very eloquent and dignified oration, desired to come forward and contend with him if they chose, but to abandon the unequal contest and unjust persecution which they were carrying on against this man.

> Latin: 59. ego testimonio ac precibus munus hoc meritum huic et, ut a principio dixi, iustam et debitam gratiam refero, speroque, iudices, ut eos qui principes fuerunt conservandae salutis aut dignitatis meae diligitis et caros habetis, sic, quae ab hoc pro facultate hominis, pro loco facta sunt, et grata esse vobis et probata. igitur a suis, quos nullos habet, sed a suorum, qui et multi et potentes sunt, urgetur inimicis; quos quidem hesterno die Cn. Pompeius copiosa oratione et gravi secum, si vellent, contendere iubebat, ab hoc impari certamine atque iniusta contentione avocabat.

[¶25] 60. And it was a fair condition, and one very advantageous, O judges, for us and for all those who are connected with us in intimacy that we should carry on our own enmities against one another as we chose, but that we should spare the friends of our enemies. And if my authority had in this matter much weight with those men, especially as they see that I am well instructed in such matters both by the variety of circumstances in which I have found myself, and by special experience in cases of this sort, I would exhort them to give up even those greater dissensions. For I have at all times considered it the part both of fearless citizens and of virtuous men to labour in the administration of the affairs of the republic in such a way as to defend whatever one really thinks best; nor have I myself ever failed in this labour or duty or line of exertion. But contention is only wise so long as it either does some good or, if it does not do any good, at all events does no harm to the state.

> Latin: 60. erit aequa lex et nobis, iudices, atque omnibus qui nostris familiaritatibus implicantur vehementer utilis, ut nostras inimicitias ipsi inter nos geramus, amicis nostrorum inimicorum temperemus. si mea auctoritas satis apud illos in hac re ponderis haberet, cum me praesertim rerum varietate atque usu ipso iam perdoctum viderent, etiam ab illis eos maioribus discordiis avocarem. contendere de re publica, cum id defendas quod esse optimum sentias, et fortium virorum et magnorum hominum semper putavi, neque huic umquam labori officio muneri defui. contentio tam diu sapiens est quam diu aut proficit aliquid, aut, si non proficit, non obest civitati.

[¶26] 61. We ourselves have had wishes, we have urged points, we have tried to carry measures, and we have not succeeded. Other men have felt indignation; we have undergone real sorrow and distress. Why should we choose to destroy those things which exist rather than to preserve them if merely because we are not allowed to alter them exactly as we wish? The senate complimented Caius Caesar with the most honourable distinction of a supplication lasting for a number of days which was quite unprecedented. The senate again, though at a time when the treasury was in great difficulties, gave his victorious army a large sum for pay, appointed ten lieutenants to assist the commander-in-chief at his request, and by the Sempronian law decided not to send any one to supersede him. Of all these resolutions, I was the prime mover and the chief author; nor did I think myself bound to preserve a consistency with the previous differences which I had had with him, rather than to consult what was advantageous with regard to the present necessities of the republic and to unanimity. Other men may perhaps think differently. They are, maybe, firmer in their opinions. I find fault with no one; but I do not agree with all of them. Nor do I think it any proof of inconsistency to regulate one's opinions, as one would do a ship or a ship's course on a voyage, according to the weather which might be prevailing in the republic.

> Latin: 61. quaedam, contendimus, experti sumus: obtenta non sunt. alii, nos luctum maeroremque suscepimus. ea quae mutare non possumus convellere malumus quam tueri? C. Caesarem senatus et genere supplicationum amplissimo ornavit et numero dierum novo: idem in angustiis aerari victorem exercitum stipendio adfecit, imperatori decem legatos decrevit, lege Sempronia succedendum non censuit. ego sententiarum et princeps et auctor fui, neque me dissensioni meae pristinae putavi potius adsentiri quam praesentibus rei publicae temporibus et concordiae convenire. idem aliis videtur: sunt fortasse in sententia firmiores. neminem, sed adsentior non omnibus; neque esse inconstantis puto sententiam tamquam aliquod navigium atque cursum ex rei publicae tempestate moderari.

[¶27] 62. But if there be any people who never abandon any dislike which they have ever conceived against anybody,—(and I see that there are some such people,)—then let them fight with the leaders themselves, not with their train and followers. Some of them, perhaps, will consider that conduct obstinacy, and some will think it courage; but this attacking of the subordinate parties all will look upon as injustice, mixed with some little cruelty. But if there be some men, O judges, whose minds we cannot propitiate by any means whatever, at all events we feel sure that your inclinations are favourable to us, not because of our speeches, but because of your own natural humanity.

> Latin: 62. si qui sunt quibus infinitum sit odium in quos semel susceptum sit, quos video esse non nullos, cum ducibus ipsis, non cum comitatu adsectatoribusque confligant. enim fortasse pertinaciam non nulli, virtutem alii putabunt, hanc vero iniquitatem omnes cum aliqua crudelitate coniunctam. si certorum hominum mentis nulla ratione, iudices, placare possumus, vestros quidem animos certe confidimus non oratione nostra, sed humanitate vestra esse placatos.

[¶28] 63. For, what reason is there why the intimate friendship of Caesar should not avail to procure this my client the highest praise rather than the very slightest injury? Caesar knew him when a young man; he, that most able man, thought highly of him, and though he had a most excessive multitude of friends, Balbus was accounted by him one of his most intimate friends of all. In his praetorship and in his consulship he appointed him prefect of the engineers; he thought highly of his prudence, he loved him for his integrity, he was grateful to him for his constant assistance and attention. He was at different times the partner of very many of his labours; he is perhaps even now the partaker of some of his benefits. And if they are to be an injury to my client in your judgment, I do not see what is ever to be an advantage to any one before such judges.

> Latin: 63. enim est cur non potius ad summam laudem huic quam ad minimam fraudem Caesaris familiaritas valere debeat? adulescens; placuit homini prudentissimo; in summa amicorum copia cum familiarissimis eius est adaequatus. praetura, in consulatu praefectum fabrum detulit; consilium hominis probavit, fidem est complexus, officia observantiamque dilexit. hic multorum illi laborum socius aliquando: est fortasse nunc non nullorum particeps commodorum. quidem si huic obfuerint apud vos, non intellego quod bonum cuiquam sit apud talis viros profuturum.

[¶29] 64. But since Caius Caesar is a great distance off, and is now in those places which, if we regard their situation, are the boundaries of the world, or, if we regard his exploits, of the Roman empire, do not, I entreat you, in the name of the immortal gods, O judges, do not allow such bitter news to be taken to him, as that his own prefect of engineers, the man of all others most dear to and most intimate with him, is crushed by your decision, not on account of any offence of his own, but because of his intimacy with him. Pity the man who is now before the court at his own peril, not on account of any offence of his own, but because of the action of this great and most illustrious man,—who is contesting not any charge which is brought against him, but a point of public law and of general interest. And if Cnaeus Pompeius, and Publius Crassus, and Quintus Metellus, and Cnaeus Pompeius the father of this man, and Lucius Sulla, and Marcus Crassus, and Caius Marius, and the senate and people of Rome and all those who have ever given a decision under similar circumstances and the federate states, and the allies and those ancient men of the Latin tribes whom I have mentioned are all ignorant of this law, consider whether it may not be more advantageous and honourable for you to err with those men for your guides than to be rightly instructed with this man for your teacher. But if you see that you are now come to a decision about a law which is certain and clear and advantageous and well established and determined, then beware of establishing any new principle in a case which has been so loud and so repeatedly decided on.

> Latin: 64. quoniam C. Caesar abest longissime, atque in iis est nunc locis quae regione orbem terrarum, rebus illius gestis imperium populi Romani definiunt, nolite, per deos immortalis, iudices, hunc illi acerbum nuntium velle perferri, ut suum praefectum fabrum, ut hominem sibi carissimum, non ob ipsius aliquod delictum, sed ob suam familiaritatem vestris oppressum sententiis audiat. eius qui non de suo peccato sed ⟨de⟩ huius summi et clarissimi viri facto, non de aliquo crimine sed periculo suo de publico iure disceptat. ius si Cn. Pompeius ignoravit, si M. Crassus, si Q. Metellus, si Cn. Pompeius pater, si L. Sulla, si P. Crassus, si C. Marius, si senatus, si populus Romanus, si qui de re simili iudicarunt, si foederati populi, si socii, si illi antiqui Latini, videte ne utilius vobis et honestius sit illis ducibus errare quam hoc magistro erudiri. si de certo, de perspicuo, de utili, de probato, de iudicato vobis iure esse constituendum videtis, nolite committere ut in re tam inveterata quicquam novi sentiatis.

[¶30] 65. And at the same time, O judges, place all these considerations before you:—first of all, that all those most illustrious men who have ever given any man of a federate city the freedom of this city are now on their trial after death; secondly, that the senate is so too, which has repeatedly decided in favour of such an act and the people which has voted it and the judges who have approved of it. Then consider this also that Cornelius does live and always has lived in such a manner that though investigations are appointed for every imaginable offence, still he is now brought before the court, not for the sake of any punishment which is sought to be inflicted on his vices, but for that at the rewards which have been conferred on his virtue. Add this consideration also; that you by your decision are about to determine whether you choose that for the future the friendship of illustrious men should be a calamity to men, or an ornament. Lastly of all, O judges, keep this fixed in your minds, that in this action you are about to decide, not on any crime imputed to Lucius Cornelius, but on a kindness shown by Cnaeus Pompeius.

> Latin: 65. et illa, iudices, omnia ante oculos vestros proponite: primum esse omnis etiam post mortem reos clarissimos illos viros qui foederatos civitate donarunt; deinde senatum qui hoc iudicavit, populum qui iussit, iudices qui adprobarunt. etiam illud cogitate, sic vivere ac vixisse Cornelium ut, cum omnium peccatorum quaestiones sint, non de vitiorum suorum poena, sed de virtutis praemio in iudicium vocetur. etiam illud, ut statuatis hoc iudicio utrum posthac amicitias clarorum virorum calamitati hominibus an ornamento esse malitis. illud, iudices, fixum in animis vestris tenetote, vos in hac causa non de maleficio L. Corneli, sed de beneficio Cn. Pompei iudicaturos.