Fonteius had been praetor of Gallia Narbonensis for three years, and was accused now by the people of the province, and by Induciomarus, one of their princes, of great oppression and exaction in his government, and especially of imposing an arbitrary tax upon their wines. There were two hearings of this cause, but we have only this one speech of Cicero's with reference to it remaining; and this is in a very mutilated state. … For I defend Marcus Fonteius, O judges, on this ground, and I assert that after the passing of the Valerian law, from the time that Marcus Fonteius was quaestor till the time when Titus Crispinus was quaestor, no one paid it otherwise. I say that he followed the example of all his predecessors, and that all those who came after him, followed his. What, then, do you accuse?
… ⟨o⟩portuisse an ita dissolvit ut omnes alii dissolverunt? ita ego defendo M. Fonteium, iudices, itaque contendo post legem Valeriam latam … te … quaestore usque ad T. Crispinum quaestorem aliter neminem solvisse; hunc omnium superiorum, huius autem omnis qui postea fuerint auctoritatem dico secutos.
2. what do you find fault with? For because in these accounts, which he says were begun by Hirtuleius, he misses the assistance of Hirtuleius, I cannot think that he either does wrong himself, or wishes you to do wrong. For I ask you, O Marcus Plaetorius, whether you will consider our case established, if Marcus Fonteius, in the matter respecting which he is now accused by you, has the man whom you praise above all others, namely Hirtuleius, for his example; and if Fonteius is found to have done exactly the same as Hirtuleius in the matters in which you commend Hirtuleius? You find fault with the description of payment. The public registers prove that Hirtuleius paid in the same manner. You praise him for having established these peculiar accounts. Fonteius established the same, with reference to the same kind of money. For, that you may not ignorantly imagine that these accounts refer to some different description of debt, know that they were established for one and the same reason, and with reference to one and the same sort of money. For when … … No one—no one, I say, O judges—will be found, to say that he gave Marcus Fonteius one sesterce during his praetorship, or that he appropriated one out of that money which was paid to him on account of the treasury.
2. accusas, quid reprendis? quod in tabulis dodrantariis et quadrantariis, quas ait ab Hirtuleio institutas, Fontei officium desiderat, non possum existimare utrum ipse erret an vos in errorem inducere velit. enim abs te, M. Plaetori, possitne tibi ipsi probata esse nostra causa, si, qua in re abs te M. Fonteius accusatur, auctorem habet eum quem tu maxime laudas Hirtuleium; qua in re autem laudas Hirtuleium, Fonteius idem fecisse reperitur. solutionis genus; eodem modo Hirtuleium dissolvisse publicae tabulae coarguunt. illum quod dodrantarias tabulas instituerit; easdem Fonteius instituit et eodem genere pecuniae. ne forte sis nescius et istas tabulas existimes ⟨a⟩d ⟨diversam v⟩e⟨te⟩ris aeris alieni rationem pertinere, ob unam causam et in uno genere sunt institutae. cum publicanis qui Africam, qui Aquileiense por⟨torium⟩ … … cite …, nemo, inquam, iudices, reperietur qui unum se in quaestura M.
3. In no account-books is there any hint of such a robbery among all the items contained in them there will not be found one trace of any loss or diminution of such monies. But all those men whom we ever see accused and found fault with by this sort of inquiry, are overwhelmed with witnesses; for it is difficult for him who has given money to a magistrate to avoid being either induced by dislike of him, or compelled by scrupulousness, to mention it; and in the next place, if the witnesses are deterred from appearing by any influence, at all events the account-books remain uncorrupted and honest. Suppose that every one was ever so friendly to Fonteius; that such a number of men to whom he was perfectly unknown, and with whom he was utterly unconnected, spared his life, and consulted his character; still, the facts of the case itself, the consideration of the documents, and the composition of the account-books, have this force, that from them, when they are once given in and received, everything that is forged, or stolen, or that has disappeared, is detected. All those men made entries of sums of money having been received for the use of the Roman people; if they immediately either paid or gave to others equally large sums, so that what was received for the Roman people was paid to some one or other, at all events nothing can have been embezzled. If any of them took any money home … Oh, the good faith of gods and men!
3. Fonteio nummum dedisse, aut illum ex ea pecunia quae pro aerario solveretur detraxisse dicat; nullius in tabulis ulla huius furti significatio, nullum in eis nominibus intertrimenti aut deminutionis vestigium reperietur. homines, si qui in hoc genere quaestionis accusati sunt, reprehensos videmus primum testibus; difficile est enim eum qui magistratui pecuniam dederit non aut induci odio ut dicat aut cogi religione; deinde si qua gratia testes deterrentur, tabulae quidem certe incorruptae atque integrae manent. omnis amicissimos Fonteio fuisse, tantum hominum numerum ignotissimorum atque alienissimorum pepercisse huius capiti, consuluisse famae; res ipsa tamen ac ratio litterarum confectioque tabularum habet hanc vim ut ex acceptis et datis quidquid fingatur, aut surripiatur, aut non constet, appareat. populo Romano pecunias omnis isti rettulerunt; si protinus aliis aeque magnas aut solverunt aut dederunt, ut, quod acceptum populo Romano est, id expensum cuipiam sit, certe nihil potest esse detractum. aliquid domum tulerunt, ex eorum arca, e ra … hominumque fidem!
4. no witness is found in a case involving a sum of three million two hundred thousand sesterces! Among how many men? Among more than six hundred. In what countries did this transaction take place? In this place, in this very place which you see. Was the money given irregularly? No money at all was touched without many memoranda. What, then, is the meaning of this accusation, which finds it easier to ascend the Alps than a few steps of the treasury; which defends the treasury of the Ruteni with more anxiety than that of the Roman people; which prefers using unknown witnesses to known ones, foreign witnesses to citizens; which thinks that it is establishing a charge more plainly by the capricious evidence of barbarians than by documents written by our fellow citizens?
4. testis non invenitur in ducentiens et triciens sestertio! multorum hominum? amplius. in terris gestum negotium est?, illo, inquam, loco quem videtis. ordinemne pecunia est data? vero nummus nu⟨l⟩lus sine litteris multis commotus est. est igitur i⟨st⟩a accusatio, quae ⟨f⟩acilius possit A⟨l⟩pis quam paucos aerari gradus ascendere, diligentius Rutenorum quam populi Romani defendat aerarium, libentius ignotis quam notis utatur, alienigenis quam domesticis testibus, planius se confirmare crimen libidine barbarorum quam nostrorum hominum litteris arbitretur?
5. Of two magistracies, each of which is occupied in handling and dealing with large sums of money, the triumvirate and the quaestorship, such accurate accounts have been rendered, that in those things which were done in the sight of men, which affected many men's interests, and which were set forth both in public and private registers, no hint of robbery, no suspicion of any offence can possibly arise.
5. magistratuum, quorum uterque in pecunia maxima tractanda procurandaque versatus est, triumviratus et quaesturae, ratio sic redditur, iudices, ut in eis rebus quae ante oculos gestae sunt, ad mu⟨l⟩tos pertinuerunt, confectae publicis privatisque tabulis sunt, nulla significatio furti, nulla alicuius delicti suspicio reperiatur.
6. The embassy to Spain followed, in a most disturbed time of the republic; when, on the arrival of Lucius Sulla in Italy, great armies quarrelled about the tribunals and the laws; and in this desperate state of the republic … If no money was paid, of what sum is that fiftieth a part? … Since his cause is not the same as that of Verres … a great quantity of corn from Gaul; infantry, and a most numerous army from Gaul, a great number of cavalry from Gaul …
6. Hispaniensis legatio consecuta est turbulentissimo rei publicae tempore, cum adventu L. Sullae maximi exercitus in Italiam cives vi dissiderent, ⟨non⟩ iudiciis ac legibus; atque hoc rei publicae statu desperato qualis … nulla pecunia numerata est, cuius pecuniae quinquagesima est? maximus numerus e Gallia, peditatus amplissimae copiae e Gallia, equites numero plurimi e Gallia.
9. That after this the Gauls would drink their wine more diluted, because they thought that there was poison in it … …
9. Gallos post haec dilutius esse poturos, quod illi venenum esse arbitrabuntur. Plaetori matrem dum vixisset ludum, postquam mortua esset magistros habuisse.
11. … that in the time of this praetor Gaul was overwhelmed with debt. From whom do they say that loans of such sums were procured? From the Gauls? By no means. From whom then? From Roman citizens who are trading in Gaul. Why do we not hear what they have got to say? Why are no accounts of theirs produced? I myself pursue and press the prosecutor, O judges; I pursue him I say, and I demand witnesses. In this cause I am taking more pains and trouble to get them to produce their witnesses, than other advocates for the defence usually take to refute them. I say this boldly, O judges, but I do not assert it rashly. All Gaul is filled with traders,—is full of Roman citizens. No Gaul does any business without the aid of a Roman citizen; not a single sesterce in Gaul ever changes hands without being entered in the account-books of Roman citizens.
11. … hoc praetore oppressam esse aere alieno Galliam. A quibus versuras tantarum pecuniarum factas esse dicunt? a Gallis? minus. A quibus igitur? A civibus Romanis qui negotiantur in Gallia. eorum verba ⟨non⟩ audimus? cur eorum tabulae nullae proferuntur? ultro atque insto accusatori, iudices; insector, inquam, et flagito testis. ego in hac causa laboris et operae consumo in poscendis testibus quam ceteri defensores in refutandis. hoc dico, iudices, non temere confirmo. Referta Gallia negotiatorum est, plena civium Romanorum. Gallorum sine cive Romano quicquam negoti gerit, nummus in Gallia nullus sine civium Romanorum tabulis commovetur.
12. See how I am descending, O judges, how far I seem to be departing from my ordinary habits, from my usual caution and diligence. Let one set of accounts be produced, in which there is any trace whatever which gives the least hint of money having been given to Fonteius; let them produce out of the whole body of traders, of colonists, of publicans, of agriculturists, of graziers, but one witness, and I will allow that this accusation is true. O ye immortal gods! what sort of a cause is this? what sort of a defence? Marcus Fonteius was governor of the province of Gaul, which consists of those tribes of men and of cities, some of whom (to say nothing of old times) have in the memory of the present generation carried on bitter and protracted wars with the Roman people; some have been lately subdued by our generals, lately conquered in war, lately made remarkable by the triumphs which we have celebrated over them, and the monuments which we have erected, and lately mulcted, by the senate, of their lands and cities: some, too, who have fought in battle against Marcus Fonteius himself, have by his toil and labour been reduced under the power and dominion of the Roman people.
12. quo descendam, iudices, quam longe videar ab consuetudine mea et cautione ac diligentia discedere. Vnae tabulae proferantur, in quibus vestigium sit aliquod quod significet pecuniam ⟨M.⟩ Fonteio datam, unum ex tot negotiatorum, colonorum, publicanorum, aratorum, pecuariorum numero testem producant; vere accusatum esse concedam. di immortales! quae haec est causa, quae defensio? Galliae M. Fonteius praefuit, quae constat ex eis generibus hominum et civitatum qui, ut vetera mittam, partim nostra memoria bella cum populo Romano acerba ac diuturna gesserunt, partim modo ab nostris imperatoribus subacti, modo bello domiti, modo triumphis ac monumentis notati, modo ab senatu agris urbibusque multati sunt, partim qui cum ipso M. Fonteio ferrum ac manus contulerunt multoque eius sudore ac labore sub populi Romani imperium dicionemque ceciderunt.
13. There is in the same province Narbo Martius, a colony of our citizens, set up as a watch-tower of the Roman people, and opposed as a bulwark to the attacks of those very natives. There is also the city of Massilia, which I have already mentioned, a city of most gallant and faithful allies, who have made amends to the Roman people for the dangers to which they have been exposed in the Gallic wars, by their service and assistance; there is, besides, a large number of Roman citizens, and most honourable men. Of this province, consisting of this variety of people, Marcus Fonteius, as I have said, was governor. Those who were enemies, he subdued; those who had lately been so, he compelled to depart from the lands of which they had been deprived by the senate. From the rest, who had been often conquered in great wars, on purpose that they might be rendered obedient for ever to the Roman people, he exacted large troops of cavalry to serve in those wars which at that time were being carried on all over the world by the Roman people, and large sums of money for their pay, and a great quantity of corn to support our armies in the Spanish war.
13. in eadem provincia Narbo Martius, colonia nostrorum civium, specula populi Romani ac propugnaculum istis ipsis nationibus oppositum et obiectum; est item urbs Massilia, de qua ante dixi, fortissimorum fidelissimorumque sociorum, qui Gallicorum bellorum pericula praecipuis ⟨populi Romani⟩ praemiis compensarunt; est praeterea ⟨maximus⟩ numerus civium Romanorum atque ⟨equitum,⟩ hominum honestissimorum. provinciae quae ex hac generum varietate constaret M. Fonteius, ut dixi, praefuit; qui erant hostes, subegit, qui proxime fuerant, eos ex eis agris quibus erant multati decedere coegit, ceteris qui idcirco magnis saepe erant bellis superati ut semper populo Romano parerent, magnos equitatus ad ea bella quae tum in toto orbe terrarum a populo Romano gerebantur, magnas pecunias ad eorum stipendium, maximum frumenti numerum ad Hispaniense bellum tolerandum imperavit.
14. The man who has done all these things is now brought before a court of law. You who were not present at the transactions are, with the Roman people, taking cognisance of the cause; those men are our adversaries who were compelled to leave their lands by the command of Cnaeus Pompeius; those men are our adversaries who having escaped from the war, and the slaughter which was made of them, for the first time dare to stand against Marcus Fonteius, now that he is unarmed. What of the colonists of Narbo? what do they wish? what do they think? They wish this man's safety to be ensured by you, they think that theirs has been ensured by him. What of the state of the Massilians? They distinguished him while he was among them by the greatest honours which they had to bestow; and now, though absent from this place, they pray and entreat you that their blameless character, their panegyric, and their authority may appear to have some weight with you in forming your opinions.
14. qui gessit in iudicium vocatur, vos qui in re non interfuistis causam una cum populo Romano cognoscitis, dicunt contra quibus invitissimis imperatum est, dicunt qui ex agris ex Cn. Pompei decreto decedere sunt coacti, dicunt qui ex belli caede et fuga nunc primum audent contra M. Fonteium inermem consistere.? coloni Narbonenses quid volunt, quid existimant? per vos ⟨salvum⟩ volunt, se per hunc incolumis existimant esse. Massiliensium civitas? praesentem eis adfecit honoribus quos habuit amplissimos; vos autem absens orat atque obsecrat ut sua religio, laudatio, auctoritas aliquid apud vestros animos momenti habuisse videatur.
15. What more shall I say? What is the inclination of the Roman citizens? There is no one of that immense body who does not consider this man to have deserved well of the province, of the empire, of our allies, and of the citizens. Since, therefore, you now know who wish Marcus Fonteius to be attacked, and who wish him to be defended, decide now what your own regard for equity, and what the dignity of the Roman people requires; whether you prefer trusting your colonists, your traders, your most friendly and ancient allies, and consulting their interests, or the interests of those men, whom, on account of their passionate disposition, you ought not to trust; on account of their disloyalty you ought not to honour.
15. ? civium Romanorum quae voluntas est? est ex tanto numero quin hunc optime de provincia, de imperio, de sociis et civibus meritum esse arbitretur. igitur, iudices, qui oppugnatum M. Fonteium cognostis, qui defensum velint, statuite nunc quid vestra aequitas, quid populi Romani dignitas postulet, utrum colonis vestris, negotiatoribus vestris, amicissimis atque antiquissimis sociis et credere et consulere malitis, an eis quibus neque propter iracundiam fidem neque propter infidelitatem honorem habere debetis.
16. What, if I produce also a still greater number of most honourable men to bear testimony to this man's virtue and innocence? Will the unanimity of the Gauls still be of more weight than that of men of such great authority? When Fonteius was governor of Gaul, you know, O judges, that there were very large armies of the Roman people in the two Spains, and very illustrious generals. How many Roman knights were there, how many military tribunes, how many ambassadors came to them! what eminent men they were, and how frequently did they come! Besides that, a very large and admirably appointed army of Cnaeus Pompeius wintered in Gaul while Marcus Fonteius was governor. Does not Fortune herself appear to have intended that they should be a sufficient number of sufficiently competent witnesses of those things which were done in Gaul while Marcus Fonteius was praetor? Out of all that number of men what witness can you produce in this cause? Who is there of all that body of men whose authority you are willing to cite? We will use that very man as our panegyrist and our witness.
16. ? si maiorem etiam hominum honestissimorum copiam adferam quae huius virtuti atque innocentiae testimonio possit esse, tamenne plus Gallorum consensio valebit quam summa auctoritas omnium? Cum Galliae Fonteius praeesset, scitis, iudices, maximos populi Romani exercitus in duabus Hispaniis clarissimosque imperatores fuisse. multi equites Romani, quam multi tribuni militum, quales et quot et quotiens legati ad eos ⟨exierunt⟩! praeterea Cn. Pompei maximus atque ornatissimus hiemavit in Gallia M. Fonteio imperante. vobis multos, satis idoneos testis et conscios videtur ipsa fortuna esse voluisse earum rerum quae M. Fonteio praetore gererentur in Gallia? ex tanto hominum numero testem in hac causa producere potestis? quis est ex eo numero qui vobis auctor placeat? eo nos iam laudatore et teste utemur.
17. Will you doubt any longer, O judges, that that which I stated to you at the beginning is most true, that there is another object in this prosecution, beyond causing others, after Marcus Fonteius has been overwhelmed by the testimonies of these men, from whom many contributions have been exacted, greatly against their will, for the sake of the republic, to be for the future more lax in governing, when they see these men attacked, who are such men that, if they are crushed, the empire of the Roman people cannot be maintained in safety A charge has also been advanced that Marcus Fonteius has made a profit from the making of roads; taking money either for not compelling people to make roads, or for not disapproving of roads which had been made. If all the cities have been compelled to make roads, and if the works of many of them have not been passed, then certainly both charges are false,—the charge that money has been given for exemption, when no one was exempted; and for approval, when many were disapproved of.
17. etiam diutius, iudices, quin illud quod initio vobis proposui verissimum sit, aliud per hoc iudicium nihil agi nisi ut M. Fonteio oppresso testimoniis eorum quibus multa rei publicae causa invitissimis imperata sunt, segniores posthac ad imperandum ceteri sint, cum videatis eos oppugnare quibus ⟨victoribus⟩ populi Romani imperium incolume esse non possit? est etiam quaestum M. Fonteium ex viarum munitione fecisse, ut aut ne cogeret munire, aut id quod munitum esset ne improbaret. et coacti sunt munire omnes et multorum opera improbata sunt, certe utrumque falsum est, et ob vacationem pretium datum, cum immunis nemo fuerit, et ob probationem, cum multa improbata sint.?
18. What if we can shift this charge on other most unimpeachable names? not so as to transfer any blame to others, but to show that these men were appointed to superintend that road-making, who are easily able to show that their duty was performed, and performed well. Will you still urge all these charges against Marcus Fonteius, relying on angry witnesses? When Marcus Fonteius was hindered by more important affairs of the republic, and when it concerned the republic that the Domitian road should be made, he entrusted the business to his lieutenants, men of the highest characters, Caius Annius, Bellienus, and Caius Fonteius. So they superintended it; they ordered what seemed necessary, as became their dignity, and they sanctioned what seemed well done. And you have at all events had opportunities of knowing these things, both from our documents, from documents which you yourselves have written, and from others which have been sent to you, and produced before you; and if you have not already read them, now hear us read what Fonteius wrote about those matters to his lieutenants, and what they wrote to him in answer. [The letters sent to Caius Annius the Lieutenant, and to Caius Fonteius the Lieutenant; also, the letters received from Caius Annius the Lieutenant, and from Caius Fonteius the Lieutenant, are read.]
18. si hoc crimen optimis nominibus delegare possimus, et ita non ut culpam in alios transferamus, sed uti doceamus eos isti munitioni praefuisse qui facile officium suum et praestare et probare possunt, tamenne vos omnia in M. Fonteium iratis testibus freti conferetis? Cum maioribus rei publicae negotiis M. Fonteius impediretur, et cum ad rem publicam pertineret viam Domitiam muniri, legatis suis, primariis viris, C. Annio Bellieno et C. Fonteio, negotium dedit; itaque praefuerunt; imperaverunt pro dignitate sua quod visum est et probaverunt; quod vos, si nulla alia ex re, ex litteris quidem nostris quas exscripsistis et missis et adlatis certe scire potuistis. si antea non legistis, nunc ex nobis quid de eis rebus Fonteius ad legatos suos scripserit, quid ad eum illi rescripserint, cognoscite. L. M. ad C. Annivm leg., ad C. Fonteivm leg., L. ⟨A.⟩ ab C. Annio leg., ab C.Fonteio leg.
19. I think it is plain enough, O judges, that this question about the road-making does not concern Marcus Fonteius, and that the business was managed by these men, with whom no one can find fault. Listen now to the facts relating to the charge about wine, which they meant to be the most odious, and the most important charge. The charge, O judges, has been thus stated by Plaetorius: that it had not occurred to Fonteius for the first time when he was in Gaul to establish a transit duty on wine, but that he had thought of the plan in Italy, before he departed from Rome. Accordingly, that Titurius had exacted at Tolosa fourteen denarii for every amphora of wine, under the name of transit duty; that Portius and Numius at Crodunum had exacted three victoriati; that Serveus at Vulchalo had exacted two victoriati; and in those districts they believe that transit duty was exacted by these men at Vulchalo, in case of any one turning aside to Cobiamachus, which is a small town between Tolosa and Narbo, and not wishing to proceed so far as Tolosa. Elesiodulus exacted only six denarii from those who were taking wine to the enemy.
19. opinor esse perspicuum, iudices, hanc rationem munitionis neque ad M. Fonteium pertinere et ab eis esse tractatam quos nemo possit reprehendere. nunc de crimine vinario, quod illi invidiosissimum et maximum esse voluerunt. a Plaetorio, iudices, ita constitutum est, M. Fonteio non in Gallia primum venisse in mentem ut portorium vini institueret, sed hac inita iam ac proposita ratione Roma profectum. Titurium Tolosae quaternos denarios in singulas vini amphoras portori nomine exegisse; Croduni Porcium et ternos ⟨et⟩ victoriatum, Vulchalone Servaeum binos et victoriatum; atque in his locis ab eis portorium esse exactum si qui Cobiomago —qui vicus inter Tolosam et Narbonem est—deverterentur neque Tolosam ire vellent; Elesiodulis C. Annium senos denarios ab eis qui ad hostem portarent exegisse.
20. I see, O judges, that this is a charge, important both from the sort of crime imputed, (for a tax is said to have been imposed on our produce, and I confess that a very large sum of money might have been amassed by that means,) and from its unpopular nature; for our adversaries have endeavoured to make this charge as widely known as possible, by making it the subject of their conversation. But I think that the more serious a charge is, which is proved to be false, the greater is the wickedness of that man who invented it; for he wishes by the magnitude of the accusation to prejudice the minds of those who hear it, so that the truth may afterwards find a difficult entrance into them. … [Everything relating to the charge about the wine, to the war with the Vocontii, and the arrangement of winter quarters, is wanting.]
20. , iudices, esse crimen et genere ipso magnum—vectigal enim esse impositum fructibus nostris dicitur, et pecuniam permagnam ratione ista cogi potuisse confiteor—et invidia vel ⟨maximum⟩; maxime enim inimici hanc rem sermonibus divolgare voluerunt. ego ita existimo, quo maius crimen sit id quod ostendatur esse falsum, hoc maiorem ab eo iniuriam fieri qui id confingat. enim magnitudine rei sic occupare animos eorum qui audiunt ut difficilis aditus veritati relinquatur. crimine vinario. bello Vocontiorvm. dispositione hibernorvm.
21. … But the Gauls deny this. But the circumstances of the case and the force of arguments prove it. Can then a judge refuse belief to witnesses? He not only can, but he ought, if they are covetous men, or angry men, or conspirators, or men utterly void of religion and conscience. In fact, if Marcus Fonteius is to be considered guilty just because the Gauls say so, what need have I of a wise judge? what need have I of an impartial judge? what need is there of an intelligent advocate? For the Gauls say so. We cannot deny it. If you think this is the duty of an able and experienced and impartial judge, that he must without the slightest hesitation believe a thing because the witnesses say it; then the Goddess of Safety herself cannot protect the innocence of brave men. But if, in coming to a decision on such matters, the wisdom of the judge has a wide field for its exercise in considering every circumstance, and in weighing each according to its importance, then in truth your part in considering the case is a more important and serious one than mine is in stating it.
21. “hoc Galli negant.” ratio rerum et vis argumentorum coarguit. igitur testibus iudex non credere? et iratis et coniuratis et ab religione remotis non solum potest sed etiam debet. si, quia Galli dicunt, idcirco M. Fonteius nocens existimandus est, quid mihi opus est sapiente iudice, quid aequo quaesitore, quid oratore non stulto? dicunt enim Galli; negare non possumus. si ingeniosi et periti et aequi iudicis has partis esse existimatis ut, quoniam quidem testes dicunt, sine ulla dubitatione credendum sit, ipsa virorum fortium innocentiam tueri non potest; sin autem in rebus iudicandis non minimam partem ⟨tenere⟩ ad unam quamque rem aestimandam momentoque suo ponderandam sapientiam iudicis, ⟨videte⟩ ne multo vestrae maiores gravioresque partes sint ad cogitandum quam ad dicendum meae.
22. For I have only to question the witness as to each circumstance once, and that, too, briefly, and often indeed I have not to question him at all; lest I should seem to be giving an angry man an opportunity of making a speech, or to be attributing an undue weight to a covetous man. You can revolve the same matter over and over again in your minds, you can give a long consideration to the evidence of one witness; and, if we have shown an unwillingness to examine any witness, you are bound to consider what has been our reason for keeping silence. Wherefore; if you think that to believe the witnesses implicitly is enjoined to a judge, either by the law or by his duty, there is no reason at all why one man should be thought a better or a wiser judge than another. For judgment formed by the mere ears is single and simple enough; it is a power given promiscuously to all in common, whether they are fools or wise men.
22. enim semper una quaque de re testis non solum semel verum etiam breviter interrogandus est, saepe etiam non interrogandus, ne aut irato facultas ad dicendum data aut cupido auctoritas attributa esse videatur; vos et saepius eandem rem animis agitare et diutius uno ⟨quoque⟩ de teste cogitare potestis et, si quem nos interrogare noluimus, quae causa nobis tacendi fuerit existimare debetis. ob rem, si hoc iudici praescriptum lege aut officio putatis, testibus credere, nihil est cur alius alio iudice melior aut sapientior existimetur. Vnum est enim et simplex aurium iudicium et promisce et communiter stultis ac sapientibus ab natura datum.
23. What, then, are the opportunities which wisdom has of distinguishing itself? When can a foolish and credulous auditor be distinguished from a scrupulous and discerning judge? When, forsooth, the statements which are made by the witnesses are committed to his conjectures, to his opinion, as to the authority, the impartiality of mind, the modesty; the good faith, the scrupulousness, the regard for a fair reputation, the care, and the fear with which they are made. Or will you, in the case of the testimonies of barbarians, hesitate to do what very often within our recollection and that of our fathers, the wisest judges have not thought that they ought to hesitate to do with respect to the most illustrious men of our state? For they refused belief to the evidence of Cnaeus and Quintus Caepio, and to Lucius and Quintus Metellus, when they were witnesses against Quintus Pompeius, a new man; for virtuous, and noble, and valiant as they were, still the suspicion of some private object to be gamed, and some private grudge to be gratified, detracted from their credibility and authority as witnesses.
23. est igitur ubi elucere possit prudentia, ubi discerni stultus auditor et credulus ab religioso et sapienti iudice? illud in quo ea quae dicuntur a testibus coniecturae et cogitationi traduntur, quanta auctoritate, quanta animi aequitate, quanto pudore, quanta fide, quanta religione, quanto studio existimationis bonae, quanta cura, quanto timore dicantur. vero vos id in testimoniis hominum barbarorum dubitabitis quod persaepe et nostra et patrum memoria sapientissimi iudices de clarissimis nostrae civitatis viris dubitandum non putaverunt? qui Cn. et Q. Caepionibus, L. et Q. Metellis testibus in Q. Pompeium, hominem novum, non crediderunt, quorum virtuti, generi, rebus gestis fidem et auctoritatem in testimonio cupiditatis atque inimicitiarum suspicio derogavit. hominem vidimus, ecquem vere commemorare possumus parem consilio, gravitate, constantia, ceteris virtutibus, honoris, ingeni, rerum gestarum ornamentis M.
24. Have we seen any man, can we with truth speak of any man, as having been equal in wisdom, in dignity, in consistency, in all other virtues, in all the distinguishing qualities of honour, and genius, and splendid achievements, to Marcus Aemilius Scaurus? And yet, though, when he was not on his oath, almost the whole world was governed by his nod, yet, when he was on his oath, his evidence was not believed against Caius Fimbria, nor against Caius Memmius. They, who were the judges, were unwilling that such a road should be opened to enmities, as for every man to be able to destroy by his evidence who ever he hated. Who is there who does not know how great was the modesty, how great the abilities, how great the influence of Lucius Crassus? And yet he, whose mere conversation had the authority of evidence, could not, by his actual evidence, establish the things which he had stated against Marcus Marcellus with hostile feelings.
24. Aemilio Scauro fuisse? huius cuius iniurati nutu prope terrarum orbis regebatur iurati testimonio neque in C. Fimbriam neque in C. Memmium creditum est; noluerunt ei qui iudicabant hanc patere inimicitiis viam, quem quisque odisset, ut eum testimonio posset tollere. in L. Crasso pudor fuerit, quod ingenium, quanta auctoritas, quis ignorat? is cuius etiam sermo testimoni auctoritatem habebat, testimonio ipso, quae in M. Marcellum inimico animo dixit, probare non potuit.
25. There was—there was in the judges of those times, O judges, a divinely-inspired and singular acuteness, as they thought that they were judges, not only of the defendant, but also of the accuser and of the witness, as to what was invented, what was brought into the case by chance or by the opportunity, what was imported into it through corruption, what was distorted by hope or by fear, what appeared to proceed from any private desire, or any private enmity. And if the judge does not embrace all these considerations in his deliberation, if he does not survey and comprehend them all in his mind,—if he thinks that whatever is said from that witness-box, proceeds from some oracle, then in truth it will be sufficient, as I have said before, for any judge to preside over this court, and to discharge this duty, who is not deaf. There will be no reason in the world for requiring any one, whoever he may be, to be either able or experienced, to qualify him for judging causes.
25. , fuit illis iudicibus divinum ac singulare, iudices, consilium, qui se non solum de reo sed etiam de accusatore, de teste iudicare arbitrabantur, quid fictum, quid fortuna ac tempore adlatum, quid pretio corruptum, quid spe aut metu depravatum, quid a cupiditate aliqua aut inimicitiis profectum videretur. si iudex non amplectetur omnia consilio, non animo ac mente circumspiciet, si, ut quidque ex illo loco dicetur, ex oraculo aliquo dici arbitrabitur, profecto satis erit, id quod dixi antea, non surdum iudicem huic muneri atque officio praeesse; nihil erit quam ob rem ille nescio quis sapiens homo ac multarum rerum peritus ad res iudicandas requiratur.
26. Had then those Roman knights, whom we ourselves have seen who have lately flourished in the republic, and in the courts, so much courage and so much vigour as to refuse belief to Marcus Scaurus when a witness; and are you afraid to disbelieve the evidence of the Volcae and of the Allobroges? If it was not right to give credence to a hostile witness, was Crassus more hostile to Marcellus, or Scaurus to Fimbria, on account of any political differences, or any domestic quarrels, than the Gauls are to Fonteius? For of the Gauls, those even who stand on the best ground have been compelled once and again, and sorely against their will, to furnish cavalry, money, and corn; and of the rest, some have been deprived of their land in ancient wars, some have been overwhelmed and subdued in war by this very man.
26. vero illi equites Romani quos nos vidimus, qui nuper in re publica iudiciisque maxime floruerunt, habuerunt tantum animi, tantum roboris ut L. ⟨Crasso, M.⟩ Scauro testi non crederent; vos Volcarum atque Allobrogum testimoniis non credere timetis? inimico testi credi non oportuit, inimicior Marcello Crassus aut Fimbriae Scaurus ex civilibus studiis atque obtrectatione domestica quam huic Galli? quorum qui optima in causa sunt, equites, frumentum pecuniam semel atque iterum ac saepius invitissimi dare coacti sunt, ceteri partim ex veteribus bellis agro multati, partim ab hoc ipso bello superati et oppressi.
27. If those men ought not to be believed who appear to say anything covetously with a view to some private gain, I think that the Caepios and Metelli proposed to themselves a greater gain from the condemnation of Quintus Pompeius, as by that they would have got rid of a formidable adversary to all their views, than all the Gauls hoped for from the disaster of Marcus Fonteius, in which that province believed that all its safety and liberty consisted. If it is proper to have a regard to the men themselves, (a thing which in truth in the case of witnesses ought to be of the greatest weight,) is any one, the most honourable man in all Gaul to be compared, I will not say with the most honourable men of our city, but even with the meanest of Roman citizens? Does Induciomarus know what is the meaning of giving evidence? Is he affected with that awe which moves every individual among us when he is brought into that box?
27. , qui ob aliquod emolumentum suum cupidius aliquid dicere videntur, eis credi non convenit, credo maius emolumentum Caepionibus et Metellis propositum fuisse ex Q. Pompei damnatione, cum studiorum suorum obtrectatorem sustulissent, quam cunctae Galliae ex M. Fontei calamitate, in qua illa provincia prope suam immunitatem ac libertatem positam esse arbitratur., si homines ipsos spectare convenit, id quod in teste profecto valere plurimum debet, non modo cum summis civitatis nostrae viris sed cum infimo cive Romano quisquam amplissimus Galliae comparandus est? Indutiomarus quid sit testimonium dicere? movetur eo timore quo nostrum unus quisque, cum in eum locum productus est?