--- title: "For Rabirius Postumus · Pro C. Rabirio Postumo" author: "Cicero" translator: "Charles Duke Yonge" languages: [la, en] shelf: "Classical Latin" section: 1 of 2 url: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-rabirio-postumo/1/ cite: "Cicero, tr. Charles Duke Yonge, For Rabirius Postumus · Pro C. Rabirio Postumo, section 1. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-rabirio-postumo/1/" --- # For Rabirius Postumus · Pro C. Rabirio Postumo *Cicero, tr. Charles Duke Yonge* A banker who ran the finances of the king of Egypt. > Latin: ed. Albert Curtis Clark, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-latinLit, phi0474.phi030, CC BY-SA 4.0). > English: Charles Duke Yonge, from the Perseus Digital Library (phi0474.phi030.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. ## 1. Sections 1–24 Source: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-rabirio-postumo/1/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-rabirio-postumo/1/#p-N [¶0] 1. If there is any one, O judges, who thinks Caius Rabirius to be blamed for having entrusted his securely founded and well-established fortunes to the power and caprice of a sovereign, he may back his opinion by a reference not only to mine, but also to the feelings of the man himself who did so. For there is no one who is more grieved at the line of conduct which he then adopted than he is himself. Although we are very much in the habit of judging of the wisdom of a plan by the result, and of saying that the man whose designs have succeeded has shown a great deal of foresight, and that he who has failed has shown none at all. If the king had had any honesty, nothing would have been considered more sagacious than the conduct of Postumus; but because the king deceived him he is said to have acted as madly as possible; so that it appears now that nothing is a proof of a man being wise, unless he can foresee the future. > Latin: 1. quis est, iudices, qui C. Rabirium, quod fortunas suas, fundatas praesertim atque optime constitutas opes, potestati regiae libidinique commiserit, reprehendendum putet, ascribat ad iudicium suum non modo meam sed huius etiam ipsius qui commisit sententiam; nec enim cuiquam eius consilium vehementius quam ipsi displicet. hoc plerumque facimus ut consilia eventis ponderemus et, cui bene quid processerit, multum illum providisse, cui secus, nihil sensisse dicamus. exstitisset in rege fides, nihil sapientius Postumo, quia fefellit rex, nihil hoc amentius dicitur, ut iam nihil esse videatur nisi divinare sapientis. [¶1] 2. But still, if there he any one who thinks that Postumus's conduct, whether it proceeded from a vain hope, or from a not sufficiently considered calculation or (to use the strongest possible terms) from pure rashness deserves to be blamed, I will not object to his entertaining that opinion. But I do beg this, that as he sees that his designs have been punished with the greatest cruelty by fortune himself, he will not think it necessary to add any additional bitterness to the ruin with which he is already overwhelmed. It is quite enough not to help to set men up again who have fallen through imprudence; but to press down those already fallen, or to increase their impetus when falling, is unquestionably most barbarous. Especially, O judges, when this principle is almost implanted by nature in the race of man, that those men who are of a family which considerable glory has already distinguished, should with the greatest eagerness pursue the same path as their ancestors, seeing that the virtue of their fathers is celebrated in the recollection and conversation of all men; just as not only did Scipio imitate Paullus in his renown gained by military exploits; not only did his son imitate Maximus; but his own son also imitated Decius in the devotion of his life, and the exact manner of his death. Let small things, O judges, be compared in this way to great things. > Latin: 2. tamen, si quis est, iudices, qui illam Postumi sive inanem spem sive inconsultam rationem sive, ut gravissimo verbo utar, temeritatem vituperandam putet, ego eius opinioni non repugno; illud tamen deprecor ut, cum ab ipsa fortuna crudelissime videat huius consilia esse multata, ne quid ad eas ruinas quibus hic oppressus est addendum acerbitatis putet. est homines imprudentia lapsos non erigere, urgere vero iacentis aut praecipitantis impellere certe est inhumanum, praesertim, iudices, cum sit hoc generi hominum prope natura datum ut, ⟨si⟩ qua in familia laus aliqua forte floruerit, hanc fere qui sint eius stirpis, quod sermone hominum ac memoria patrum virtutes celebrantur, cupidissime persequantur, si quidem non modo in gloria rei militaris Paulum Scipio ac filii, sed etiam in devotione vitae et in ipso genere mortis imitatus est P. Decium filius. igitur similia, iudices, parva magnis. [¶2] 3. For, when we were children, this man's father Caius Curius was a most gallant chief of the equestrian order, and a most extensive farmer of the public revenues, a man whose greatness of spirit as displayed in carrying on his business men would not have so greatly esteemed, if an incredible kindness had not also distinguished him; so that while increasing his property, he seemed not so much to be seeking to gratify his avarice, as to procure additional means for exerting his kindness. > Latin: 3. enim pueris nobis huius pater, C. Curtius, princeps ordinis equestris, fortissimus et maximus publicanus, cuius in negotiis gerendis magnitudinem animi non tam homines probassent, nisi in eodem benignitas incredibilis fuisset, ut in augenda re non avaritiae praedam, sed instrumentum bonitati quaerere videretur. [¶3] 4. My client, being this man's son, although he had never seen his father, still under the guidance of nature herself,—who is a very powerful guide,—and instigated by the continual conversation of every one in his family, was naturally led on to adopt a similar line of conduct to that of his father. He engaged in extensive business. He entered into many contracts. He took a great share of the public revenues. He trusted different nations. His transactions spread over many provinces. He devoted himself also to the service of kings. He had already previously lent a large sum of money to this very king of Alexandria; and in the meantime he never ceased enriching his friends; sending them on commissions; giving them a share in his contracts; increasing their estates or supporting them with his credit. Why need I say more? He gave a faithful representation of his father's career and habits of life in his own magnanimity and liberality. In the meantime, Ptolemaeus being expelled from his kingdom with treachery, with evil designs (as the Sibyl said, expression of which Postumus found out the meaning) came to Rome. This unhappy man lent him money, as he was in want and asked for it; and that was not the first time, (for he had lent him money before while he was king, without seeing him.) And he thought that he was not lending his money rashly, because no one doubted that he would be restored to his kingdom by the senate and people of Rome. > Latin: 4. ille natus, quamquam patrem suum numquam viderat, tamen et natura ipsa duce, quae plurimum valet, et adsiduis domesticorum sermonibus in paternae disciplinae similitudinem deductus est. gessit, multa contraxit, magnas partis habuit publicorum; credidit populis; in pluribus provinciis eius versata res est; dedit se etiam regibus; huic ipsi Alexandrino grandem iam antea pecuniam credidit; nec interea locupletare amicos umquam suos destitit, mittere in negotium, dare partis, augere ⟨re⟩, fide sustentare. multa? cum magnitudine animi, tum liberalitate vitam patris et consuetudinem expresserat. interea regno Ptolomaeus dolosis consiliis, ut dixit Sibylla, sensit Postumus, Romam venit. egenti et roganti hic infelix pecuniam credidit, nec tum primum; nam regnanti crediderat absens; nec temere se credere putabat, quod erat nemini dubium quin is in regnum restitueretur a senatu populoque Romano. [¶4] 5. But he went still further in making him presents and loans. And he lent him not his own money only, but also that of his friends. A very foolish thing to do—who denies it? at all events, who is there who does not now remind him of it? How could one think that a sensible proceeding which has turned out ill? But it is difficult not to carry out to the end a line of conduct which one has begun with sanguine hopes. The king was a suppliant to him. He asked him every sort of favour; he promised him every sort of recompense. So that Postumus was at last compelled to fear that he might lose what he had already lent if he put a stop to his loans. But no one could possibly be more affable, no one could be more kind than the king; so that it was easier to repent having begun to lend than to find out how to stop. > Latin: 5. dando autem et credendo processit longius nec suam solum pecuniam credidit sed etiam amicorum, stulte; quis negat, aut quis iam audebit, quod male cecidit, bene consultum putare? sed est difficile, quod cum spe magna sis ingressus, id non exsequi usque ad extremum. erat rex, multa rogabat, omnia pollicebatur, ut iam metuere Postumus cogeretur ne quod crediderat perderet, si credendi constituisset modum. autem erat illo blandius, nihil hoc benignius, ut magis paeniteret coepisse quam liceret desistere. [¶5] 6. Here first rises a charge against my client. They say that the senate was bribed. O ye immortal gods! is this that much-desired impartiality of the courts of justice? Those who have bribed us are put on their trial, we who have been bribed are exposed to no such dangers. What, then, shall I do? Shall I here defend the senate, O judges? I ought indeed, to do so here and everywhere, so well has that body deserved at my hands. But that is not the question at the present moment; nor is that affair in the least connected with the cause of Postumus. Although money was supplied by Postumus for the expense of his journey, and for the splendour of his appointments, and for the royal retinue, and though contracts were drawn up in the Alban villa of Cnaeus Pompeius when he left Rome; still he who supplied the money had no right to ask on what he who received the money was spending it. For he was lending it not to a robber, but to a king; nor to a king who was an enemy of the Roman people, but to him whose return to his kingdom he saw was granted to him by the senate, and entrusted to the consul to provide for; nor to a king who was a stranger to this empire, but to one with whom he had seen a treaty made in the Capitol. > Latin: 6. primum exoritur crimen illud; senatum corruptum esse dicunt. O di immortales! haec est illa exoptata iudiciorum severitas? corruptores nostri causam dicunt; nos qui corrupti sumus non dicimus? ergo? senatum⟨ne⟩ defendam hoc loco, iudices? equidem loco debeo; ita de me est meritus ille ordo; sed nec id agitur hoc tempore nec cum Postumi causa res ista coniuncta est. ad sumptum itineris, ad illam magnificentiam apparatus comitatumque regium suppeditata pecunia a Postumo est, factaeque syngraphae sunt in Albano Cn. Pompei, cum ille Roma profectus esset, tamen non debuit is qui dabat, cur ille qui accipiebat tum sumeret, quaerere. enim latroni, sed regi credidit, nec regi inimico populi Romani, sed ei cuius reditum consuli commendatum ⟨a⟩ senatu videbat, nec ei regi qui alienus ab hoc imperio esset, sed ei quicum foedus feriri in Capitolio viderat. [¶6] 7. But if the man who lends money is to blame, and not the man who has made a scandalous use of the money which has been lent to him, then let that man be condemned who has made a sword and sold it and not the man who with that sword has slain a citizen. Wherefore, neither you, O Caius Memmius, ought to wish the senate, to support the authority of which you have devoted yourself from your youth upwards, to labour under such disrepute, nor ought I to speak in defence of conduct which is not the subject of the present inquiry. For the cause of Postumus, whatever it is, is at all events unconnected with the cause of the senate. > Latin: 7. si creditor est in culpa, non is qui improbe credita pecunia usus ⟨est⟩, damnetur is qui fabricatus gladium est et vendidit, non is qui illo gladio civem aliquem interemit. ob rem neque tu, C. Memmi, hoc facere debes ut senatum, cuius auctoritati te ab adulescentia dedidisti, in tanta infamia versari velis, neque ego id quod non agitur defendere. Postumi enim causa, quaecumque est, seiuncta a senatu est. [¶7] 8. And if I show that it has no connection with Gabinius either, then certainly you will have not a leg to stand upon. For this cause is an inquiry, “What has become of the money?” a sort of appendix as it were to an action which has been already decided, and in which a man has been convicted. An action was brought successfully against Aulus Gabinius, and he was condemned in damages; but no securities were given for the payment of them, nor did the people get out of his property a sum sufficient for the payment of those damages. The law is impartial. The Julian law orders that what is deficient should be required of those into whose hands the money, which the man who has been convicted received, came. If this is a new provision in the Julian law,—as there are many clauses of a severer and stricter tendency than those which are found in the ancient laws,— let us also have this new description of tribunal before which to prosecute the inquiry. > Latin: 8. si item a Gabinio seiunctam ostendero, certe quod dicas nihil habebis. enim haec causa Qvo ea pecvnia pervenerit quasi quaedam appendicula causae iudicatae atque damnatae. lites aestimatae A. Gabinio, nec praedes dati nec ex bonis populo universae ⟨lites solutae⟩. lex Iulia persequi ab eis ad quos ea pecunia quam is ceperit qui damnatus sit pervenerit. est hoc novum in lege Iulia, sicuti multa sunt severius scripta quam in antiquis legibus et sanctius, inducatur sane etiam consuetudo huius generis iudiciorum nova; [¶8] 9. But if this clause is transferred word for word not only from the Cornelian law but from the Servilian law, which is older still; then, in the name of the immortal gods, what is it that we are doing, O judges? Or what is this new principle of new legal proceedings that we are introducing into the republic? For the ancient mode of proceeding was well known to all of you, and if practice is the best of teachers it ought to be known to me above all men. For I have prosecuted men for extortion and peculation; I have sat as judge; I have conducted inquiries as praetor; I have defended many men; there is no step in such proceedings which can give a man any facility in speaking in which I have not taken a part. This is what I assert:—that no one ever was put on his trial on the formula, “What had become of that money,” who had not been summoned as a witness on the action for damages. But in the action in this instance, no one was summoned except in consequence of something said by witnesses, or something which appeared in the accounts of private individuals, or in the accounts of the cities. > Latin: 9. sin hoc totidem verbis translatum caput est quot fuit non modo in Cornelia sed etiam ante in lege Servilia, per deos immortalis! quid agimus, iudices, aut quem hunc morem novorum iudiciorum in rem publicam inducimus? enim haec consuetudo nota vobis quidem omnibus, sed, si usus magister est optimus, mihi debet esse notissima. de pecuniis repetundis, iudex sedi, praetor quaesivi, defendi plurimos; nulla pars quae aliquam facultatem discendi adferre posset a me afuit. contendo, neminem umquam Qvo ea pecvnia pervenisset causam dixisse qui in aestimandis litibus appellatus non esset. litibus autem nemo appellabatur nisi ex testium dictis aut tabulis privatorum aut rationibus civitatum. [¶9] 10. Therefore, when actions were being brought, those men were usually present who had some apprehension about themselves; and then when they were summoned, then, if they thought it advantageous for them, they proceeded at once to contradict what had been said. But if they were afraid of unpopularity, because the facts in question were recent, they answered at some future time; and when they had done this, many of them gained their object. But this is quite a novel way of managing business, and one utterly unheard of before this time. In the previous action Postumus name never once occurs. In the action, do I say? You yourselves, O judges, lately sat as judges on Aulus Gabinius. Did any one witness then mention Postumus? Any witness? did ever the prosecutor name him? Did you, in short, in the whole of that trial once hear the name of Postumus? > Latin: 10. in inferendis litibus adesse solebant qui aliquid de se verebantur, et, cum erant appellati, si videbatur, statim contra dicere solebant; sin eius temporis recentem invidiam pertimuerant, respondebant postea. cum fecissent, permulti saepe vicerunt. vero novum et ante hoc tempus omnino inauditum. litibus Postumi nomen est nusquam. litibus dico; modo vos idem in A. Gabinium iudices sedistis; num quis testis Postumum appellavit? testis autem? num accusator? num denique toto illo in iudicio Postumi nomen audistis? [¶10] 11. Postumus, then, is not an additional criminal implicated in the cause, which has been already decided. But still one Roman knight has been dragged before the court as a defendant, on a charge of extortion and peculation. On what account-books is this charge founded? On some which were not read on the trial of Aulus Gabinius. By what witness is it supported? By some one who never once mentioned his name at that time. On the sentence of what arbitrator do they rely? On one in which no mention whatever was made of Postumus. In accordance with the provisions of what law? Of one under which he is not liable. Here now, O judges, the affair is one which has need of all your acuteness and of all your good sense. For you ought to consider what it is becoming to you to do, and not what is lawful for you. For if you ask what is lawful, you certainly have the power to remove any one whom you please out of the city. It is the voting tablet which gives you that power; and at the same time it conceals the capricious exercise of it. No one has any need to fear the consciousness of the tablet if he has no reverence for his own conscience. > Latin: 11. igitur reus ex ea causa quae iudicata est redundat Postumus, sed est adreptus unus eques Romanus de pecuniis repetundis reus. tabulis? in iudicio Gabiniano recitatae non sunt. teste? A quo tum appellatus nusquam est. aestimatione litium? qua Postumi mentio facta nulla est. lege? non tenetur. iam, iudices, vestri consili res est, vestrae sapientiae; quid deceat vos, non quantum liceat vobis, spectare debetis. enim quid liceat quaeritis, potestis tollere e civitate quem voltis; tabella est quae dat potestatem; occultat eadem libidinem, cuius conscientiam nihil est quod quisquam timeat, si non pertimescat suam. [¶11] 12. Where, then, is the wisdom of the judge shown? In this, that he considers not only what he has the power to do, but also what he ought to do; and he does not recollect only what power has been committed to him, but also to what extent it has been committed. You have a tablet given you on which to record your judgment. According to what law? To the Julian law about extortion and peculation. Concerning what defendant? Concerning a Roman knight. But that body is not liable to the operation of that law. … But now I hear what you say. Postumus, then, is prosecuted under that law, from the operation of which not only he, but his whole order, is released and wholly flee. > Latin: 12. est igitur sapientia iudicis? hoc, ut non solum quid possit, sed etiam quid debeat, ponderet nec quantum sibi permissum meminerit solum, sed etiam quatenus commissum sit. tibi tabella iudici. lege? Iulia de pecuniis repetundis. de reo? equite Romano. iste ordo lege ea non tenetur. “,” inquit, “capite: ⟨quo ea pecunia pervenerit.⟩” ⟨audisti⟩ in Postumum, cum in Gabinium iudex esses, nihil Gabinio damnato, cum in eum litis aestimares. “nunc audio.” igitur Postumus est ea lege qua non modo ipse sed totus etiam ordo solutus ac liber est. [¶12] 13. Here I will not at present implore your aid, O Roman knights—you whose privileges are attacked by this prosecution,—before I implore you, O senators, whose good faith towards this order of knights is at stake; that good faith which has been often experienced before, and which has been lately proved in this very cause. For when—when that most virtuous and admirable consul Cnaeus Pompeius made a motion with respect to this very inquiry—some, but very few, unfavourable opinions were delivered, which voted that prefects, and scribes, and all the retinue of magistrates were liable to the provisions of this law, you—you yourselves, I say—and the senate, in a very full house, resisted this; and although at that time, on account of the offences committed by many men, people's minds were inflamed so that even innocent people were in danger, still, though you could not wholly extinguish its unpopularity, at all events you would not allow fuel to be added to the existing fire. > Latin: 13. ego nunc non vos prius implorabo, equites Romani, quorum ius iudicio temptatur, quam vos, senatores, quorum agitur fides in hunc ordinem; quae quidem cum saepe ante, tum in hac ipsa causa nuper est cognita. cum optimo et praestantissimo consule, Cn. Pompeio, de hac ipsa quaestione referente existerent non nullae, sed perpaucae tamen acerbae sententiae, quae quidem censerent ut tribuni, ut praefecti, ut scribae, ut comites omnes magistratuum lege hac tenerentur, vos, vos inquam, ipsi et senatus frequens restitit, et, quamquam tum propter multorum delicta etiam ad innocentium periculum tempus illud exarserat, tamen, cum odium nostri restingueretis, huic ordini ignem novum subici non sivistis. [¶13] 14. In this spirit did the senate act. What next? What are you, O Roman knights, what are you about to do, I pray? Glaucia, a profligate but still a shrewd man, was in the habit of warning the people when any law was being read to attend to the first line of it. If the first word was “dictator, consul, praetor, master of the horse,” then not to trouble themselves about it; they might know that it was no concern of theirs. But if it began “Whoever after the passing of this law,” then they had better take care that they were not made liable to any new judicial proceedings. > Latin: 14. animo igitur senatus.? vos, equites Romani, quid tandem estis acturi? Glaucia solebat, homo impurus, sed tamen acutus, populum monere ut, cum lex aliqua recitaretur, primum versum attenderet. esset Dictator, consul, praetor, magister equitum, ne laboraret; sciret nihil ad se pertinere; sin esset Quicumqve post hanc legem, videret ne qua nova quaestione adligaretur. [¶14] 15. Now do you, O Roman knights, take care. You know that I was born of your order; that all my feelings have always been enlisted in your cause. I say nothing of what I am now saying but with the deepest anxiety and the greatest regard for your order. Other men may be attached to other men and to other orders; I have always been devoted to you, I warn you, I forewarn you, I give you notice while the affair and the cause are still undecided; I call all men and gods to witness. While you have it in your power, while it is lawful for you, beware lest you establish for yourselves and for your order a harder condition than you may be able to bear. This evil (believe me) will crawl on and extend further than you fancy. > Latin: 15. vos, equites Romani, videte. me ortum e vobis omnia semper sensisse pro vobis. horum sine magna cura et summa caritate vestri ordinis loquor. Alius alios homines et ordines, ego vos semper complexus sum. et praedico, integra re causaque denuntio, omnis homines deosque testor: dum potestis, dum licet, providete ne duriorem vobis condicionem statuatis ordinique vestro quam ferre possitis. hoc malum, mihi credite, longius quam putatis. [¶15] 16. When a most powerful and noble tribune of the people, Marcus Drusus, proposed one formula of inquiry affecting the equestrian order,—“If any one had taken money on account of a judicial decision,”—the Roman knights openly resisted it. Why? Did they wish to be allowed to act in such a manner? Far from it. They thought this cause of receiving money not only shameful, but actually impious. But they argued in this way: that those men only ought to be made liable to the operation of any law, who of their own judgment submitted to such conditions of life. “The highest rank,” say they, “in the state is a great pleasure; and the curule chair, and the fasces, and supreme command, and a province, and priesthoods, and triumphs, and even the fact of having an image to keep alive the recollection of one with posterity. > Latin: 16. et nobilissimo tribuno pl., M. Druso, novam in equestrem ordinem quaestionem ferenti: Si qvis ob rem ivdicandam pecvniam cepisset aperte equites Romani restiterunt.? hoc licere volebant?; neque solum hoc genus pecuniae capiendae turpe sed etiam nefarium esse arbitrabantur. tamen ita disputabant, eos teneri legibus ⟨eis⟩ oportere qui suo iudicio essent illam condicionem vitae secuti. amplissimus civitatis gradus, sella curulis, fasces, imperia, provinciae, sacerdotia, triumphi, denique imago ipsa ad posteritatis memoriam prodita; [¶16] 17. There is also some anxiety mingled with this pleasure, and a greater apprehension of laws and of trials. We have never despised those considerations;” (for so they argued;) “but we have adopted this tranquil and easy kind of life, which, because it does not bring honours with it is also free from annoyance.” “You are just as much a judge as I am a senator.” “Just so, but you sought for the one honour, and I am compelled to accept of the other; wherefore, it ought to be lawful for me either to decline being a judge, or else I ought not to be subject to any new law which ought properly to regulate only the conduct of senators.” > Latin: 17. esto simul etiam sollicitudo aliqua et legum et iudiciorum maior quidam metus. “ista numquam contempsimus”—ita enim disputabant—“sed hanc vitam quietam atque otiosam secuti sumus; quae quoniam honore caret, careat etiam molestia.” “es tu iudex ⟨eques⟩ quam ego senator.” “est, sed tu istud petisti, ego hoc cogor. re aut iudici mihi non esse liceat, aut lege senatoria non teneri.” [¶17] 18. Will you, O Roman knights, abandon this privilege which you have received from your fathers? I warn you not to do so. Men will be hurried before these courts of justice, not only whenever they fall into all deserved unpopularity, but whenever spiteful people say a word against them, if you do not take care to prevent it. If it were now told you that opinions were pronounced in the senate that you should be liable to be proceeded against under these laws, you would think it necessary to run in crowds to the senate-house. If the law was passed, you would throng to the rostra. The senate has decided that you are exempt from the operation of this law; the people has never subjected you to it; you have met together here free from it; take care that you do not depart entangled in its toils. > Latin: 18. vos, equites Romani, ius a patribus acceptum amittetis? ne faciatis. homines in haec iudicia ex omni non modo invidia sed sermone malivolorum, nisi cavetis. iam vobis nuntiaretur in senatu sententias dici ut his legibus teneremini, concurrendum ad curiam putaretis; si lex ferretur, convolaretis ad rostra. senatus liberos hac lege esse voluit, populus numquam adligavit, soluti huc convenistis; ne constricti discedatis cavete. [¶18] 19. For if it was imputed as a crime to Postumus, who was neither a tribune, nor a prefect, nor one of his companions from Italy, nor even a friend of Gabinius's, how will these men hereafter defend themselves, who, being of your order, have been implicated with our magistrates in these causes? “You,” says the prosecutor, “instigated to Gabinius to restore the king.” My own good faith does not allow me to speak with severity of Gabinius. For after having been reconciled to him, and given up that most bitter hostility with which I regarded him, and after having defended him with the greatest zeal, I ought not to attack him now that he is in distress. And even if the influence of Cnaeus Pompeius had not reconciled me to him while he was in prosperity, his own disasters would do so now. > Latin: 19. , si Postumo fraudi fuerit, qui nec tribunus nec praefectus nec ex Italia comes nec familiaris Gabini fuit, quonam se modo defendent posthac qui vestri ordinis cum magistratibus nostris fuerint his causis implicati? “,” inquit, “Gabinium ut regem reduceret impulisti.” patitur mea me iam fides de Gabinio gravius agere. enim ex tantis inimicitiis receptum in gratiam summo studio defenderim, hunc adflictum violare non debeo. Quocum me si ante Cn. Pompei auctoritas in gratiam non reduxisset, nunc iam ipsius fortuna reduceret. [¶19] 20. But still, when you say that Gabinius went to Alexandria at the instigation of Postumus, if you place no confidence in what was alleged in the defence of Gabinius, do you forget also what you stated in your own speech for the prosecution? Gabinius said that he did that for the sake of the republic, because he was afraid of the fleet of Archelaus,—because he thought that otherwise the sea would he entirely full of pirates. He said, moreover, that he was authorized to do so by a law. You, his enemy, deny that. I pardon your denial, and so much the more because the decision was contrary to the statement of Gabinius. I return, therefore, to the charge, and to your speech for the prosecution. > Latin: 20. tamen, cum ita dicis, Postumi impulsu Gabinium profectum Alexandream, si defensioni Gabini fidem non habes, obliviscerisne etiam accusationis tuae? Gabinius se id fecisse dicebat rei publicae causa, quod classem Archelai timeret, quod mare refertum fore praedonum putaret; lege etiam id sibi licuisse dicebat. inimicus negas., et eo magis quod est contra illud iudicatum. igitur ad crimen et accusationem tuam. [¶20] 21. Why did you keep crying out that ten thousand talents had been promised to Gabinius? I suppose it was necessary to find out a very civil man indeed, who should be able to prevail on one whom you call the most avaricious of men, not to despise immoderately two hundred and forty millions of sesterces. Whatever may have been the intention with which Gabinius acted, it certainly was his own unsuggested intention. Whatever sort of idea it was, it was Gabinius's own. Whether, as he said himself his object was glory, or whether, as you insist, it was money, it was for himself that he sought it. Had Gabinius any companion or attendant? He says, no. For he had departed from Rome in deference to the authority, not of Gabinius, whose business it was not but of Publius Lentulus, a most illustrious man, given to him by the senate, and with a definite design, and with very sanguine hopes. > Latin: 21. vociferabare? decem milia talentum Gabinio esse promissa. videlicet perblandus reperiendus fuit qui hominem, ut tu vis, avarissimum exoraret, HS bis miliens et quadringentiens ⟨ne⟩ magno opere contemneret. Gabinius illud, quoquo consilio fecit, fecit certe suo; quaecumque mens illa fuit, Gabini fuit. Sive ille, ut ipse dicebat, gloriam, sive, ut tu vis, pecuniam quaesivit, sibi, ⟨non Rabirio quaesivit; Rabirius enim⟩ non Gabini comes vel sectator nec ad Gabini, cuius id negotium non erat, sed ad P. Lentuli, clarissimi viri, auctoritatem a senatu profectam et consilio certo et spe non dubia Roma contenderat. [¶21] 22. But he was the king's steward. Yes, and he was in the king's prison, and his life was nearly taken away. He bore many things besides, which the caprice of the king and necessity compelled him to endure. So that all these matters come under one single reproach, that he entered his kingdom, and that he entrusted himself to the power of the king. A very foolish action, if we must say the truth. For what can be more foolish than for a Roman knight, a man of this city, I say, a citizen of this republic, which, of all others, is, and always has been, most especially free, to go into a place where he is forced to obey and be the steward of another? > Latin: 22. dioecetes fuit regius. quidem in custodia etiam fuit regia et ⟨vis⟩ vitae eius adlata paene est; multa praeterea quae libido regis, quae necessitas coegit perferre, pertulit. omnium rerum una reprehensio est quod regnum intrarit, quod potestati ⟨se⟩ regis commiserit. si quaerimus, stulte. enim stultius quam equitem Romanum ex hac urbe, huius, inquam, rei publicae civem, quae est una maxime et fuit semper libera, venire in eum locum ubi parendum alteri et serviendum sit? [¶22] 23. But, nevertheless, may I not pardon this in Postumus, who is not a man of much learning, when I see that the very wisest men have fallen into the same error? We have heard that that; great man, beyond all comparison the most learned man that all Greece ever produced, Plato, was in the greatest danger, and was exposed to the most treacherous designs by the wickedness of Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, to whom be had entrusted himself. We know that Callisthenes, a very learned man, the companion of Alexander the Great, was slain by Alexander. We know that Demetrius,—he, too, being a citizen of the free republic of Athens, the affairs of which he had conducted with the greatest ability, and being also a man eminent for, and deeply impressed with, learning,—the one, I mean, who was surnamed Phalereus, was deprived of his life in that selfsame kingdom of Egypt having had an asp applied to his body. > Latin: 23. ego in hoc tamen Postumo non ignoscam, homini mediocriter docto, ⟨in⟩ quo videam sapientissimos homines esse lapsos? unum totius Graeciae facile doctissimum, Platonem, iniquitate Dionysi, Siciliae tyranni, cui se ille commiserat, in maximis periculis insidiisque esse versatum accepimus; Callisthenem, doctum hominem, comitem Magni Alexandri, ab Alexandro necatum; Demetrium, qui Phalereus vocitatus est, et ex re publica Atheniensi, quam optime gesserat, et ex doctrina nobilem et clarum, in eodem isto Aegyptio regno aspide ad corpus admota vita esse privatum. [¶23] 24. I plainly confess that nothing more insane can be done, than for a man willingly to come into a place where he will lose his liberty. But the still greater folly which he had already committed is his excuse for the folly of this subsequent conduct; for that causes this most stupid action, the act I mean, of going into the kingdom, and of trusting himself to the king, to appear a wise and sensible step. At all events, it is not so much the act of one who is for ever a fool, as one who is wise too late, after he has got into difficulties through his folly, to endeavour to release himself by whatever means he can. > Latin: 24. confiteor fieri nihil posse dementius quam scientem in eum locum venire ubi libertatem sis perditurus. huius ipsius facti stultitiam alia iam superior stultitia defendit, quae facit ut hoc stultissimum facinus, quod in regnum venerit, quod ⟨se⟩ regi commiserit, sapienter factum esse videatur, si quidem ⟨non⟩ tam semper stulti quam sero sapientis est, cum stultitia sua impeditus sit, quoquo modo possit se expedire.