51
sed quoniam emersisse iam e vadis et scopulos praetervecta esse videtur oratio mea, perfacilis mihi reliquus cursus ostenditur. duo sunt enim crimina una in muliere summorum facinorum, auri quod sumptum a Clodia dicitur, et veneni quod eiusdem Clodiae necandae causa parasse Caelium criminantur. aurum sumpsit, ut dicitis, quod Lucii Luccei servis daret, per quos Alexandrinus Dio, qui tum apud Lucceium habitabat, necaretur. magnum crimen vel in legatis insidiandis vel in servis ad hospitem domini necandum sollicitandis, plenum sceleris consilium, plenum audaciae!

But since my speech seems now to have escaped the shallows and passed by the rocks, the rest of my course is shown (to be) very easy. For there are two charges, involving one woman, of the most heinous crimes: of the gold which is said to have been taken from Clodia, and of the poison which they charge that Caelius prepared for the sake of killing the same Clodia. He took the gold, so you say, to give to the slaves of Lucius Lucceius, so that at their hands Dio of Alexandria, who was living at the house of Lucceius at the time, might be murdered. A great crime, either to plot against ambassadors or to incite slaves to kill their master’s guest, a plan full of wickedness, full of recklessness!

52
quo quidem in crimine primum illud requiro, dixeritne Clodiae quam ob rem aurum sumeret, an non dixerit. si non dixit, cur dedit? si dixit, eodem se conscientiae scelere devinxit. tune aurum ex armario tuo promere ausa es, tune Venerem illam tuam spoliare ornamentis, spoliatricem ceterorum, cum scires, quantum ad facinus aurum hoc quaereretur, ad necem legati, ad Lucii Luccei, sanctissimi hominis atque integerrimi, labem sceleris sempiternam? huic facinori tanto tua mens liberalis conscia, tua domus popularis ministra, tua denique hospitalis illa Venus adiutrix esse non debuit.

Indeed, in the matter of this charge first I ask this: did he tell Clodia for what reason he was taking the gold, or did he not say? If he did not tell her, why did she give it? If he told her, she has implicated herself in the complicity of the same crime. Did you dare to bring forth the gold from your cupboard? Did you (dare) to despoil of her ornaments that Venus of yours, the despoiler of the rest (of your lovers), when you knew the magnitude of the crime for which this gold was being sought for the murder of an ambassador, for the eternal criminal stain of Lucius Lucceius, a most pious and honest man? For a crime as big as this, your generous heart should not have been an accessory, your public home an assistant, that hospitable Venus of yours a helper.

53
vidit hoc Balbus; celatam esse Clodiam dixit, atque ita Caelium ad illam attulisse se ad ornatum ludorum aurum quaerere. si tam familiaris erat Clodiae, quam tu esse vis, cum de libidine eius tam multa dicis, dixit profecto, quo vellet aurum; si tam familiaris non erat, non dedit. ita, si verum tibi Caelius dixit, o immoderata mulier, sciens tu aurum ad facinus dedisti; si non est ausus dicere, non dedisti. quid ego nunc argumentis huic crimini, quae sunt innumerabilia, resistam? possum dicere mores Caeli longissime a tanti sceleris atrocitate esse disiunctos; minime esse credendum homini tam ingenioso tamque prudenti non venisse in mentem rem tanti sceleris ignotis alienisque servis non esse credendam. possum etiam alia et ceterorum patronorum et mea consuetudine ab accusatore perquirere, ubi sit congressus cum servis Luccei Caelius, qui ei fuerit aditus; si per se, qua temeritate; si per alium, per quem? possum omnes latebras suspicionum peragrare dicendo; non causa, non locus, non facultas, non conscius, non perficiendi, non occultandi maleficii spes, non ratio ulla, non vestigium maximi facinoris reperietur.

Balbus perceived this; he said that Clodia was kept in the dark, and that Caelius had claimed to her this: that he needed the gold to adorn some games. If he was on as close terms with Clodia as you wish him to be, when you talk so much about his lust, he surely told her why he wanted the gold; if he was not on such close terms, she did not give it. So if Caelius told you the truth, you undisciplined woman, you knowingly gave the gold for a criminal act; if he did not dare to tell you, you did not give it. Why do I now resist this accusation with arguments, which are countless? I could say that the character of Caelius is very far removed from the enormity of such a great crime; that it is in no way believable that it did not occur to a person so clever and so intelligent that the execution of such a great crime should not be entrusted to unfamiliar slaves belonging to someone else. I could also interrogate the accuser about other things, following the custom of the other defence counsels and my own: where did Caelius meet with the slaves of Lucceius; what access was there for him; if in person, how rash; if through another, through whom? I could go through all the hiding-places of suspicions in my speech: no motive, no place, no opportunity, no accomplice, no hope of carrying out and concealing the wicked deed, no reason, no trace will be found of a very heinous crime.

54
sed haec, quae sunt oratoris propria, quae mihi non propter ingenium meum, sed propter hanc exercitationem usumque dicendi fructum aliquem ferre potuissent, cum a me ipso elaborata proferri viderentur, brevitatis causa relinquo omnia. habeo enim, iudices, quem vos socium vestrae religionis iurisque iurandi facile esse patiamini, Lucium Lucceium, sanctissimum hominem et gravissimum testem, qui tantum facinus in famam atque fortunas suas neque non audisset illatum a Caelio neque neglexisset neque tulisset. an ille vir illa humanitate praeditus, illis studiis, illis artibus atque doctrina illius ipsius periculum, quem propter haec ipsa studia diligebat, neglegere potuisset et, quod facinus in alienum hominem intentum severe acciperet, id omisisset curare in hospitem? quod per ignotos actum si comperisset, doleret, id a suis servis temptatum esse neglegeret? quod in agris locisve publicis factum reprehenderet, id in urbe ac domi suae coeptum esse leniter ferret? quod in alicuius agrestis periculo non praetermitteret, id homo eruditus in insidiis doctissimi hominis dissimulandum putaret?

But these things – which are characteristic of the orator, which could’ve brought me some advantage (not because of my talent, but because of my experience and practice in speaking), since they would appear to have been worked out by me before being submitted – I leave out them all for the sake of brevity. For I have, gentlemen of the jury, a man whom you would readily allow to be your associate in religious duty and oath-taking, Lucius Lucceius, a most pious man and a most authoritative witness, who could not have not heard that such a big crime had been brought against his fame and prosperity by Caelius, nor could he have ignored it, nor could he have allowed it. Or could that man – blessed with that humanity, that scholarship, that practice and learning – ignore the danger to the very person who was the reason he was enjoying that very scholarship? Furthermore, a crime which he would take seriously when directed at another’s guest, would he have neglected to deal with it when directed at his own guest? (A crime) which would cause him pain if he had learned it was committed by randoms, would he ignore it (learning) that it was attempted by his own slaves? (A crime) which he would condemn when committed in the countryside or in public places, would he take it lightly that it originated in the city and in his very home? (A crime) which he would not let pass if a bumpkin was in danger, would an educated man think it should be hidden in the case of a plot against a most scholarly person?

55
sed cur diutius vos, iudices, teneo? ipsius iurati religionem auctoritatemque percipite atque omnia diligenter testimonii verba cognoscite. recita. LUCII LUCCEI TESTIMONIVM. quid exspectatis amplius? an aliquam vocem putatis ipsam pro se causam et veritatem posse mittere? haec est innocentiae defensio, haec ipsius causae oratio, haec una vox veritatis. in crimine ipso nulla suspicio est, in re nihil est argumenti, in negotio, quod actum esse dicitur, nullum vestigium sermonis, loci, temporis; nemo testis, nemo conscius nominatur, totum crimen profertur ex inimica, ex infami, ex crudeli, ex facinerosa, ex libidinosa domo; domus autem illa, quae temptata esse scelere isto nefario dicitur, plena est integritatis, dignitatis, officii religionis; ex qua domo recitatur vobis iure iurando devincta auctoritas ut res minime dubitanda in contentione ponatur, utrum temeraria, procax, irata mulier finxisse crimen, an gravis sapiens moderatusque vir religiose testimonium dixisse videatur.

But why do I detain you for longer, judges? Examine carefully the reverence and authority of the man himself on oath and carefully attend to every word of his testimony. Read L. Lucceius’ testimony. What more do you expect? Or do you think that the case itself, and the truth, can find some voice to defend itself? Here is a defence of innocence, here is a plea of the very case, here is the one voice of the truth. There is no grounds for suspicion in the charge itself, there is no proof in the account, in the business, which is said to have taken place, no trace of a conversation, a place, or a time; no witness, no accomplice is mentioned, the whole charge is brought forward from a hostile, infamous, cruel, criminal, lust-stained house; however, that house, which is said to have been involved in this wicked crime, is full of integrity, honour, religious duty; from this house a statement bound by sworn oath has been read aloud to you, so that the matter in dispute should be of very little doubt, whether you think that a rash, wanton, angry woman made up the accusation, or whether a serious, wise, and restrained man has spoken his testimony dutifully.

56
reliquum est igitur crimen de veneno; cuius ego nec principium invenire neque evolvere exitum possum. quae fuit enim causa, quam ob rem isti mulieri venenum dare vellet Caelius? ne aurum redderet? num petivit? ne crimen haereret? num quis obiecit? num quis denique fecisset mentionem, si hic nullius nomen detulisset? quin etiam Lucium Herennium dicere audistis verbo se molestum non futurum fuisse Caelio, nisi iterum eadem de re suo familiari absoluto nomen hic detulisset. credibile est igitur tantum facinus nullam ob causam esse commissum? et vos non videtis fingi sceleris maximi crimen ut alterius causa sceleris suscipiendi causa fuisse videatur?

Therefore, there remains the charge of poisoning, of which I can neither find the beginning nor unravel the end. For what was his motive, why would Caelius want to give poison to this woman? So that he would not have to return the gold? Surely she did not ask for it? So that a charge would not stick to him? Surely no one made an accusation? Finally, surely no one would have mentioned it, if Caelius had reported no one’s name? Why, you have even heard Lucius Herennius say, in a word, that he would not have caused trouble for Caelius, if he had not brought action action again, about the same case, against his friend who had been acquitted. Therefore, is it credible that so great a crime was committed without any motive? And do you not see that an accusation of a very great crime is being invented so that there might appear to have been a reason for suspecting another?

57
cui denique commisit, quo adiutore usus est, quo socio, quo conscio, cui tantum facinus, cui se, cui salutem suam credidit? servisne mulieris? sic enim obiectum est. et erat tam demens is cui vos ingenium certe tribuitis, etiamsi cetera inimica oratione detrahitis ut omnes suas fortunas alienis servis committeret? at quibus servis? refert enim magnopere id ipsum. eisne, quos intellegebat non communi condicione servitutis uti, sed licentius, liberius, familiarius cum domina vivere? quis enim hoc non videt, iudices, aut quis ignorat, in eius modi domo, in qua mater familias meretricio more vivat, in qua nihil geratur, quod foras proferendum sit, in qua inusitatae libidines, luxuries, omnia denique inaudita vitia ac flagitia versentur, hic servos non esse servos, quibus omnia committantur, per quos gerantur, qui versentur isdem in voluptatibus, quibus occulta credantur, ad quos aliquantum etiam ex cotidianis sumptibus ac luxurie redundet? id igitur Caelius non videbat?

Lastly, in whom did he confide, which assistant did he use, who was his partner, who his accomplice, to whom did he entrust so great a crime, himself, his own safety? To the slaves of a woman? For this has been alleged against him. And was this man so deranged, to whom at least you credit with intelligence, even though you in your hostile speech detract everything else (from his character), as to entrust all his fortunes to the slaves of another? But what kind of slaves? For this very point is greatly important. Those slaves whom he realised did not experience the ordinary conditions of servitude, but lived with more licence, more liberty, more intimacy, with their mistress? For who does not see, gentlemen of the jury, or who does not know that, in a house of that kind, in which the mistress lives with the morals of a courtesan, in which nothing is done which is fit to be made public outside, in which abnormal lusts, extravagance, indeed all unheard-of vices and outrages are teeming, at this point slaves are not slaves: to whom all things are entrusted, by whom (all things) are managed, who are involved in the same pleasures, to whom secrets are entrusted, to whom a substantial amount of the daily expenditure and extravagance overflows. So, did Caelius not see this?

58
si enim tam familiaris erat mulieris, quam vos vultis, istos quoque servos familiares dominae esse sciebat. sin ei tanta consuetudo, quanta a vobis inducitur, non erat, quae cum servis potuit familiaritas esse tanta? ipsius autem veneni quae ratio fingitur? ubi quaesitum est, quem ad modum paratum, quo pacto, cui, quo in loco traditum? habuisse aiunt domi vimque eius esse expertum in servo quodam ad eam rem ipsam parato; cuius perceleri interitu esse ab hoc comprobatum venenum.

For if he was on as close terms with the woman as you wish, he knew that those slaves were also on close terms with their mistress. But if there was not as much familiarity with her as is alleged by you, how could there have been as much closeness with the slaves? But of the actual poison – what theory is invented? Where was it acquired, how was it prepared? In what way, to whom, in what place was it handed over? They say that he kept it at home and its potency was tested on a slave obtained for this very purpose; by his very speedy death the poison was verified by Caelius.

61
sed tamen venenum unde fuerit, quem ad modum paratum sit, non dicitur. datum esse aiunt huic Publio Licinio, pudenti adulescenti et bono, Caeli familiari; constitutum esse cum servis ut venirent ad balneas Senias; eodem Licinium esse venturum atque eis veneni pyxidem traditurum. hic primum illud requiro, quid attinuerit ferri in eum locum constitutum, cur illi servi non ad Caelium domum venerint. si manebat tanta illa consuetudo Caeli, tanta familiaritas cum Clodia, quid suspicionis esset, si apud Caelium mulieris servus visus esset? sin autem iam suberat simultas, exstincta erat consuetudo, discidium exstiterat, ‘hinc illae lacrimae’ nimirum, et haec causa est omnium horum scelerum atque criminum.

But nevertheless, where the poison was from, and how it was prepared, is not stated. They say it was given to this man, Publius Licinius, a decent and good young man, a close friend of Caelius; (They say) he had made an arrangement with the slaves, that they should come to the Senian Baths; that to the same place Licinius would come, and would hand over to them a small box of poison. Here, I first ask, what good was it that the poison had been arranged to be brought into that place, why did those slaves not come to Caelius at his house. If that so great familiarity of Caelius was still remaining, that so great intimacy with Clodia what suspicion could there be, if a slave of the woman had been seen at the house of Caelius? But if however some disagreement was now close at hand, if their association had been extinguished, if a rupture had taken place, “Hence those tears”, without a doubt, and this is the reason for all the crimes and charges.

62
‘immo,’ inquit, ‘cum servi ad dominam rem totam et maleficium Caeli detulissent, mulier ingeniosa praecepit his ut omnia Caelio pollicerentur; sed ut venenum, cum a Licinio traderetur, manifesto comprehendi posset, constitui locum iussit balneas Senias, ut eo mitteret amicos, qui delitiscerent, deinde repente, cum venisset Licinius venenumque traderet, prosilirent hominemque comprehenderent.’ quae quidem omnia, iudices, perfacilem rationem habent reprehendendi. cur enim potissimum balneas publicas constituerat? in quibus non invenio quae latebra togatis hominibus esse posset. nam si essent in vestibulo balnearum, non laterent; sin se in intimum conicere vellent, nec satis commode calceati et vestiti id facere possent et fortasse non reciperentur, nisi forte mulier potens quadrantaria illa permutatione familiaris facta erat balneatori.

“On the contrary”, says (the accuser), “When the slaves had reported the whole matter and the villainy of Caelius to their mistress, the clever lady instructed them to promise everything to Caelius; but, in order that the poison, when it was being handed over by Licinius, could be seized in full view of all, she ordered the Senian Baths to be arranged as the (meeting) place, so that she could send her friends there, to hide, then suddenly, when Licinius had come and was handing over the poison, they could leap forward and seize the man.” Indeed all this, judges, offers me an easy means of refuting. For why had she decided the public baths were most preferable? In this place, I do not see what hiding-place there could be for men in their togas. For if they were in the forecourt of the baths, they would not be hidden, but if they wanted to pack themselves inside, they were unable to do so sufficiently and suitably clothed and with their shoes on and perhaps they would not be admitted, unless perhaps that lady of influence, with that (usual) farthing deal of hers, had become an intimate of the baths supervisor.

63
atque equidem vehementer exspectabam, quinam isti viri boni testes huius manifesto deprehensi veneni dicerentur; nulli enim sunt adhuc nominati. sed non dubito quin sint pergraves, qui primum sint talis feminae familiares, deinde eam provinciam susceperint ut in balneas contruderentur, quod illa nisi a viris honestissimis ac plenissimis dignitatis, quam velit sit potens, numquam impetravisset. sed quid ego de dignitate istorum testium loquor? virtutem eorum diligentiamque cognoscite. ‘in balneis delituerunt.’ testes egregios! ‘dein temere prosiluerunt.’ homines temperantes! sic enim fingitis, cum Licinius venisset, pyxidem teneret in manu, conaretur tradere, nondum tradidisset, tum repente evolasse istos praeclaros testes sine nomine; Licinium autem, cum iam manum ad tradendam pyxidem porrexisset, retraxisse atque ex illo repentino hominum impetu se in fugam coniecisse. o magnam vim veritatem, quae contra hominum ingenia, calliditatem, sollertiam contraque fictas omnium insidias facile se per se ipsa defendat!

And indeed I was waiting eagerly (to find out) what good men would be named as witnesses of this poison being seized in plain sight; for none yet have been named. But I do not doubt that they are very serious men, who firstly are close friends of such a woman, and secondly took on this task of being crammed into the baths, and she never would have accomplished this, however powerful she might be, except through men who were very respectable and very full of honour. But why do I speak about the honour of those witnesses? Learn of their virtue and carefulness. ‘They lurked in the baths.’ Such superb witnesses! ‘Then they jumped out recklessly.’ Such self-controlled men! For this is (the story) you are fabricating: when Licinius had arrived, was holding the box in his hand, was trying to hand it over, but had not yet handed it over, at that point they suddenly flew out, those brilliant, nameless witnesses; but Licinius, although he had already stretched out his hand to hand over the box, retracted it and hurled himself into flight from that sudden attack of men. How great is the power of truth, since it can defend itself easily and on its own against the abilities of men, their cleverness, their shrewdness, and against the fictitious plots of all men!

64
velut haec tota fabella veteris et plurimarum fabularum poetriae quam est sine argumento, quam nullum invenire exitum potest! quid enim? isti tot viri (nam necesse est fuisse non paucos ut et comprehendi Licinius facile posset et res multorum oculis esset testatior) cur Licinium de manibus amiserunt? qui minus enim Licinius comprehendi potuit cum se retraxit ne pyxidem traderet, quam si tradidisset? erant enim illi positi ut comprehenderent Licinium, ut manifesto Licinius teneretur, aut cum retineret venenum aut cum tradidisset. hoc fuit totum consilium mulieris, haec istorum provincia, qui rogati sunt; quos quidem tu quam ob rem temere prosiluisse dicas atque ante tempus, non reperio. fuerant ad hoc rogati, fuerant ad hanc rem collocati ut venenum, ut insidiae, facinus denique ipsum ut manifesto comprehenderetur.

It is as if this was a whole little play by an experienced poetess of very many plays, but how it is without plot, how it is unable to find an ending! Why then? All those many men (for it is necessary that there was not a small number, so that both Licinius could easily be seized, and the matter could be better witnessed by the eyes of many) why did they lose Licinius from their hands? For how was Licinius less able to be seized, when he pulled back so as not to hand over the box, than if he had handed it over? For they had been positioned, so that they could seize Licinius, so that Licinius might be caught in the act, either when he was keeping the poison or when he had handed it over. This was the woman’s whole plan, this was the job of the men she asked. Indeed, the reason why you say that these men leapt out rashly and too soon, I do not understand. They had been requested for this task, they had been deployed for this purpose – so that the poison, so that the plot, in short the crime itself would be caught in the open.

65
potueruntne magis tempore prosilire quam cum Licinius venisset, cum in manu teneret veneni pyxidem? quae cum iam erat tradita servis, si evasissent subito ex balneis mulieris amici Liciniumque comprehendissent, imploraret hominum fidem atque a se illam pyxidem traditam pernegaret. quem quo modo illi reprehenderent? vidisse se dicerent? primum ad se revocarent maximi facinoris crimen; deinde id se vidisse dicerent quod, quo loco collocati fuerant, non potuissent videre. tempore igitur ipso se ostenderunt, cum Licinius venisset, pyxidem expediret, manum porrigeret, venenum traderet. mimi ergo est iam exitus, non fabulae; in quo cum clausula non invenitur, fugit aliquis e manibus, deinde scabilla concrepant, aulaeum tollitur.

Could they have jumped out at a better time, than when Licinius had arrived, when he was holding in his hand the box of poison? When it had already been handed over to the slaves, if the friends of the lady had suddenly come out from the baths and had seized Licinius, he would have begged protection of the men and would have denied that that box had been handed over by him. How were they to refute him? Were they to say that they saw him? Firstly, they would call upon themselves the charge of a most serious crime, then, they would say that they had seen that which, from the place were they had been posted, they could not have seen Therefore, they showed themselves just at that very moment when Licinius had arrived, when he was getting out the box, stretching out his hand, handing over the poison. Therefore, this is the finale of a mime- not of a play, in which, when no fit ending can be found, someone escapes from someone’s clutches, then off go the clappers, and we get the curtain.

66
quaero enim cur Licinium titubantem, haesitantem, cedentem, fugere conantem mulieraria manus ista de manibus emiserit, cur non comprehenderint, cur non ipsius confessione, multorum oculis, facinoris denique voce tanti sceleris crimen expresserint. an timebant ne tot unum, valentes imbecillum, alacres perterritum superare non possent? nullum argumentum in re, nulla suspicio in causa, nullus exitus criminis reperietur. itaque haec causa ab argumentis, a coniectura, ab eis signis, quibus veritas illustrari solet, ad testes tota traducta est. quos quidem ego, iudices, testes non modo sine ullo timore, sed etiam cum aliqua spe delectationis exspecto.

I want to know why, when Licinius was stumbling and hesitating, retreating and trying to run away, why this woman’s crew let him slip out of their hands, why they didn’t grab him, why they didn’t on his own confession, in the sight of so many people, indeed by the voice of the deed, form a charge for so great a crime. Were they afraid that so many men were unable to overcome one man, strong ones a weakling, determined ones a terrified man? There’s no proof in this matter, no grounds for suspicion in the case, no outcome of the charge will be found . And so this case, without proofs, without inferences, without those indicators by which the truth is usually illuminated, has been completely given over to witnesses. And for my part, members of the jury, I await those witnesses not only without fear but even with some hope of amusement.

67
praegestit animus iam videre primum lautos iuvenes mulieris beatae ac nobilis familiares, deinde fortes viros ab imperatrice in insidiis atque in praesidio balnearum collocatos; ex quibus requiram, quem ad modum latuerint aut ubi, alveusne ille an equus Troianus fuerit, qui tot invictos viros muliebre bellum gerentes tulerit ac texerit. illud vero respondere cogam, cur tot viri ac tales hunc et unum et tam imbecillum, quam videtis, non aut stantem comprehenderint aut fugientem consecuti sint; qui se numquam profecto, si in istum locum processerint, explicabunt. quam volent in conviviis faceti, dicaces, non numquam etiam ad vinum diserti sint, alia fori vis est, alia triclinii, alia subselliorum ratio, alia lectorum; non idem iudicum comissatorumque conspectus; lux denique longe alia est solis, alia lychnorum. quam ob rem excutiemus omnes istorum delicias, omnes ineptias, si prodierint. sed me audiant, navent aliam operam, aliam ineant gratiam, in aliis se rebus ostentent, vigeant apud istam mulierem venustate, dominentur sumptibus, haereant, iaceant, deserviant; capiti vero innocentis fortunisque parcant.

My mind now yearns to see first these clean young men who are close friends of this rich and noble woman, then the brave men placed by their commandress in an ambush and in a garrison at the baths. I shall ask them how they hid and where: whether it was a bathtub, or a Trojan Horse which carried and protected so many invincible men waging a woman’s war. Indeed I’ll force them to answer this: why so many men of such quality could not either grab one single weakling (as you see) as he stood there, or catch him when he fled; certainly they will never disentangle themselves, if they come forward to this place [i.e. the witness box]. However clever they may be at parties, however witty, however eloquent at times even over wine, the significance of the court is one thing and the dining room another; the deliberation of jury benches is one thing and dinner couches another; seeing jurors is not the same as seeing drunken revellers; indeed, the light of the sun is one thing, that of torches is another. For that reason we shall shake off all their pleasures, all their follies, if they come forward. But they should listen to me: let them take up another line of work, let them embark on another favour, let them show off themselves in other areas, let them flourish in their elegance at that woman’s house, let them be lords of luxury, cling to her, lie at her feet, be her humble servants – but they should stay away from the life and fortunes of an innocent man.

68
at sunt servi illi de cognatorum sententia, nobilissimorum et clarissimorum hominum, manu missi. tandem aliquid invenimus quod ista mulier de suorum propinquorum, fortissimorum virorum, sententia atque auctoritate fecisse dicatur. sed scire cupio quid habeat argumenti ista manumissio; in qua aut crimen est Caelio quaesitum aut quaestio sublata aut multarum rerum consciis servis cum causa praemium persolutum. ‘at propinquis’ inquit ‘placuit.’ cur non placeret, cum rem tute ad eos non ab aliis tibi adlatam, sed a te ipsa compertam deferre diceres?

“But those slaves were set free by the decision of her relatives, men of great nobility and fame.” At last we have found something which that woman is said to have done based on the opinions and authority of her relatives, those strongest of men. But I want to know the meaning of that manumission: in this, either a charge was concocted against Caelius or [the possibility of] an examination was removed or a reward was paid with good reason to slaves who knew about too many things. “But it pleased the family,” she says. Why shouldn’t it please them, since you said that you yourself brought the whole thing to their attention not as something reported to you by others, but as your own discovery?