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!

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!

51
But since my speech now seems to have made its way out of the shallows and to have escaped the reefs, the rest of my course presents itself as very easy. For two charges, for the gravest crimes, are brought against Caelius, and in both the name of one woman appears: he is charged with having taken some gold from Clodia, and with having prepared poison to murder this same Clodia. The gold, according to you, he took to give to the slaves of Lucius Lucceius, to procure the assassination of Dio of Alexandria, who at the time was living with Lucceius. It is a grave charge against a man, that he either plotted against the life of an ambassador, or incited slaves to murder their master’s guest – it is a plot rich in villainy, rich in daring!

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.

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.

20.
And in regard to this charge, I first ask, whether he told Clodia for what purpose he took the gold, or whether he did not. If he did not tell her, why did she hand it over? If he did tell her, she made herself his accomplice in this crime. Did you venture to fetch this gold from your chest, to despoil of her ornaments that Venus of yours, the despoiler of your other lovers, when you knew for how great a crime this gold was wanted – to assassinate an ambassador, to bring on a most virtuous and upright man, Lucius Lucceius, an everlasting stain of guilt ? To an outrage so great your generous heart should never have been privy, that open house of yours should never have lent its aid, that hospitable Venus of yours should never have been an accomplice.

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.

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.

53.
Balbus had this point in mind; he said that Clodia was not in the secret, and that Caelius told her another story – that he wanted the gold for the expenses of some games. But if he was as intimate with Clodia as you claim that he was, since you harp so much on his profligacy, he would certainly have told her why he wanted the gold; if he was not so intimate, she never gave it. Thus, if Caelius told you the truth, you abandoned woman!, you knowingly gave him the gold to commit a crime; if he did not venture to tell you, you did not give it. Why then need I now oppose this charge with endless arguments? I might say that the character of Caelius was utterly incompatible with so horrible a crime: that it is incredible that it did not occur to a man naturally so clever and of such sound judgment, that the execution of so great a crime should not be entrusted to unknown slaves who belonged to another master. Again, following the custom of other counsel for the defence and my own, I might ask the accuser those usual questions: where did the meeting between Caelius and the slaves of Lucceius take place, what means of access had he to them; if in person, how rash it was; if by proxy, who was it? I might in my speech search every nook and corner where suspicion could lurk; no motive, no place, no opportunity, no accomplice, no hope of carrying out and concealing a crime, no reason for it, not a single trace of so terrible a crime will be discovered.

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?

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?

54.
But all these points, which are the province of an orator, and which, not because of any talent of my own, but because of my experience and practice in speaking here, might have brought me some advantage, since they would seem to have been already worked up on my own responsibility and submitted as evidence – these I abandon for the sake of brevity, every one of them. For I can produce, gentlemen, a man whom you would readily allow to be associated with you in the sanctity of your oath, Lucius Lucceius, a most virtuous man and a most honourable witness, who, if such an outrage so compromising to his fortune and reputation had been attempted by Caelius, could not have failed to hear of it, could not have treated it with indifference, and could not have allowed it to take place. Could such a man, so high-principled, so scholarly, so cultured, so learned, have disregarded the danger threatening that very friend who was endeared to him through just those very interests? Could he have failed to deal with a crime committed against a guest such as would rouse his stern indignation if he heard of it as committed against a stranger? Would he have been grieved had he found it perpetrated by strangers, and have paid no attention when it was attempted by his own slaves? Would he have denounced such a deed if done in open country or in a public place, and have treated it mildly if planned in the city and at his own home? What he would not have passed over had some rustic been in danger, would he have thought proper to hide, when a plot was afoot against a great scholar, and he himself was a man of learning?

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.

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.

55.
But why do I detain you longer, gentlemen? He himself has given evidence on oath; observe the solemnity of his sworn statement, carefully attend to every word of his testimony. Read it out [The Deposition of Lucius Lucceius is read out] What more do you expect? Or do you think that the case itself, that truth itself, can find a voice to plead on their own behalf? Here is a justification of innocence, here is a plea submitted by the case itself, here is truth’s only voice. The charge itself is not based upon any ground of suspicion, nor the fact upon any proof; the dealings which are alleged to have taken place show no trace of what was said, nor of where and when; no witness, no accomplice is mentioned. The whole charge arises from a hostile, infamous, merciless, crime-stained, lust-stained house; whereas that house which is said to have been tempted to commit so foul a crime is the home of innocence, of honour, of duty, of piety; and from it you have heard read a statement deposed under a sworn oath, so that the question to be decided is easy to settle – whether you think that an unstable and angry wanton of a woman has forged this charge, or whether a man of sobriety, learning, and restraint has given conscientious evidence.

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?

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?

56.
So then there remains the charge of poisoning, of which I can neither discover the origin nor unravel the end. For what motive could Caelius have had for wanting to poison this woman? That he might not have to return the gold? But did she ask for its return? To prevent a charge from lying against him? But did anyone accuse him of it? Would, in fact, anyone have mentioned it if Caelius had accused no one? Moreover, you heard Lucius Herennius declare that he would not have said an unfavourable word against Caelius, had he not a second time brought against his friend an action on the same charge of which he had been already acquitted. Is it credible, then, that so great a crime was committed without a motive? And do you not see that an accusation involving an outrageous crime was invented that there might appear to be a motive for committing a second?

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?

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 fl agitia 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?

57.
Lastly, in whom did he confide, whom did he have to assist him, who was his partner, his accomplice, to whom did he entrust so great a crime, entrust himself, entrust his own life? To the slaves of this woman? For this has been alleged against him. And was this man, whom you certainly credit with some ability, although your hostile language deprives him of other qualities – was he so great a fool as to entrust all his fortunes to another person’s slaves? But, I ask, what kind of slaves? This very point is most important. Were they slaves whom he knew not as subject to the ordinary conditions of servitude, but as living a life of more licence, liberty, and intimacy with their mistress? For who does not see, gentlemen, or who is ignorant that in a house of that kind, in which the mistress lives the life of a courtesan, in which nothing is done which is fit to be published abroad, in which strange lusts, profligacy, in fact, all unheard-of vices and immoralities, are rife – who does not know that in such a house those slaves are slaves no longer? when all confidence is placed in them, everything is done by their agency, when they play their part with her in her excesses, when secrets are entrusted to them, and when they benefit considerably even from her daily extravagant expenditure. Was Caelius then ignorant of that?

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.

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.

58.
For if he was so intimate with the woman as you will have it, he knew that those slaves also were on intimate terms with their mistress. But if an association as close as you allege did not exist between the two, how could there have been such close intimacy between him and the slaves? But as to the poison itself, what theory is invented about that? Where was it procured, how was it prepared? In what way, to whom was it handed over, and where? It is said that Caelius had it at home and tried its effect on a slave who had been procured for that very purpose; and that his very speedy death proved to Caelius the efficacy of the poison.

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.

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.

61.
But it is still not stated whence the poison was procured, nor how it was prepared. It is said to have been given to Publius Licinius here, a decent and worthy young man and a friend of Caelius; that an arrangement was made with the slaves that they should come to the Senian Baths, where Licinius would meet them and hand over the box of poison. At this point I first ask what was the good of arranging for the poison to be brought to that place? Why did not those slaves go to Caelius at his house? If there still existed between Caelius and Clodia such intimacy and such close association, what suspicion could arise if one of the lady’s slaves had appeared at Caelius’ house? But if some disagreement now lurked between them, if their association had been broken off, if a rupture had taken place, “the cat,” assuredly, “is out of the bag,” and we have the reason for all these crimes and accusations.

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.

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.

62.
“No,” says the accuser,” after the slaves had revealed to their mistress the whole affair and the villainy of Caelius, this crafty lady ordered them to make every promise to Caelius, but, so that Licinius, when handing over the poison, might be caught in the act, she ordered the Senian Baths to be arranged as a meeting-place, where she might send some friends to hide, and suddenly, when Licinius had arrived and was handing over the poison, they might dart out and seize him. All this, gentlemen, is perfectly easy to refute. For why had she specially fixed on the public baths, where I do not see that there could be any hiding-place for men in their togas? For if they were in the forecourt they would not be hidden; but if they wanted to pack themselves away inside, they could not conveniently do so in their shoes and outdoor dress, and perhaps would not be admitted – unless possibly that lady of influence had bought the favour of the bathman by her usual farthing deal.

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!

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!

63.
I assure you, I was eagerly waiting to hear the names of those honest gentlemen who were alleged to have witnessed the discovery of this poison in Licinius’ hands; no names, in fact, have yet been mentioned. But I have no doubt that they are extremely respectable persons, in the first place because they are intimates of such a lady; secondly, because they accepted the part of being packed away in the baths, one which she could never have imposed upon them, however influential she might be, had they not been most honourable and worthy persons. But why do I speak of the worthy character of these witnesses? Let me tell you what brave, painstaking fellows they were. “They concealed themselves in the baths.” Remarkable witnesses! “Then they darted out accidentally.” Wonderful self-control! For they pretend that after Licinius had arrived, holding the box in his hand, and was on the point of handing it over, although he had not yet done so – then suddenly these splendid witnesses with no names flew out from their hiding-place, but that Licinius, who had already stretched out his hand to give over the box, drew it back at the sudden onset of these fellows, and took to flight. How great is the power of truth, which when opposed to human ingenuity, cunning and craft, and opposed to all the falsehood and treachery in the world, is easily able to defend itself unaided!

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.

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.

64.
For example: the whole of this little play, by a poetess of experience who had already composed many comedies – how devoid it is of plot, how utterly it fails to find an ending! For how did it happen that all those fellows (for they must have been many in number, so that Licinius could be easily seized, and that what took place might be attested by many eye-witnesses) allowed Licinius to escape from their hands? How could it have been more difficult to seize him when he drew back to avoid handing over the box, than it would have been if he had handed it over? For they had been posted in readiness to seize Licinius, to catch him in the act, either when he had the poison in his hands, or when he had handed it over. This was the lady’s whole idea, this was the part of those who were asked to carry it out; why you say that “they darted out accidentally,” and too soon, I cannot understand. They had been asked to do this, they had been stationed there just on purpose that the poison, the plot, in fact the crime itself, might be palpably demonstrated.

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.

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.

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.

66.
Why was it, I ask, that when Licinius was faltering, retreating, striving to escape, those warriors under their feminine orders allowed him to give them the slip? Why did they not seize him, why did they not on his own confession, in the sight of so many witnesses, and by the cry of the deed, firmly model a charge of an outrageous crime? Perhaps they were afraid that so many of them could not overpower a single man, they strong and he weak, they alert and he terrified? There is no argument in the facts, no suspicion in the case, no conclusion in the charge that can possibly be discovered. So this case, without any argument, or inference, or those indications by which light is usually thrown upon truth, is left entirely to the witnesses. These witnesses, gentlemen, I now wait for, not only without alarm, 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.

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.

67.
My mind is athrill at the idea of seeing, in the first place, these young dandies, intimate friends of a rich and high-born lady, and, then again, those valiant warriors, posted by their commandress in ambush and in garrison at the Baths. I intend to ask them how or where they concealed themselves; whether it was a bath-tub, or a “Trojan Horse,“ which received and protected so many invincible warriors, waging war for a woman. In truth, I will force them to answer this question, why so many strong men did not either seize him where he stood or overtake him in his flight, a man alone and so weak, as you see; in my opinion they will never disentangle themselves if they come forward into the witness-box. Although at dinner parties they are humorous, witty, sometimes glib over their cups, the idea of a court is one thing, that of a dining-room is another; benches here and couches there have different meanings; to face judges and fellow-revellers is not the same thing; in short, the light of the sun is far different from the light of lamps. And so we will shake out all their pretty ways, all their follies, if they come forward. But let them listen to me: let them busy themselves elsewhere, let them curry favour by other means, let them show themselves off in other ways, let them ingratiate themselves with their lady by their elegant manners, outdo the rest by their extravagance, be always by her side, lie at her feet, be her humble servants; but let them spare 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?

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?

68.
But, the accusers say, these slaves have been manumitted with the approval of her kinsmen, most noble and illustrious persons. At last, then, we have found something which that lady may be said to have done with the approval and with the sanction of those gallant gentlemen, her relatives. But I desire to know what is the drift of that manumission; for it either means that a charge had been concocted against Caelius or that a possibility of examination had been eliminated or that a justification was found for rewarding slaves who shared so many of her secrets. “ But,” I am told, “her kinsmen approved.” Why should they not, since you said that you reported to them facts not brought to you by others, but discovered by you yourself?