pro caelio translation Flashcards
(37 cards)
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 now seems to have emerged from the shallows and to have sailed past the rocks, my remaining course is shown to me very easily. For there are two charges which are being alleged against Caelius together in the woman, of the most serious crimes - about the gold, which is said to have been taken from Clodia, and about the poison, which is said to have been prepared for the sake of killing this same Clodia.
He took the gold, as you say, in order to give it to the slaves of Lucius Lucceius, through whom the Alexandrian Dio would be killed, who was at that time staying at the house of Lucceius. It is a great charge – either to plot against ambassadors or to induce slaves to kill a guest of their master, a plan full of wickedness, full of boldness!
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?
Indeed in the matter of this charge, first I ask this: did he tell Clodia
why he took the gold, or did he not tell her? If he did not tell, why did she give it [to him]? If he told her, she has implicated herself (se…devinxit) in the same crime, by means of her awareness (conscientiae). Did you [Clodia] dare to take out the gold from your cabinet, did you dare to strip that Venus of yours of its decorations, the stripper of the rest, when you know how much this gold was
being sought for the crime, for the murder of an ambassador*, for the purpose of [creating] an eternal stain of a crime on Lucius Lucceius, a most pious and honest man?
huic facinori tanto tua mens liberalis conscia, tua domus popularis ministra, tua denique
hospitalis illa Venus adiutrix esse non debuit.
Your generous mind should not have been an accessory [conscia] to such a grave crime, your popular home should not have been an instrument [ministra] for it, finally that welcoming Venus of yours should not have been an accomplice [adiutrix].
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;
Balbus perceived this; he said that Clodia was kept in the dark (celatam), and that Caelius alleged to that woman that he was seeking the gold for [the purpose of] adorning the games. If he was so intimate with Clodia - as you [Balbus] want to be true, since you say so many things about his lust - he certainly said why he wanted the gold;
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.
…if he was not so intimate [with her], she would not have given it [to him]. Thus, if Caelius spoke the truth to you - o unbridled woman! – you yourself knowingly gave the gold for a crime. If he did not dare to say it, you did not give it.
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.
Why should I now oppose this charge with proofs, which are countless? I can say that the morals [mores] of Caelius are completely estranged by a long way from the atrocity of such a crime; in no way can it be believed [credendum] that it did not occur [venisse in mentem] to a man of such talent and prudence that the matter of such a crime should not be entrusted [credendam] to slaves who were unknown and who belonged to another man.
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.
I can even ask [perquirere] the prosecutor the other things in my own custom and that of other defence counsels - where did Caelius meet with the slaves of Lucceius, what access was there to him? If in person [per se], with what rashness; if by another man, by whom? I can scour through all the hiding places of suspicion by talking; no reason would be discovered, no place, no opportunity, no witness, no hope of carrying out or of concealing the wicked deed, no plan at all, no trace of this great crime.
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.
But these things, which belong to an orator, which could have brought me some benefit, not on account of my innate talent, but on account of this training and experience [usum] in speaking, since they seem to be produced as elaborations by me, I abandon everything for the sake of brevity
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.
For I have, judges, someone whom you may easily allow to be the ally of your religious duty and sworn oath, Lucius Lucceius, a most pious man and a most serious witness, who, if such a great outrage had been inflicted [illatum] by Caelius against his [Lucceius’] reputation and his fortunes, could in no way have not heard about it, nor ignored it, nor tolerated it.
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?
Or could that man [Lucceius], endowed with such kindness, with such pursuits, with the skill and learning, have ignored the danger against that very man [Dio], whom he loved because of those very pursuits, and could he have failed to deal with a crime plotted against a guest, which he would have taken seriously, [even] if it had been committed against a stranger? A thing at which he would have been aggrieved if he had found out it had been done by unknown persons, would he ignore it, if it had been attempted by his own slaves?
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?
A thing which he would condemn if done in the countryside or public spaces, would he calmly endure it begun in a city and in his own home? A thing he would not overlook if it endangered some ordinary countryman, would a man of such education ever think he could hide a plot directed against such a learned man [Dio]?
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?
But why do I hold you, jurors, for any longer? Perceive the reverence and influence of the man himself on oath and get to know all the words of his testimony carefully. Read it out. THE TESTIMONY OF LUCIUS LUCCEIUS. What more do you expect? Or do you think that the case has some voice with which the case can speak for itself, and it is able to deliver the truth?
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;
This is a defence of innocence, this is a speech for the case itself, this is the one voice of truth. In the charge itself there is no grounds for suspicion, in the case there is nothing of proof, in the dealings, which are said to have happened, there is no trace of what was said (sermonis), the place, the time; no witness, no accomplice is named, the whole charge is brought forth out of a hostile, infamous, cruel, crime-stained, lust-stained house!
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 that house, which is said to have been disturbed* by that wicked crime, is full of integrity, dignity, piety. From this house a statement [auctoritas] bound by a sworn oath is read out to you, with the result that a matter about which there should be very little doubt is placed under dispute - whether a rash, wanton, angry woman has falsified a charge, OR a serious, wise, moderate man seems to have said his testimony in a dutiful manner.
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?
Therefore there remains the charge of poison: whose beginning I cannot find nor explain (evolvere) its end. For what was the reason, why Caelius wished to give poison to this woman? So he would not have to give back the gold? Surely, he did not ask for it? So the charge would not cling [to him]? Surely no one brought any [charge] against [him]? Surely - in the end - no one would have made mention of him, had he [Caelius] not brought a prosecution against anyone?
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?
Indeed, you have heard Lucius Herennius Balbus say that in a word he would not have troubled Caelius, unless again he [=Caelius] had prosecuted his friend [Bestia] who had been acquitted on the very same charge. Is it credible, therefore, that such a crime was committed for no reason? And do you not see that an accusation / charge of the greatest crime is being invented (fingi) so that there might seem to be a reason for undertaking a crime for the sake of another [crime]?
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?
To whom, then, did he entrust [it]? Whom did he employ as an assistant? As a companion? As an accomplice? To whom did he entrust such a crime; to whom [did he entrust] himself and to whom [did he entrust] his own safety? To the slaves of that woman? For that is what is thrown before him. And was he so insane – he to whom at any rate you attribute natural talent, even if you refuse him the rest in that hostile speech – as to trust his whole fortune to the slaves of someone else?
at quibus servis? refert enim magnopere id ipsum. eisne, quos intellegebat non communi condicione servitutis uti, sed licentius, liberius, familiarius cum domina vivere?
But to what slaves? For this point is itself highly significant. Was it to those [slaves] whom he understood did not experience the normal condition of slavery, but who lived with greater licence, freedom, familiarity with their mistress?
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?
For who is there, jurors, who does not see this, or who is there who does not know, that a house of this kind, in which the materfamilias lives in the manner of a courtesan, in which nothing is done, which could be mentioned outdoors, in which uncommon lusts, luxuries, finally all kinds of unheard vices and misdeeds are carried on, that here the slaves are not slaves, to whom everything is entrusted, through whom [all] is carried out], who carry on in the same pleasures, to whom secrets are confided, to whom even some of the daily extravagances and luxury is poured out? Caelius therefore did not see this?
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?
For, if he was an intimate of that woman, as you want, he would also know those slaves as intimates of their mistress. But if there was not so much intimacy as is suggested by you, [then] how could there be so much familiarity with her slaves? However, what accounted is invented for the poison itself?
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.
Where was [the poison] sought? By what method / how was it prepared, with what agreement , to whom and in what place was it handed over? They say that [Caelius] had it at home and its strength was tested on a certain slave, obtained for this very purpose; by whose very swift demise the poison was approved by this man.
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.
But, nonetheless, it is not said where the poison came from, how it was prepared. They say that it was given to Publius Licinius, that modest and good young man, an intimate of Caelius; [they say] that it was decided to go with the friends to the Senian Baths; there Licinius would come and hand over the box of poison. Here I first ask this - why was it important to bring the poison to that appointed place, why did those slaves not come to Caelius’ house?
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.
If there remained so much intimacy and so much familiarity between Caelius and Clodia, what suspicion was there, if that woman’s slave was seen at Caelius’ house? But if a rivalry had arisen, and the intimacy was finished, and discord had emerged, “henceforth those tears” - without a doubt! And this is the reason for all these criminal acts and charges.
‘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.’
‘Not at all,’ he says, ‘When the slaves reported the whole thing and the evil plan of Caelius to their mistress, that clever woman instructed these slaves (his) to promise Caelius everything; but in order that the poison could be caught hold of clearly, when it was being handed over by Licinius, she ordered the location to be decided as the Senian Baths, so that she could send friends there, who would lie in wait, then suddenly, when Licinius had come and was handing over the poison, they would jump out and arrest the man!’
