§33hic mihi isti singulari ingenio videntur esse qui et id quod mihi contra illos datum est ipsi adripiunt et scopulo atque saxis pro portu stationeque utuntur.
Here, to me, those men seem to be of singular intellect, who both snatch for themselves the very thing that was given to me against them, and use rocks and reefs as a harbor and anchorage.
nam in dolo malo volunt delitiscere, in quo, non modo cum omnia ipsi fecerunt quae fatentur, verum etiam si per alios id fecissent, haererent ac tenerentur.
For they wish to hide in "malice", in which, not only when they themselves did all the things which they confess, but even if they had done it through others, they would be stuck and held fast.
§34ego non in una re sola, quod mihi satis est, neque in universa re solum, sed singillatim in omnibus dolum malum exstare dico.
I say that malice is present not in one single thing alone (which would be enough for me), nor in the whole matter alone, but individually in all things.
consilium capiunt ut ad servos M. Tulli veniant;
They form a plan to come to the slaves of M.
dolo malo faciunt.
Tullius; they do it with malice.
arma capiunt; dolo malo faciunt.
They take up arms; they do it with malice.
tempus ad insidiandum atque celandum idoneum eligunt; dolo malo faciunt.
They choose a time suitable for lying in wait and concealing; they do it with malice.
vi in tectum inruunt; in ipsa vi dolus est.
They rush by force into the house; in that very force is malice.
occidunt homines, tectum diruunt; nec homo occidi nec consulto alteri damnum dari sine dolo malo potest.
They kill men, they demolish the house; neither can a man be killed nor damage be given to another intentionally without malice.
ergo si omnes partes sunt eius modi ut in singulis dolus malus haereat, universam rem et totum facinus sine dolo malo factum iudicabitis?
Therefore, if all parts are of such a kind that malice adheres to each individual one, will you judge that the entire matter and the whole crime was done without malice?
§35quid ad haec Quinctius? sane nihil certum neque unum, in quo non modo possit verum putet se posse consistere.
What does Quinctius say to this? Indeed, nothing certain or consistent, in which he can not only stand but even think himself able to stand.
primum enim illud iniecit, nihil posse dolo malo familiae fieri.
For first he threw in this argument, that nothing can be done by the malice of a household.
hoc loco non solum fecit ut defenderet Fabium, sed ut omnino huiusce modi iudicia dissolveret.
In this place, he acted not only to defend Fabius, but to utterly dissolve trials of this kind.
nam si venit id in iudicium de familia quod omnino familia nulla potest committere, nullum est iudicium, absolvantur omnes de simili causa necesse est, bona me hercule!
For if that comes into a trial concerning a household which no household at all can commit, there is no trial; it is necessary that everyone in a similar case be acquitted, by Hercules, how wonderful!
§36si hoc solum esset, tamen vos, tales viri, nolle deberetis maximam rem coniunctam cum summa re publica fortunisque privatorum, severissimum iudicium maximaque ratione compositum per vos videri esse dissolutum.
Even if this were all, yet you, men of such character, ought to be unwilling that a matter of the greatest importance, connected with the highest welfare of the state and the fortunes of private citizens, a most severe trial established with the greatest reason, should appear to be dissolved through you.
sed non id solum agitur hoc iudicium sic exspectatur ut non unae rei statui, sed omnibus constitui putetur.
But not that alone is at stake; this trial is so expected that it is thought a decision is being established not for one case, but a rule is being set up for all cases.
§37ego intellego, et tamen dicendum est ad ea quae dixit Quinctius, non quo ad rem pertineat, sed ne quid, quia a me praetermissum sit, pro concesso putetur.
I understand this, and yet I must speak to those things which Quinctius said, not because it is relevant to the case, but lest any point, because it was passed over by me, should be thought to be conceded.
§38dicis oportere quaeri, homines M. Tulli iniuria occisi sint necne.
You say that it ought to be inquired whether the men of M. Tullius were killed unlawfully or not.
de quo hoc primum quaero, venerit ea res in hoc iudicium necne.
Concerning which, I first ask this: did that matter come into this trial or not?
si non venit, quid attinet aut nos dicere aut hos quaerere? si autem venit, quid attinuit te tam multis verbis a praetore postulare ut adderet in iudicium '
"inivria"
,' et, quia non impetrasses, tribunos pl. appellare et hic in iudicio queri praetoris iniquitatem, quod de iniuria non addidisset?
If it did not, what is the use of either our speaking or their inquiring? If, however, it did, what was the use of your demanding from the praetor with so many words that he should add "unlawfully" to the trial, and, because you did not obtain it, appealing to the tribunes of the plebs, and complaining here in court of the praetor's injustice because he had not added concerning unlawful action?
§39haec cum praetorem postulabas, cum tribunos appellabas, nempe ita dicebas, potestatem tibi fieri oportere ut, si posses, recuperatoribus persuaderes non esse iniuria M. Tullio damnum datum.
When you were demanding these things from the praetor, when you were appealing to the tribunes, you surely spoke thus: that opportunity ought to be given to you so that, if you could, you might persuade the recuperators that damage was not given to M. Tullius unlawfully.
quod ergo ideo in iudicium addi voluisti, ut de eo tibi apud recuperatores dicere liceret, eo non addito nihilo minus tamen ita dicis, quasi id ipsum a quo depulsus es impetraris? at quibus verbis in decernendo Metellus usus est ceterique quos appellasti? nonne haec omnium fuit oratio, quod vi hominibus armatis coactisve familia fecisse diceretur, id tametsi nullo iure fieri potuerit, tamen se nihil addituros? et recte, recuperatores.
Since therefore you wished this to be added to the trial for this reason, that you might be allowed to speak about it before the recuperators, when it has not been added, do you nevertheless speak in such a way as if you had obtained that very thing from which you were driven away? But what words did Metellus use in decerning, and the others whom you appealed to? Was not this the speech of all of them, that because the household was said to have done it with force and armed or assembled men, although that could be done by no right, yet they would add nothing? And rightly so, recuperators.
§40nam cum perfugio nullo constituto tamen haec scelera servi audacissime faciant, domini impudentissime confiteantur, quid censetis fore, si praetor iudicet eius modi caedis fieri iure posse? an quicquam interest utrum magistratus peccato defensionem constituant an peccandi potestatem licentiamque permittant?
For when, with no refuge established, the slaves nevertheless commit these crimes most audaciously, and the masters confess them most impudently, what do you think will happen if the praetor should judge that slaughters of this kind can be done by right? Or does it make any difference whether magistrates establish a defense for a sin, or permit the power and license of sinning?