§25fuit, fuit illis iudicibus divinum ac singulare, iudices, consilium, qui se non solum de reo sed etiam de accusatore, de teste iudicare arbitrabantur, quid fictum, quid fortuna ac tempore adlatum, quid pretio corruptum, quid spe aut metu depravatum, quid a cupiditate aliqua aut inimicitiis profectum videretur.
There was, there was, judges, in those judges a divine and singular wisdom, who thought that they were judging not only about the defendant but also about the accuser and the witness, and what seemed to be feigned, what brought by fortune and the occasion, what corrupted by a bribe, what depraved by hope or fear, what proceeded from some desire or enmity.
quae si iudex non amplectetur omnia consilio, non animo ac mente circumspiciet, si, ut quidque ex illo loco dicetur, ex oraculo aliquo dici arbitrabitur, profecto satis erit, id quod dixi antea, non surdum iudicem huic muneri atque officio praeesse; nihil erit quam ob rem ille nescio quis sapiens homo ac multarum rerum peritus ad res iudicandas requiratur.
If a judge does not embrace all these things in his counsel, and does not look around with his mind and soul, if he thinks that whatever is said from that place is spoken from some oracle, indeed it will be sufficient, as I said before, for a judge who is not deaf to preside over this office and duty; there will be no reason why that wise and experienced man of many things, whoever he may be, should be required for judging.
§26an vero illi equites Romani quos nos vidimus, qui nuper in re publica iudiciisque maxime floruerunt, habuerunt tantum animi, tantum roboris ut L. Crasso, M. Scauro testi non crederent; vos Volcarum atque Allobrogum testimoniis non credere timetis? si inimico testi credi non oportuit, inimicior Marcello Crassus aut Fimbriae Scaurus ex civilibus studiis atque obtrectatione domestica quam huic Galli? quorum qui optima in causa sunt, equites, frumentum pecuniam semel atque iterum ac saepius invitissimi dare coacti sunt, ceteri partim ex veteribus bellis agro multati, partim ab hoc ipso bello superati et oppressi.
Or indeed, did those Roman knights whom we saw, who recently flourished greatly in the republic and the courts, have so much mind, so much strength that they did not believe Lucius Crassus and Marcus Scaurus when they testified; and do you fear not to believe the testimonies of the Volcae and the Allobroges? If an enemy witness ought not to be believed, was Crassus more hostile to Marcellus, or Scaurus to Fimbria, because of civil pursuits and domestic detraction, than the Gauls are to this man? Of whom, those who are in the best situation, knights, have been forced to give grain and money once, twice, and more often, most unwillingly; the others have been fined of their land partly from old wars, and partly conquered and oppressed by this war itself.
§27si, qui ob aliquod emolumentum suum cupidius aliquid dicere videntur, eis credi non convenit, credo maius emolumentum Caepionibus et Metellis propositum fuisse ex Q. Pompei damnatione, cum studiorum suorum obtrectatorem sustulissent, quam cunctae Galliae ex M. Fontei calamitate, in qua illa provincia prope suam immunitatem ac libertatem positam esse arbitratur.
If it is not fitting to believe those who, for some advantage of their own, seem to speak something too eagerly, I believe that a greater advantage was proposed to the Caepiones and the Metelli from the condemnation of Quintus Pompeius, when they had removed the detractor of their pursuits, than to the whole of Gaul from the calamity of Marcus Fonteius, in which that province thinks its immunity and liberty are almost placed.
an, si homines ipsos spectare convenit, id quod in teste profecto valere plurimum debet, non modo cum summis civitatis nostrae viris sed cum infimo cive Romano quisquam amplissimus Galliae comparandus est? scit Indutiomarus quid sit testimonium dicere? movetur eo timore quo nostrum unus quisque, cum in eum locum productus est?
Or, if it is fitting to look at the men themselves, which indeed ought to have the greatest weight in a witness, is any most illustrious man of Gaul to be compared not only with the highest men of our state but even with the lowest Roman citizen? Does Indutiomarus know what it is to give testimony? Is he moved by that fear by which each one of us is moved when he is brought to that place?
§28recordamini, iudices, quanto opere laborare soleatis non modo quid dicatis pro testimonio sed etiam quibus verbis utamini, ne quod minus moderate positum, ne quod ab aliqua cupiditate prolapsum verbum esse videatur; voltu denique laboratis ne qua significari possit suspicio cupiditatis, ut et, cum proditis, existimatio sit quaedam tacita de vobis pudoris ac religionis et, cum disceditis, ea diligenter conservata ac retenta videatur.
Remember, judges, how greatly you are accustomed to labor not only as to what you say in testimony but even as to what words you use, lest any word should seem to be placed less moderately, or to have slipped from some desire; finally, you labor with your countenance lest any suspicion of desire might be signified, so that both when you come forward, there may be a certain silent reputation of modesty and religion about you, and when you depart, it may seem to have been carefully preserved and retained.
§29credo haec eadem Indutiomarum in testimonio timuisse aut cogitavisse, qui primum illud verbum consideratissimum nostrae consuetudinis 'arbitror', quo nos etiam tunc utimur cum ea dicimus iurati quae comperta habemus, quae ipsi vidimus, ex toto testimonio suo sustulit atque omnia se 'scire' dixit.
I believe Indutiomarus feared or thought of these same things in his testimony! He, who first of all removed from his whole testimony that most considered word of our custom, "I think", which we use even then when we speak under oath of things we have found out, which we ourselves have seen, and said that he "knew" everything.
verebatur enim videlicet ne quid apud vos populumque Romanum de existimatione sua deperderet, ne qua fama consequeretur eius modi, Indutiomarum, talem virum, tam cupide, tam temere dixisse; non intellegebat se in testimonio nihil praeter vocem et os et audaciam neque civibus suis neque accusatoribus nostris praestare debere.
For he was afraid, no doubt, lest he should lose anything of his reputation among you and the Roman people, lest some rumor of this kind should follow, that Indutiomarus, such a man, had spoken so eagerly, so rashly; he did not understand that he owed nothing in his testimony, except his voice, his face, and his audacity, either to his citizens or to our accusers.