§6hinc primum exoritur crimen illud; senatum corruptum esse dicunt.
this, first of all, arises that accusation: they say that the senate was corrupted.
O di immortales! haec est illa exoptata iudiciorum severitas? corruptores nostri causam dicunt; nos qui corrupti sumus non dicimus? quid ergo? senatumne defendam hoc loco, iudices? omni equidem loco debeo; ita de me est meritus ille ordo; sed nec id agitur hoc tempore nec cum Postumi causa res ista coniuncta est.
O immortal gods! Is this that longed-for severity of the courts? Do those who corrupted us plead their case, while we, who were corrupted, do not plead? What then? Shall I defend the senate in this place, judges? Indeed, I ought to in every place; so well has that order deserved of me; but neither is that the issue at this time, nor is that matter connected with the cause of Postumus.
quamquam ad sumptum itineris, ad illam magnificentiam apparatus comitatumque regium suppeditata pecunia a Postumo est, factaeque syngraphae sunt in Albano Cn. Pompei, cum ille Roma profectus esset, tamen non debuit is qui dabat, cur ille qui accipiebat tum sumeret, quaerere.
And yet, although money was supplied by Postumus for the expense of the journey, for that magnificence of equipment and the royal retinue, and bonds were drawn up in the Alban villa of Gnaeus Pompeius when he had set out from Rome, nevertheless he who gave was not bound to ask why he who received took it at that time.
non enim latroni, sed regi credidit, nec regi inimico populi Romani, sed ei cuius reditum consuli commendatum a senatu videbat, nec ei regi qui alienus ab hoc imperio esset, sed ei quicum foedus feriri in Capitolio viderat.
For he lent not to a robber, but to a king; nor to a king who was an enemy of the Roman people, but to one whose restoration he saw recommended by the senate to the consul; nor to a king who was alien to this empire, but to one with whom he had seen a treaty struck on the Capitol.
§7quod si creditor est in culpa, non is qui improbe credita pecunia usus est, damnetur is qui fabricatus gladium est et vendidit, non is qui illo gladio civem aliquem interemit.
if the creditor is in fault, and not the one who improperly used the lent money, let the man who forged and sold the sword be condemned, not the one who killed some citizen with that sword.
quam ob rem neque tu, C. Memmi, hoc facere debes ut senatum, cuius auctoritati te ab adulescentia dedidisti, in tanta infamia versari velis, neque ego id quod non agitur defendere.
Wherefore, neither ought you, Gaius Memmius, to do this, to wish that the senate, to whose authority you have devoted yourself from your youth, should be involved in such great infamy, nor ought I to defend that which is not the issue.
Postumi enim causa, quaecumque est, seiuncta a senatu est.
For the cause of Postumus, whatever it is, is separated from the senate.
§8quod si item a Gabinio seiunctam ostendero, certe quod dicas nihil habebis.
if I likewise show that it is separated from Gabinius, you will certainly have nothing to say.
est enim haec causa
"Qvo ea pecvnia pervenerit"
quasi quaedam appendicula causae iudicatae atque damnatae.
For this cause, "Whither that money has come," is as it were a kind of appendage to a cause already decided and condemned.
sunt lites aestimatae A. Gabinio, nec praedes dati nec ex bonis populo universae lites solutae.
The damages were assessed against Aulus Gabinius, and neither were sureties given, nor was the whole sum of damages paid to the people from his property.
iubet lex Iulia persequi ab eis ad quos ea pecunia quam is ceperit qui damnatus sit pervenerit.
The Julian law orders that recovery be sought from those to whom that money, which he who has been condemned received, has come.
si est hoc novum in lege Iulia, sicuti multa sunt severius scripta quam in antiquis legibus et sanctius, inducatur sane etiam consuetudo huius generis iudiciorum nova; §9sin hoc totidem verbis translatum caput est quot fuit non modo in Cornelia sed etiam ante in lege Servilia, per deos immortalis! quid agimus, iudices, aut quem hunc morem novorum iudiciorum in rem publicam inducimus? erat enim haec consuetudo nota vobis quidem omnibus, sed, si usus magister est optimus, mihi debet esse notissima.
If this is new in the Julian law, just as many things are written more severely and more sacredly than in ancient laws, let indeed a new custom for this kind of trials also be introduced; if this chapter has been transferred in just as many words as it stood not only in the Cornelian law but also before that in the Servilian law, by the immortal gods! What are we doing, judges, or what is this custom of new trials that we are introducing into the republic? For this custom was indeed known to all of you, but, if experience is the best teacher, it ought to be best known to me.
accusavi de pecuniis repetundis, iudex sedi, praetor quaesivi, defendi plurimos; nulla pars quae aliquam facultatem discendi adferre posset a me afuit.
I have prosecuted for extortion, I have sat as a judge, I have conducted inquiries as praetor, I have defended very many men; no part which could bring any opportunity of learning has been lacking to me.
ita contendo, neminem umquam
"Qvo ea pecvnia pervenisset"
causam dixisse qui in aestimandis litibus appellatus non esset.
Thus I contend that no one has ever pleaded his cause "Whither that money had come" who had not been named in the assessment of damages.
in litibus autem nemo appellabatur nisi ex testium dictis aut tabulis privatorum aut rationibus civitatum.
But in the assessment of damages, no one was named except from the statements of witnesses, or the accounts of private individuals, or the ledgers of cities.
§10itaque in inferendis litibus adesse solebant qui aliquid de se verebantur, et, cum erant appellati, si videbatur, statim contra dicere solebant; sin eius temporis recentem invidiam pertimuerant, respondebant postea. quod cum fecissent, permulti saepe vicerunt.
, during the assessment of damages, those who feared something for themselves used to be present, and when they were named, if they thought fit, they used to speak against it immediately; but if they feared the recent prejudice of that moment, they replied later; and when they had done this, very many often won their cases.
hoc vero novum et ante hoc tempus omnino inauditum. in litibus Postumi nomen est nusquam.
But this indeed is new and entirely unheard of before this time: in the assessment of damages, the name of Postumus is nowhere.
in litibus dico;
In the assessment of damages, I say.
modo vos idem in A. Gabinium iudices sedistis; num quis testis Postumum appellavit? testis autem? num accusator? num denique toto illo in iudicio Postumi nomen audistis?
Just now you, the very same men, sat as judges on Aulus Gabinius; did any witness name Postumus? But a witness? Did the accuser? Did you, in short, in that whole trial, ever hear the name of Postumus?