§3.8.1etsi, quantum ex tuis litteris intellegere potui, videbam te hanc epistulam, cum ad urbem esses, esse lecturum refrigerato iam levissimo sermone hominum provincialium, tamen cum tu tam multis verbis ad me de improborum oratione scripsisses, faciendum mihi putavi ut tuis litteris brevi responderem.
Although, as far as I could understand from your letter, I saw that you would read this letter when you were near the city, with the very frivolous talk of the provincials having already cooled down, nevertheless, since you had written to me with so many words about the speech of wicked men, I thought I must make a brief reply to your letter.
§3.8.2sed prima duo capita epistulae tuae tacita mihi quodam modo relinquenda sunt; nihil enim habent, quod definitum sit aut certum, nisi me vultu et taciturnitate significasse tibi non esse amicum, idque, pro tribunali cum aliquid ageretur, et non nullis in conviviis intellegi potuisse.
But the first two chapters of your letter must in some way be left untouched by me; for they contain nothing that is definite or certain, except that I indicated to you by my expression and silence that I was not a friend, and that this could have been understood when something was being done before the tribunal, and in several banquets.
hoc totum nihil esse possum intellegere; sed, cum sit nihil, ne quid dicatur quidem intellego; illud quidem scio, meos multos et inlustris et ex superiore et ex aequo loco sermones habitos cum tua summa laude et cum magna significatione nostrae familiaritatis ad te vere potuisse deferri.
I can understand that this whole thing is nothing; but, since it is nothing, I do not even understand what is being said; this indeed I know, that my many and illustrious speeches, delivered both from a higher position and on equal ground, with your highest praise and with a great indication of our intimacy, could have been truly reported to you.
nam quod ad legatos attinet, quid a me fieri potuit aut elegantius aut iustius quam ut sumptus egentissimarum civitatum minuerem sine ulla imminutione dignitatis tuae, praesertim ipsis civitatibus postulantibus? nam mihi totum genus legationum tuo nomine proficiscentium notum non erat.
For as to what pertains to the envoys, what could have been done by me either more diplomatically or more justly than that I should reduce the expenses of the most destitute states without any diminution of your dignity, especially since the states themselves were requesting it? For the whole category of embassies setting out in your name was not known to me.
Apameae cum essem, multarum civitatum principes ad me detulerunt sumptus decerni legatis nimis magnos, cum solvendo civitates non essent.
When I was at Apamea, the leading men of many states reported to me that excessively large expenses were being decreed for the envoys, although the states were not solvent.
hic ego multa simul cogitavi.
Here I thought of many things at once.
§3.8.3primum te, hominem non solum sapientem, verum etiam, ut nunc loquimur, urbanum, non arbitrabar genere isto legationum delectari, idque me arbitror Synnadis pro tribunali multis verbis disputavisse, primum Ap. Claudium senatui populoque Romano non Midaeensium testimonio (in ea enim civitate mentio facta est), sed sua sponte esse laudatum; deinde me ista vidisse accidere multis, ut eorum causa legationes Romam venirent, sed iis legationibus non meminisse ullum tempus laudandi aut locum dari; studia mihi corum placere, quod in te bene merito grati essent; consilium totum videri minime necessarium; si autem vellent declarare in eo officium suum, laudaturum me, si qui suo sumptu functus esset officio, concessurum, si legitimo, non permissurum, si infinito.
First, I did not think that you, a man not only wise but also, as we now say, refined, would be delighted by that sort of embassies; and I remember that I argued this at Synnada from the tribunal with many words: first, that Appius Claudius had been praised to the Senate and the Roman people not by the testimony of the Midaeenses (for in that state mention of it was made), but of their own accord; second, that I myself had seen this happen to many, namely that embassies came to Rome for their sake, but I did not remember any time or place for praising being given to those embassies; that their zeal pleased me, in that they were grateful to you who had well deserved it; but that the whole plan seemed minimally necessary; if, however, they wished to declare their duty in this matter, I would praise anyone who performed the duty at his own expense, I would allow it if it were at a lawful expense, but I would not permit it if it were unlimited.
quid enim reprehendi potest? nisi quod addis visum esse quibusdam edictum meum quasi consulto ad istas legationes impediendas esse accommodatum.
For what can be blamed? Except that you add that it seemed to some that my edict was, as if on purpose, adapted to hindering those embassies.
iam non tantum mihi videntur iniuriam facere ii qui haec disputant, quam si cuius aures ad hanc disputationem patent.
Now, those who argue these things do not seem to me to do as much injustice as the one whose ears are open to this kind of argument.