§4.4.1at enim nemo post reges exactos de plebe consul fuit.
But indeed (someone will say), no one from the plebs has been consul since the expulsion of the kings.
quid postea? nullane res nova institui debet, et, quod nondum est factum — multa enim nondum sunt facta in novo populo —, ea, ne si utilia quidem sint, fieri oportet?
What of it? Should no new thing be instituted, and, what has not yet been done—for many things have not yet been done in a new nation—ought those things not to be done, even if they should be useful?
§4.4.2pontifices, augures Romulo regnante nulli erant; ab Numa Pompilio creati sunt.
There were no pontiffs or augurs while Romulus was reigning; they were created by Numa Pompilius.
census in civitate et discriptio centuriarum classiumque non erat: §4.4.3ab Ser. Tullio est facta.
There was no census in the state, nor any division of centuries and classes; it was made by Servius Tullius.
consules numquam fuerant: regibus exactis creati sunt.
There had never been consuls; they were created after the kings were expelled.
dictatoris nec imperium nec nomen fuerat: apud patres esse coepit.
There had been neither the power nor the name of a dictator; it began to exist among the patricians.
tribuni plebi, aediles, quaestores nulli erant: institutum est, ut fierent.
There were no tribunes of the plebs, aediles, or quaestors; it was instituted that they should be made.
decemviros legibus scribendis intra decem hos annos et creavimus et e re publica sustulimus.
We both created decemvirs for writing laws within these ten years, and removed them from the state.
§4.4.4quis dubitat, quin in aeternum urbe condita, in inmensum crescente nova imperia, sacerdotia, iura gentium hominumque instituantur? hoc ipsum,
Who doubts that, in a city founded for eternity, growing to an infinite size, new offices, priesthoods, and rights of nations and men are instituted?
§4.4.5ne conubium patribus cum plebe esset, non decemviri tulerunt paucis his annis pessimo publico cum summa iniuria plebis? an esse ulla maior aut insignitior contumelia potest, quam partem civitatis velut contaminatam indignam conubio haberi? quid est aliud quam exilium intra eadem moenia, §4.4.6quam relegationem pati? ne adfinitatibus, ne propinquitatibus inmisceamur, cavent, ne societur sanguis.
This very thing, that there should be no right of intermarriage for the patricians with the plebs, did not the decemvirs propose this in these few years to the greatest public detriment, and with the ultimate injury to the plebs? Or can there be any greater or more conspicuous insult, than that a part of the citizenship is regarded as if contaminated and unworthy of intermarriage? What else is this than suffering exile within the same walls, than suffering relegation? They take precautions lest we should be mixed in affinities or relationships, lest blood should be united.
quid?
What of it?
§4.4.7hoc si polluit nobilitatem istam vestram, quam plerique oriundi ex Albanis et Sabinis non genere nec sanguine, sed per cooptationem in patres habetis, aut ab regibus lecti aut post reges exactos iussu populi, sinceram servare privatis consiliis non poteratis nec ducendo ex plebe neque vestras filias sororesque enubere sinendo e patribus?
If this pollutes that nobility of yours, which most of you, originating from the Albans and Sabines, hold not by birth nor by blood, but through cooptation into the patricians, having been chosen either by the kings or by order of the people after the kings were expelled, could you not keep it pure by private plans, neither by taking wives from the plebs nor by allowing your daughters and sisters to marry out from the patricians?
§4.4.8nemo plebeius patriciae virgini vim adferret; patriciorum ista libido est; nemo invitum pactionem nuptialem quemquam facere coegisset.
No plebeian would offer violence to a patrician maiden; that is the lust of the patricians; no one would have forced anyone to make a marriage agreement against his will.
§4.4.9verum enim vero lege id prohiberi et conubium tolli patrum ac plebis, id demum contumeliosum plebi est.
But indeed, that this should be prohibited by law, and the right of intermarriage of patricians and plebs abolished, that at last is insulting to the plebs.
cur enim non fertis, ne sit conubium divitibus ac pauperibus?
For why do you not propose a law that there should be no intermarriage between the rich and the poor?
§4.4.10quod privatorum consiliorum ubique semper fuit, ut in quam cuique feminae convenisset domum nuberet, ex qua pactus esset vir domo in matrimonium duceret, id vos sub legis superbissumae vincula conicitis, qua dirimatis societatem civilem duasque ex una civitates faciatis.
That which has everywhere and always belonged to private arrangements, that every woman should marry into whatever house was suitable for her, and that a man should lead into marriage a wife from the house with which he had made an agreement, you throw into the chains of a most arrogant law, by which you sever civic society and make two states out of one.
§4.4.11cur non sancitis, ne vicinus patricio sit plebeius, ne eodem itinere eat, ne idem convivium ineat, ne in foro eodem consistat? quid enim in re est aliud, si plebeiam patricius duxerit, si patriciam plebeius?
Why do you not decree that a plebeian must not be a neighbor to a patrician, nor go by the same road, nor enter the same banquet, nor stand in the same forum? For what else is there in reality, if a patrician marries a plebeian woman, or a plebeian marries a patrician woman?
§4.4.12quid iuris tandem mutatur? nempe patrem sequuntur liberi.
What right, after all, is changed? Surely the children follow the father.
nec, quod nos ex conubio vestro petamus, quicquam est, praeterquam ut hominum, ut civium numero simus, nec vos, nisi in contumeliam ignominiamque nostram certare iuvat, quod contendatis quicquam est.
Neither is there anything that we seek from your intermarriage, except that we should be in the number of men and citizens, nor is there anything for you to contend about, unless it pleases you to fight for our insult and ignominy.