posse, contraxi vela perspiciens inopiam iudicum, neque dixi quicquam pro testimonio, nisi quod erat ita notum atque testatum, ut non possem praeterire. Itaque, si causam quaeris absolutionis, ut iam πρὸς τὸ πρότερον revertar, egestas iudicum fuit et turpitudo. Id autem ut accideret, commissum est Hortensi consilio, qui dum veritus est, ne Fufius ei legi intercederet, quae ex senatus consulto ferebatur, non vidit illud, satius esse illum in infamia relinqui ac sordibus quam infirmo iudicio committi, sed ductus odio properavit rem deducere in iudicium, cum illum plumbeo gladio iugulatum iri tamen diceret.
Sed iudicium si quaeris quale fuerit, incredibili exitu, sic uti nunc ex eventu ab aliis, a me tamen ex ipso initio consilium Hortensi reprehendatur. Nam, ut reiectio facta est clamoribus maximis, cum accusator tamquam censor bonus homines nequissimos reiceret, reus tamquam clemens lanista frugalissimum quemque secerneret, ut primum iudices consederunt, valde diffidere boni coeperunt. Non enim umquam turpior in ludo talario consessus fuit, maculosi senatores, nudi equites, tribuni non tam aerati quam, ut appellantur, aerarii. Pauci tamen boni inerant, quos reiectione fugare ille non potuerat, qui maesti inter sui dissimiles et maerentes sedebant et contagione
jury could acquit Clodius, I drew in a reef or two, not being blind to the impecuniosity of the jurymen. I confined my testimony to points so thoroughly well-known and attested that I could not omit them. So, to come at last to the “horse,” if you want to know the reason for his acquittal, it lay in the jury’s lack of pence and of conscience. But it was Hortensius’ plan that made such a result possible. In his fright that Fufius might veto the Senate’s measure, he overlooked the fact that it would be better for Clodius to be kept in disgrace with a trial hanging over his head, than for the case to come before an unsound court. Spurred on by hatred, he rushed the matter into court, saying that a leaden sword was sharp enough to cut Clodius’ throat.
If you want to know about the trial, the result of it was so incredible that now after the event everybody agrees with my forebodings and blames Hortensius. The challenging of the jury took place amidst an uproar, since the prosecutor like a good censor rejected all the knaves, and the defendant like a kind-hearted trainer of gladiators set aside all the respectable people. And as soon as the jury took their seats, the patriotic party began to have grave misgivings: for never did a more disreputable set of people get together even in a gambling hell. Senators with a past, knights without a penny, tribunes whose only right to a title implying pay lay in their readiness to take it.[[21]] The few honest folk among them, that he had not managed to remove in his selection, sat as woe-begone as fish out of water,
[21]. Or keeping the ordinary sense of “aerarii”: “cashiered rather than rich in cash.” But the sense both of “aerati” and of “aerarii” here is very doubtful.
turpitudinis vehementer permovebantur. Hic, ut quaeque res ad consilium primis postulationibus referebatur, incredibilis erat severitas nulla varietate sententiarum. Nihil impetrabat reus, plus accusatori dabatur, quam postulabat; triumphabat (quid quaeris?) Hortensius se vidisse tantum; nemo erat, qui illum reum ac non miliens condemnatum arbitraretur. Me vero teste producto credo te ex acclamatione Clodi advocatorum audisse quae consurrectio iudicum facta sit, ut me circumsteterint, ut aperte iugula sua pro meo capite P. Clodio ostentarint. Quae mihi res multo honorificentior visa est quam aut illa, cum iurare tui cives Xenocratem testimonium dicentem prohibuerunt, aut cum tabulas Metelli Numidici, cum eae, ut mos est, circumferrentur, nostri iudices aspicere noluerunt. Multo haec, inquam, nostra res maior. Itaque iudicum vocibus, cum ego sic ab iis ut salus patriae defenderer, fractus reus et una patroni omnes conciderunt; ad me autem eadem frequentia postridie convenit, quacum abiens consulatu sum domum reductus. Clamare praeclari Areopagitae se non esse venturos nisi praesidio constituto. Refertur ad consilium. Una sola sententia praesidium non desideravit. Defertur res ad senatum. Gravissime ornatissimeque decernitur; laudantur iudices; datur negotium magistratibus. Responsurum hominem nemo arbitrabatur.
Ἔσπετε νῦν μοι, Μοῦσαι —
sadly upset and bemoaning their contact with infamy. At the preliminary proceedings, as point after point was put before the jury, their strict and unanimous uprightness was extraordinary. The defendant never won a point, and the prosecution were granted more than they asked for. It goes without saying that Hortensius was triumphant at his penetration; and no one regarded Clodius so much as a man on his trial as one that had been condemned a thousand times over.
You have no doubt heard how the jury rose in a body to protect me, when I stepped into the witness-box and Clodius’ supporters began to hoot: and how they offered their throats to Clodius’ sword in defence of me. Thereby, to my mind they paid me a far higher compliment than your fellow-citizens paid Xenocrates, when they refused to let him take the oath before giving his testimony, or our Roman jury paid Metellus Numidicus, when they would not look at the accounts which he passed round as is usual in such cases. I repeat, the honour shown me was far greater. The shouts of the jury, proclaiming me as the saviour of the country crushed and annihilated the defendant and all his supporters. And on the next day a crowd as great as that which conducted me home at the end of my consulship gathered round me. Our noble Areopagites declared they would not come without a guard. The votes of the court were taken, and there was only one person who voted a guard unnecessary. The point was laid before the Senate, who passed a decree in the strongest and most complimentary terms, thanking the jury and referring the matter to the magistrates. No one thought Clodius would defend his case. “Tell me Iliad xvi, 112| now, ye Muses, how first the fire fell.”