11.
Do not then, impute his hard fortune to him as a fault; do not think the
injury done to him by the king his crime; do not judge of his intentions by
the compulsion under which he was, nor of his inclination by the force to
which he submitted. Unless, indeed, you think those men deserving of
reproach who have fallen among enemies or among thieves, and who then act
differently under compulsion from what they would if they were free. No one
of us is ignorant, even if we have had no personal experience of it, of the
mode of proceeding adopted by a king. These are the orders given by
kings,—“Take notice,” “Obey
orders,” “Do not complain when you are not
asked.” These are their threats,—“If I catch
you here tomorrow, you shall die.” Expressions which we ought to
read and consider, not only for the purpose of being amused by them, but in
order to learn to beware of their authors and to avoid them.
[30]
But from the circumstance of this employment itself another charge arises.
For the prosecutor says, that while Postumus was collecting the money for
Gabinius, he also amassed money for himself out of the tenths belonging to
the generals. I do not quite understand what this charge
means;—whether Postumus is charged with having made an addition of
one per cent to the tenth, as our own collectors are in the habit of doing,
or whether he deducted that sum from the total amount of the tenths. If he
made that addition, then eleven thousand talents came to Gabinius. But not
only was the amount mentioned by you ten thousand talents, but that also was
the sum at which it was estimated by them.
[31]
I add this consideration also: how can it be likely, that when the burden
of the tributes was already so heavy, an addition of our thousand talents
could he made to so large a sum which was to be collected? or that, when a
man, a most avaricious man as you make him out, was to receive
so large a reward, he would put up with a diminution of a thousand talents?
For it was not like Gabinius, to give up so vast a portion of what he had a
right to; nor was it natural for the king to allow him to impose so great an
additional tax on his subjects. Witnesses will be produced, deputies from
Alexandria. They have not said a word against Gabinius. Nay, they have even
praised Gabinius. Where, then, is that custom? what has become of the usages
of courts of justice? Where are your precedents? Is it usual to produce a
witness to give evidence against a man who has been the collector of money,
when he has not been able to say a word against the man in whose name the
money collected?
[32]
Nay more; if it is usual
to produce a man who has said nothing, is it usual to produce one who has
spoken in his praise? Is it not customary rather to look on such a cause as
already decided, and to think that it is sufficient to read the previous
evidence of the witnesses, without producing the men themselves?
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.