47.
[122]
But, even if I were to allow that everything had been done with the
regularities of expression, according to ancient and established usages, I
should still defend myself by the common law of the republic. When, after
the departure of that citizen, to whose single exertions the senate and all
good men had so often decided that the safety of the state was owing, you,
with the aid of two most wicked consuls, were keeping down the republic
which was groaning under the oppression of your most shameful robberies;
when you had dedicated, with the countenance of some obscure priest, the
house of that man who was unwilling that the country which had been
preserved by him should perish on any pretence connected with him; could the
republic when it had recovered itself endure that?
[123]
Once, O priests, give an opening for such religious
acts as this, and you will very soon find no escape at all for any one's
property. If a priest has laid his hand on a door-post, and has transferred
expressions intended for the honour of the immortal gods to the injury of
the citizens, will the holy name of religion avail to procure the
ratification of such an injury, and yet will it not avail if a tribune of
the people consecrates the goods of any citizen with a form of words no less
ancient and almost equally solemn? But Caius Atinius, within the
recollection of our fathers, consecrated the property of Quintus Metellus,
who, as censor, had expelled him from the senate (your grandfather, O
Quintus Metellus, and yours, O Publius Servilius, and your
great-grandfather, O Publius Scipio;) placing a little brazier on the
rostra and summoning a flute-player to
assist him. What then? Did that frenzy of a tribune of the people, derived
from some precedents of extreme antiquity, do any injury to Quintus
Metellus, that great and most illustrious man?
[124]
Certainly not. We have seen a tribune of the people do
the same thing to Cnaeus Lentulus the censor. Did he then at all bind the
property of Lentulus to any peculiar sanctity?
But why should I speak of other men? You yourself; I say, with your head
veiled, having summoned an assembly, having placed a brazier on the spot,
consecrated the property of your dear friend Gabinius, to whom you had given
all the kingdoms of the Syrians, and Arabians, and Persians. But if nothing
was really effected at that time, why should my property be affected by the
same measures? if, on the other hand, that consecration was valid, why did
that abyss of a man, who had swallowed up with you all the blood of the
republic, raise a villa as high as the heavens on my Tusculan estate, out of
the funds of the public treasury? And why have I not been allowed to look
upon the ruins of my property,—I, who am the only person who
prevented the whole city from being in a similar condition?
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.