[5]
* * * * * * I defended my old friend, who was, nevertheless an acquaintance of yours, though in this city an attack on another, such as you are now making, is sometimes found fault with, but the defence of a man never is. But I ask you why I should not defend Caius Cornelius? I ask whether Cornelius has ever passed any law in defiance of the auspices? whether he has despised the Aelian or the Fufian law? when he has offered violence to the consul? whether he has occupied any temple with armed men? whether he has driven away by violence any magistrate who was exercising his veto? whether he has profaned any religious ceremonies? whether he has drained the treasury? whether he has pillaged the republic? These, all these, are actions of yours. No imputation of this sort is cast upon Cornelius. He was said to have read a document.1 It was urged in his defence, his colleagues giving evidence in support of his cause, that he read it not for the sake of reading it but for the sake of examining it more particularly. However, it was quite certain that Cornelius dismissed the council that day, and submitted to the interposition of the veto. But you who are offended at my defending Cornelius, what cause do you bring to your advocates to uphold, or what countenance have you to show? when you already point out to them in an imperious manner, what a disgrace it will be to them if they defend you by thinking the defence of Cornelius a matter for accusation and abuse of me.
* * * * * * I defended my old friend, who was, nevertheless an acquaintance of yours, though in this city an attack on another, such as you are now making, is sometimes found fault with, but the defence of a man never is. But I ask you why I should not defend Caius Cornelius? I ask whether Cornelius has ever passed any law in defiance of the auspices? whether he has despised the Aelian or the Fufian law? when he has offered violence to the consul? whether he has occupied any temple with armed men? whether he has driven away by violence any magistrate who was exercising his veto? whether he has profaned any religious ceremonies? whether he has drained the treasury? whether he has pillaged the republic? These, all these, are actions of yours. No imputation of this sort is cast upon Cornelius. He was said to have read a document.1 It was urged in his defence, his colleagues giving evidence in support of his cause, that he read it not for the sake of reading it but for the sake of examining it more particularly. However, it was quite certain that Cornelius dismissed the council that day, and submitted to the interposition of the veto. But you who are offended at my defending Cornelius, what cause do you bring to your advocates to uphold, or what countenance have you to show? when you already point out to them in an imperious manner, what a disgrace it will be to them if they defend you by thinking the defence of Cornelius a matter for accusation and abuse of me.
