42.
[117]
That follows, which they call a trial, but which our ancestors never called a trial, and
never paid any attention to as if it had been a formal judicial decision, the animadversion
and authority of the censors. But before I begin to speak on that subject, I must say a few
words about my own duty, in order that it may be clearly seen that I have paid proper
attention to this danger, and also to all other considerations of duty and friendship.
For I have a friendship with both those brave men who were the last censors; and with one of
them, (as most of you are aware,) I have the greatest intimacy, and the closest connection
cemented by mutual good offices.
[118]
So that, if I am forced
to say anything of the reasons which they have given for their sentences, I shall say it with
these feelings, that I shall wish everything that I say considered as having reference not to
their individual conduct in particular, but to the whole principle of the censorial
animadversion. But from Lentulus, my intimate friend, who out of regard for his eminent virtue
and for the high honours which he has received from the Roman people, is named by me to do him
honour, I shall easily obtain this indulgence, that, as he himself is always accustomed to
employ the greatest good faith and diligence in matters affecting the safety of his friends,
and also the greatest vigour of mind and freedom of speech, so, in this instance, he will not
be offended with me for taking as much freedom my self, as I cannot forbear to take without
danger to my client. But, everything shall be said by me carefully and deliberately, as indeed
it ought to be, so that I shall not appear to have betrayed the cause entrusted to my good
faith for its defence, nor to have injured the dignity of any one, nor to have disregarded any
of the claims of friendship.
[119]
I see then, O judges, that the censors passed
animadversion on some of the judges who sat on that trial which Junius presided over, and added to their sentence that that very trial was the
cause of it. Now, first I will lay down this general principle, that this city has never been
so content with censorial animadversions as with judicial decisions. Nor in so notorious a
case need I waste time by citing instances. I will just adduce this one fact,—that
Caius Geta, after he had been expelled the senate by Lucius Metellus and Cnaeus Domitius when
they were censors, was himself appointed censor afterwards; and that he whose morals had met
with this reproof from the censors, was afterwards appointed to judge of the morals of the
whole Roman people, and of those very men who had thus punished him. But if that had been
thought a final judicial decision, (as other men when they have been condemned by a sentence
involving infamy are deprived for ever of all honour and all dignity, so) a man branded with
this ignominy would never have had any subsequent access to honour, or any possibility of
return to the senate.
[120]
Now, if the freedman of Cnaeus
Lentulus or of Lucius Gellius should convict any man of theft, he, being deprived of all his
credit, will never recover any portion of his honourable position in the city; but those men,
whom Lucius Gellius himself and Cnaeus Lentulus, the two censors, most illustrious citizens
and most wise men, have animadverted on, and, in their reasons for their sentences, have
imputed to them theft and peculation, have not only returned to the senate, but have been
acquitted of those very charges by judicial sentence.
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.