M. Tullius Cicero, For Rabirius Postumus
C. D. Yonge, Ed.

“You,” says the prosecutor, “instigated to Gabinius to restore the king.” My own good faith does not allow me to speak with severity of Gabinius. For after having been reconciled to him, and given up that most bitter hostility with which I regarded him, and after having defended him with the greatest zeal, I ought not to attack him now that he is in distress. And even if the influence of Cnaeus Pompeius had not reconciled me to him while he was in prosperity, his own disasters would do so now. [20] But still, when you say that Gabinius went to Alexandria at the instigation of Postumus, if you place no confidence in what was alleged in the defence of Gabinius, do you forget also what you stated in your own speech for the prosecution? Gabinius said that he did that for the sake of the republic, because he was afraid of the fleet of Archelaus,—because he thought that otherwise the sea would he entirely full of pirates. He said, moreover, that he was authorized to do so by a law. You, his enemy, deny that. I pardon your denial, and so much the more because the decision was contrary to the statement of Gabinius.

I return, therefore, to the charge, and to your speech for the prosecution. [21] Why did you keep crying out that ten thousand talents had been promised to Gabinius? I suppose it was necessary to find out a very civil man indeed, who should be able to prevail on one whom you call the most avaricious of men, not to despise immoderately two hundred and forty millions of sesterces. Whatever may have been the intention with which Gabinius acted, it certainly was his own unsuggested intention. Whatever sort of idea it was, it was Gabinius's own. Whether, as he said himself his object was glory, or whether, as you insist, it was money, it was for himself that he sought it. Had Gabinius any companion or attendant? He says, no. For he had departed from Rome in deference to the authority, not of Gabinius, whose business it was not but of Publius Lentulus, a most illustrious man, given to him by the senate, and with a definite design, and with very sanguine hopes. [22]

But he was the king's steward. Yes, and he was in the king's prison, and his life was nearly taken away. He bore many things besides, which the caprice of the king and necessity compelled him to endure. So that all these matters come under one single reproach, that he entered his kingdom, and that he entrusted himself to the power of the king. A very foolish action, if we must say the truth. For what can be more foolish than for a Roman knight, a man of this city, I say, a citizen of this republic, which, of all others, is, and always has been, most especially free, to go into a place where he is forced to obey and be the steward of another?