Classics: Classics collection contents
About the Classics collection
Greek Hist. Overview
Art & Arch. Catalogs
Other Tools & Lexica
Plot: sites in this text sites in this document dates in this document
Display text chunked by: text speech chapter (default) section
Contents: THE FRAGMENTS WHICH REMAIN OF THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO ON BEHALF OF MARCUS TULLIUS. THE FRAGMENTS WHICH REMAIN OF THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO ON BEHALF OF MARCUS FONTEIUS.THE ORATION OF M. T. CICERO IN BEHALF OF AULUS CAECINA.THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO IN DEFENCE OF THE PROPOSED MANILIAN LAW.THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO IN DEFENCE OF AULUS CLUENTIUS HABITUS.THE FRAGMENTS OF THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO IN DEFENCE OF CAIUS CORNELIUS.THE FRAGMENTS OF THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO IN HIS WHITE GOWN, AGAINST C. ANTONIUS AND L. CATILINA, HIS COMPETITORS FOR THE CONSULSHIP. DELIVERED IN THE SENATE.THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO IN DEFENCE OF CAIUS RABIRIUS, ACCUSED OF TREASON.THE ORATION OF M. T. CICERO IN DEFENCE OF L. MURENA, PROSECUTED FOR BRIBERY.THE ORATION OF M. T. CICERO IN DEFENCE OF PUBLIUS SULLA.THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO FOR AULUS LICINIUS ARCHIAS, THE POETTHE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO IN DEFENCE OF LUCIUS FLACCUS.THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO AFTER HIS RETURN. ADDRESSED TO THE SENATE.THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO AFTER HIS RETURN. ADDRESSED TO THE PEOPLE.THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO AGAINST PUBLIUS CLODIUS AND CAIUS CURIO.THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO IN DEFENCE OF MARCUS AEMILIUS SCAURUS. |
M. Tullius Cicero, Orations: Three orations on the Agrarian law, the four against Catiline, the orations for Rabirius, Murena, Sylla, Archias, Flaccus, Scaurus, etc. (ed. C. D. Yonge)
Editions and translations: Latin (ed. Albert Clark) | English (ed. C. D. Yonge)
Your current position in the text is marked in red. Click anywhere on the line to jump to another position.
THE ARGUMENT.
Aulus Cluentius, a Roman knight of great riches, was accused before the praetor of having poisoned his father-in-law, Oppianicus, who a few years previously had been tried and banished for an attempt to poison Cluentius. For Oppianicus had murdered Melinus, the former husband of Sassia, the mother of Cluentius, and married her, and finding that if Cluentius were dead his property would all come to his mother, endeavoured to poison him, but was detected and convicted. After his conviction, Lucius Quinctius, a tribune of the people, who had defended him on his trial, endeavoured at all times to excite odium against Cluentius, saying that he had procured the conviction of Oppianicus by bribery, though in point of fact Oppianicus himself had employed large sums in endeavours to bribe his judges, and Stalenus and others had been convicted of being parties to the corruption. In the fifth year of his exile Oppianicus died, and a prosecution was instituted against Cluentius by Sassia, his own mother; saying that he had poisoned Oppianicus by the agency of a man of the name of Marcus Asellius. Cluentius was acquitted. This happened three years before this present trial. But now Sassia, having married her daughter to the young Oppianicus, urged him to institute fresh proceedings against Cluentius. So he prosecuted him afresh. His counsel was Lucius Attius, and the cause was tried before Quintus Vocontius Naso in the consulship of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and Lucius Volcatius Tullus, A.U.C. 688. 1 Cluentius was acquitted.
I. I have observed, O judges, that the whole speech of the accuser is divided into two parts, one of which appeared to me to rely upon, and to put its main trust in, the inveterate unpopularity of the trial before Junius; 2 the other, just for the sake of usage, to touch very lightly and diffidently On the method pursued in cases of accusations of poisoning; concerning which matter this form of trial is appointed by law. And, therefore, I have determined to preserve the same division of the subject in my defence, speaking separately to the question of unpopularity and to that of the accusation, in order that every one may understand that I neither wish to evade any point by being silent with respect to it, nor to make anything obscure by speaking of it. [2] But when I consider how much pains I must take with each branch of the question, one division--that, namely, which is the proper subject of your inquiry, the question of the fact of the poisoning--appears to me a very short one, and one which is not likely to give occasion to any great dispute. But with the other division, which, properly, is almost entirely unconnected with the case, and which is better adapted to assemblies in a state of seditious excitement, than to tranquil and orderly courts of justice, I shall, I can easily see, have a great deal of difficulty in dealing, and a great deal of trouble. [3] But in all this embarrassment, O judges, this thing still consoles me,--that you have been accustomed to hear accusations under the idea that you will afterwards hear their refutation from the advocate; that you are bound not to give the defendant more advantages towards ensuring his acquittal, than his counsel can procure for him by clearing him of the charges brought against him, and by proving his innocence in his speech. But as regards the odium into which they seek to bring him, you ought to deliberate together, considering not what is said by us, but what ought to be said. For while we are dealing with the accusations, it is only the safety of Aulus Cluentius that is at stake; but by the odium sought to be excited against him, the common safety of all men is imperilled. Accordingly, we will treat one division of the case as men who are giving you information, and the other division, as men who are addressing entreaties to you. In the first division we must beg of you to give us your diligent attention; in the second, we must implore the protection of your good faith. There is no one who can withstand the popular feeling when excited against him without the assistance of you and of men like you. [4] As far as I myself am concerned. I hardly know which way to turn. Shall I deny that there is any ground for the disgraceful accusation, --that the judges were corrupted at the previous trial? Shall I deny that that matter has been agitated at assemblies of the people? that it has been brought before the courts of justice? that it has been mentioned in the senate? Can I eradicate that belief from men's minds? a belief so deeply implanted in them--so long established. It is out of the power of my abilities to do so. It is a matter requiring your aid, O judges; it becomes you to come to the assistance of the innocence of this man attacked by such a ruinous calumny, as you would in the case of a destructive fire or of a general conflagration.
1 Manutius makes a mistake in fixing this consulship of Lepidus and Tullus, and by consequence, the delivery of this oration, one year earlier. 2 Junius had been the judge in the trial of Oppianicus. See c. xxvii.
There are a total of 2 comments on and cross references to this page.
Cross references from Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges (eds. J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard, Benj. L. D'Ooge):
2, 407 [USES OF THE ABLATIVE PROPER]: contionibus accommodatior est quam iudiciis
2, 575 [Indirect Questions]
Preferred URL for linking to this page: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Cic.+Clu.+1
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
This text is based on the following book(s): M. Tullius Cicero. The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, literally translated by C. D. Yonge, B. A. London. Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden. 1856. OCLC: 4709897
|