Chapter 23

56 He was restoring many men ruined by condemnation, but among them there was no mention of his uncle. If he was strict, why not toward everyone? If merciful, why not toward his own family? But I pass over the others. He restored his gambling partner, Licinius Lenticula, convicted of gambling—as though one could not play with a convicted man! No, he meant to discharge, through the favor of a law, what he had lost at play. What grounds for his restoration did you put before the Roman people? That he had been charged in his absence, I suppose? That judgment had been given without a hearing? That no trial had been held under the gambling law? That he had been crushed by force and arms? Or finally, as was said of your uncle, that bribery had corrupted the trial? None of these. But he was a good man, worthy of the republic? That has nothing to do with the issue; still, since conviction counts for nothing, I would excuse you if it were true. A man restores to full rights the most worthless of men, who did not hesitate to gamble even in the Forum and was convicted under the gambling law: is he not proclaiming his own taste as openly as possible?

57 During that same tribunate, when Caesar left for Spain and handed Italy over to Antony to trample on, what a passage along the roads, what a circuit of the towns he made! I know I am speaking of things everyone discusses, and that what I say and am about to say is better known to all who were in Italy then than to me, who was not. Still, I shall mark the details, although my speech cannot possibly match your knowledge. Where on earth has anyone ever heard of such disgrace, such foulness, such dishonor?

56 He restored the rights of many convicted men. There was no mention of his uncle among them. If he was strict, why not with everyone? If he was merciful, why not with his family? But I’ll leave the others aside. He restored his gambling partner, Licinius Lenticula, who’d been convicted of gambling. As though playing with a convicted man were forbidden! No, he used the law to pay off his gambling losses. What reason did you give the Roman people for restoring him? I suppose he’d been charged while he was away? His case had been decided without hearing his defense? There’d been no trial under the gambling law? Violence and weapons had crushed him? Or finally, had bribes corrupted the trial, as people said about your uncle’s? None of those things. But he was a good man, worthy of the republic. That’s beside the point. Still, since a conviction counts for nothing, I’d forgive it if that were true. Here was the worst of men. He wouldn’t hesitate to gamble even in the forum. He’d been convicted under the law against gambling. Doesn’t the man who fully restored his rights openly declare his own taste for gambling?

57 During that same tribunate, Caesar set off for Spain. He left Italy to this man to trample on. What a trip he made along the roads! What a tour of the towns! I know everyone has talked about these things. Everyone who was in Italy then knows more than I do about what I’m saying and will say. I wasn’t here. Still, I’ll mention each thing, though nothing I say can match your knowledge. Has anyone ever heard of such an outrage anywhere on earth? Such filth? Such disgrace?