Criminal negligence, Roman citizens, has not summoned Rabirius into a crisis of his life and citizenship, neither has jealousy inspired by his life nor any lasting, just, and grievous enmity. Rather, that the most important support for the majesty of our empire handed down to us by our ancestors be abolished from the Republic, and that henceforth the influence of the senate, the consul's civilian authority, and the meeting of the minds of good men be utterly powerless against the pernicious plague upon the citizen body, for these aims and purposes and toward overturning these institutions, have one man's old age, frailty, and privacy come under assault. [sect. 3] Accordingly, if it is the mark of a good consul, when he sees all the supports of the Republic being undermined and wrest asunder, to bring help to the fatherland, to succor the common health and fortunes, to invoke the integrity of citizens, and to consider his own survival of less importance than the common survival, it is as well the mark of good and brave citizens, men like you who have emerged in every crisis facing the Republic, to cut off all avenues for sedition, to fortify the bulwarks of the Republic, to reckon that the supreme command resides in the consuls, the utmost deliberation in the senate, and to judge that man who has followed their leadership worthy of praise and glory, not penalties and capital punishment. [sect. 4] Accordingly, the task of defending this man is primarily mine, but the ardor for preserving the man ought to be ours, yours and mine, in common.

Ch. 2 Thus, you are duty-bound to hold, Roman citizens, that, within the memory of men, no affair more important, more fraught with peril, and more in need of caution on your part has been undertaken by a tribune of the commoners, defended by a consul, and laid before the Roman people. Nothing other is at stake in this case, Roman citizens, [except] that henceforth in the Republic there be no public policy, no meeting of the minds of good men against the mad rage and effrontery of reprobates, no refuge for the Republic in its hours of extreme danger, no bulwark for its survival. [sect. 5] Since this is true, first, that which in such a struggle for Gaius Rabirius' life and citizenship, his reputation, and all his fortunes must be done, from Jupiter Best and Greatest and from the rest of the gods and goddesses by whose power and support far more than by men's reasoning and decisions is this Republic guided, I seek harmony and favor. And I beg of them that they allow this day to have dawned for preserving the welfare of my client and for founding the Republic. Secondly, you, Roman citizens, whose power very nearly approaches that of the immortal gods to work their will, I beseech you, I implore you, since the life of Gaius Rabirius, a most wretched and blameless man, as well as the survival of the Republic are committed at one and the same time to your hands and voting ballots, that you bring pity to the fortunes of the man and to the salvation of the Republic your customary wisdom.

[sect. 6] Now, Titus Labienus, since you have obstructed my careful preparations by your limitations on my time and forced me from the usually allotted time for a defense into a scant half hour, compliance will be granted both to a prosecutor's condition, which is very unfair, and, what is most deplorable, to the power of a personal enemy. Although with this ruling of a half hour, you left me the role of an advocate, you have taken away that of a consul, since the time, nearly sufficient for mounting a defense, will be truly too little for sounding complaints. [sect. 7] Unless perhaps you think that you are owed a lengthy response concerning the sacred places and groves that you alleged were violated by my client. In this charge, you said nothing except that the charge was leveled against Gaius Rabirius by Gaius Macer. I am amazed that you remembered what Macer, a personal enemy, leveled at Gaius Rabirius, but you forgot what judgment fair and impartial judges returned.

Ch. 3 [sect. 8] Or must a long speech be delivered about the theft of public funds or the arson of a public archive? Of this charge, Gaius Rabirius' kinsman, Gaius Curtius, by virtue of his own good character, was most honorably acquitted by a very distinguished court of justice. Rabirius himself, in fact, not only was never summoned to court on these charges, but he was not even called into the slightest suspicion by word of mouth. Or must a more thorough rebuttal be offered concerning his sister's son whom you alleged was murdered by my client when a death in the family was needed as a plea for a stay in the trial? What is as likely as a sister's husband being dearer to Rabirius than a sister's son and so much dearer that the life of the one was cut short in the most savage way when a postponement in the trial of two days was needed for the other? Or is more to be said about the retention of slaves not his own in violation of a Fabian law or the scourging of Roman citizens against a Porcian law, when Gaius Rabirius was honored enthusiastically by all Apulia and wholeheartedly by Campania? When not only men but nearly entire regions themselves, aroused rather more broadly than his name or boundaries of his neighborhood warranted, rallied to fight off his legal perils? Why would I prepare a long speech in answer to declarations made in this same proposal of a fine, namely, that my client spared neither his virtue and decency nor those of another? [sect. 9] Rather, I suspect that Labienus laid down the ruling of half hour ahead of time so that I would not say more about his virtue and decency. Therefore, for these charges that long for the thoroughness of an advocate, you do understand your half hour has been long enough.

That other part about the murder of Saturninus, you wanted to be short and curtailed. This part, however, cries out for and demands, not the talents of an orator, but the support of a consul. [sect. 10] The charge concerning the condemnation for treason, which you keep accusing me of having abolished, is directed against me, not Rabirius. Would that I, Roman citizens, had been the first or the only man to have abolished that condemnation from this Republic! Would that this deed, which Labienus maintains is a charge against me, were testimony to my praises and no other's! What possible wish would I rather be granted than I, in my consulship, abolished the executioner from the forum and the cross from the Campus Martius? But that praise falls first to our ancestors, Roman citizens, who expelled the kings, and, afterwards, did not retain a trace of kingly savagery among a free people, and, secondly, to the many brave men who did not want your freedom to be unsafe from the severity of its punishments but fortified by the leniency of its laws.

Ch. 4 [sect. 11] For that matter, Labienus, which one of us is a benefactor of the people? You, who think an executioner and his fetters ought to be inflicted upon Roman citizens in a public meeting? You, who order a cross to be fixed and erected for the punishment of citizens in the Campus Martius where the auspices are taken for the Centuriate Assembly? Or I, who prohibit a public meeting from being contaminated by the pollution of an executioner? I, who say that the forum of the Roman people must be cleansed of those traces of an unspeakable crime? I, who defend the belief that a public assembly ought to be kept pure, the Campus Martius holy, the body of every Roman citizen undefiled, and the right of liberty unassailable? [sect. 12] This tribune of the commoners, this guardian and defender of right and libertya benefactor of the people! Really? A law of Porcius removed the rods from the body of all Roman citizens; this man of compassion has brought back scourges. A law of Porcius delivered the liberty of citizens from the lictor; Labienus, man of the people, handed their liberty over to the executioner. Gaius Gracchus carried a law guaranteeing that a trial may not be held over the life and citizenship of Roman citizens without the people's authorization. This benefactor of the people did not force a trial to be held by the Two Men without the people's authorization: he forced a citizen to be condemned on a charge involving his life and citizenship without a hearing of his case.

[sect. 13] Do you even mention to me the law of Porcius, the name of Gaius Gracchus, the liberty of these citizens, and any other benefactor of the people who came to mind? You, who sought to defile the liberty of this people not merely with outlandish punishments but with savage words hitherto unheard, who sought to essay their civilization, and who sought to change completely their way of life? The fact is that this stuff, GO, LICTOR. BIND THE HANDS, which delights you, merciful benefactor of the people, does not belong to the liberty and civilization of today, not even to Romulus or Numa Pompilius. These are the formulas of Tarquin, a most arrogant and savage king, which the soft-spoken benefactor of the people that you are most effortlessly recalls: THERE SHALL BE A VEILING OF THE HEAD. THERE SHALL BE A HANGING UPON A BARREN TREE. These words, Roman citizens, were long ago suppressed by the darkness of time past as well as the light of freedom.

Ch. 5 [sect. 14] Or, if those proceedings of yours involving the Two Men were beneficial to the people and possessed a particle of fairness or justice, would Gaius Gracchus have ignored them? No doubt the death of your uncle brought a deeper sorrow to you than a brother's did to Gaius Gracchus; no doubt the death of this uncle whom you never saw causes you more bitterness than the death of a brother with whom he had lived in closest harmony caused Gaius Gracchus; undoubtedly, you are avenging the death of an uncle with a similar right as he pursued his brother's death; without doubt that Labienus of yours, your uncle, whoever he was, has left behind among the Roman people an equal longing for himself as had Tiberius Gracchus. Or is your loyalty greater than that of [Gaius] Gracchus, or your feelings, or your intelligence, or your resources, or your influence, or eloquence? Had they been minimal in that man, in comparison with your abilities they would have been considered maximal. [sect. 15] Seeing that in all these qualities Gaius Gracchus surpassed all men, how wide a gap do you reckon stretches out between you and him? But [Gaius] Gracchus would die a thousand times by the bitterest death before an executioner would stand in a public meeting of his. Regulations of the censors have enjoined that the executioner be deprived not merely of the forum but the skies, the air, and the dwellings of our city. This man dares to claim, does he, that he is a benefactor of the people and that I am foreign to your interests, when it was he who researched every instance of bitter punishments and bitter words, not from your memory or that of your fathers, but from annalistic archives and royal commentaries, while I, with all my energies, with my every strategy, and with everything I have said or done, have fought back and repelled savagery? Unless perchance you wish a condition for yourselves that your slaves, if they did not have the hope of liberty lying before them, could not possibly endure?

[sect. 16] Wretched is the loss of one's good name in the public courts, wretched, too, a monetary fine exacted from one's property, and wretched is exile, but, still, in each calamity there is retained some trace of liberty. Even if death is set before us, we may die in freedom. But the executioner, the veiling of heads, and the very word cross, let them all be far removed from not only the bodies of Roman citizens but even from their thoughts, their eyes, and their ears. The results and suffering from these doings as well as the situation, even anticipation, of their enablement, and, in the end, the mere mention of them are unworthy of a Roman citizen and a free man. Or is that, while the kindness of their masters frees our slaves from the fear of all these punishments with one stroke of the staff of manumission, neither our exploits nor the lives we have lived nor honors you have bestowed will liberate us from scourging, from the hook, and, finally, from the terror of the cross?

[sect. 17] Accordingly, I admit, and even, Labienus, state openly and declare outright that you were dislodged from that savage and unacceptable proceeding, one befitting not a tribune but a king, by my strategy, by my courage, and by my influence. In this proceeding, although you brushed aside all the precedents of our ancestors, the whole authority of the senate, every sanction of religion and public rule of augury, nonetheless, you will not hear about these matters from me in this, all too short time of mine. Free time will be available for us to discuss them later.

Ch. 6 [sect. 18] Now, we shall speak about the charges concerning Saturninus and the death of your most distinguished uncle. You allege that Lucius Saturninus was killed by Gaius Rabirius. Yet, that accusation on an earlier occasion Gaius Rabirius, with the testimony of many witnesses and with Quintus Hortensius' very copious defense, demonstrated to be false. I, however, were I at liberty to do so, would take up this charge, recognize it, acknowledge it. O, how I wish this case afforded me the opportunity and the ability to proclaim that Lucius Saturninus, enemy of the Roman people, was killed by Gaius Rabirius.Your shouting does not disturb me at all. Rather, it reassures me since it shows that there are some foolish citizens but not many. Never would the Roman people who remain silent have made me consul if they thought I would be shaken by your shouting. How much quieter your outcries have become already! Yes, you are checking your voice, informer upon your stupidity, witness to your paltry numbers! [sect. 19] Gladly, as I say, would I acknowledge, if I were in truth able or even if I were at liberty to do so, that Lucius Saturninus was killed by the hand of Gaius Rabirius. I would deem it a most glorious misdeed. But seeing that I cannot do this, what I will confess will be less efficacious for his reputation but not less for the charge against him. I confess that Gaius Rabirius took up weapons for the purpose of killing Saturninus. How is that, Labienus? What fuller confession, what more serious charge against my client were you expecting? Unless, of course, you do reckon that there is a difference between a man who has killed a man and a man who was armed for the purpose of killing a man. If it was wrong for Saturninus to be killed, weapons cannot be taken up against Saturninus without entailing a crime. If, however, you concede that weapons were taken up lawfully, [then, by necessity, you must concede that he was killed lawfully].

Ch. 7 [sect. 20] A decree of the senate was passed that Gaius Marius and Lucius Valerius, consuls, summon the tribunes of the commoners and the praetors who seemed to them suitable, and give their attention that the sovereignty and majesty of the Roman people be preserved. They summon all the tribunes of the commoners except Saturninus, the [praetors] except Glaucia. They order whoever wishes the Republic to be safe to take up weapons and follow them. All obey. From the temple of Sancus and the public armories, weapons are given to the Roman people, with the Gaius Marius, consul, overseeing the distribution.

At this juncture, to pass over the rest, I have a question for you personally, Labienus. Since Saturninus was holding the Capitolium under arms, with him were Gaius Glaucia, Gaius Saufeius, and even that Gracchus from the shackles of the workhouse, and I will add to their number, as you want it so, your uncle Quintus Labienus, and since, on the other hand, in the forum were the consuls Gaius Marius and Lucius Valerius Flaccus, and behind them, the entire senate (that senate that you yourselves, who elicit ill-will against the present day senators, [are wont to praise], so that more easily you can disparage the present senate), since the order of the knightsbut what knights, immortal gods! of our fathers and of that time, who held a large part of the Republic and all the honor of the public courtssince all men of all orders who believed that on the survival of the Republic rested their own survival had taken up weapons, just what was Gaius Rabirius to do?

[sect. 21] I ask of you personally, Labienus. After the consuls had issued the call to arms in accord with the decree of the senate, after an armed Marcus Aemilius, first senator of the senate, had assumed his post in the Comitium, a man who, although he could barely walk, reckoned his slowness of foot would be an impediment not for pursuit but for flight and, at last, after Quintus Scaevola, consumed by old age, wasted by disease, crippled, stricken in arm and leg, and disabled, leaned on his spear and displayed the strength of his mind and infirmity of his body, after Lucius Metullus, Servius Galba, Gaius Serranus, Publius Rutilius, Gaius Fimbria, Quintus Catulus and all who at the time were former consuls had taken up weapons for the common safety, after all the praetors, the entire nobility and youth were on the run, Gnaeus and Lucius Domitius, Lucius Crassus, Quintus Mucius, Gaius Claudius, Marcus Drusus, after all the men named Octavius, Metellus, Iulius, Cassius, Cato, and Pompeius, after Lucius Philippus, Lucius Scipio, after Marcus Lepidus, after Decimus Brutus, after Publius Servilius himself, present here today, under whose generalship, Labienus, you served, after Quintus Catulus, present here today, merely a youth at the time, after Gaius Curio, present here today, and, finally, after all the most famous men were with the consuls, just what was it proper for Gaius Rabirius to do? Was he to ensconce himself in the dark, shut in and hidden, concealing his own cowardice with the safeguards of shadows and walls? Or was he to proceed to the Capitolium and join up with your uncle and the others who were seeking refuge in death because of the repulsiveness of their lives? Or with Marius, Scaurus, Catulus, Metellus, Scaevola, and with all good men, was he to enter into an alliance of both survival and peril?

Ch. 8 [sect. 22] As for you, Labienus, pray tell, what would you have done in such a crisis? When calculations of cowardice were urging you into flight and into a hidey-hole, when the depravity and mad rage of Lucius Saturninus were beckoning you to come to the Capitolium, when the consuls were summoning you to the security and liberty of the fatherland, just what authority, what voice, whose path would you have preferred to follow, whose command would you have preferred to obey? My uncle, you reply, was with Saturninus. What? With whom was your father? Your kinsmen, the Roman knights? What about all your prefecture, your region, your neighborhood? What about it? Did the whole territory of Picenum follow the tribune's madness or the authority of the consuls? [sect. 23] I do, of course, corroborate what you are now declaring publicly about your uncle, namely, that no one so far has ever confessed this about himself. No one, I say, has been discovered so morally corrupt, no lost to shame, so abandoned not only by all integrity but even by all pretense to integrity who would confess to having been on the Capitolium with Saturninus. But your uncle was. Suppose that he was there, and suppose that he was there under no coercion of force or despair over his personal affairs or injuries to his household, and suppose that intimacy with Lucius Saturninus induced him to prefer friendship to the fatherland, are these reasons that Gaius Rabirius should desert the Republic and not be present in that armed host of good men, not obey the voice and supreme command of the consuls? [sect. 24] In any event, we see that the nature of these things is threefold: either be with Saturninus, or with good men, or in a hidey-hole. To hide is tantamount to an utterly shameful death, to be with Saturninus to madness and crime. Virtue, probity, and propriety necessitate standing with the consuls. Is that the reason you summon Gaius Rabirius into court? The fact that he was with those men whom he would have been out of his mind to oppose, morally bankrupt to abandon? I say!

Ch. 9 You are fond of quoting Gaius Decianus. Decianus was condemned because, while he was prosecuting with highest approval of all good men a man notorious for every stigma of shame, Publius Furius, he dared to complain in a public meeting about Saturninus' death. Sextus Titius was condemned for having a death mask of Lucius Saturninus in his home. By that verdict, the Roman knights decided that that man was a depraved citizen and should not be maintained among the citizenry who, by the death mask of a man whose seditious behavior rendered him a public enemy, either honored the death of that man, or who, with pity, aroused the regrets of ignorant men, or who indicated his own willingness to imitate such depravity. [sect. 25] And so I marvel where you, Labienus, discovered this death mask you have in your possession. After Sextus Titius was condemned, no one was found who dared to possess one. But if you had heard about this or if you were old enough to know, surely you never would have brought to the Rostra and into a public meeting that death mask of yours which, when placed in his home, brought the plague of exile down upon Sextus Titius. Nor would you have driven your boat onto those rocks against which you saw Sextus Titius' ship dashed all to pieces and upon which you saw the shipwreck of all Gaius Decianus' fortunes.

But in all these matters, you are tripped up by your lack of foresight. You have undertaken a case older than your memory, a case which was dead before your were born. And had you been old enough, you of all people surely would have been implicated in the very case you are now hauling into court. [sect. 26] Or is it that you do not realize, first, what men and what sort of men, now deceased, you are charging with a very serious crime? And, then, you do not realize how many men of those still living you are summoning with this very charge into the greatest danger to their citizenship and lives? For if Gaius Rabirius admitted an offense imperiling his citizenship and life in that he bore arms against Lucius Saturninus, his age at the time will afford him some grounds for pardon. What defense, however, shall we mount for Quintus Catulus, father of this Catulus present here today, a man of the soundest wisdom, exceptional courage, extraordinary benevolence, for Marcus Scaurus, man of such bearing, such judgment, and such foresight, for two brothers Mucius, for Lucius Crassus, for Marcus Antonius who was outside the city with his military escort, men whose good judgment and talents loomed very large in this state? What defense shall we mount for the rest, men endowed with no less prestige, guardians and helmsmen of the Republic, who are now dead? [sect. 27] What shall we say about those most respected and very good men, the Roman knights, who, together with the senate, defended the welfare of the Republic at that time? What about the tribunes of the treasury and the men of all the remaining orders who took up weapons at that time for the common freedom?

Ch. 10 But why am I talking about all those who obeyed the consuls' command? What is going to happen to the reputation of the consuls themselves? Lucius Flaccus, a man always very scrupulous both in the Republic and in conducting public offices as well as in the priesthood and religious ceremonies that he directedshall we condemn Lucius Flaccus in death for the unspeakable crime of murder? Shall we add to this stain and disgrace of death even the name of Gaius Marius? Gaius Marius whom we truly can call the father of the fatherland, parent, I say, of your liberty and of this Republic, shall we condemn him in death for the unspeakable crime of murder?

[sect. 28] Indeed, if in the case of Gaius Rabirius because he ran to the call for arms, Titus Labienus thought that a cross must be fixed in the Campus Martius, just what punishment will be devised for that man who summoned Rabirius? And if the promise of protective custody was given to Saturninus, as you have repeatedly claimed, Gaius Rabirius did not give it, but Gaius Marius gave it, and the same man violated it if he did not abide by its protection. What protective custody, Labienus, could be given, how could it be given, without a decree of the senate? [Are you] such a stranger to this city, so ignorant of our ways and customs that you do not know the answer, that you appear to be sojourning in a foreign city instead of conducting public office in your own?

[sect. 29] What harm, he asks, can befall Gaius Marius from this case since he lacks life and sensation? Is that really so? Would Gaius Marius have spent his life amid so many travails and dangers, if he had entertained in his mind and hopes concerning himself and his glory nothing further than required by the boundaries of his life? In that case, I suppose, after he routed countless hordes of the enemy in Italy and freed the Republic from siege, he believed everything would die with him? It is not so, Roman citizens. Not one of us engages in the perils of the Republic in praiseworthy and courageous ways without being led by the hope of rewards from posterity. And so, for many other reasons does it seem to me that the minds of good men are divine and eternal, but one reason stands before all, namely, that the spirit of every best and wisest man has such feeling for the future that it seems to do nothing but contemplate the sempiternal.

[sect. 30] Wherefore, I call to witness the minds of Gaius Marius and of the other very wise and brave citizen which seem to me to have emigrated from the life of men to the hallowed sacredness of gods, that I think that we must sally forth in defense of the fame, the glory, and the memory of those men just as for the temples and sanctuaries of our fatherland, and that, if I had to take up weapons on behalf of the reputation of those men, I would do so no less vigorously than those men took up weapons on behalf of the common welfare. Indeed, Roman citizens, nature has delineated a far too brief course for our lives but one unbounded for our glory.

Ch. 11 Accordingly, if we will honor those who have already departed from life, we will leave behind more equitable conditions for our own death.

But if you care nothing, Labienus, for those whom we can no longer see, do you think that consideration should not be extended even to those whom you do see? [sect. 31] I declare that, from all those, there was not one man who was in Rome on that day, a day that you are now summoning into court, and who was in the prime of life, without he took up weapons, without he followed the consuls. All those from whose age you can conjecture what they did at that time are being accused by you, Labienus, of a charge imperiling their citizenship and lives in the name of Gaius Rabirius. But Rabirius killed Saturninus. O how I wish he had! I would not pray that punishment be averted. No, I would demand a reward. Indeed, if freedom was bestowed upon Scaeva, Quintus Croto's slave who killed Lucius Saturninus, what reward would have been fittingly bestowed upon a Roman knight? And if Gaius Marius, because he had ordered that the water conduits supplying the temple and shrines of Jupiter Best and Greatest be severed, because on the Capitoline hill [gap in text]