Cael. 23.1Reliquum est igitur crīmen dē venēnō;There remains, then, the charge about the poison; Cael. 23.1cuius ego nec prīncipium invenīre neque ēvolvere exitum possum.of which I can neither find the beginning nor unravel the end. Cael. 23.1Quae fuit enim causa quam ob rem istī mulierī venēnum dare vellet Caelius?For what reason was there why Caelius should wish to give poison to that woman? Cael. 23.1Nē aurum redderet?So as not to repay the gold? Cael. 23.1Num petīvit?Did she ask for it back? Cael. 23.1Nē crīmen haerēret?So that the charge should not stick? Cael. 23.1Num quis obiēcit?Did anyone bring it against him? Cael. 23.1num quis dēnique fēcisset mentiōnem, sī hic nūllīus nōmen dētulisset?would anyone, in short, have mentioned it, if this man had not prosecuted someone? Cael. 23.1Quīn etiam L. Herennium dīcere audīstis verbō sē molestum nōn futūrum fuisse Caeliō, nisi iterum eādem dē rē suō familiārī absolūtō nōmen hic dētulisset.Indeed, you heard Lucius Herennius say that he would not have troubled Caelius with a single word, had Caelius not prosecuted his friend a second time on the same charge after he had been acquitted.
Cael. 23.1Crēdibile est igitur tantum facinus nūllam ob causam esse commissum?Is it credible, then, that so great a crime was committed for no reason? Cael. 23.1et vōs nōn vidētis fingī sceleris maximī crīmen ut alterīus sceleris suscipiendī fuisse causa videātur?and do you not see that a charge of a very great crime is being invented so that there may seem to have been a motive for undertaking another crime? Cael. 23.57Cui dēnique commīsit, quō adiūtōre ūsus est, quō sociō, quō cōnsciō, cui tantum facinus, cui sē, cui salūtem suam crēdidit?To whom, after all, did he entrust it, whom did he use as helper, as partner, as accomplice, to whom did he trust so great a crime, to whom himself, to whom his own safety? Cael. 23.57Servīsne mulieris?To the woman's slaves? Cael. 23.57Sīc enim est obiectum.For that is what has been charged. Cael. 23.57Et erat tam dēmēns is cui vōs ingenium certē tribuitis, etiam sī cētera inimīcā ōrātiōne dētrahitis, ut omnīs suās fortūnās aliēnīs servīs committeret?And was this man, to whom you certainly allow talent, even if you take away his other qualities in your hostile speech, so mad as to entrust all his fortunes to another's slaves?
Cael. 23.57At quibus servīs?But to what slaves? Cael. 23.57— rēfert enim magnō opere id ipsum — eīsne quōs intellegēbat nōn commūnī condiciōne servitūtis ūtī sed licentius līberius familiāriusque cum dominā vīvere?— for that very point matters greatly — to those whom he knew to be enjoying no ordinary condition of slavery but to be living more licentiously, more freely and more intimately with their mistress? Cael. 23.57Quis enim hoc nōn videt, iūdicēs, aut quis ignōrat, in eius modī domō in quā māter familiās meretrīciō mōre vīvat, in quā nihil gerātur quod forās prōferendum sit, in quā inūsitātae libīdinēs, luxuriēs, omnia dēnique inaudīta vitia ac flāgitia versentur, hīc servōs nōn esse servōs, quibus omnia committantur, per quōs gerantur, quī versentur īsdem in voluptātibus, quibus occulta crēdantur, ad quōs aliquantum etiam ex cōtīdiānīs sūmptibus ac luxuriē redundet?For who does not see this, judges, or who is unaware, that in a house of that kind, in which the mistress of the household lives in the manner of a courtesan, in which nothing is done that is fit to be made public, in which strange lusts, extravagance, in short all unheard-of vices and scandals have their home, here slaves are not slaves, slaves to whom everything is entrusted, through whom it is done, who take part in the same pleasures, to whom secrets are confided, to whom even a good deal of the daily expenses and luxury overflows?
Cael. 23.57Id igitur Caelius nōn vidēbat?Did Caelius, then, not see that? Cael. 23.58Sī enim tam familiāris erat mulieris quam vōs voltis, istōs quoque servōs familiārīs dominae esse sciēbat.For if he was as intimate with the woman as you would have it, he knew that those slaves too were intimate with their mistress. Cael. 23.58Sīn eī tanta cōnsuētūdō quanta ā vōbīs indūcitur nōn erat, quae cum servīs eius potuit familiāritās esse tanta?But if he did not have so close an acquaintance as you make out, what intimacy could he have had with her slaves that was so great?