And the rest of
the case is just as improbable, as is what Lucceius says, that Lucius Flaccus had wished to give
him two millions of sesterces to induce him to break his word. And do you accuse that man of
avarice who you say was willing to abstain from taking two millions of sesterces? For when he
was buying you, what was it that he was buying? Was it your desertion to his side? If you did
come over to us, what share in the cause were we to give you? were we to allot to you the part
of explaining the designs of Laelius? of saying what witnesses proceeded from his house? What?
did not we ourselves see that they were living together? Who is there who does not know that? Is
there the slightest doubt that the documents were in Laelius's power? or, was he bribing you not
to accuse him with vigour and with eloquence? Now you give cause for suspicion; for you spoke in
such a manner that some point or other does seem to have been carried with you.
“But a great and intolerable injury was done to Andrus Sextilius.” As, when his wife Valeria
had died without a will, Flaccus managed the business in such a way as if the inheritance
belonged to himself. And in that I should be glad to know what you find fault with,—is it, that
he asserted anything which was false? How do you prove it? “She was,” says he, “a person of good
family.” O man, learned in the law! What? cannot inheritances legally come from women of good
family? “She was,” says he, “under the power of her husband.” Now I understand you; but was she
so by use The marriage per coemptionem
has already been explained. “Marriage was also effected by usus, if a woman lived with a man for a whole year as his wife.” Smith, Dict, Ant.
p. 604 v. Marriage, q. v. or by purchase? It could not be by use for
legitimate guardianship cannot be annulled except by the consent of all the guardians. By
purchase? Then it must have been with the consent of all of them; and certainly you will not say
that that of Flaccus was obtained.
That alternative remains
which he did not cease asserting loudly; “that Flaccus ought not, when he was praetor, to have
attended to his own private concerns, or to have made any mention of the inheritance.” I hear, O
Lucius Lucullus, that very great inheritances came to you, to you who are about to decide as
judge on the case of Lucius Flaccus, on account of your exceeding liberality and of the great
services which you had done your friends, during the time that you were governing the province
of Asia with consular power. If any one had said that those inheritances belonged to him, would
you have given them up? You, O Titus Vettius, if any inheritance in Africa comes to you, will
you abandon it? or, will you retain it as your own, without being liable to the imputation of
avarice, without any sacrifice of your dignity? “But the possession of the inheritance of which
we are speaking was demanded in the name of Flaccus, when Globulus was praetor.” Well then, it
was not any sudden violence, nor the idea of any favourable opportunity, nor force, nor any
peculiarity of time, nor the possession of command and of the forces which induced Flaccus to
commit this injury.
And, therefore, it is to this point that Marcus Lurco also, a most excellent man, and a great
friend of mine, has especially addressed the sting of his evidence. He said, that it was not
becoming for a praetor in his province to claim money from a private individual. Why, I should
like to know, O Lurco, is it not becoming? It is not becoming to force or extort money, or to
receive money contrary to the laws; but you will never convince me that it is not becoming to
claim it, unless you can show that it is not lawful to do so. Is it right to accept of honorary
lieutenancies for the sake of exacting what is one's due, as you yourselves have done lately,
and as many good men have often done, (and I, indeed, find no fault with such conduct; I see
that our allies complain of it;) and, do you think a praetor, if he, being in his province, does
not abandon an inheritance which comes to him, is not only to be blamed but even to be
condemned? “But Valeria,” says he, “had given up all her money
as dower to her husband.” None of those assertions can be admitted, unless you prove that she
was not under the guardianship of Flaccus. If she was, whatever money on her marriage was
assigned to her husband without his consent, the assignment is null.