II.  But to send ambassadors to a man respecting whom you passed a most dignified and severe decision only thirteen days ago, is not an act of lenity, but, if I am to speak my real opinion, of downright madness.  In the first place, you praised those generals who, of their own head, had undertaken war against him, in the next place, you praised the veterans who, though they had been settled in those colonies by Antonius, preferred the liberty of the Roman people to the obligations which they were under to him.  Is it not so?  Why was the Martial legion? why was the fourth legion praised?  For if they have deserted the consul, they ought to be blamed; if they have abandoned an enemy to the republic, then they are deservedly praised.

But as at that time you had not yet got any consuls, you passed a decree that a motion concerning the rewards for the soldiers and the honours to be conferred on the generals should be submitted to you at the earliest opportunity.  Are you then going now to arrange rewards for those men who have taken arms against Antonius, and to send ambassadors to Antonius? so as to deserve to be ashamed that the legions should have come to more honourable resolutions than the senate if, indeed, the legions have resolved to defend the senate against Antonius, but the senate decrees to send ambassadors to Antonius.  Is this encouraging the spirit of the soldiers, or damping their virtue?

This is what we have gained in the last twelve days, that the man whom no single person except Cotyla was then found to defend, has now advocates even of consular rank.  Would that they had all been asked their opinion before me, (although I have my suspicions as to what some of those men who will be asked after me, are intending to say) I should find it easier to speak against them if any argument appeared to have been advanced.

For there is an opinion in some quarters that some one intends to propose to decree Antonius that further Gaul, which Plancus is at present in possession of.  What else is that but supplying an enemy with all the arms necessary for civil war; first of all with the sinews of war, money in abundance, of which he is at present destitute, and secondly, with as much cavalry as he pleases?  Cavalry do I say?  He is a likely man to hesitate, I suppose, to bring with him the barbarian nations,—­a man who does not see this is senseless, he who does see it, and still advocates such a measure, is impious.  Will you furnish a wicked and desperate citizen with an army of Gauls and Germans, with money, and infantry, and cavalry, and all sorts of resources?  All these excuses are no excuse at all.—­“He is a friend of mine.”  Let him first be a friend of his country.—­“He is a relation of mine.”  Can any relationship be nearer than that of one’s country, in which even one’s parents are comprised?  “He has given me money:”—­I should like to see the man who will dare to say that.  But when I have explained what is the real object aimed at, it will be easy for you to decide which opinion you ought to agree with and adopt.