But what if he had owed you anything? would that have at once been a reason for your
 requiring leave from the praetor to take possession of his goods? I think that was
 neither according to law, nor expedient for any one. What then does he prove? He says
 that he had forfeited his recognizances. Before I prove that he had not done so, I choose, O Caius Aquillius, to consider both
 the fact itself and the conduct of Sextus Naevius, with reference to the principles of
 plain duty, and the common usages of men. He, as you say, had not appeared to his
 recognizances; he with whom you were connected by relationship, by partnership, by every
 sort of bond and ancient intimacy. Was it decent for you to go at once to the praetor?
 was it fair for you at once to demand to be allowed to take possession of his goods
 according to the edict? Did you betake yourself to these extreme measures and to these
 most hostile laws with such eagerness as to leave yourself nothing behind which you
 might be able to do still more bitter and cruel? For,
 what could happen more shameful to any human being, what more miserable or more bitter
 to a man; what disgrace could happen so heavy, what disaster can be imagined so
 intolerable? If fortune deprived any one of money, or if the injustice of another took
 it from him, still while his reputation is unimpeached, honour easily makes amends for
 poverty. And some men, though stained with ignominy, or convicted in discreditable
 trials, still enjoy their wealth; are not forced to dance attendance (which is the most
 wretched of all states) on the power of another; and in their distresses they are
 relieved by this support and comfort; but he whose goods have been sold, who has seen
 not merely his ample estates, but even his necessary food and clothing put up under the
 hammer, with great disgrace to himself; he is not only erased from the list of men, but
 he is removed out of sight, if possible, even beneath the dead. An honourable Most of the commentators consider this passage corrupt, and propose
 various emendations of it. I have however thought it safer to adhere to the text of
 the MSS. as it stands in Orellius. death forsooth often sets off even a base
 life, but a dishonoured life leaves no room to hope for even an honourable death.
 Therefore, in truth, when a man's goods are taken
 possession of according to the praetor's edict, all his fame and reputation is seized at
 the same time with his goods. A man about whom placards are posted in the most
 frequented places, is not allowed even to perish in silence and obscurity; a man who has
 assignees and trustees appointed to pronounce to him on what terms and conditions he is
 to be ruined; a man about whom the voice of the crier makes proclamation and proclaims
 his price,—he has a most bitter funeral procession while he is alive, if that
 may be considered a funeral in which men meet not as friends to do honour to his
 obsequies, but purchasers of his goods as executioners, to tear to pieces and divide the
 relics of his existence. Therefore our ancestors determined that such a thing should seldom happen; the praetors
 have taken care that it should only happen after deliberation; good men, even when fraud
 is openly committed, when there is no opportunity of trying the case at law, still have
 recourse to this measure timidly and hesitatingly; not till they are compelled by force
 and necessity, unwillingly, when the recognizances have often been forfeited, when they
 have been often deceived and outwitted. For they consider how serious a matter it is to
 confiscate the property of another. A good man is unwilling to slay another, even
 according to law; for he would rather say that he had saved when he might have
 destroyed, than that he had destroyed when he could have saved. Good men behave so to
 the most perfect strangers, aye, even to their greatest enemies, for the sake both of
 their reputation among men, and of the common rights of humanity; in order that, as they
 have not knowingly caused inconvenience to another, no inconvenience may lawfully befall
 them. He did not appear to his recognizances. Who? Your own relation. If that matter
 appeared of the greatest importance in itself, yet its magnitude would be lessened by
 the consideration of your relationship. He did not appear to his recognizances. Who?
 Your partner. You might forgive even a greater thing than this, to a man with whom
 either your inclination had connected you, or fortune had associated you.