s as easy to separate and distinguish a genuine from a
specious friend as anything else that is coloured and artificial from
what is sincere and genuine. A public assembly, though composed of men
of the smallest possible culture, nevertheless will see clearly
the difference between a mere demagogue (that is, a flatterer and
untrustworthy citizen) and a man of principle, standing, and solidity.
It was by this kind of flattering language that Gaius Papirius the
other day endeavoured to tickle the ears of the assembled people, when
proposing his law to make the tribunes re-eligible. I spoke against it.
But I will leave the personal question. I prefer speaking of Scipio.
Good heavens! how impressive his speech was, what a majesty there was
in it! You would have pronounced him, without hesitation, to be no mere
henchman of the Roman people, but their leader. However, you were there,
and moreover have the speech in your hands. The result was that a law
meant to please the people was by the people's votes rejected. Once
more to refer to myself, you remember how apparently popular was the law
proposed by Gaius Licinius Crassus "about the election to the College
of Priests" in the consulship of Quintus Maximus, Scipio's brother, and
Lucius Mancinus. For the power of filling up their own vacancies on
the part of the colleges was by this proposal to be transferred to the
people. It was this man, by the way, who began the practice of turning
towards the forum when addressing the people. In spite of this, however,
upon my speaking on the conservative side, religion gained an easy
victory over his plausible speech. This took place in my praetorship,
five years before I was elected consul, which shows that the cause
was successfully maintained more by the merits of the case than by the
prestige of the highest office.

26. Now, if on a stage, such as a public assembly essentially is,
where there is the amplest room for fiction and half-truths, truth
nevertheless prevails if it be but fairly laid open and brought into
the light of day, what ought to happen in the case of friendship, which
rests entirely on truthfulness? Friendship, in which, unless you both
see and show an open breast, to use a common expression, you can neither
trust nor be certain of anything--no, not even of mutual affection,
since you cannot be sure of its sincerity. However, this flattery,
injurious as it is, can hurt no one but the man who takes it in and
likes it