[83]
Oh, but
Stalenus was not commissioned to corrupt the judges by Oppianicus, but by Cluentius. Why, when
the judges were retiring to deliberate, did Cluentius and Canutius allow him to go away? Why,
when they were going to give their votes, did they not require the presence of Stalenus the
judge, to whom they had given the money Oppianicus did not for him; Quinctius did demand his
presence. The tribunitian power was interposed to prevent a decision being come to without
Stalenus. But he condemned him. To be sure, for he had given this condemnatory vote as a sort
of pledge to Bulbus and the rest to prove that he had been cheated by Oppianicus. If,
therefore, on one side, there is a reason for corrupting the tribunal; on one side, money; on
one side, Stalenus; on one side, every description of fraud and audacity: and on the other
side, modesty, an honourable life, and no suspicion of corruption, and no object in corrupting
the tribunal; allow, now that the truth is made clear and all error dispelled, the discredit
of that baseness to adhere to that side to which all the other wickednesses are attached; and
allow the odium of it to depart at last from that man, whom you do not perceive to have ever
been connected with any fault.
This text is part of:
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.