[127]
For as for these things which they have stated in their notes, about
corrupting the judges, who is there who believes that they were sufficiently ascertained or
carefully inquired into by them? I see that a note was made by the censors respecting Marcus
Aquillius and Titus Gutta;—what does this mean? Were those two the only men
corrupted with bribes? What became of the rest? Did they, forsooth, condemn him for nothing?
He, then, was not unfairly dealt with; he was not overwhelmed by means of bribes; it is not
the case, as all these assemblies stirred up by Quinctius would have it, that all the men who
voted against Oppianicus are to be imagined criminal, or at all events suspected. I see that
two men alone are judged by the authority of the censors to have been implicated in that
infamy; or else they must allege that there is something which they have found out concerning
those two men which they have not found out respecting the others.
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
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.