23.
For I ask you, O Titus Altius, leaving out of the question all other arguments, whether you
think that the Fabricii who were condemned were innocent? whether you say that those decisions
also were corruptly procured by bribes? though in one of those decisions one of the defendants
was acquitted by Stalenus alone; in the other, the defendant, of his own accord, condemned
himself. Come, now, if they were guilty, of what crime were they guilty? Was there any crime
imputed to them except the seeking for poison with which to murder Habitus? Was there any
other point mooted at those trials, except these plots which were laid against Habitus by
Oppianicus, through the instrumentality of the Fabricii? Nothing else, you will find; I say, O
judges, nothing else. It is fresh in people's memories There are public records of the trial.
Correct me if I am speaking falsely. Read the statements of the witnesses. Tell me, in those
trials, what was objected to them, I will not say as an accusation, but even as a reproach,
except this poison of Oppianicus.
[63]
Many reasons can be
alleged why it was necessary that this decision should be given; but I will meet your
expectation half-way, O judges. For although I am listened to by you in such a way, that I am
persuaded no one was ever listened to more kindly or more attentively, still your silent
expectation has been for some time calling me in another direction, and seeming to chide me
thus:—“What then? Do you deny that that sentence was procured by
corruption?” I do not deny that, but I say that the corruption was not practiced by
my client. By whom, then, was it practiced? I think, in the first place, if it had been
uncertain what was likely to be the result of that trial, that still it would have been more
probable that he would have recourse to corruption, who was afraid of being himself convicted,
than he who was only afraid of another man being acquitted. In the second place, as it was
doubtful to no one what decision must inevitably be given, that he would employ such means,
who for any reason distrusted his case, rather than he who had every possible reason to feel
confidence in his. Lastly, that at all events, he who had twice failed before those judges
must have been the corrupter, rather than he who had twice established his case to their
satisfaction.
[64]
One thing is quite certain. No one will be so
unjust to Cluentius, as not to grant to me, if it be proved that that tribunal was bribed,
that it was bribed either by Habitus or by Oppianicus. If I prove that it was not bribed by
Habitus, I prove that it was by Oppianicus,—I clear Habitus. Wherefore, although I
have already established plainly enough that the one had no reason whatever for having
recourse to bribery, (and from this alone it follows that the bribery must have been committed
by Oppianicus,) still you shall have separate proofs of this particular point.
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.