---
title: "For Cluentius · Pro A. Cluentio"
author: "Cicero"
translator: "Charles Duke Yonge"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Classical Latin"
section: 2 of 6
url: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-cluentio/2/
cite: "Cicero, tr. Charles Duke Yonge, For Cluentius · Pro A. Cluentio, section 2. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-cluentio/2/"
---

# For Cluentius · Pro A. Cluentio

*Cicero, tr. Charles Duke Yonge*

A man accused of poisoning his stepfather, in a family story of murders and bribed juries.

> Latin: ed. Albert Curtis Clark, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-latinLit, phi0474.phi010, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: Charles Duke Yonge, from the Perseus Digital Library (phi0474.phi010.perseus-eng2). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## 2. Sections 37–69

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-cluentio/2/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/cicero-pro-cluentio/2/#p-N

[¶0] 37. When the young man was in some woman's house, and passing the night there, and staying there also the next day, Avilius, as had been arranged, pretends that he is taken ill, and wishes to make his will—Oppianicus brings witnesses to sign it, who knew neither Asinius nor Avilius, and calls him Asinius; and he himself departs, after the will has been signed and sealed in the name of Asinius. Avilius gets well immediately. But Asinius in a very short time is slain, being tempted out to some sand-pits outside the Esquiline gate, by the idea that he was being taken to some villa.

> Latin: 37. esset adulescens apud mulierculam quandam atque ubi pernoctarat ibi diem posterum commoraretur, Avillius, ut erat constitutum, simulat se aegrotare et testamentum facere velle. Oppianicus obsignatores ad eum qui neque Asuvium neque Avillium nossent adducit et illum Asuvium appellat ipse; testamento Asuvi nomine obsignato disceditur. Avillius ilico convalescit; Asuvius autem brevi illo tempore, quasi in hortulos iret, in harenarias quasdam extra portam Esquilinam perductus occiditur.

[¶1] 38. And after he had been missed a day or two, and could not be found in those places in which he was usually to be sought for, and as Oppianicus was constantly saying in the forum at Larinum that he and his friends had lately witnessed his will, the freedmen of Asinius and some of his friends, because it was notorious that on the last day that Asinius had been seen, Avilius had been with him, and had been seen with him by many people, proceed against him, and bring him before Quintus Manilius, who at that time was a triumvir. And Avilius at once, without any witness or any informer appearing against him, being agitated by the consciousness of his recent wickedness, relates everything as I have now stated it, and confesses that Asinius had been murdered by him according to the plan of Oppianicus.

> Latin: 38. cum unum iam et alterum diem desideraretur neque in eis locis ubi ex consuetudine quaerebatur inveniretur, et Oppianicus in foro Larinatium dictitaret nuper se et suos amicos testamentum eius obsignasse, liberti Asuvi et non nulli amici, quod eo die quo postremum Asuvius visus erat Avillium cum eo fuisse et a multis visum esse constabat, in eum invadunt et hominem ante pedes Q. Manli qui tum erat triumvir constituunt. illic continuo nullo teste, nullo indice recentis malefici conscientia perterritus omnia, ut a me paulo ante dicta sunt, exponit Asuviumque a sese consilio Oppianici interfectum fatetur. domo latitans Oppianicus a Manlio;

[¶2] 39. Oppianicus, while lying concealed in his own house, is dragged out by Manilius; Avilius the informer is produced on the other side to face him. Why need you inquire what followed? Most of you are acquainted with Manilius; he had never from the time he was a child, had any thoughts of honour, or of the pursuit of virtue, or even of the advantage of a good character; but from having been a wanton and profligate buffoon, he had, in the dissensions of the state, arrived through the suffrages of the people at that office, to the seat of which he had often been conducted by the reproaches of the bystanders. Accordingly he arranges the business with Oppianicus; he receives a bribe from him; he abandons the cause after it was commended, and when it was fully proved. And in this trial of Oppianicus the crime committed on Asinius was proved by many witnesses, and also by the information of Avilius; in which, it was notorious that Oppianicus's name was mentioned first among the agents; and yet you say that he was an unfortunate and an innocent man, convicted by a corrupt tribunal.

> Latin: 39. index Avillius ex altera parte coram tenetur. quid iam reliqua quaeritis? Manlium plerique noratis; non ille honorem a pueritia, non studia virtutis, non ullum existimationis bonae fructum umquam cogitarat, sed ex petulanti atque improbo scurra in discordiis civitatis ad eam columnam ad quam multorum saepe conviciis perductus erat tum suffragiis populi pervenerat. tum cum Oppianico transigit, pecuniam ab eo accipit, causam et susceptam et tam manifestam relinquit. tum in Oppianici causa crimen hoc Asuvianum cum testibus multis tum vero illius ⟨testamento⟩ comprobabatur; in quo Oppianici nomen primum esse constabat, eius quem vos miserum atque innocentem falso iudicio circumventum esse dicitis.

[¶3] 40. What more? Did not your father, O Oppianicus, beyond all question, murder your grandmother Dinea, whose heir you are? who, when he had brought to her his own physician, a well-tried man and often victorious, (by whose means indeed he had slain many of his enemies,) exclaimed that she positively would not be attended by that man, through whose attention she had lost all her friends. Then immediately he goes to a man of Ancona, Lucius Clodius, a travelling quack, who had come by accident at that time to Larinum, and arranges with him for four hundred sesterces, as was shown at the time by his account-books. Lucius Clodius, being a man in a hurry, as he had many more market towns to visit, did the business off-hand, as soon as he was introduced; he took the woman off with the first draught he gave her, and did not stay at Larinum a moment afterwards.

> Latin: 40. ? aviam tuam, Oppianice, Dinaeam cui tu es heres pater tuus non manifesto necavit? quam cum adduxisset medicum illum suum iam cognitum et saepe victorem per quem interfecerat plurimos mulier exclamat se ab eo nullo modo velle curari quo curante omnis suos perdidisset. repente Anconitanum quendam, L.Lucium Clodium, pharmacopolam circumforaneum qui casu tum Larinum venisset adgreditur et cum eo HS duobus milibus, id quod ipsius tabulis est demonstratum, transigit. L.Lucius Clodius, cum properaret, cui fora multa restarent, simul atque introductus est rem confecit; prima potione mulierem sustulit neque postea Larini punctum est temporis commoratus. hac Dinaea testamentum faciente, cum tabulas prehendisset Oppianicus, qui gener eius fuisset, digito legata delevit et, cum id multis locis fecisset, post mortem eius ne lituris coargui posset testamentum in alias tabulas transcriptum signis adulterinis obsignavit.

[¶4] 41. When this Dinea was making her will, Oppianicus, who was her son-in-law, having taken the papers, effaced the legacies she bequeathed in it with his finger; and as he had done this in many places, after her death, being afraid of being detected by all those erasures, he had the will copied over again, and had it signed and sealed with forged seals. I pass over many things on purpose. And indeed I fear lest I may appear to have said too much as it is. But you must suppose that he has been consistent with himself in every other transaction of his life. All the senators of Larinum decided that he had tampered with the public registers of the censors of that city. No one would have any account with him; no one would transact any business with him. Of all the connections and relations that he had, no one ever left him guardian to his children. No one thought him fit to call on, or to meet in the street, or to talk to, or to dine with. All men shunned him with contempt and hatred,—all men avoided him as some inhuman and mischievous beast or pestilence.

> Latin: 41. praetereo consulto; etenim vereor ne haec ipsa nimium multa esse videantur. tamen similem sui eum fuisse in ceteris quoque vitae partibus existimare debetis. tabulas publicas Larini censorias corrupisse decuriones universi iudicaverunt; cum illo nemo iam rationem, nemo rem ullam contrahebat; nemo illum ex tam multis cognatis et adfinibus tutorem umquam liberis suis scripsit, nemo illum aditu, nemo congressione, nemo sermone, nemo convivio dignum iudicabat; omnes aspernabantur, omnes abhorrebant, omnes ut aliquam immanem ac perniciosam bestiam pestemque fugiebant.

[¶5] 42. Still, audacious, infamous, guilty as he was, Habitus, O judges, would never have accused him, if he had been able to avoid doing so without danger to his own life. Oppianicus was his enemy; still he was his step-father: his mother was cruel to him and hated him; still she was his mother. Lastly, no one was ever so disinclined to prosecutions as Cluentius was by nature, by disposition, and by the constant habits of his life. But as he had this alternative set before him, either to accuse hint, as he was bound to do by justice and piety, or else to be miserably and wickedly murdered himself, he preferred accusing him any way he could, to dying in that miserable manner.

> Latin: 42. tamen hominem tam audacem, tam nefarium, tam nocentem numquam accusasset, iudices, si id praetermittere suo salvo capite potuisset. huic inimicus Oppianicus, erat, sed tamen erat vitricus; crudelis et huic infesta mater, at mater; postremo nihil tam remotum ab accusatione quam Cluentius et natura et voluntate et instituta ratione vitae. cum esset haec ei proposita condicio ut aut iuste pieque accusaret aut acerbe indigneque moreretur, accusare quoquo modo posset quam illo modo emori maluit.

[¶6] 43. And that you may have this thoroughly proved to you, I will relate to you the crime of Oppianicus, as it was clearly detected and proved, from which you will see both things, both that my client could not avoid prosecuting him, and that he could not possibly escape being convicted. There were some officers at Larinum called Martiales, the public ministers of Mars, and consecrated to that god by the old institutions and religious ceremonies of the people of Larinum. And as there was a great number of them, and as, just as there were many slaves of Venus in Sicily, these also at Larinum were reckoned part of the household of Mars, on a sudden Oppianicus began to urge on their behalf, that they were all free men, and Roman citizens. The senators of Larinum and all the citizens of that municipality were very indignant at this. Accordingly they requested Habitus to undertake the cause and to maintain the public rights of the city. Habitus, although he had entirely retired from public life, still, out of regard to the place and the antiquity of his family, and because he thought that he was born not for his own advantage only, but also for that of his fellow-citizens, and of his other friends, he was unwilling to refuse the eager importunity of all the Larinatians.

> Latin: 43. ut hoc ita esse perspicere possitis exponam vobis Oppianici facinus manifesto compertum atque deprensum; ex quo simul utrumque, et huic accusare et illi condemnari, necesse fuisse intellegetis. Martiales quidam Larini appellabantur, ministri publici Martis atque ei deo veteribus institutis religionibusque Larinatium consecrati. cum satis magnus numerus esset, cumque item ut in Sicilia permulti Venerii sunt, sic illi Larini in Martis familia numerarentur, repente Oppianicus eos omnis liberos esse civisque Romanos coepit defendere. id decuriones Larinatium cunctique municipes tulerunt. ab petiverunt ut eam causam susciperet publiceque defenderet. cum se ab omni eius modi negotio removisset, tamen pro loco, pro antiquitate generis sui, pro eo quod se non suis commodis sed etiam suorum municipum ceterorumque necessariorum natum esse arbitrabatur, tantae voluntati universorum Larinatium deesse noluit.

[¶7] 44. Having undertaken the business, when the cause had been transferred to Rome, great contentions arose every day between Habitus and Oppianicus from the zeal of each for the side which he espoused. Oppianicus himself was a man of a bitter and savage disposition; and Habitus's own mother, being hostile to and furious against her son, inflamed his insane hatred. But they thought it exceedingly desirable for them to get rid of him, and to disconnect him from the cause of the Martiales. There was also another more influential reason which had great weight with Oppianicus, being a most avaricious and audacious man.

> Latin: 44. causa Romamque delata magnae cotidie contentiones inter et Oppianicum ex utriusque studio defensionis excitabantur. ipse immani acerbaque natura Oppianicus; incendebat eius amentiam infesta atque inimica filio mater. Magni autem illi sua interesse arbitrabantur hunc a causa Martialium demoveri. etiam alia causa maior quae Oppianici, hominis avarissimi atque audacissimi, mentem maxime commovebat.

[¶8] 45. For, up to the time of that trial, Habitus had never made any will. For he could not make up his mind to bequeath anything to such a mother as his, nor, on the other hand, to leave his parent's name entirely out of his will. And as Oppianicus was aware of that, for it was no secret, he plainly saw, that, if Habitus were dead, all his property would come to his mother; and she might afterwards, when she had become richer, and had lost her son, be put out of the way by him, with more profit, and with less danger. So now see in what manner he, being urged on by these desires, endeavoured to take off Habitus by poison.

> Latin: 45. usque ad illius iudici tempus nullum testamentum umquam fecerat; neque enim legare quicquam eius modi matri poterat in animum inducere neque testamento nomen omnino praetermittere parentis. cum Oppianicus sciret — neque enim erat obscurum — intellegebat mortuo bona eius omnia ad matrem esse ventura; quae ab sese postea aucta pecunia maiore praemio, orbata filio minore periculo necaretur. his rebus incensus qua ratione veneno tollere conatus sit cognoscite.

[¶9] 46. There were two twin brothers of the municipality of Aletrinum, by name Caius and Lucius Fabricius, men very like one another in appearance and disposition, but very unlike the rest of their fellow-citizens; among whom what uniform respectability of character, and what consistent and moderate habits of life prevail, there is not one of you, I imagine, who is ignorant. Oppianicus was always exceedingly intimate with these Fabricii. You are all pretty well aware what great power in causing friendship a similarity of pursuits and disposition has. As these two men lived in such a way as to think no gain discreditable; as every sort of fraud, and treachery, and cheating of young men was practiced by them; as they were notorious for every sort of vice and dishonesty, Oppianicus, as I have said, had cultivated their intimacy for many years.

> Latin: 46. C. et L.Lucii Fabricii fratres gemini fuerunt ex municipio Aletrinati, homines inter se cum forma tum moribus similes, municipum autem suorum dissimillimi; in quibus quantus splendor sit, quam prope aequabilis, quam fere omnium constans et moderata ratio vitae nemo vestrum, ut mea fert opinio, ignorat. Fabriciis semper est usus Oppianicus familiarissime. hoc fere scitis omnes quantam vim habeat ad coniungendas amicitias studiorum ac naturae similitudo. illi ita viverent ut nullum quaestum esse turpem arbitrarentur, cum omnis ab eis fraus, omnes insidiae circumscriptionesque adulescentium nascerentur, cumque essent vitiis atque improbitate omnibus noti, studiose, ut dixi, ad eorum se familiaritatem multis iam ante annis Oppianicus applicarat. tum sic statuit, per C.

[¶10] 47. And accordingly he now resolved to prepare destruction for Habitus by the agency of Caius Fabricius, for Lucius had died. Habitus was at that time in delicate health; and he was employing a physician of no great reputation, but a man of tried skill and honesty, by name Cleophantus, whose slave, Diogenes, Fabricius began to tamper with, and to induce by promises and bribes to give poison to Habitus. The slave, being a cunning fellow, but, as the affair proved, a virtuous and upright man, did not refuse to listen to Fabricius' discourse; he reported the matter to his master, and Cleophantus had a conference with Habitus. Habitus immediately communicated the business to Marcus Bebrius, a senator, his most intimate friend; and I imagine you all recollect what a loyal, and prudent, and worthy man he was. His advice was that Habitus should buy Diogenes of Cleophantus, in order that the matter might be more easily proved by his information, or else be discovered to be false. Not to make a long story of it, Diogenes is bought in a few days, (when many virtuous men had secretly been made aware of it,) the poison, and the money sealed up, which was given for that purpose, is seized in the hands of Scamander, a freedman of the Fabricii.

> Latin: 47. Fabricium — nam L. erat mortuus — insidias comparare. illo tempore infirma valetudine. Vtebatur autem medico non ignobili sed spectato homine, Cleophanto; cuius servum Diogenem Fabricius ad venenum dandum spe et pretio sollicitare coepit. non incallidus et, ut res ipsa declaravit, frugi atque integer sermonem Fabrici non est aspernatus; rem ad dominum detulit; Cleophantus autem cum est conlocutus. statim cum M.Marco Baebio senatore, familiarissimo suo, communicavit; qui qua fide, qua prudentia, qua diligentia fuerit meminisse vos arbitror. placuit ut Diogenem emeret a Cleophanto, quo facilius aut comprehenderetur res eius indicio aut falsa esse cognosceretur. multa, Diogenes emitur, venenum diebus paucis comparatur; multi viri boni cum ex occulto intervenissent, pecunia obsignata quae ob eam rem dabatur in manibus Scamandri, liberti Fabriciorum, deprehenditur.

[¶11] 48. O ye immortal gods! will any one, when he has heard all these facts, say that Oppianicus was falsely convicted? Who was ever more audacious? who was ever more guilty? who was ever brought before a court more manifestly detected in his guilt? What genius, what eloquence could there be, what plea in defence could possibly be devised, which could stand against this single accusation? And at the same time, who is there that can doubt that, in such a case as this so clearly detected and proved, Cluentius was forced either to die himself, or to undertake the prosecution?

> Latin: 48. di immortales! Oppianicum quisquam his rebus cognitis circumventum esse dicet? umquam audacior, quis nocentior, quis apertior in iudicium adductus est? ingenium, quae facultas dicendi, quae a quoquam excogitata defensio huic uni crimini potuit obsistere? et illud quis est qui dubitet quin hac re comperta manifestoque deprehensa aut obeunda mors Cluentio aut suscipienda accusatio fuerit?

[¶12] 49. I think, O judges, that it is proved plainly enough, that Oppianicus was prosecuted on such accusations that it was absolutely impossible for him to be honestly acquitted. Now I will show you that he was brought before the courts as a criminal, in such a way that he came before them already condemned, as there had been more than one or even two previous investigations of his case. For Cluentius, O judges, in the first instance, accused that man in whose hands he had seized the poison. That was Scamander, the freedman of the Fabricii. The Bench was honest. There was no suspicion of the judges having been bribed. A plain case, a well-proved fact, an undeniable charge was brought before the court. So then this Fabricius, the man whom I have mentioned already seeing that, if his freedman were condemned, he himself would be in danger, because he knew that I lived in the neighbourhood of Aletrinum, and was very intimate with many of the citizens of that place, brought a number of them to me: who, although they had that opinion of the man which they could not help having, still, because he was of the same municipality as themselves, thought it concerned their dignity to defend him by what means they could; and they begged of me that I would do so, and that I would undertake the cause of Scamander; and on his cause all the safety of his master depended.

> Latin: 49. esse arbitror demonstratum, iudices, eis criminibus accusatum esse Oppianicum uti honeste absolvi nullo modo potuerit. nunc ita reum citatum esse illum ut re semel atque iterum praeiudicata condemnatus in iudicium venerit. Cluentius, iudices, primum nomen eius detulit cuius in manibus venenum deprenderat. erat libertus Fabriciorum, Scamander. consilium, iudici corrupti nulla suspicio; simplex in iudicium causa, certa res, unum crimen adlatum est. tum C.Gaius Fabricius, is de quo ante dixi, qui liberto damnato sibi illud impendere periculum videret, quod mihi cum Aletrinatibus vicinitatem et cum plerisque eorum magnum usum esse sciebat, frequentis eos ad me domum adduxit. quamquam de homine sic ut necesse erat existimabant, tamen quod erat ex eodem municipio, suae dignitatis esse arbitrabantur eum quibus rebus possent defendere, idque a me ut facerem et ut causam Scamandri susciperem petebant, in qua causa patroni omne periculum continebatur.

[¶13] 50. I, as I was unable to refuse anything to men who were so respectable, and so much attached to me, —and as I was not aware that the accusation was one involving crimes of such enormity and so undeniably proved—as indeed they too, who were then recommending the cause to me, were not aware either,—promised to do all that they asked of me. The cause began to be pleaded; Scamander the defendant was cited before the court. Publius Canutius was the counsel for the prosecution, a man of the greatest ability, and a very accomplished speaker; and he accused Scamander in plain words, saying “that the poison had been discovered on him.” All the force of his accusation was directed against Oppianicus. The cause of his designs against Cluentius was revealed; his intimacy with the Fabricii was mentioned; the way of life and audacity of the man was revealed; in short, the whole accusation was stated with great firmness and with varied eloquence, and at last was summed up by the proved discovery of the poison. Then I rose to reply, with what anxiety, O ye immortal gods!

> Latin: 50. , qui neque illis talibus viris ac tam amantibus mei rem possem ullam negare neque illud crimen tantum ac tam manifestum esse arbitrarer, sicut ne illi ipsi quidem qui mihi tum illam causam commendabant arbitrabantur, pollicitus eis sum me omnia quae vellent esse facturum. agi coepta est; citatus est Scamander reus. P.Publius Cannutius, homo in primis ingeniosus et in dicendo exercitatus; accusabat autem ille quidem Scamandrum verbis tribus, venenum esse deprensum. tela totius accusationis in Oppianicum coniciebantur, aperiebatur causa insidiarum, Fabriciorum familiaritas commemorabatur, hominis vita et audacia proferebatur, denique omnis accusatio varie graviterque tractata ad extremum manifesta veneni deprehensione conclusa est. ego tum ad respondendum surrexi qua cura, di immortales!

[¶14] 51. with what solicitude of mind! with what fear! Indeed, I am always very nervous when I begin to speak. As often as I rise to speak, so often do I think that I am myself on my trial, not only as to my ability, but also as to my virtue and as to the discharge of my duty; lest I should either seem to have undertaken what I am incapable of performing, which is an impudent act, or not to perform it as well as I can, which is either a perfidious action or a careless one. But that time I was so agitated, that I was afraid of everything. I was afraid, if I said nothing, of being thought utterly devoid of eloquence, and, if I said much in such a case, of being considered the most shameless of men. I recollected myself after a time, and adopted this resolution, that I must needs act boldly; that the age which I was of at that time generally had much allowance made for it, even if I were to stand by men in danger, though their cause had but little justice in it. And so I acted. I strove and contended by every possible means, I had recourse to every possible expedient, to every imaginable excuse in the case, which I could think of; so as, at all events, (though I am almost ashamed to say it,) no one could think that the cause had been left without an advocate.

> Latin: 51. qua sollicitudine animi, quo timore! equidem magno cum metu incipio dicere; quotienscumque dico, totiens mihi videor in iudicium venire non ingeni solum sed etiam virtutis atque offici, ne aut id profiteri videar quod non possim, quod est impudentiae, aut non id efficere quod possim, quod est aut perfidiae aut neglegentiae. vero ita sum perturbatus ut omnia timerem, si nihil dixissem ne infantissimus, si multa in eius modi causa dixissem ne impudentissimus existimarer. me aliquando et ita constitui, fortiter esse agendum; illi aetati qua tum eram solere laudi dari, etiam si in minus firmis causis hominum periculis non defuissem. feci; sic pugnavi, sic omni ratione contendi, sic ad omnia confugi, quantum ego adsequi potui, remedia ac perfugia causarum ut hoc quod timide dicam consecutus sim, ne quis illi causae patronum defuisse arbitraretur.

[¶15] 52. But, whatever excuse I tried to put forth, the prosecutor immediately wrested out of my hands. If I asked what enmity there was between Scamander and Habitus, he admitted that there was none. But he said that Oppianicus, whose agent he had been, had always been and still was most hostile to Habitus. If again I urged that no advantage would accrue to Scamander by the death of Habitus; he admitted that, but he said that all the property of Habitus would come to the wife of Oppianicus, a man who had had plenty of practice in killing his wives. When I employed this argument in the defence, which has always been considered a most honourable one to use in the causes of freedmen, that Scamander was highly esteemed by his patron; he admitted that, but asked, Who had any opinion of that patron himself?

> Latin: 52. ut quidquid ego apprehenderam, statim accusator extorquebat e manibus. quaesiveram quae inimicitiae Scamandro cum, fatebatur nullas fuisse, sed Oppianicum cuius ille minister fuisset huic inimicissimum fuisse atque esse dicebat. autem illud egeram, nullum ad Scamandrum morte venturum emolumentum fuisse, concedebat, sed ad uxorem Oppianici, hominis in uxoribus necandis exercitati, omnia bona ventura fuisse dicebat. illa defensione usus essem quae in libertinorum causis honestissima semper existimata est, Scamandrum patrono esse probatum, fatebatur, sed quaerebat cui probatus esset ipse patronus.

[¶16] 53. When I urged at some length the argument, that plot might have been laid against Scamander by Diogenes, and that it might have been arranged between them on some other account that Diogenes should bring him medicine, not poison that this might happen to any one; he asked why he came into such a place as that, into so secret a place, why he came by himself, why he came with a sum of money sealed up. And lastly, at this point, our cause was weighed down by witnesses, most honourable men. Marcus Bebrius said that Diogenes had been bought by his advice, and that he was present when Scamander was seized with the poison and the money in his possession. Publius Quintilius Varus a man of the most scrupulous honour, and of the greatest authority, said that Cleophantus had conversed with him about the plots which were being laid against Habitus, and about the tampering with Diogenes, while the matter was fresh.

> Latin: 53. ego pluribus verbis in eo commoratus essem, Scamandro insidias factas esse per Diogenem constitutumque inter eos alia de re fuisse ut medicamentum, non venenum Diogenes adferret; hoc cuivis usu venire posse: quaerebat cur in eius modi locum tam abditum, cur solus, cur cum obsignata pecunia venisset. hoc loco causa testibus honestissimis hominibus premebatur. M.Marcus Baebius de suo consilio Diogenem emptum, se praesente Scamandrum cum veneno pecuniaque deprehensum esse dicebat. P.Publius Quintilius Varus, homo summa religione et summa auctoritate praeditus, de insidiis quae fierent et de sollicitatione Diogenis recenti re secum Cleophantum locutum esse dicebat.

[¶17] 54. And all through that trial, though we appeared to be defending Scamander, he was the defendant only in name, but in reality, it was Oppianicus who was in peril, and who was the object of the whole prosecution. Nor, indeed, was there any doubt about it, nor could he disguise that that was the case. He was constantly present in court, constantly interfering in the case; he was exerting all his zeal and all his influence. And lastly, which was of great injury to our cause, he was sitting in that very place as if he were the defendant. The eyes of all the judges were directed, not towards Scamander, but towards Oppianicus; his fear, his agitation, his countenance betraying suspense and uncertainty, his constant change of colour, made all those things, which were previously very suspicious, palpable and evident.

> Latin: 54. in illo iudicio cum Scamandrum nos defendere videremur, verbo ille reus erat, re quidem vera et periculo tota accusatione Oppianicus. id obscure ferebat nec dissimulare ullo modo poterat; aderat frequens, advocabat, omni studio gratiaque pugnabat; postremo — id quod maximo malo illi causae fuit — hoc ipso in loco, quasi reus ipse esset, sedebat. omnium iudicum non in Scamandrum sed in Oppianicum coniciebantur; timor eius, perturbatio, suspensus incertusque voltus, crebra coloris mutatio, quae erant antea suspiciosa, haec aperta et manifesta faciebant.

[¶18] 55. When the judges were about to come to their decision, Caius Junius, the president, asked the defendant, according to the provisions of the Cornelian law which then existed, whether he wished the decision to be come to in his case secretly or openly. He replied by the advice of Oppianicus, because he said that Junius was an intimate friend of Habitus, that he wished the decision to be come to secretly. The judges deliberate. Scamander on the first trial was convicted by every vote except one, which Stalenus said was his. Who in the whole city was there at that time, who when Scamander was condemned, did not think that sentence had been passed on Oppianicus? What point was decided by that conviction except that that poison had been procured for the purpose of being given to Habitus? However, what suspicion of the very slightest nature attached, or could attach to Scamander, so that he should be thought to have desired of his own accord to kill Habitus?

> Latin: 55. in consilium iri oporteret, quaesivit ab reo C.Gaius Iunius quaesitor ex lege illa Cornelia quae tum erat clam an palam de se sententiam ferri vellet. Oppianici sententia responsum est, quod is familiarem Iunium esse dicebat, clam velle ferri. est in consilium. sententiis praeter unam quam suam Staienus esse dicebat Scamander prima actione condemnatus est. tum erat omnium qui Scamandro condemnato non iudicium de Oppianico factum esse arbitraretur? quid est illa damnatione iudicatum, nisi venenum id quod daretur esse quaesitum? porro tenuissima suspicio conlata in Scamandrum est aut conferri potuit ut is sua sponte necare voluisse putaretur?

[¶19] 56. And, now that this trial had taken place, now that Oppianicus was convicted in fact, and in the general opinion of every one, though he was not yet condemned by any sentence having been legally passed upon him, still Habitus did not at once proceed criminally against Oppianicus. He wished to know whether the judges were severe against those men only whom they had ascertained to have poison in their own possession, or whether they judged the intention and complicity of others in such crimes worthy of the same punishment. Therefore, he immediately proceeded against Caius Fabricius, who, on account of his intimacy with Oppianicus, he thought must have been privy to that crime; and, on account of the connection of the two causes, he obtained leave to have that cause taken first. Then this Fabricius not only did not bring to me my neighbours and friends the citizens of Aletrinum, but he was not able himself any longer to employ them as men eager in his defence, or as witnesses to his character.

> Latin: 56. hoc tum iudicio facto et Oppianico re et existimatione iam, lege et pronuntiatione nondum condemnato tamen Oppianicum reum statim non fecit. cognoscere utrum iudices in eos solos essent severi quos venenum habuisse ipsos comperissent, an etiam consilia conscientiasque eius modi facinorum supplicio dignas iudicarent. C.Gaium Fabricium quem propter familiaritatem Oppianici conscium illi facinori fuisse arbitrabatur reum statim fecit, utique ei locus primus constitueretur propter causae coniunctionem impetravit. tum Fabricius non modo ad me meos vicinos et amicos Aletrinatis non adduxit sed ipse eis neque defensoribus uti postea neque laudatoribus potuit.

[¶20] 57. For they and I thought it suitable to our humanity to uphold the cause of a man not entirely a stranger to us, while it was undecided, though suspicious; but to endeavour to upset the decision which had been come to, we should have thought a deed of great impudence. Accordingly he, being compelled by his desolate condition and necessity, fled for aid to the brothers Cepasii, industrious men, and of such a disposition as to think it an honour and a kindness to have any opportunity of speaking afforded them. Now this is a very shameful thing, that in diseases of the body, the more serious the complaint is, the more carefully is a physician of great eminence and skill sought for; but in capital trials, the worse the case is, the more obscure and unprincipled is the practitioner to whom men have recourse.

> Latin: 57. enim integram hominis non alieni quamvis suspiciosam defendere humanitatis esse putabamus, iudicatam labefactare conari impudentiae. tum ille inopia et necessitate coactus in causa eius modi ad Caepasios fratres confugit, homines industrios atque eo animo ut quaecumque dicendi potestas esset data in honore atque in beneficio ponerent. hoc prope iniquissime comparatum est quod in morbis corporis, ut quisque est difficillimus, ita medicus nobilissimus atque optimus quaeritur, in periculis capitis, ut quaeque causa difficillima est, ita deterrimus obscurissimusque patronus adhibetur. Nisi forte hoc causae est quod medici nihil praeter artificium, oratores etiam auctoritatem praestare debent.

[¶21] 58. The defendant is brought before the court; the cause is pleaded; Canutius says but little in support of the accusation, it being a case, in fact, already decided. The elder Cepasius begins to reply, in a long exordium, tracing the facts a long way back. At first his speech is listened to with attention. Oppianicus began to recover his spirits, having been before downcast and dejected. Fabricius himself was delighted. He was not aware that the attention of the judges was awakened, not by the eloquence of the man, but by the impudence of the defence. After he began to discuss the immediate facts of the case, he himself aggravated considerably the unfavourable circumstances that already existed. Although he pleaded with great diligence, yet at times he seemed not to be defending the man, but only quibbling with the accusation. And while he was thinking that he was speaking with great art, and when he had made up this form of words with his utmost skill, “Look, O judges, at the fortunes of the men, look at the uncertainty and variety of the events that have befallen them, look at the old age of Fabricius;”—when he had frequently repeated this “Look,” for the sake of adorning his speech, he himself did look, but Caius Fabricius had slunk away from his seat with his head down.

> Latin: 58. reus, agitur causa; paucis verbis accusat ut de re iudicata Cannutius; incipit longo et alte petito prooemio respondere maior Caepasius. attente auditur eius oratio. animum iam demissum et oppressum Oppianicus; gaudebat ipse Fabricius; non intellegebat animos iudicum non illius eloquentia sed defensionis impudentia commoveri. quam de re coepit dicere, ad ea quae erant in causa addebat etiam ipse nova quaedam volnera ut, quamquam sedulo faciebat, tamen interdum non defendere sed praevaricari videretur. cum callidissime se dicere putaret et cum illa verba gravissima ex intimo artificio deprompsisset: “, iudices, hominum fortunas, respicite dubios variosque casus, respicite C.Gaii Fabrici senectutem” — cum hoc “respicite” ornandae orationis causa saepe dixisset, respexit ipse. C.Gaius Fabricius a subselliis demisso capite discesserat.

[¶22] 59. On this the judges began to laugh; the counsel began to get in a rage, and to be very indignant that his cause was taken out of his mouth, and that he could not go on saying “Look, O judges,” from that place; nor was anything nearer happening, than his pursuing him and seizing him by the throat, and bringing him back to his seat, in order that he might be able to finish his summing up. And so Fabricius was condemned, in the first place by his own judgment, which is the severest condemnation of all, and in the second place by the authority of the law, and by the sentences of the judges. Why, now, need we say any more of this cause of Oppianicus? He was brought as a defendant before those very judges by whom he had already been condemned in ten previous examinations. By the same judges, who, by the condemnation of Fabricius, had in reality passed sentence on Oppianicus, his trial was appointed to come on first. He was accused of the gravest crimes, both of those which have already been briefly mentioned by me, and of many others besides, all of which I now pass over. He was accused before those men who had already condemned both Scamander the agent of Oppianicus, and Fabricius his accomplice in crime.

> Latin: 59. iudices ridere, stomachari atque acerbe ferre patronus causam sibi eripi et se cetera de illo loco “, iudices” non posse dicere; nec quicquam propius est factum quam ut illum persequeretur et collo obtorto ad subsellia reduceret ut reliqua posset perorare. tum Fabricius primum suo iudicio, quod est gravissimum, deinde legis vi et sententiis iudicum est condemnatus. est quod iam de Oppianici persona causaque plura dicamus? eosdem iudices reus est factus, cum his duobus praeiudiciis iam damnatus esset; ab isdem autem iudicibus qui Fabriciorum damnatione de Oppianico iudicarant locus ei primus est constitutus. est criminibus gravissimis, et eis quae a me breviter dicta sunt et praeterea multis quae ego omnia nunc omitto; accusatus est apud eos qui Scamandrum ministrum Oppianici, C. Fabricium conscium malefici condemnarant.

[¶23] 60. Which, O ye immortal gods! is most to be wondered at, that he was condemned, or that he dared to make any reply? For what could those judges do? If they had condemned the Fabricii when innocent, still in the case of Oppianicus they ought to have been consistent with themselves, and to have made their present decision harmonize with their previous ones. Could they themselves of their own accord rescind their own judgments, when other men, when giving judgment, are accustomed most especially to take care that their decisions be not at variance with those of other judges? And could those who had condemned the freedman of Fabricius, because he had been an agent in the crime, and his patron, because he had been privy to it, acquit the principal and original contriver of the whole wickedness? Could those who, without any previous examination, had condemned the other men from what appeared in the cause itself, acquit this man whom they knew to have been already convicted twice over?

> Latin: 60. Vtrum per deos immortalis! magis est mirandum quod is condemnatus est, an quod omnino respondere ausus est? enim illi iudices facere potuerunt? qui si innocentis Fabricios condemnassent, tamen in Oppianico sibi constare et superioribus consentire iudiciis debuerunt. vero illi sua per se ipsi iudicia rescinderent, cum ceteri soleant in iudicando ne ab aliorum iudiciis discrepent providere? et illi qui Fabrici libertum, quia minister in maleficio fuerat, patronum, quia conscius, condemnassent, ipsum principem atque architectum sceleris absolverent? et qui ceteros nullo praeiudicio facto tamen ex ipsa causa condemnassent, hunc quem bis iam condemnatum acceperant liberarent?

[¶24] 61. Then indeed those decisions of the senatorial body, branded with no imaginary odium, but with real and conspicuous infamy, covered with disgrace and ignominy, would have left no room for any defence of them. For what answer could these judges make if any one asked of them, “You have condemned Scamander; of what crime? Because, forsooth, he attempted to murder Habitus by poison, by the agency of the slave of the doctor. What was Scamander to gain by the death of Habitus? Nothing; but he was the agent of Oppianicus. You have condemned Caius Fabricius; why so? Because, as he himself was exceedingly intimate with Oppianicus, and as his freedman had been detected in the very act, it was not proved that he was entirely ignorant of his design.” If, then, they had acquitted Oppianicus himself, after he had been twice condemned by their own decisions, who could have endured such infamy on the part of the tribunals, such inconsistency in judicial decisions, and such caprice on the part of the judges?

> Latin: 61. vero illa iudicia senatoria non falsa invidia sed vera atque insigni turpitudine notata atque operta dedecore et infamia defensioni locum nullum reliquissent. enim tandem illi iudices responderent, si qui ab eis quaereret: “Condemnastis Scamandrum, quo crimine?” “quod per servum medici veneno necare voluisset.” “morte Scamander consequebatur?” “, sed administer erat Oppianici.” “condemnastis C.Gaium Fabricium, quid ita?” “, cum ipse familiarissime Oppianico usus, libertus autem eius in maleficio deprensus esset, illum expertem eius consili fuisse non probabatur.” igitur ipsum Oppianicum bis suis iudiciis condemnatum absolvissent, quis tantam turpitudinem iudiciorum, quis tantam inconstantiam rerum iudicatarum, quis tantam libidinem iudicum ferre potuisset?

[¶25] 62. But if you now clearly see this, which has been long ago proved by the whole of my speech, that the defendant must inevitably be condemned by that decision, especially when brought before the same judges who had made two previous investigations into the matter, you must at the same time see this, that the accuser could have had no imaginable reason for wishing to bribe the bench of judges. 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.

> Latin: 62. si hoc videtis quod iam hac omni oratione patefactum est, illo iudicio reum condemnari, praesertim ab isdem iudicibus qui duo praeiudicia fecissent, necesse fuisse, simul illud videatis necesse est, nullam accusatori causam esse potuisse cur iudicium vellet corrumpere. enim de te, T.Tite Atti, relictis iam ceteris argumentis omnibus, num Fabricios quoque innocentis condemnatos existimes, num etiam illa iudicia pecunia corrupta esse dicas, quibus in iudiciis alter a Staieno solo absolutus est, alter etiam ipse se condemnavit., si nocentes, cuius malefici? num quid praeter venenum quaesitum quo necaretur obiectum est? num quid aliud in illis iudiciis versatum est praeter hasce insidias ab Oppianico per Fabricium factas?, nihil, inquam, aliud, iudices, reperietis. memoria, sunt tabulae publicae; redargue me, si mentior; testium dicta recita, doce in illorum iudiciis quid praeter hoc venenum Oppianici non modo in criminis sed in male dicti loco sit obiectum.

[¶26] 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.

> Latin: 63. dici possunt qua re ita necesse fuerit iudicari, sed ego occurram exspectationi vestrae, iudices. etsi a vobis sic audior ut numquam benignius neque attentius quemquam auditum putem, tamen vocat me alio iam dudum tacita vestra exspectatio quae mihi obloqui videtur: “ergo? negasne illud iudicium esse corruptum?” nego, sed ab hoc corruptum non esse confirmo. “A quo igitur est corruptum?”, primum, si incertum fuisset quisnam exitus illius iudici futurus esset, veri similius tamen esset eum potius corrupisse qui metuisset ne ipse condemnaretur quam illum qui veritus esset ne alter absolveretur; deinde, cum esset non dubium quid iudicari necesse esset, eum certe potius qui sibi aliqua ratione diffideret quam eum qui omni ratione confideret; postremo certe potius illum qui bis apud eos iudices offendisset quam eum qui bis causam probavisset.

[¶27] 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. And I will adduce those facts as arguments which, however, are very weighty ones—namely, that he was the briber, who was in danger,—that he was the briber, who was afraid,—that he was the briber, who had no hope of safety by any other means; he who was always a man of extraordinary audacity. There are many such arguments. But when I have a case which is not doubtful, bull open and evident, the enumeration of every separate argument is superfluous.

> Latin: 64. Vnum quidem certe nemo erit tam inimicus Cluentio qui mihi non concedat, si constet corruptum illud esse iudicium, aut ab aut ab Oppianico esse corruptum; si doceo non ab, vinco ab Oppianico; si ostendo ab Oppianico, purgo. re, etsi satis docui rationem nullam huic corrumpendi iudici fuisse, ex quo intellegitur ab Oppianico esse corruptum, tamen de illo ipso separatim cognoscite. ego illa non argumentabor quae sunt gravia vehementer, eum corrupisse qui in periculo fuerit, eum qui metuerit, eum qui spem salutis in alia ratione non habuerit, eum qui semper singulari fuerit audacia. sunt eius modi; verum cum habeam rem non dubiam sed apertam atque manifestam, enumeratio singulorum argumentorum non est necessaria.

[¶28] 65. I say that Statius Albius gave Caius Attius Stalenus the judge a large sum of money to influence his decision. Does any one deny it? I appeal to you, O Oppianicus; to you, O Titus Attius; the one of whom deplores that conviction with his eloquence, the other with silent piety. Dare to deny it, if you can, that money was given by Oppianicus to Stalenus the judge. Deny it—deny it, I say, where you stand. Why are you silent? But you cannot deny it, for you sought to recover what had been paid. You have admitted it,—you have recovered it. With what face now do you dare to mention a decision given through corruption, when you confess that money was given by the opposite side to the judge before trial, and recovered from him after the trial?

> Latin: 65. C.Gaio Aelio Staieno iudici pecuniam grandem Statium Albium ad corrumpendum iudicium dedisse. quis negat?, Oppianice, appello, te, T.Tite Atti, quorum alter eloquentia damnationem illam, alter tacita pietate deplorat; audete negare ab Oppianico Staieno iudici pecuniam datam, negate, negate, inquam, meo loco. tacetis? an negare non potestis quod repetistis, quod confessi estis, quod abstulistis? tandem igitur ore mentionem corrupti iudici facitis, cum ab ista parte iudici pecuniam ante iudicium datam, post iudicium ereptam esse fateamini?

[¶29] 66. How, then, were all these things managed? I will go back a little way, O judges, and I will explain everything which has lain hid in long obscurity, so that you shall appear almost to see it with your eyes. I entreat you, as you have listened to me attentively up to this time, so to listen to what is to come. In truth, nothing shall be said by me which shall not seem to be worthy of this assembly and this silence which is maintained in the court,—worthy of your attention and of your ears. For when first Oppianicus began to suspect, from the fact of a prosecution having been instituted against Scamander, what danger he himself was threatened with, he immediately set himself to work to become intimate with a man, needy, audacious, a practiced agent in the corruption of tribunals but at that time himself a judge, Stalenus. And first of all, when Scamander was the defendant, he made such an impression on him by his gifts, and presents, and liberality; that he showed himself a more eager assistant than the credit of a judge could stand.

> Latin: 66. igitur haec modo gesta sunt? paulo altius, iudices, et omnia quae in diuturna obscuritate latuerunt sic aperiam ut ea cernere oculis videamini. quaeso, ut adhuc me attente audistis, item quae reliqua sunt audiatis; profecto nihil a me dicetur quod non dignum hoc conventu et silentio, dignum vestris studiis atque auribus esse videatur. ut primum Oppianicus ex eo quod Scamander reus erat factus quid sibi impenderet coepit suspicari, statim se ad hominis egentis, audacis, in iudiciis corrumpendis exercitati, tum autem iudicis, Staieni familiaritatem applicavit. primum Scamandro reo tantum donis muneribusque perfecerat ut eo fautore uteretur cupidiore quam fides iudicis postulabat.

[¶30] 67. But afterwards, when Scamander had been acquitted by the single vote of Stalenus, but when the patron of Scamander had not been acquitted even by his own judgment, he found that he must provide for his safety by stronger measures. Then he began to request of Stalenus as from a man most acute in contriving, most impudent in daring, and most intrepid in executing, (for all these qualities he had in a great degree, and he pretended to have them in a still greater degree,) assistance to save his credit and his fortunes. You are not ignorant, O judges, that even beasts, when warned by hunger, usually return to that place where they have once been fed.

> Latin: 67. autem cum esset Scamander unius Staieni sententia absolutus, patronus autem Scamandri ne sua quidem sententia liberatus, acrioribus saluti suae remediis subveniendum putavit. ab Staieno, sicut ab homine ad excogitandum acutissimo, ad audendum impudentissimo, ad efficiendum acerrimo — haec enim ille et aliqua ex parte habebat et maiore ex parte se habere simulabat — auxilium capiti ac fortunis suis petere coepit. hoc non ignoratis, iudices, ut etiam bestiae fame monitae plerumque ad eum locum ubi pastae sunt aliquando revertantur.

[¶31] 68. That Stalenus, two years before, when he had undertaken the cause of the property of Safinius at Atella, had said that he would bribe the tribunal with six hundred thousand sesterces. But when he had received this sum from the youth, he embezzled it, and when the trial was over, he did not restore it either to Safinius or to the purchasers of the property. But when he had spent all that money, and had nothing left, not only nothing to gratify his desires, but nothing even to supply his necessities, he made up his mind that he must return to the same system of plunder and judicial embezzlement. And, therefore, as he saw that Oppianicus was in a desperate way, and overwhelmed by two previous investigations adverse to him, he raised him up from his depression with his promises, and bade him not despair of safety. Oppianicus began to entreat the man to show him some method of corrupting the tribunal.

> Latin: 68. Staienus ille biennio ante cum causam bonorum Safini Atellae recepisset, sescentis milibus nummum se iudicium corrupturum esse dixerat. cum accepisset a pupillo, suppressit iudicioque facto nec Safinio nec bonorum emptoribus reddidit. cum pecuniam profudisset et sibi nihil non modo ad cupiditates suas sed ne ad necessitatem quidem reliquisset, statuit ad easdem esse sibi praedas ac suppressiones iudicialis revertendum. cum Oppianicum iam perditum et duobus iugulatum praeiudiciis videret, promissis suis eum excitavit abiectum et simul saluti desperare vetuit. Oppianicus autem orare hominem coepit ut sibi rationem ostenderet iudici corrumpendi.

[¶32] 69. But he, as was afterwards heard from Oppianicus himself, said that there was no one in the city except himself who could do this. But at first he began to make objections, because he said that he was a candidate for the aedileship with men of the highest rank, and that he was afraid of incurring unpopularity and of giving offence. Afterwards, being prevailed on, he required at first a large sum of money. At last, he came down to what could be managed, and desired six hundred and forty thousand sesterces to be sent to his house. And as soon as this money was brought to him, that most worthless man immediately began to form and adopt the following idea,—that nothing could be more advantageous for his interests than for Oppianicus to be condemned; because, if he were acquitted, he must either distribute the money among the judges, or else restore it to him: but if he were condemned, there would be no one to reclaim it.

> Latin: 69. autem, quem ad modum ex ipso Oppianico postea est auditum, negavit quemquam esse in civitate praeter se qui id efficere posset. primo gravari coepit, quod aedilitatem se petere cum hominibus nobilissimis et invidiam atque offensionem timere dicebat. exoratus initio permagnam pecuniam poposcit, deinde ad id pervenit quod confici potuit; HS dcxl deferri ad se domum iussit. pecunia simul atque ad eum delata est, homo impurissimus statim coepit in eius modi mente et cogitatione versari, nihil esse suis rationibus utilius quam Oppianicum condemnari; illo absoluto pecuniam illam aut iudicibus dispertiendam aut ipsi esse reddendam; damnato repetiturum esse neminem.