[87]
Was the money given to procure any collusion? That, too, has a direct reference to
corrupting the judges. But what was the necessity for employing a judge as an agent in such a
business? And above all things, what need was there for transacting the whole business through
the agency of Stalenus, a man perfectly unconnected with either party, —a most
sordid and infamous man—rather than through the intervention of some respectable
person, some common friend or connection of both parties? But why need I discuss this matter
at length, as if there were any obscurity in the business, when the very money which was given
to Stalenus, proves by its amount and by its sum total, not only how much it was, but for what
purpose it was given? I say that it was necessary to bribe sixteen judges, in order to procure
the acquittal of Oppianicus; I say that six hundred and forty thousand sesterces were taken to
Stalenus's house. If, as you say, this was for the purpose of conciliating good-will, what is
the meaning of that addition of forty thousand sesterces? but if, as we say, it was in order
that forty thousand sesterces might be given to each judge, then Archimedes himself could not
calculate more accurately.
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.