[23]
Therefore, I willingly allow that part of the cause to be concluded, summed
up, as it has been, with dignity and elegance by Marcus Crassus; the part, I
mean, which relates to the seditions at Naples, to the expulsion of the Alexandrians from
Puteoli, and to the
property of Palla. I wish he had also discussed the transaction respecting
Dio. And yet on that subject what is there that you can expect me to say, when the man who committed the murder is not afraid, but
even confesses it? For he is a king. But the man who is said to have been
the assistant and accomplice in the murder, has been acquitted by a regular
trial. What sort of crime, then, is this, that the man who has committed it
does not deny it—that he who has denied it has been acquitted, and
yet that a man is to be afraid of the accusation who was not only at a
distance from the deed, but who has never been suspected of being even privy
to it? And if the merits of his case availed Asicius more than the odium
engendered by the fact of such a crime injured him, is your abuse to injure
this man, who has never once had a suspicion of the crime breathed against
him, not even by the vaguest report?
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.