<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi010.perseus-eng2:119-120</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi010.perseus-eng2:119-120</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="translation" xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi010.perseus-eng2" subtype="translation"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="119" resp="perseus"><p><milestone unit="para"/>I see then, O judges, that the censors passed animadversion
    on some of the judges who sat on that trial which <persName><surname>Junius</surname></persName>
    presided over, and added to their sentence that that very trial was the cause of it. Now, first
    I will lay down this general principle, that this city has never been so content with censorial
    animadversions as with judicial decisions. Nor in so notorious a case need I waste time by
    citing instances. I will just adduce this one fact,—that Caius Geta, after he had been expelled
    the senate by Lucius Metellus and Cnaeus Domitius when they were censors, was himself appointed
    censor afterwards; and that he whose morals had met with this reproof from the censors, was
    afterwards appointed to judge of the morals of the whole Roman people, and of those very men who
    had thus punished him. But if that had been thought a final judicial decision, (as other men
    when they have been condemned by a sentence involving infamy are deprived for ever of all honour
    and all dignity, so) a man branded with this ignominy would never have had any subsequent access
    to honour, or any possibility of return to the senate. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="120" resp="perseus"><p> Now,
    if the freedman of Cnaeus Lentulus or of Lucius Gellius should convict any man of theft, he,
    being deprived of all his credit, will never recover any portion of his honourable position in
    the city; but those men, whom Lucius Gellius himself and Cnaeus Lentulus, the two censors, most
    illustrious citizens and most wise men, have animadverted on, and, in their reasons for their
    sentences, have imputed to them theft and peculation, have not only returned to the senate, but
    have been acquitted of those very charges by judicial sentence. <milestone n="43" unit="chapter"/>
   <milestone unit="para"/>Our ancestors did not think it fit for any one to be a judge, not only of any one's character,
    but not even of the most insignificant money matter, if he had not been agreed to by both the
    contending parties. Wherefore, in every law in which exception has been made of causes for which
    a magistrate may not be taken, or a judge elected, or another man accused, this cause of
    ignominy is passed over. For their intention was that the power of the censors should strike the
    profligate with terror, but not that it should have power over their lives. </p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>