<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-eng2:61-62</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi010.perseus-eng2:61-62</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="61" resp="perseus"><p>
    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? 
   </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="62" resp="perseus"><p><milestone unit="para"/> 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. <milestone n="23" unit="chapter"/>
   <milestone unit="para"/>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. </p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>