<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-eng2:87-88</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi010.perseus-eng2:87-88</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="87" resp="perseus"><p><milestone unit="para"/>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. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="88" resp="perseus"><p><milestone unit="para"/>But a great many decisions have been come to, tending to prove that the tribunal was corrupted
    by Cluentius. I say, on the other hand, that before this time, that matter has never been
    brought before the court at all on its own merits. The matter has been so very much canvassed,
    and has been so long the subject of discussion, that this is the very first day that a word has
    been said in defence of Cluentius; this is the very first day that truth, relying on these
    judges, he ventured to lift up her voice against the popular feeling. However, what are all
    those numerous decisions? for I have prepared myself to encounter everything, and I am ready to
    show that the decisions which were said to have been come to afterwards, bearing on that
    decision, were, as to some of them, more like an earthquake or a tempest, than an orderly
    judgment or a regular decision; that, as to some of them they had no weight against Habitus at
    all; that some of them even told in his favour; and that some were such that they were never
    called judicial decisions at all, and never even thought so. </p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>