Pro P. Quinctio

After that I recited the edict, which expressly forbade the owner to be driven off his by which it was plain that Naevius had not taken possession according to the edict, as he confessed that Quinctius had been driven off his farm by force. But I thoroughly proved that the goods had actually not been taken possession of, because such a seizure of goods is looked at not as to part but with respect to everything which can be seized or taken possession of. I said that he had a house at Rome which that fellow never even made an attempt on; that he had many slaves, of which he neither took possession of any, and did not even touch any; that there was one whom he attempted to touch; that he was forbidden to, and that he remained quiet.

You know also that Sextus Naevius never came on to the private farms of Quinctius even in Gaul. Lastly I proved that the private servants of Quinctius were not all driven away from that very estate which he took possession of, having expelled his partner by force. From which, and from all the other sayings, and actions, and thoughts of Sextus Naevius, any one can understand that that fellow did nothing else, and is now doing nothing, but endeavouring by violence, by injustice, and by unfair means at this trial, to make the whole farm his own which belongs to both partners in common.

Now that I have summed up the whole cause the affair itself and the magnitude of the danger, O Caius Aquillius, seem to make it necessary for Publius Quinctius to solicit and entreat you and your colleagues, by his old age and his desolate condition, merely to follow the dictates or your own nature and goodness; so that as the truth is on his side, his necessitous state may move you to pity rather than the influence of the other party to cruelty.

From the self same day when we came before you as judges, we began to disregard all the threats of those men which before we were alarmed at. If cause was to contend with cause we are sure that we could easily prove ours to any one but as the course of life of the one was to be contested with the course of life of the other, we thought we had on that account even more need of you as our judge. For this is the very point now in question, whether the rustic and unpolished economy of my client can defend itself against the luxury and licentiousness of the other or whether, homely as it is, and stripped of all ornaments, it is to lie handed over naked to covetousness and wantonness.