What was the first opportunity, then, which was given to the agent of defending this absent man? When you were putting up the placards. Then Sextus Alphenus was present: he did not permit it; he tore down the notices. That which was the first step of duty was observed by the agent with the greatest diligence. Let us see what followed on this. You arrest the servant of Publius Quinctius in public: you attempt to take him away. Alphenus does not permit it; he takes him from you by force; he takes care that he is led home to Quinctius. Here too is seen in a high degree the attention of an illustrious agent. You say that Quinctius is in your debt; his agent denies it. You wish security to he given; he promises it. You call him into court; he follows you. You demand a trial; he does not object. What other could be the conduct of one defending a man in his absence I do not understand.

But who was the agent? I suppose it was some insignificant man, poor, litigious, worthless, who might be able to endure the daily abuse of a wealthy buffoon. Nothing of the sort: he was a wealthy Roman knight; a man managing his own affairs well: he was, in short, the man whom Naevius himself as often as he went into Gaul, left as his agent at Rome. And do you dare, O Sextus Naevius, to deny that Quinctius was defended in his absence, when the same man defended him who used to defend you? and when he accepted the trial on behalf of Quinctius, to whom when departing you used to recommend and entrust your own property and character? Do you attempt to say that there was no one who defended Quinctius at the trial?

“I demanded,” says he, “that security should be given.” You demanded it unjustly. “The order was made.” Alphenus objected. “He did, but the praetor made the decree.” Therefore the tribunes were appealed to. “Here,” said he, “I have you: that is not allowing a trial, nor defending a man at a trial, when you ask assistance from the tribunes.” When I consider how prudent Hortensius is, I do not think that he will say this; but when I hear that he has said so before, and when I consider the cause itself I do not see what else he can say; for he admits that Alphenus tore down the bills, undertook to give security, did not object to go to trial in the very terms which Naevius proposed; but on this condition, that according to custom and prescription, it should be before that magistrate who was appointed in order to give assistance.

You must either say that these things are not so; or that Caius Aquillius, being such a man as he is, on his oath, is to establish this law in the state: that he whose agent does not object to every trial which any one demands against him, whose agent dares to appeal from the praetor to the tribunes, is not defended at all, and may rightly have his goods taken possession of; may properly, while miserable, absent, and ignorant of it, have all the embellishments of his fortunes, all the ornaments of his life, taken from him with the greatest disgrace and ignominy. And this seems reasonable to no one.

This certainly must be proved to the satisfaction of every one, that Quinctius while absent was defended at the trial. And as that is the ease, his goods were not taken possession of in accordance with the edict. But then, the tribunes of the people did not even hear his cause. I admit, if that be the case, that the agent ought to have obeyed the decree of the praetor. What; if Marcus Brutus openly said that he would intercede Intercedo was the technical word for the interposition of the tribunes. unless some agreement was come to between Alphenus himself and Naevius; does not the appeal to the tribunes seem to have been interposed not for the sake of delay but of assistance?