What duty of an agent can possibly be mentioned, O Caius
 Aquillius, which seems to have been overlooked by Alphenus? What reason is alleged why
 it should be denied that Publius Quinctius was defended in his absence? Is it that which
 I suppose Hortensius will allege, because he has lately mentioned it, and because
 Naevius is always harping on it, that Naevius was not contending on equal terms with
 Alphenus, at such a time, and with such magistrates? And if I were willing to admit
 that, they will, I suppose, grant this, that it is not the case that no one was the
 agent of Publius Quinctius, but that he had one who was popular. But it is quite
 sufficient for me to prove that there was an agent, with whom he could have tried the
 matter. What sort of man he was, as long as he defended the man in his absence,
 according to law and before the proper magistrate, I think has nothing to do with the
 matter. “For he was,” says he,
 “a man of the opposite party.” No doubt; a man who had been brought
 up in your house, whom you from a youth had so trained up as not to favour any one of
 eminence, not even a gladiator. The text is undoubtedly corrupt
 here. Some read haereret , some cederet . I have adopted the text of Orellius; but the meaning is not very
 plain. If Alphenus had the same wish as you always especially entertained, was
 not the contest between you on equal terms in that matter? “Oh,”
 says he, “he was an intimate friend of Brutus, and therefore he
 interposed.” You on the other hand were an intimate friend of Burrienus, who
 gave an unjust decision; and, in short, of all those men who at that time were both very
 powerful with violence and wickedness, and who dared do all that they could. Did you
 wish to overcome those men, who now are labouring with such zeal that you may be
 victorious? Dare to say that, not openly, but to these very men whom you have brought
 with you. Although I am unwilling to bring that
 matter up again by mentioning it, every recollection of which I think ought to be
 entirely effaced and destroyed. 
 This one thing I say, if Alphenus was an influential man because of his party zeal,
 Naevius was most influential; if Alphenus, relying on his personal interest, made any
 rather unjust demand; Naevius demanded, and obtained too, things much more unjust. Nor
 was there, as I think, any difference between your zeal. In ability, in experience, in
 cunning, you easily surpassed him. To say nothing of other things, this is sufficient:
 Alphenus was ruined with those men, and for the sake of those men to whom he was
 attached; you, after those men who were your friends could not get the better, took care
 that those who did get the better should be your friends. But if you think you had not then the same justice as Alphenus,
 because it was in his power to appeal to some one against you; because a magistrate was
 found before whom the cause of Alphenus could be fairly heard; what is Quinctius to
 determine on at this time I—a man who has not as yet found any just
 magistrate, nor been able to procure the customary trial; “Because the matter in dispute was really a money matter, but the praetor
 ordered the trial to proceed de
 probro .”—Hottoman. in whose case no condition, no
 security, no petition has been interposed,—I do not say a just one, but none
 at all that had ever been heard of before that time. I wish to try an action about
 money. You cannot. But that is the point in dispute. It does not concern me; you must
 plead to a capital charges. Accuse me then, if it must be so. No says be, not unless
 you, in an unprecedented manner, first make your defence. You must plead; the time must
 be fixed at our pleasure; the judge himself shall be removed.