M. Tullius Cicero, Against Vatinius
C. D. Yonge, Ed.

[41] But as you praise Titus Annius so excessively, and by your encomium cast some sort of slight stain on that most illustrious man, (for Titus Annius would prefer being one of those men who are loaded with reproaches by you,) still I ask, since in the administration of the affairs of the republic there has been an entire community of and agreement in every counsel between Titus Annius and Publius Sestius, (a fact which has been proved not only by the decision of the good, but also by that of the wicked; for each of them is now on his trial on the same account and for the same accusation,—the one having had a prosecution instituted against him by that man whom you are sometimes accustomed to confess is the only man who is more worthless than yourself, and the other being reduced to the same condition by your design indeed, not with his assistance,)—I ask, I say, how you can separate those men in your evidence, whom you connect together by your accusation?

The last thing which I wish you to answer me is this:—As you said a great deal against Albinovanus with respect to his prevarication, I wish to know whether you said or did not say that you were not pleased at Sestius being prosecuted for violence, and that he ought not to have been so prosecuted; and that there was no law and no charge on which he was not more liable to impeachment? Did you also say that the cause of Milo, a most admirable man, was generally considered as closely connected with his cause? and that the things which were done by Sestius in my behalf were agreeable to good men? I am not now arguing against the inconsistency of your language and of your evidence; for you have given evidence at great length against those identical actions of this man which you say have been approved of by good men; and as for the man with whom you connect the cause and danger of my client, Sestius, you have extolled him with the highest praises. But I ask this;—whether you think that Publius Sestius ought to be condemned according to the provisions of a law under which you say that he never ought to have been accused at all? or, if you think that your opinion ought not be asked while you are giving your evidence, lest I should appear to be attributing to you any authority by so doing, I ask whether you gave evidence against a man on his trial for violence, who you say never ought to have been prosecuted for violence at all?