[8,79] Ὁ μὲν οὖν πιθανώτερος τῶν παραδεδομένων ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς λόγων τοιόσδε ἐστίν· δεῖ δὲ καὶ τὸν ἧσσον πιθανόν, ἐπειδὴ κἀκεῖνος πεπίστευται ὑπὸ πολλῶν καὶ ἐν γραφαῖς ἀξιοχρέοις φέρεται, μὴ παρελθεῖν. λέγεται δή τισιν, ὡς ἀδήλου πᾶσιν οὔσης ἔτι τῆς ὑπ´ αὐτοῦ συσκευαζομένης τυραννίδος, πρῶτος ὑποπτεύσας ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ Κασσίου καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀκριβεστάτης βασάνου τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐξετάσας ἧκεν ἐπὶ τὴν βουλήν· ἔπειτα κελεύσας ἐλθεῖν τὸν υἱὸν μηνυτής τε καὶ κατήγορος αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο· καταγνούσης δὲ καὶ τῆς βουλῆς ἀγαγὼν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν ἀπέκτεινε. τὸ μὲν οὖν πικρὸν καὶ ἀπαραίτητον τῆς τῶν πατέρων ὀργῆς εἰς υἱοὺς ἀδικοῦντας καὶ μάλιστ´ ἐν τοῖς τότε Ῥωμαίοις οὐδὲ ταύτην ἀπωθεῖται τὴν πρόφασιν· ἐπεὶ καὶ πρότερον Βροῦτος ὁ τοὺς βασιλεῖς ἐκβαλὼν ἀμφοτέρους τοὺς υἱοὺς ἐδικαίωσε κατὰ τὸν τῶν κακούργων νόμον ἀποθανεῖν, καὶ πελέκεσι τοὺς αὐχένας ἀπεκόπησαν, ὅτι συμπράττειν τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν ἐδόκουν τὴν κάθοδον. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα Μάλλιος τὸν Γαλατικὸν πόλεμον στρατηγῶν τὸν υἱὸν ἀριστεύοντα κατὰ πόλεμον τῆς μὲν ἀνδρείας ἕνεκα τοῖς ἀριστείοις στεφάνοις ἐκόσμησεν, ἀπείθειαν δ´ ἐπικαλῶν, ὅτι οὐκ ἐν ᾧ ἐτάχθη φρουρίῳ ἔμεινεν, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ ἡγεμόνος ἐξῆλθεν ἀγωνιούμενος, ὡς λιποτάκτην ἀπέκτεινε. καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ πατέρες, οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ μείζοσιν αἰτίαις, οἱ δ´ ἐπ´ ἐλάττοσιν, οὔτε φειδὼ τῶν παίδων οὔτ´ ἔλεον ἔσχον. κατὰ μὲν δὴ τοῦτ´ οὐκ ἀξιῶ, ὥσπερ ἔφην, προβεβλῆσθαι τὸν λόγον ὡς ἀπιθανόν· ἐκεῖνα δέ με ἀνθέλκει τεκμηρίων ὄντα οὔτ´ ἐλάχιστα οὔτ´ ἀπίθανα καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἑτέραν ἄγει συγκατάθεσιν, ὅτι μετὰ τὸν θάνατον τοῦ Κασσίου ἥ τ´ οἰκία κατεσκάφη, καὶ μέχρι τοῦδε ἀνεῖται ὁ τόπος αὐτῆς αἴθριος ἔξω τοῦ νεὼ τῆς Γῆς, ὃν ὑστέροις ἡ πόλις κατεσκεύασε χρόνοις ἐν μέρει τινὶ αὐτῆς κατὰ τὴν ἐπὶ Καρίνας φέρουσαν ὁδόν, καὶ τὰ χρήματα αὐτοῦ τὸ κοινὸν ἀνέλαβεν· ἐξ ὧν ἀπαρχὰς ἐν ἄλλοις τε ἱεροῖς ἀνέθηκε, καὶ δὴ καὶ τῇ Δήμητρι τοὺς χαλκέους ἀνδριάντας ἐπιγραφαῖς δηλοῦντας, ἀφ´ ὧν εἰσι χρημάτων ἀπαρχαί. εἰ δέ γ´ ὁ πατὴρ μηνυτής τε καὶ κατήγορος καὶ κολαστὴς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, οὔτ´ ἂν ἡ οἰκία αὐτοῦ κατεσκάφη οὔτε ἡ οὐσία ἐδημεύθη. Ῥωμαίοις γὰρ οὐθὲν ἴδιόν ἐστι κτῆμα ζώντων ἔτι τῶν πατέρων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ χρήματα καὶ τὰ σώματα τῶν παίδων, ὅ τι βούλονται διατιθέναι, τοῖς πατράσιν ἀποδέδοται. ὥστ´ οὐκ ἂν δήπου τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίαν τοῦ μηνύσαντος τὴν τυραννίδα ἐπὶ τοῖς τοῦ παιδὸς ἀδικήμασιν ἀφαιρεῖσθαι καὶ δημεύειν ἡ πόλις ἠξίου. διὰ μὲν δὴ ταῦτα τῷ προτέρῳ συγκατατίθεμαι τῶν λόγων μᾶλλον· ἔθηκα δ´ ἀμφοτέρους, ἵνα ἐξῇ τοῖς ἀναγνωσομένοις, ὁποτέρῳ βούλονται τῶν λόγων, προσέχειν.

[8,79] Such is the more probable of the accounts that have been handed down concerning this man; but I must not omit the less probable version, since this also has been believed by many and is recorded in histories of good authority. It is said, then, by some that while the plan of Cassius to make himself tyrant was as yet concealed from all the world, his father was the first to suspect him, and that after making the strictest inquiry into the matter he went to the senate; then, ordering his son to appear, he became both informer and accuser, and when the senate also had condemned him, he took him home and put him to death. The harsh and inexorable (p241) anger of fathers against their offending sons, particularly among the Romans of that time, does not permit us to reject even this account. For earlier Brutus, who expelled the kings, condemned both his sons to die in accordance with the law concerning malefactors, and they were beheaded because they were believed to have been helping to bring about the restoration of the kings. And at a later time Manlius, when he was commander in the Gallic war and his son distinguished himself in battle, honoured him, indeed, for his bravery with the crowns given for superior valour, but at the same time accused him of disobedience in not staying in the fort in which he was posted but leaving it, contrary to the command of his general, in order to take part in the struggle; and he put him to death as a deserter. And many other fathers, some for greater and others for lesser faults, have shown neither mercy nor compassion to their sons. For this reason I do not feel, as I said, that this account should be rejected as improbable. But the following considerations, which are arguments of no small weight and are not lacking in probability, draw me in the other direction and lead me to agree with the first tradition. In the first place, after the death of Cassius his house was razed to the ground and to this day its site remains vacant, except for that part of it on which the state afterwards built the temple of Tellus, which stands in the street leading to the Carinae; and again, his goods were confiscated by the state, which dedicated first-offerings for them in various temples, especially the bronze statues to Ceres, which by their (p243) inscriptions show of whose possessions they are the first-offerings. But if his father had been at once the informer, the accuser and the executioner of his son, neither his house would have been razed nor his estate confiscated. For the Romans have no property of their own while their fathers are still living, but fathers are permitted to dispose both of the goods and the persons of their sons as they wish. Consequently the state would surely never have seen fit, because of the crimes of the son, to take away and confiscate the estate of his father who had given information of his plan to set up a tyranny. For these reasons, therefore, I agree rather with the former of the two accounts; but I have given both, to the end that my readers may adopt whichever one they please.