Which, then, could more easily give an account of his vote,—he who said that he had been
 consistent with himself and with the previous decision, or he who said that he had been lenient
 to the principal offender, and very severe against his assistants and accomplices? But
 concerning their decision I have no occasion to say anything; for I have no doubt, that such men
 as they, being influenced by some sudden suspicion, avoided the point at issue. On which account
 I find no fault with the mercy of those who acquitted him. I approve of the firmness of those
 men who, in giving their judgment, followed the precedent of the previous decisions of their own
 accord, and not in consequence of the fraudulent trick of Stalenus; but I praise the wisdom of
 those men who said that to their minds it was not proved, who could by no means acquit a man
 whom they knew to be very guilty, and whom they themselves had already condemned twice before,
 but who, as such a disgraceful plan, and as a suspicion of such an atrocious act had been
 suggested to them, preferred condemning him a little later, when the facts were clearly
 ascertained. And, that you may not judge them to have been
 exceedingly wise men merely by their actions, but that you may also feel sure, from their very
 names, that what they did was most honestly and wisely done; who can be mentioned superior to
 Publius Octavius Balbus, as to ability more prudent,—in knowledge of law more skillful,—in good
 faith, in religion, in the performance of his duty, more scrupulous or more careful? He did not
 acquit him. Who is a better man than Quintus Considius? who is better acquainted with the
 practice of courts of justice, and with that sense of right which ought always to exist in the
 public courts? who is his superior in virtue, in wisdom, or in authority? Even he did not acquit
 him. It would take me too long to cite the virtue of each separate individual in the same
 manner; and in truth, their good qualities are so will known to every one, that they do not need
 the ornaments of language to set them off. What a man was Marcus Juventius Pedo, a man formed on
 the principles and system of the judges of old! What a man was Lucius Caulius Mergus! and Marcus
 Basilus! and Caius Caudinus! all of whom flourished in the public courts of justice at that time
 when the republic also was flourishing. Of the same body were Lucius Cassius and Cnaeus Heius,
 men of equal integrity and wisdom. And by the vote of none of those men was Oppianicus
 acquitted. And the youngest of all but one, who in ability, and in diligence, and in
 conscientiousness was equal to those men whom I have already mentioned, Publius Saturius,
 delivered the same opinion. O, the singular innocence of
 Oppianicus! when in the case in which he was defendant, those who acquitted him are supposed to
 have had some ulterior end,—those who postponed their decision, to have been cautious; but every
 one who condemned him is esteemed virtuous and firm. 
 These things, though Quinctius agitated them, were not proved at that time either in the
 assembly or in a court of justice. For he himself would not allow them to be stated, nor indeed,
 by reason of the excited state of the multitude, could any one stand up to speak. Therefore he
 himself, after he had overthrown Junius , abandoned the
 whole cause. For in a very few days' time he became a private individual, and he perceived too
 that the violence of men's feelings had cooled down. But if at the time that he accused
 Junius he had also chosen to accuse Fidiculanius,
 Fidiculanius would have had no opportunity of making any reply. And at first, indeed, he
 threatened all those judges who had voted against Oppianicus. By this time you know the insolence of the man. You know what a tribune-like pride and
 arrogance he has. How great was the animosity which he displayed! O ye immortal gods! how great
 was his pride! how great his ignorance of himself! how preposterous and intolerable was his
 arrogance! when he was indignant even at this, (from which all those proceedings of his took
 their rise,) that Oppianicus was not pardoned at his entreaty and owing to his defence; just as
 if it ought not to have been proof enough that he was deserted by every one, that he had
 recourse to such an advocate as him. For there was at Rome a great abundance of advocates, most eloquent and most honourable men, of
 whom certainly any one would have defended a Roman knight, of noble birth in his municipality,
 if he had thought that such a cause could be defended with honour. For, as for Quinctius, indeed, what cause had he ever pleaded before, though he was now nearly
 fifty years old? Who had ever seen him not only in the position of a counsel for the defence,
 but even as a witness to character, or as employed in any “The Latin is,
 ‘ non modo in patroni , sed in laudatoris, aut
 advocati , loco viderat. ’ In the time of Cicero the advocatus was different from the person who conducted the suit
 ( patronus ) and made the speech, though in later times this
 person likewise is called advocatus .”—Riddle, Lat. Dict. in
 voc. way in any cause? who, because he had seized on the rostrum which had been for some
 time empty, and the place which had been deserted by the voice of the tribunes ever since the
 arrival of Lucius Sulla, and had recalled the multitude, which had now been for some time unused
 to assemblies, to the likeness of the old custom, was on that account for a short time rather
 popular with a certain set of men. But yet afterwards how hated he became by those very men by
 whose means he had mounted into a higher position!—and very deservedly.