On this, great scruples
 arose in men's minds, and some doubt as to what had really been done. Then some of the judges,
 wise men, trained in the old-fashioned principles of the ancient tribunals, as they could: not
 acquit a most guilty man, and yet, as they did not like at once to condemn a man, in whose case
 there appeared reason to suspect that bribery had been employed against him, before they were
 able to ascertain the truth of this suspicion, gave as their decision, “Not proven.” But some
 severe men, who made up their minds that regard ought to be had to the intention with which a
 thing was done by any one, although they believed that others had only given a correct decision
 through the influence of bribery, nevertheless thought that it behoved them to decide
 consistently with their previous decisions. Accordingly, they condemned him. There were five in
 all, who, whether they did so out of ignorance, or out of pity, or from being influenced by some
 secret suspicion, or by some latent ambition, acquitted that innocent Oppianicus of yours
 altogether. After Oppianicus had been condemned, immediately Lucius Quinctius, an excessive seeker after
 popularity, who was accustomed to catch at every wind of report, and at every word uttered in
 the assemblies, thought that he had an opportunity of rising himself, by exciting odium against
 the senators; because he thought that the decisions of that body were already falling into
 disfavour in the eyes of the people. One or two assemblies are held, very violent and stormy: a
 tribune of the people kept loudly asserting that the judges had taken money to condemn an
 innocent prisoner: he kept saying, that the fortunes of all men were at stake; that there were
 no courts of justice; that no one could be safe who had a wealthy enemy. Men ignorant of the
 whole business, who had never even seen Oppianicus, and who thought that a most virtuous
 citizen, that a most modest man had been crushed by money, being exasperated by this suspicion,
 began to demand that the whole matter should be brought forward and inquired into, and in fact,
 to require an investigation of the whole business; and at that very time Stalenus, having been
 sent for by Oppianicus, came by night to the house of Titus Annius, a most honourable man, and a
 most intimate friend of my own. By this time the whole
 business is known to every one;—what Oppianicus said to him about the money; how he said that he
 would restore the money; how respectable men heard the whole of their conversation, having been
 placed in a secret place with that view; how the whole matter was laid open, and mentioned
 publicly in the forum, and how all the money was extorted from and compelled to be restored by
 Stalenus. 
 The character of this Stalenus, already known to and thoroughly ascertained by the people, was
 such as to make no suspicion unnatural; still, those who were present in the assembly did not
 understand that the money which he had promised to pay on behalf of the defendant, had been kept
 back by him.—For this they were not told. They were aware that reports of bribery had been at
 work in the court of justice; they heard that a defendant had been condemned who was innocent;
 they saw that he had been condemned by Stalenus's vote. They judged, because they knew the man
 that it had not been done for nothing. A similar suspicion existed with respect to Bulbus, and
 Gutta, and some others. Therefore, I confess, (for I may now
 make the confession with impunity, especially in this place,) that not only the habits of life
 of Oppianicus, but that even his name was unknown to the people before that trial. Moreover
 that, as it did seem a most scandalous thing for an innocent man to have been crushed by the
 influence of money; and as the general profligacy of Stalenus, and the baseness of some others
 of the judges who resembled him, increased this suspicion; and as Lucius Quinctius pleaded his
 cause, a man not only of the greatest influence, but also of exceeding skill in arousing the
 feelings of the multitude; by these circumstances a very great degree of suspicion was excited
 against, and a very great degree of odium attached to that tribunal. And I recollect, that Caius
 Junius who had presided over that trial, was thrown,
 as it were, into the fresh fire; and that he, a man of aedilitian rank, who was already praetor
 in the universal opinion of all men, was driven out of the forum and even out of the city, not
 by any regular discussion, but by the outcry raised against him by all men. 
 And I am not sorry that I am defending the cause of Aulus
 Cluentius at this time rather than at that time. For the cause remains the same, and cannot by
 any means be altered; the violence of the times, and the unpopularity then stirred up, has
 passed away; so that the evil that existed in the time is now no injury to us, the good which
 there was in the cause is still advantageous to us. And, therefore, I perceive now how
 attentively I am listened to, not only by those to whom the judgment and the power of deciding
 belongs, but even by those whose influence is confined to their mere opinion. But if at that
 time I had been speaking, I should not have been listened to: not that the circumstances were
 different; they are exactly the same; but because the time was different—and of that you may
 feel quite sure. 
 Who at that time could have dared to say? Oppianicus had been condemned because he was guilty?
 who now ventures to deny it? Who at that time could have ventured to assert that Oppianicus had
 endeavoured to corrupt the bench of judges with money? at the present time who is there who can
 deny it? Who, at that time, would have been suffered to mention that Oppianicus was prosecuted,
 after having been already condemned by two previous investigations? who is there at the present
 time who can attempt to invalidate this statement?