has happened about the trial, the result of which was so
contrary to the general expectation, and at the same time you want to
know how I came to make a worse fight of it than usual. I will answer
the last first, after the manner of Homer.[94] The fact is that, so long
as I had to defend the authority of the senate,[95] I battled with such
gallantry and vigour that there were shouts of applause and crowds round
me in the house ringing with my praise. Nay, if you ever thought that I
shewed courage in political business, you certainly would have admired
my conduct in that cause. For when the culprit had betaken himself to
public meetings, and had made an invidious use of my name, immortal
gods! What battles! What havoc! What sallies I made upon Piso, Curio, on
the whole of that set! How I fell upon the old men for their
instability, on the young for their profligacy! Again and again, so help
me heaven! I regretted your absence not only as the supporter of my
policy, but as the spectator also of my admirable fighting. However,
when Hortensius hit on the idea of a law as to the sacrilege being
proposed by the tribune Fufius, in which there was no difference from
the bill of the consul except as to the kind of jurymen--on that point,
however, the whole question turned--and got it carried by sheer
fighting, because he had persuaded himself and others that _he_ could
not get an acquittal no matter who were the jurymen, I drew in my sails,
seeing the neediness of the jurors, and gave no evidence beyond what was
so notorious and well attested that I could not omit it.[96] Therefore,
if you ask the reason of the acquittal--to return at length to the
former of the two questions--it was entirely the poverty and low
character of the jury. But that this was possible was entirely the
result of Hortensius's policy. In his alarm lest Fufius should veto the
law which was to be proposed in virtue of a senatorial decree, he failed
to see that it was better that the culprit should be left under a cloud
of disgrace and dishonour than that he should be trusted to the
discretion of a weak jury. But in his passionate resentment he hastened
to bring the case into court, saying that a leaden sword was good enough
to cut _his_ throat. But if you want to know the history of the trial,
with its incredible verdict, it was such that Hortensius's policy is now
blamed by other people after the event, though I disapproved of it from
the first. When the rej