His purpose, his diligence, his skill, his eloquence, his honesty were known.

There must be a trial.

So much was acknowledged; but if the conduct of it could be relegated to a man who was dishonest, or who had no skill, no fitness, no special desire for success, then the little scheme could be carried through in that way.

So Caecilius was put forward as Cicero's competitor, and our first speech is that made by Cicero to prove his own superiority to that of his rival.
Whether Caecilius was or was not hired to break down in his assumed duty as accuser, we do not know.

The biographers have agreed to say that such was the case,[99] grounding their assertion, no doubt, on extreme probability.