Nothing that these wretched Gauls could say against a Roman citizen ought to be accepted in evidence! "All the Romans," he says, "who have been in the province wish well to Fonteius.

Would you rather believe these Gauls--led by what feeling?
By the opinion of men! Is the opinion, then, of your enemies of greater weight than that of your fellow-citizens, or is it the greater credibility of the witnesses?
Would you prefer, then, unknown men to known--dishonest men to honest--foreigners to your own countrymen--greedy men to those who come before you for nothing--men of no religion to those who fear the gods--those who hate the Empire and the name of Rome to allies and citizens who are good and faithful ?"[134] In every word of this he begs the question so as to convince us that his own case was weak; and when he makes a final appeal to the pity of the judges we are sure that Fonteius was guilty.

He tells the judges that the poor mother of the accused man has no other support than this son, and that there is a sister, one of the virgins devoted to the service of Vesta, who, being a vestal virgin, cannot have sons of her own, and is therefore entitled to have her brother preserved for her.

When we read such arguments as these, we are sure that Fonteius had misused the Gauls.

We believe that he was acquitted, because we are told that he bought a house in Rome soon afterward; but we feel that he escaped by the too great influence of his advocate.