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. But I doubt whether there is any evidence as to
this. Cicero himself brings this accusation, but not in that direct
manner which he would have used had he been able to prove it. The
Sicilians, at any rate, said that it was so. As to the incompetency
of the man, there was probably no doubt, and it might be quite as
serviceable to have an incompetent as a dishonest accuser. Caecilius
himself had declared that no one could be so fit as himself for
the work. He knew Sicily well, having been born there. He had been
Quaestor there with Verres, and had been able to watch the governor's
doings. No doubt there was--or had been in more pious days--a feeling
that a Quaestor should never turn against the Proconsul under whom he
had served, and to whom he had held the position almost of a son.[100]

But there was less of that feeling now than heretofore. Verres had
quarrelled with his Quaestor. Oppius was called on to defend himself
against the Proconsul with whom he had served. No one could know the
doings of the governor of a province as well as his own Quaestor; and,
therefore, so said Caecilius, he would be the preferable accuser.
As to his hatred of the man, there could be no doubt as to that.
Everybody knew that they had quarrelled. The purpose, no doubt, was
to give some colorable excuse to the judges for rescuing Verres, the
great paymaster, from the fangs of Cicero.