§4.2.13neque enim accusator tantum hoc dicit, occidisti;
For the accuser does not only say, 'You killed him'; but he narrates the means by which he may prove it.
sed, quibus id probet narrat. ut in tragoediis, cum Teucer Vlixem reum facit Aiacis occisi dicens inventum eum in solitudine iuxta exanime corpus inimici cum gladio cruento, non id modo Ulixes respondet non esse a se id facinus admissum, sed sibi nullas cum Aiace inimicitias fuisse, de laude inter ipsos certatum; deinde subiungit, quomodo in eam solitudinem venerit, iacentem exanimem sit conspicatus, gladium e vulnere extraxerit.
As in tragedies, when Teucer accuses Ulysses of the murder of Ajax, saying that he was found in a solitude near the lifeless body of his enemy with a bloody sword, Ulysses does not only reply that the deed was not committed by him, but that he had no enmity with Ajax, that their contest was about glory; then he subjoins how he came into that solitude, how he saw him lying lifeless, and how he drew the sword from the wound.
§4.2.14his subtexitur argumentatio.
To these things the argumentation is subjoined.
sed ne illud quidem sine narratione est, dicente accusatore, fuisti in eo loco, in quo tuus inimicus occisus est: Non fui; dicendum enim, ubi fuerit.
But not even that case is without a statement of facts, when the accuser says, 'You were in that place in which your enemy was killed,' and the defendant answers, 'I was not'; for he must say where he was.
quare ambitus quoque causae et repetundarum hoc etiam plures huiusmodi narrationes habere poterunt, quo plura crimina; in quibus ipsa quidem neganda sunt, sed argumentis expositione contraria resistendum est interdum singulis interdum universis.
Wherefore cases of bribery also and of extortion will be able to have all the more statements of this kind, the more charges there are; in which indeed the charges themselves must be denied, but the arguments must be resisted by an opposing exposition, sometimes individually, sometimes collectively.
§4.2.15an reus ambitus male narrabit, quos parentes habuerit, quemadmodum ipse vixerit, quibus meritis fretus ad petitionem descenderit? aut qui repetundarum crimine insimulabitur, non et anteactam vitam, et quibus de causis provinciam universam vel accusatorem aut testem offenderit,
Or will a defendant accused of bribery make a bad statement of facts by explaining what parents he had, how he himself lived, and relying on what merits he descended to the candidacy? Or will one who is accused of extortion not, both concerning his past life, and from what causes he offended the whole province, or the accuser, or a witness, expound not without advantage?
§4.2.16non inutiliter exponet? quae si narratio non est, ne illa quidem Ciceronis pro Cluentio prima, cuius est initium: A. Cluentius Habitus. nihil enim hic de veneficio, sed de causis, quibus ei mater inimica sit, dicit.
If this is not a statement of facts, then not even that first part of Cicero's speech for Cluentius is one, of which the beginning is: 'Aulus Cluentius Habitus.' For he says nothing here about the poisoning, but about the causes because of which his mother is hostile to him.
§4.2.17illae quoque sunt pertinentes ad causam sed non ipsius causae narrationes: vel exempli gratia ut in Verrem de L. Domitio, qui pastorem, quod is aprum, quem ipsi muneri obtulerat, exceptum esse a se venabulo confessus esset, in crucem sustulit; vel discutiendi alicuius extrinsecus criminis, §4.2.18ut pro Rabirio Postumo: nam ut ventum Alexandriam est, iudices, haec una ratio a rege proposita Postumo est servandae pecuniae, si curationem et quasi dispensationem regiam suscepisset; vel augendi, ut describitur iter Verris.
Those also are statements pertaining to the case, but not of the case itself: either, for example, as in the speech against Verres concerning Lucius Domitius, who crucified a shepherd because the latter had confessed that a wild boar, which he had offered to Domitius as a present, had been killed by him with a hunting spear; or for the sake of dispelling some external charge, as in the speech for Rabirius Postumus: 'For when we came to Alexandria, judges, this was the only way proposed by the king to Postumus for saving his money, if he should undertake the administration and, as it were, stewardship of the king'; or for the sake of amplifying, as the journey of Verres is described.
§4.2.19ficta interim narratio introduci solet, vel ad concitandos iudices ut pro Roscio circa Chrysogonum, cuius paulo ante habui mentionem; vel ad resolvendos aliqua urbanitate, ut pro Cluentio circa fratres Caepasios; interdum per digressionem decoris gratia, qualis rursus in Verrem de Proserpina, in his quondam locis mater filiam quaesisse dicitur. quae omnia eo pertinent, ut appareat non utique non narrare eum qui negat, sed illud ipsum narrare quod negat.
Sometimes a fictitious statement of facts is wont to be introduced, either to excite the judges, as in the speech for Roscius concerning Chrysogonus, of whom I made mention a little before; or to relax them with some wit, as in the speech for Cluentius concerning the brothers Caepasii; sometimes by a digression for the sake of embellishment, such as again in the speech against Verres concerning Proserpina: 'In these places formerly the mother is said to have sought her daughter.' All of which things tend to show that he who denies does not by any means not make a statement of facts, but makes a statement of that very thing which he denies.
§4.2.20ne hoc quidem simpliciter accipiendum, quod est a me positum, esse supervacuam narrationem rei, quam iudex noverit; quod sic intelligi volo, si non modo quid factum sit sciet, sed ita factum etiam, ut nobis expedit, opinabitur.
Nor indeed must that be taken simply, which was laid down by me, that the statement of facts is superfluous concerning a matter which the judge knows; which I wish to be understood in this way, if he not only knows what has been done, but also thinks it was done in such a way as is expedient for us.
§4.2.21neque enim narratio in hoc reperta est, ut tantum cognoscat index, sed aliquanto magis, ut consentiat.
For the statement of facts was not devised for this, that the judge should only know, but much more that he should agree.
quare, etiamsi non erit docendus, sed aliquo modo adficiendus, narrabimus cum praeparatione quadam: scire quidem eum in summam, quid acti sit, tamen rationem quoque facti cuiusque cognoscere ne gravetur.
Wherefore, even if he is not to be instructed, but in some way to be moved, we shall make our statement with a certain preparation: that though he indeed knows in substance what has been done, yet he may not be unwilling to learn also the reason of each action.
§4.2.22interim propter aliquem in consilium adhibitum nos repetere illa simulemus, interim, ut rei, quae ex adverso proponatur, iniquitatem omnes etiam circumstantes intelligant.
Sometimes, because of someone admitted into the council, we may pretend that we repeat those things; sometimes, so that all those standing around may also understand the injustice of the matter which is proposed by the opposite party.
in quo genere plurimis figuris erit varianda expositio ad effugiendum taedium nota audientis, sicut meministi, et fortasse supervacuum fuerit hic commorari.
In which kind the exposition must be varied with very many figures to escape the boredom of the hearer who already knows it, as you remember, and perhaps it would be superfluous to dwell on this here.
sed quid ego diutius, cum tu optime noris?
But why should I dwell on this longer, when you know it best?