§5.13.30at enim non verisimile est, tantum scelus M. Cottam esse commentum.
But indeed it is said, "It is not likely that Marcus Cotta devised so great a crime." What?
quid? hoc verisimile est, tantum scelus Oppium esse conatum? artificis autem est invenire in actione adversarii quae contra semet ipsa pugnent aut pugnare videantur, quae aliquando ex rebus ipsis manifesta sunt, ut in causa Caeliana Clodia aurum se Caelio commodasse dicit, quod signum magnae familiaritatis est; venenum sibi paratum, quod summi odii argumentum est.
Is this likely, that Oppius attempted so great a crime? But it belongs to an artist to find in the pleading of the opponent those things which conflict or seem to conflict with themselves, which sometimes are manifest from the facts themselves, as in the Caelian cause Clodia says that she lent gold to Caelius, which is a sign of great intimacy, and that poison was prepared for her, which is a proof of extreme hatred.
§5.13.31Tubero Ligarium accusat, quod is in Africa fuerit, et queritur, quod ab eo ipse in Africam non sit admissus.
Tubero accuses Ligarius because he was in Africa, and complains that he himself was not admitted into Africa by him.
aliquando vero praebet eius rei occasionem minus considerata ex adverso dicentis oratio; quod accidit praecipue cupidis sententiarum, ut ducti occasione dicendi non respiciant quid dixerint, dum locum praesentem non totam causam intuentur.
But sometimes the less considered speech of the one speaking on the opposite side offers an opportunity for this; which happens especially to those who are greedy for epigrams, so that, led by the opportunity of speaking, they do not look back at what they have said, while they look at the present passage and not at the whole cause.
§5.13.32quid tam videri potest contra Cluentium quam censoria nota? quid tam contra eundem, quam filium ab Egnatio corrupti iudicii, quo Cluentius Oppianicum circumvenisset, crimine exheredatum?
What can seem so much against Cluentius as the censorial mark? What so much against the same man as that a son was disinherited by Egnatius on the charge of a corrupted judgment, by which Cluentius had circumvented Oppianicus?
§5.13.33at haec Cicero pugnare invicem ostendit: sed tu, Atti, consideres, censeo, diligenter, utrum censorium iudicium grave velis esse an Egnatii.
But Cicero shows that these conflict with each other: "But I think, Attius, that you should consider diligently whether you wish the censorial judgment to be weighty, or that of Egnatius.
si Egnatii, leave est, quod censores de ceteris subscripserunt. ipsum enim Egnatium, quem tu gravem esse vis, ex senatu eiecerunt.
If that of Egnatius, then what the censors subjoined concerning the others is of little weight; for they ejected Egnatius himself from the senate, whom you wish to be weighty.
sin autem censorium, hunc Egnatium, quem pater censoria subscriptione exheredarit, censores in senate, cum pardem eiecissent, retinuerunt. §5.13.34illa magis vitiose dicuntur quam acute reprehenduntur, argumentum dubium pro necessario, controversum pro confesso, commune pluribus pro proprio, vulgare, supervacuum, constitutum contra fidem.
But if the censorial, then the censors retained this Egnatius in the senate, whom his father had disinherited on the basis of the censorial subjunction, although they had ejected his father." Those things are said with more fault than they are refuted with sharpness: a doubtful argument instead of a necessary one, a disputed one instead of a confessed one, a common one instead of a proper one, a vulgar, superfluous one, or one established against credibility.
nam et illa accidunt parum cautis, ut crimen augeant, quod probandum est; de facto disputent, cum de auctore quaeratur; impossibilia aggrediantur, pro effectis relinquant vixdum inchoata, de homine dicere quam de causa malint;
For these also happen to the incautious: that they increase the charge which is to be proved; that they dispute about the deed when the author is sought; that they attempt impossible things; that they leave barely begun things as if completed; and that they prefer to speak of the person rather than the cause.
§5.13.35hominum vitia rebus adsignent, ut, si quis decemviratum accuset non Appium; manifestis repugnent; dicant, quod aliter accipi possit; summam quaestionis non intueantur, non ad proposita respondeant; quod unum aliquando recipi potest, cum mala causa adhibitis extrinsecus remediis tuenda est, ut cum peculatus reus Verres fortiter et industrie tuitus contra piratas Siciliam dicitur.
They assign the faults of men to things, as if someone should accuse the decemvirate and not Appius; they resist manifest things; they say what can be taken otherwise; they do not look at the sum of the question; they do not answer to what is proposed; which single thing can sometimes be admitted when a bad cause must be defended by remedies applied from without, as when Verres, accused of embezzlement, is said to have defended Sicily bravely and industriously against pirates.
§5.13.36eadem adversus contradictiones nobis oppositas praecepta sunt, hoc tamen amplius, quod circa eas multi duobus vitiis diversis laborant.
The same rules apply against contradictions opposed to us, yet with this addition, that concerning them many labor under two different faults.
nam quidam etiam in foro tanquam rem molestam et odiosam praetereunt, et iis plerumque, quae composita domo attulerunt, contenti sine adversario dicunt; et scilicet multo magis in scholis, in quibus non solum contradictiones omittuntur, verum etiam materiae ipsae sic plerumque finguntur, ut nihil dici pro parte altera possit.
For some even in the forum pass them over as a troublesome and odious thing, and, content mostly with those things which they have brought from home prepared, they speak without an opponent; and of course much more in schools, in which not only contradictions are omitted, but also the matters themselves are mostly so feigned that nothing can be said for the other side.
§5.13.37alii diligentia lapsi verbis etiam uel sententiolis omnibus respondendum putant, quod est et infinitum et supervacuum; non enim causa reprehenditur sed actor; quem ego semper videri malim disertum, ut, si dixerit quod rei prosit, ingenii credatur laus esse non causae; si forte laedat, causae non ingenii culpa.
Others, slipping through over-diligence, think they must answer even to all words or little sentences, which is both endless and superfluous; for not the cause is refuted, but the speaker, whom I should always prefer to seem eloquent, so that if he says what is useful to the matter, it may be believed to be the praise of his talent, not of the cause, and if by chance he should harm it, it may be the fault of the cause, not of his talent.
§5.13.38itaque illae reprehensiones aut obscuritatis, qualis in Rullum est, aut infantiae in dicendo, qualis in Pisonem, aut inscitiae rerum verborumque et insulsitatis etiam, qualis in Antonium est, animo dantur et iustis odiis, suntque utiles ad conciliandum iis, quos invisos facere volueris, odium.
Therefore those refutations either of obscurity, such as is against Rullus, or of childishness in speaking, such as is against Piso, or of ignorance of things and words and even of silliness, such as is against Antony, are given to the mind and to just hatreds, and are useful for conciliating hatred against those whom you wish to make hated.
§5.13.39alia respondendi patronis ratio; et aliquando tamen eorum non oratio modo, sed vita etiam, vultus denique, incessus, habitus recte incusari solet; ut adversus Quintium Cicero non haec solum, sed ipsam etiam praetextam demissam ad talos insectatus est.
There is another method of replying to patrons; and yet sometimes not only their speech but also their life, and finally their countenance, gait, and habit, are accustomed to be rightly accused, as against Quintius Cicero attacked not only these things, but even the very praetexta let down to his ankles.
presserat enim turbulentis contionibus Cluentium Quintius.
For Quintius had pressed Cluentius with turbulent assemblies.