§5.pr.1fuerunt et clari quidem auctores, quibus solum videretur oratoris officium docere; namque et adfectus duplici ratione excludendos putabant, primum quia vitium esset omnis animi perturbatio, deinde quia iudicem a veritate depelli misericordia gratia similibusque non oporteret, et voluptatem audientium petere, cum vincendi tantum gratia diceretur, non modo agenti supervacuum, sed vix etiam viro dignum arbitrabantur;
There have been indeed even illustrious authors to whom it seemed that the sole duty of an orator was to instruct; for they thought that emotions should be excluded for a double reason, first, because every perturbation of the mind was a vice, secondly, because it was not proper for a judge to be diverted from the truth by pity, favor, and the like; and they judged that to seek the pleasure of the audience, since one spoke only for the sake of winning, was not only superfluous for the pleader, but also scarcely worthy of a man.
§5.pr.2plures vero, qui nec ab illis sine dubio partibus rationem orandi summoverent, hoc tamen proprium atque praecipuum crederent opus, sua confirmare et quae ex adverso proponerentur refutare.
But more numerous were those who, though they would not indeed remove the method of speaking from those parts, yet believed that this was the proper and principal work: to confirm one's own arguments and to refute those proposed from the opposite side.
§5.pr.3utrumcunque est (neque enim hoc loco meam interpono sententiam), hic erit liber illorum opinione maxime necessarius, quia toto haec sola tractantur; quibus sane et ea, quae de iudicialibus causis iam dicta sunt, serviunt.
Whichever of the two it is (for I do not interpose my own opinion in this place), this book will be, in their opinion, the most necessary, because in the whole of it these subjects alone are treated; and indeed, those things which have already been said about judicial causes also serve these.
§5.pr.4nam neque prooemii neque narrationis est alius usus, quam ut iudicem huic praeparent; et status nosse atque ea, de quibus supra scripsimus, intueri supervacuum foret, nisi ad hanc perveniremus.
For there is no other use either of the exordium or of the narrative, than that they prepare the judge for this; and to know the issues (status) and to inspect those things about which we have written above would be superfluous, if we did not arrive at this.
§5.pr.5denique ex quinque quas iudicialis materiae fecimus partibus, quaecunque alia potest aliquando necessaria causae non esse; lis nulla est, cui probatione opus non sit.
In short, of the five parts which we have made of judicial matter, any other whatever can sometimes not be necessary to a cause; there is no lawsuit which does not have need of proof.
eius praecepta sic optime divisuri videmur, ut prius, quae in commune ad omnes quaestiones pertinent, ostendamus; deinde, quae in quoque causae genere propria sint, exsequamur.
We seem likely to divide its rules best in this way: first, that we show those things which pertain in common to all questions; next, that we follow out those things which are proper to each kind of cause.