§7.1.23solebam et hoc facere, ut vel ab ultima specie (nam ea fere est, quae continue causam) retrorsum quaererem usque ad primam generalem quaestionem, vel a genere ad extremam speciem descenderem, etiam ex suasoriis.
I was also accustomed to do this: either to inquire backward from the ultimate species (for that is usually what directly constitutes the case) all the way to the first general question, or to descend from the genus to the ultimate species, even in deliberative speeches.
§7.1.24ut deliberat Numa, an regnum offerentibus Romanis recipiat.
As when Numa deliberates whether he should accept the kingdom when the Romans offer it.
primum, id est genus, an regnandum, tum an ex civitate aliena, an Romae, an laturi sint Romani talem regem.
The first point, that is, the genus, is whether he should rule; then, whether from a foreign state, whether at Rome, whether the Romans are likely to tolerate such a king.
similiter ex controversiis.
Similarly from controversial speeches.
optet enim vir fortis alienam uxorem.
For let a brave man opt for another's wife.
ultima species est, an optare possit alienam uxorem. generale est, an quidquid optarit, accipere debeat.
The ultimate species is whether he can opt for another's wife; the general question is whether he ought to receive whatever he has opted for.
inde, an ex privato, an nuptias, an maritum habentis.
Thence, whether from a private citizen, whether a marriage, whether of one having a husband.
§7.1.25sed hoc non, quemadmodum dicitur, ita et quaeritur.
But this is not investigated in the same way as it is spoken of.
primum enim occurrit fere, quod est ultimum dicendum, ut hoc, non debes alienam uxorem optare, ideoque divisionem perdit festinatio.
For that which is to be spoken of last usually presents itself first, as in this case: "You ought not to opt for another's wife," and therefore haste ruins the division.
non oportet igitur offerentibus se contentum esse, sed quaerere aliquid quod ultra est, ne uiduam quidem.
We ought not, therefore, to be content with what offers itself first, but to seek something that lies beyond—not even a widow.
adhuc plus est, nihil ex privato.
Still further is: nothing from a private citizen.
ultimum retrorsum, quod idem a capite primum est, nihil iniquum. itaque propositione visa,
The last in backward order, which is also the first from the beginning, is: nothing unjust.
§7.1.26quod est facillimum, cogitemus, si fieri potest, quid naturale sit primum responderi.
Therefore, having seen the proposition, which is the easiest thing, let us think, if possible, what is natural to be answered first.
id si, tanquam res agatur et nobis ipsis respondendi necessitas sit, intueri voluerimus, occurret.
If we will look at this as if the case were being tried and we ourselves had the necessity of answering, it will occur to us.
§7.1.27si id non contigerit, seponamus id quod primum se obtulerit, et ipsi nobiscum sic loquamur: quid si hoc non esset? id iterum et tertium et dum nihil sit reliqui.
If that does not happen, let us set aside what first presented itself, and talk thus with ourselves: "What if this were not so?" and this a second and a third time, until nothing is left.
itaque inferiora quoque scrutabimur, quae tractata faciliorem nobis iudicem ex summa quaestione facient.
Thus we shall also scrutinize the lower points, which, when treated, will make the judge more favorable to us on the chief question.
§7.1.28non dissimile huic est et illud praeceptum, ut a communibus ad propria veniamus.
Not unlike to this is also that precept, that we should come from common to proper points.
fere enim communia generalia sunt.
For common points are usually general.
commune est, tyrannum occidit; proprium, patrem tyrannum occidit; mulier occidit, uxor occidit. §7.1.29solebam et excerpere, quid mihi cum adversario conveniret, si modo id pro me erat, nec solum premere confessionem, sed partiendo multiplicare, ut ex illa controversia, dux. , qui competitorem patrem ex suffragiis vicerat, captus est; euntes ad redemptionem eius legati obvium habuerunt patrem revertentem ab hostibus. §7.1.30is legatis dixit: Sero itis. excusserunt illi patrem et aurum ex sinu eius invenerunt; ipsi perseverarunt ire quo intenderant; invenerunt ducem cruci fixum, cuius uox fuit: cauete proditorem. reus est pater.
A common point is: "He killed a tyrant"; a proper point is: "He killed his father who was a tyrant," "A woman killed him," "His wife killed him." I was also accustomed to extract what I agreed upon with the adversary, provided only that it was in my favor, and not only to press his confession, but to multiply it by dividing it, as in that controversial theme: "A general., who had defeated his father, his competitor, in the elections, was captured; the legates going to ransom him met the father returning from the enemy." He said to the legates: "You go too late." They searched the father and found gold in his pocket; they themselves persevered in going where they had intended; they found the general crucified, whose word was: "Beware of the traitor." The father is the accused.
quid convenit? proditio nobis praedicta est et praedicta a duce;
What is agreed upon?
quaerimus proditorem.
"A betrayal was foretold to us, and foretold by the general; we are looking for the traitor.
te isse ad hostes fateris et isse clam et ab his incolumem redisse, aurum retulisse et aurum occultum habuisse. nam, §7.1.31quod fecit, id nonnunquam potentius fit propositione; quae si animos occupavit, prope aures ipsae defensioni praecluduntur.
You confess that you went to the enemy, and went secretly, and returned from them unharmed, brought back gold, and kept the gold hidden." For, for what he did, that is sometimes more powerful than a proposition; and if this has occupied the minds, the ears are almost closed to the defense itself.
in totum autem congregatio criminum accusantem adiuvat, separatio defendentem.
On the whole, however, the accumulation of charges helps the accuser, their separation helps the defender.
solebam id, quod fieri et ex argumentis dixi, ex tota facere materia, ut propositis extra quae nihil esset omnibus, deinde ceteris remotis, solum id superesset quod credi volebam, §7.1.32ut ex praevaricationum criminibus: ut absolvatur reus, aut innocentia ipsius fit aut interveniente aliqua potestate aut vi aut corrupto iudicio aut difficultate probationis aut praevaricatione.
I was accustomed to do that, which I said could be done also with arguments, with the whole material: so that all possibilities being proposed, outside of which there was nothing, then the others being removed, only that remained which I wished to be believed, as in charges of collusion: "That the accused should be acquitted, it must happen either through his own innocence, or by the intervention of some power, or by force, or by a corrupted judgment, or by the difficulty of proof, or by collusion.
nocentem fuisse confiteris, nulla potestas obstitit, nulla vis, corruptum iudicium non quereris, nulla probandi difficultas fuit: quid superest, nisi ut praevaricatio fuerit? §7.1.33si omnia amoliri non poteram, plura amoliebar. hominem occisum esse constant, non ex solitudine, ut a latronibus suspicer;
You confess that he was guilty; no power opposed, no force, you do not complain of a corrupted judgment, there was no difficulty in proving: what remains, except that there was collusion?" If I could not remove all, I removed several: "It is clear that the man was killed.
non praedae gratia, quia inspoliatus est; non hereditatis spe, quia pauper fuit: odium igitur ex causa, cum sis inimicus.
Not in a solitary place, so that I should suspect robbers; not for the sake of plunder, because he was not despoiled; not in the hope of an inheritance, because he was poor: hatred therefore is the cause, since you are his enemy."