§8.4.11interim proposito velut simili exemplo efficiendum est, ut sit maius id quod a nobis exaggerandum est: ut idem pro Cluentio, cum exposuisset, Milesiam quandam a secundis heredibus pro abortu pecuniam accepisse, quanto est, inquit, Oppianicus in eadem iniuria maiore supplicio dignus? siquidem ilia, cum suo corpori vim attulisset, se ipsa cruciavit; hic autem idem illud effecit per alieni corporis vim atque cruciatum.
Meanwhile, by presenting a sort of similar example, we must effect that the thing which is to be amplified by us becomes greater: as the same author in Pro Cluentio, when he had explained that a certain woman of Miletus had received money from the second heirs for an abortion, says, "By how much is Oppianicus worthy of a greater punishment in the same injury?" since she, when she had brought force upon her own body, tormented herself; but he effected that same thing through force and torment of another's body.
§8.4.12nec putet quisquam hoc, quanquam est simile illi ex argumentis loco, quo maiora ex minoribus colliguntur, idem esse.
Nor should anyone think that this is the same as that similar place from arguments, in which greater things are inferred from lesser.
illic enim probatio petitur, hic amplificatio; sicut in Oppianico non id agitur hac comparatione, ut ille male fecerit sed ut peius.
For there proof is sought, here amplification; just as in the case of Oppianicus, what is done by this comparison is not that he did wrong, but that he did worse.
est tamen quanquam diversarum rerum quaedam vicinia.
There is, however, although of different things, a certain closeness.
repetam itaque hic quoque idem quo sum illic usus exemplum, sed non in eundem usum.
Therefore, I will repeat here also the same example which I used there, but not for the same use.
§8.4.13nam hoc mihi ostendendum est, augendi gratia non tota modo totis, sed etiam partes partibus comparari: sicut hoc loco, an vero vir amplissimus P. Scipio, pontifex maximus, Ti.
For I must show this, that for the sake of amplifying, not only wholes are compared with wholes, but also parts with parts: as in this place, "Did indeed that most noble man, P.
Gracchum mediocriter labefactantem statum rei publicae privatus interfecit: Catilinam orbem terrae caede atque incendio vastare cupientem nos consules perferemus? §8.4.14hic et Catilina Graccho et status rei publicae orbi terrarum et mediocris labefactatio caedi et incendiis et vastationi et privatus consulibus comparatur; quae si quis dilatare velit, plenos singula locos habent.
Scipio, the pontifex maximus, as a private citizen, kill Ti. Gracchus, when he was moderately weakening the state of the republic; and shall we, the consuls, endure Catiline, who desires to devastate the whole world with slaughter and fire?" Here both Catiline is compared to Gracchus, and the state of the republic to the whole world, and the moderate weakening to slaughter, fire, and devastation, and the private citizen to the consuls; which, if anyone wishes to expand them, each single detail has full topics.
§8.4.15quas dixi per ratiocinationem fieri amplificationes, viderimus an satis proprio verbo significaverim.
As for the amplifications which I said are made through reasoning, let us see whether I have signified them with a sufficiently appropriate word.
nec sum in hoc sollicitus, dum res ipsa volentibus discere appareat.
Nor am I anxious about this, as long as the thing itself is clear to those who wish to learn.
hoc sum tamen secutus, quod haec amplificatio alibi posita est alibi valet; ut aliud crescat aliud augetur, inde ad id, quod extolli volumus, ratione ducitur.
Yet I have followed this, because this amplification is placed in one place and is valid in another; so that one thing is increased in order that another may grow, and from there it is led by reasoning to that which we wish to elevate.
§8.4.16obiecturus Antonio Cicero merum et vomitum, tu, inquit, istis faucibus, istis lateribus, ista gladiatoria totius corporis firmitate. quid fauces et latera ad ebrietatem? minime sunt otiosa;
Cicero, intending to object unmixed wine and vomiting to Antony, says, "you, with that throat of yours, those sides of yours, that gladiatorial robustness of your whole body." What have the throat and sides to do with drunkenness?
nam respicientes ad haec possumus aestimare, quantum ille vini in Hippiae nuptiis exhauserit, quod ferre et concoquere non posset illa corporis gladiatoria firmitate.
They are by no means useless; for looking back at these, we can estimate how much wine he drained at the wedding of Hippias, which he could not bear and digest even with that gladiatorial robustness of his body.
ergo, si ex alio colligitur aliud, nec improprium nec inusitatum nomen est ratiocinationis, ut quod ex eadem causa inter status quoque habeamus.
Therefore, if one thing is inferred from another, "reasoning" is neither an improper nor an unusual name, as we have it also among the bases of status for the same reason.
§8.4.17sic et ex insequentibus amplificatio ducitur, siquidem tanta vis fuit vini erumpentis, ut non casum adferret aut voluntatem sed necessitatem, ubi minime deceret, vomendi, et cibus non recens, ut accidere interim solet, redderetur, sed usque in posterum diem redundaret.
Thus also from what follows, amplification is derived, since the force of the erupting wine was so great that it brought not chance or will but the necessity of vomiting in a place where it was least decent, and the food was returned not fresh, as sometimes happens to occur, but overflowed even from the preceding day.
§8.4.18idem hoc praestant, quae antecesserunt.
These same things are performed by what preceded.
nam cum Aeolus a lunone rogatus
"
cavum conversa cuspide montem
impulit in latus, ac venti velut agmine facto
ruunt,
"
apparet, quanta sit futura tempestas.
For when Aeolus, requested by Juno, "struck the hollow mountain on its side with his turned spear, and the winds rush out as if in a formed column," it is apparent how great the future tempest will be.
§8.4.19quid? cum res atrocissimas quasque in summam ipsi extulimus invidiam elevamus consulto, quo graviora videantur quae secutura sunt, ut a Cicerone factum est, cum illa diceret, levia sunt haec in hoc reo.
What? when we deliberately diminish each of the most atrocious things which we ourselves have raised to the highest odium, so that those which are to follow may seem heavier, as was done by Cicero, when he said, "these things are light in this defendant.
metum virgarum nauarchus nobilissimae ciuitatis pretio redemit: humanum est.
The captain of a most noble state redeemed the fear of rods with a price: it is human.
alias, ne securi feriretur, pecuniam dedi: usitatam est. §8.4.20nonne usus est ratiocinatione, qua colligerent audientes, quantum illud esset quod inferebatur, cui comparata haec viderentur humana atque usitata? sic quoque solet ex alio aliud augeri: ut cum Hannibalis bellicis laudibus ampliatur virtus Scipionis, et fortitudinem Gallorum Germanorumque miramur, quo sit maior C. Caesaris gloria.
On the other hand, he gave money that he might not be struck with the axe: it is usual." Did he not use reasoning, by which the hearers might infer how great that thing was which was being introduced, compared to which these things seemed human and usual? In this way also one thing is accustomed to be amplified from another: as when the virtue of Scipio is amplified by the warlike praises of Hannibal, and we admire the wonderful bravery of the Gauls and Germans, so that the glory of C. Caesar may be greater.