Institutio Oratoria |
Translator: Harold Edgeworth Butler
|
|
| 1977 |
At pro reo plerumque gravissimum quidque primum movendum est , ne illud spectans iudex reliquorum defensioni sit aversior . Interim tamen et hoc mutabitur , si leviora illa palam falsa erunt , gravissimi defensio difficilior , ut detracta prius accusatoribus fide aggrediamur ultimum , iam iudicibus omnia vana esse credentibus . Opus erit tamen praefatione , qua et ratio reddatur dilati criminis et promittatur defensio , ne id quod non statim diluemus timere videamur .
|
the strongest arguments as a rule require to be disposed of first, for fear that the judge through having his thoughts fixed on those arguments should regard the defence of other points with disfavour. Sometimes, however, this order is subject to alteration; for example if the minor arguments are obviously false and the refutation of the most serious argument a matter of some difficulty, we should attack it last of all, after discrediting the prosecution by demonstrating the falsity of the former, thereby disposing the judges to believe that all their arguments are equally unreliable. We shall, however, require to preface our remarks by explaining why we postpone dealing with the most serious charge, and by promising that we will deal with it at a later stage: otherwise the fact that we do not dispose of it at once may give the impression that we are afraid of it. |
| 1978 |
Anteactae vitae crimina plerumque prima purganda sunt , ut id , de quo laturus est sententiam iudex , audire propitius incipiat . Sed hoc quoque pro Vareno Cicero ex ultimum distulit , non quid frequentissime sed quid tum expediret intuitus .
|
Charges brought against the past life of the accused should generally be dealt with first in order that the judge may be well disposed to listen to our defence on that point on which lie has to give his verdict. But Cicero in the pro Vareno postpones his treatment of such charges to the conclusion, being guided not by the general rule, but by the special circumstances of the case. |
| 1979 |
Cum simplex intentio erit , videndum est , unum aliquid respondeamus an plura . Si unum , ex re quaestionem instituamus an ex scripto ; si ex re , negandum sit quod obiicitur an tuendum ; si ex scripto , ex qua specie iuris pugna sit , et ex ea , de verbis an de voluntate quaeratur .
|
When the accusation is simple, we must consider whether to give a single answer to the charge or several. In the former case, we must decide whether the question is one of fact or of law: if it is one of fact, we must deny the fact or justify it: if, on the other hand, it is a question of law, we must decide on what special point the dispute arises and whether the question turns on the letter or the intention of the law. |
| 1980 |
Id ita consequemur , si intuiti fuerimus , quae sit lex quae litem faciat , hoc est , qua iudicium sit constitutum . Nam quaedam ex scholasticis ponuntur ad coniungendam modo actae rei seriem , ut puta : Expositum qui agnouerit , solutis alimentis recipiat . Minus dicto audientem filium liceat abdicare . Qui expositum recepit , imperat ei nuptias locupletis propinquae ; ille deducere vult filiam pauperis educatoris .
|
We shall do this by considering what the law is which gives rise to the dispute, that is to say under what law the court has been constituted. In scholastic themes, for example, the laws are sometimes stated merely with a view to connecting the arguments of the cases. Take the following case: " A father who recognises a son whom he has exposed in infancy, shall only take him back after paying for his keep. A disobedient son may be disinherited. A man who took back a son whom he had exposed orders him to marry a wealthy neighbour. The son desires to marry the daughter of the poor man who brought him up. " |
| 1981 |
Lex de expositis ad adfectum pertinet ; iudicium pendet ex lege abdicationis . Nec tamen semper ex una lege quaestio est , ut ex antinomia . His spectatis apparebit circa quod pugna sit .
|
The law about children who have been exposed affords scope for emotional treatment, while the decision of the court turns on the law of disinheritance. On the other hand, a question may turn on more laws than one, as in cases of ἀντινομία or contradictory laws. It is by consideration of such points as these that we shall be able to determine the point of law out of which the dispute arises. |
| 1982 |
Coniuncta defensio est , qualis pro Rabirio : Si occidisset , recte fecisset ; sed non occidit . Ubi vero multa contra unam propositionem dicimus , cogitandum est primum quidquid dici potest , tum ex his quo quidque loco dici expediat aestimandum . In quo non idem sentio , quod de propositionibus paulo ante , quodque de argumentis probationum loco concessi , posse aliquando nos incipere a firmioribus .
|
As an example of complex defence I may quote the pro Rabirio: "If he had killed him, he would have been justified in so doing: but he did not kill him." But when we advance a number of points in answer to a single proposition, we must first of all consider everything that can be said on the subject, and then decide which out of these points it is expedient to select and where to put them forward. My views on this subject are not identical with those which I admitted a little while ago on the subject of propositions and on that of arguments in the section which I devoted to proofs, to the effect that we may sometimes begin with the strongest. |
| 1983 |
Nam vis quaestionum semper crescere debet et ad potentissima ab infirmissimis pervenire , sive sunt eiusdem generis sive diversi .
|
For when we are defending, there should always be an increase of force in the treatment of questions and we should proceed from the weaker to the stronger, whether the points we raise are of the same or of a different character. |
| 1984 |
Iuris autem quaestiones solent esse nonnunquam ex alis atque allis conflictionibus , facti semper idem spectant ; ex utroque genere similis ordo est . Sed prius de dissimilibus , ex quibus infirmissimum quidque primum tractari oportet , ideo quod quasdam quaestiones exsecuti donate solemus et concedere ; neque enim transire ad alias possumus nisi omissis prioribus . Quod ipsum ita fieri oportet ,
|
Questions of law will often arise from one ground of dispute after another, whereas questions of fact are always concerned with one point; but the order to be followed is the same in both cases. We must, however, deal first with points that differ in character. In such cases the weakest should always be handled first, for the reason that there are occasions when after discussing a question we make a concession or present of it to our opponents: for we cannot pass on to others without dropping those which come first. |
| 1985 |
non ut damnasse eas videamur , sed omisisse , quia possimus etiam sine eis vincere . Procurator alicuius pecuniam petit ex fenore hereditario : potest incidere quaestio , an huic esse procuratori liceat .
|
This should be done in such a way as to give the impression not that we regard the points as desperate, but that we have deliberately dropped them because we can prove our case without them. Suppose that the agent for a certain person claims the interest on a loan as due under an inheritance. The question may here arise whether such a claim can be made by an agent. Assume that, after discussing the question, |
| 1986 |
Finge nos , postquam tractavimus eam , remittere vel etiam convinci : quaeretur , an ei , cuius nomine litigatur , procuratorem habendi sit ius . Discedamus hinc quoque : recipit materia quaestionem , an ille , cuius nomine agitur , heres sit feneratoris an ex asse heres . Haec quoque concessa sint :
|
we drop it or that the argument is refuted. We then raise the question whether the person in whose name the action is brought has the right to employ an agent. Let us yield this point also. The case will still admit of our raising the question whether the person in whose name the suit is brought is heir to the person to whom the interest was due and again whether he is sole heir. |
| 1987 |
quaeretur an debeatur . Contra nemo tam demens fuerit , ut cum id quod firmissimum duxerit se habere protulerit , remittat illud et ad leviora transcendat . Huic ex schola simile est : Non abdicabis adoptatum ; ut hunc quoque , non virum . fortem ; ut et fortem , non qui cuicunque voluntati tuae non paruerit ; ut ex alia omnia subiectus sit , non propter optionem ; ut propter optionem , non propter talem optionem . Haec iuris quaestionum differentia est .
|
Grant these points also and we can still raise the question whether the sum is due at all? On the other hand, no one will be so insane as to drop what he considers his strongest point and pass to others of minor importance. The following case from a scholastic theme is of a similar character. " You may not disinherit your adopted son. And if you may disinherit him quâ adopted son, you may not disinherit one who is so brave. And if you may disinherit one who is so brave, you may not disinherit him because he has not obeyed your every command; and if he was bound to obey you in all else, you may not disinherit him on the ground of his choice of a reward; and even if the choice of a reward may give just ground for disinheriting, that is not true of such a choice as he actually made. |
| 1988 |
In factis autem ad idem tendentia sunt plura , ex quibus aliqua citra summam quaestionem remitti solent ; ut si is , cum quo furti agitur , dicat : Proba te habuisse , proba perdidisse , proba furto perdidisse , proba mea fraude . Priora enim remitti possunt , ultimum non potest .
|
" Such is the nature of dissimilarity where points of law are concerned. Where, however, the question is one of fact, there may be several points all tending to the same result, of which some may be dropped as not essential to the main issue, as for instance if a man accused of theft should say to his accuser, " Prove that you had the property, prove that you lost it, prove that it was stolen, prove that it was stolen by me. " The first three can be dropped, but not the last. I used also to employ the following method. |
| 1989 |
Solebam 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 went back from the ultimate species (which generally contains the vital point of the case) to the first general question or descended from the genus to the ultimate species, applying this method even to deliberative themes. |
| 1990 |
Ut deliberat Numa , an regnum offerentibus Romanis recipiat . Primum , id est genus , an regnandum , tum an ex civitate aliena , an Romae , an laturi sint Romani talem regem . Similiter ex controversiis . Optet enim vir fortis alienam uxorem . Ultima species est , an optare possit alienam uxorem . Generale est , an quidquid optarit , accipere debeat . Inde , an ex privato , an nuptias , an maritum habentis .
|
For example, Numa is deliberating whether to accept the crown offered him by the Romans. First he considers the general question, "Ought I to be a king?" Then, " Ought I to be king in a foreign state? Ought I to be king at Rome? Are the Romans likely to put up with such a king as myself? " So too in controversial themes. Suppose a brave man to choose another man's wife as his reward. The ultimate species is found in the question whether lie is allowed to choose another man's wife. The general question is whether he should be given whatever he chooses. Next come questions such as whether he can choose his reward from the property of private individuals, whether he can choose a bride as his reward, and if so, whether he can choose one who is already married. |
| 1991 |
Sed hoc non , quemadmodum dicitur , ita et quaeritur . Primum enim occurrit fere , quod est ultimum dicendum , ut hoc , Non debes alienam uxorem optare , ideoque divisionem perdit festinatio . Non oportet igitur offerentibus se contentum esse , sed quaerere aliquid quod ultra est , ne uiduam quidem .Adhuc plus est , nihil ex privato .Ultimum retrorsum , quod idem a capite primum est , nihil iniquum .Itaque propositione visa ,
|
But in our search for such questions we follow an order quite different from that which we employ in actual speaking. For that which as a rule occurs to us first, is just that which ought to come last in our speech: as for instance the conclusion, "You have no right to choose another man's wife." Consequently undue haste will spoil our division of the subject. We must not therefore be content with the thoughts that first offer themselves, but should press our inquiry further till we reach conclusions such as that he ought not even to choose a widow: a further advance is made when we reach the conclusion that be should choose nothing that is private property, or last of all we may go back to the question next in order to the general question, and conclude that he should choose nothing inequitable. |
| 1992 |
quod est facillimum , cogitemus , si fieri potest , quid naturale sit primum responderi . Id si , tanquam res agatur et nobis ipsis respondendi necessitas sit , intueri voluerimus , occurret .
|
Consequently after surveying our opponent's proposition, an easy task, we should consider, if possible, what it is most natural to answer first. And, if we imagine the case as being actually pleaded and ourselves as under the necessity of making a reply, that answer will probably suggest itself. On the other hand, |
| 1993 |
Si 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 . Itaque inferiora quoque scrutabimur , quae tractata faciliorem nobis iudicem ex summa quaestione facient .
|
if this is impossible, we should put aside whatever first occurs to us and reason with ourselves as follows: "What if this were not the case?" We must then repeat the process a second and a third time and so on, until nothing is left for consideration. Thus we shall examine even minor points, by our treatment of which we may perhaps make the judge all the better disposed to us when we come to the main issue. |
| 1994 |
Non dissimile huic est et illud praeceptum , ut a communibus ad propria veniamus . Fere enim communia generalia sunt . Commune est , Tyrannum occidit ; proprium , patrem tyrannum occidit ; mulier occidit , uxor occidit .
|
The rule that we should descend from the common to the particular is much the same, since what is common is usually general. For example, "He killed a tyrant" is common, while "A tyrant was killed by his son, by a woman or by his wife" are all particular. |
| 1995 |
Solebam 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 .
|
I used also to note down separately whatever was admitted both by my opponent and myself, provided it suited my purpose, and not merely to press any admissions that he might make, but to multiply them by partition, as for example in the following controversial theme:— " A general, who had stood against his father as a candidate and defeated him, was captured: the envoys who went to ransom him met his father returning from the enemy. He said to the envoys, 'You are too late.' |
| 1996 |
Is 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 .Quid convenit ? Proditio nobis praedicta est et praedicta a duce ; quaerimus proditorem . Te isse ad hostes fateris et isse clam et ab his incolumem redisse , aurum retulisse et aurum occultum habuisse .Nam ,
|
They searched the father and found gold in his pockets. They pursued their journey and found the general crucified. He cried to them, ' Beware of the traitor.' The father is accused. " What points are admitted by both parties? "We were told that there had been treason and told it by the general." We try to find the traitor. " You admit that you went to the enemy, that you did so by stealth, that you returned unscathed, that you brought back gold and had it concealed about your person. " |
| 1997 |
quod fecit , id nonnunquam potentius fit propositione ; quae si animos occupavit , prope aures ipsae defensioni praecluduntur . In totum autem congregatio criminum accusantem adiuvat , separatio defendentem . 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 ,
|
For an act of the accused may sometimes be stated in such a way as to tell heavily against him, and if our statement makes a real impression on the mind of the judge, it may serve to close his ears to all that is urged by the defence. For as a general rule it is of advantage to the accuser to mass his facts together and to the defence to separate them. I used also, with reference to the whole material of the case, to do what I have already mentioned as being done with arguments, namely, after first setting forth all the facts without exception, I then disposed of all of them with the one exception of the fact which I wished to be believed. For example, in charges of collusion it may be argued as follows. |
| 1998 |
ut ex praevaricationum criminibus : Ut absolvatur reus , aut innocentia ipsius fit aut interveniente aliqua potestate aut vi aut corrupto iudicio aut difficultate probationis aut praevaricatione . Nocentem fuisse confiteris , nulla potestas obstitit , nulla vis , corruptum iudicium non quereris , nulla probandi difficultas fuit : quid superest , nisi ut praevaricatio fuerit ?
|
" The means for securing the acquittal of an accused person are strictly limited. His innocence may be established, some superior authority may intervene, force or bribery may be employed, his guilt may be difficult to prove, or there may be collusion between the advocates. You admit that he was guilty; no superior authority intervened, no violence was used and you make no complaint that the jury was bribed, while there was no difficulty about proving his guilt. What conclusion is left to us save that there was collusion? " |
| 1999 |
Si omnia amoliri non poteram , plura amoliebar . Hominem occisum esse constant , non ex solitudine , ut a latronibus suspicer ; non praedae gratia , quia inspoliatus est ; non hereditatis spe , quia pauper fuit : odium igitur ex causa , cum sis inimicus .
|
If I could not dispose of all the points against me, I disposed of the majority. " It is acknowledged that a man was killed: but he was not killed in a solitary place, such as might lead me to suspect that he was the victim of robbers; he was not killed for the sake of plunder, for nothing was taken from him; he was not killed in the hope of inheriting his property, for he was poor: the motive must therefore have been hatred, since you are his enemy. " |
| 2000 |
Quae res autem faciliorem divisioni viam praestat , eadem inventioni quoque , excutere quidquid dici potest , et velut reiectione facta ad optimum pervenire . Accusatur Milo , quod Clodium occiderit . Aut fecit aut non . Optimum erat negare ; sed non potest : occidit ergo aut iure aut iniuria utique . Iure : aut voluntate aut necessitate , nam ignorantia praetendi non potest .
|
The task not merely of division, but of invention as well, is rendered materially easier by this method of examining all possible arguments and arriving at the best by a process of elimination. Milo is accused of killing Clodius. Either he did or did not do the deed. The best policy would be to deny the fact, but that is impossible. It is admitted then that he killed him. The act must then have been either right or wrong. We urge that it was right. If so, the act must have either been deliberate or under compulsion of necessity, for it is impossible to plead ignorance. |
| 2001 |
Voluntas anceps est , sed , quia ita homines putant , attingenda defensio , ut id pro re publica fuerit . Necessitate ? subita igitur pugna , non praeparata ; alter igitur insidiatus est . Uter ? Profecto Clodius . Videsne , ut ipsa rerum necessitas deducat ad defensionem ? Adhuc ,
|
The intention is doubtful, but as it is generally supposed to have existed, some attempt must he made to defend it and to show that it was for the good of the state. On the other hand, if we plead necessity, we shall argue that the fight was accidental and unpremeditated. One of the two parties then must have lain in wait for the other. Which was it? Clodius without doubt. Do you see how inevitably we are led to the right method of defence by the logical necessity of the facts? |
| 2002 |
aut utique voluit occidere insidiatorem Clodium aut non . Tutius , si noluit . Fecerunt ergo servi Milonis neque iubente neque sciente Milone . At haec tam timida defensio detrahit auctoritatem illi , qua recte dicebamus occisum . Adiicietur :
|
We may carry the process further: either he wished to kill Clodius, who lay in wait for him, or he did not. The safer course is to argue that he did not wish to kill him. It was then the slaves of Milo who did the deed without Milo's orders or knowledge. But this line of defence shows a lack of courage and lessens the weight of our argument that Clodius was rightly killed. |
| 2003 |
Quod suos quisque servos ex tali re facere voluisset . Hoc eo est utilius , quod saepe nihil placet et aliquid dicendum est . Intueamur ergo omnia : ita apparebit aut id quod optimum est aut id quod minime malum . Propositione aliquando adversarii utendum et esse nonnunquam commune eam , suo loco dictum est . Multis milibus versuum scio apud quosdam esse quaesitum , quomodo inveniremus , utra pars deberet prior dicere ; quod ex foro vel atrocitate formularum vel modo petitionum vel novissime sorte diiudicatur . In schola quaeri nihil attinet ,
|
We shall therefore add the words, "As every man would have wished his slaves to do under similar circumstances." This method is all the more useful from the fact that often we can find nothing to say that really pleases us and yet have got to say something. Let us therefore consider every possible point; for thus we shall discover what is the best line for us to pursue, or at any rate what is least bad. Sometimes, as I have already said in the appropriate context, we may make good use of the statement of our opponent, since occasionally it is equally to the purpose of both parties. I am aware that some authors have written thousands of lines to show how we may discover which party ought to speak first. But in the actual practice of the courts this is decided either by some brutally rigid formula, or by the character of the suit, or finally by lot. |
| 2004 |
cum ex declamationibus iisdem narrare et contradictiones solvere tam ab actore quam a possessore concessum sit . Sed ex plurimis controversiis ne inveniri quidem potest : ut ex illa , Qui tres liberos habebat , oratorem , philosophum , medicum , testamento quattuor partes fecit et singulas singulis dedit , unam eius esse voluit , qui esset utilissimus civitati .
|
In the schools, on the other hand, such an enquiry is mere waste of time, since the prosecution and the defence are indifferently permitted to state a case and refute it in the same declamation. But in the majority of controversial themes it is not even possible to discover who should speak first, as for instance in the following: " A certain man had three sons, an orator, a philosopher and a physician. In his will he divided his property into four portions, three of which he distributed equally among his sons, while the fourth was to go to the son who rendered the greatest service to his country. " |
| 2005 |
Contendunt ; quis primus dicat , incertum est , propositio tamen certa ; ab eo enim , cuius personam tuebimur , incipiendum erit . Et haec quidem de dividendo ex universum praecipi possunt .
|
The sons dispute the point. It is uncertain who should speak first, but our course is clear enough. For we shall begin with the son whose role we assume. So much for the general rules by which we should be guided in making our division. |
| 2006 |
At quomodo inveniemus etiam illas occultiores quaestiones ? scilicet , quomodo sententias , verba , figuras , colores : ingenio , cura , exercitatione . Non tamen fere unquam nisi imprudentem fugerint , si , ut dixi , naturam sequi ducem velit .
|
But how shall we discover those questions which present abnormal difficulty? Just as we discover reflexions, words, figures or the appropriate nuances of style, namely by native wit, by study and by practice. None the less it will be rare for anyone who is not a fool to fail to discover them, so long as he is content, as I have said, to accept nature for a guide. |
| 2007 |
Sed plerique eloquentiae famam adfectantes contenti sunt locis speciosis modo vel nihil ad probationem conferentibus . Alii nihil ultra ea quae ex oculos incurrunt exquirendum putant . Quod quo facilius appareat , unam de schola controversiam , non ita sane difficillimam aut novam , proponam ex exemplum .
|
Many, however, in their passionate desire to win a reputation for eloquence are content to produce showy passages which contribute nothing to the proof of their case, while others think that their enquiry need not proceed further than that which meets the eye. To make my meaning clearer, I will cite a solitary example from the controversial themes of the schools; it is neither novel nor complicated. |
| 2008 |
Qui reo proditionis patri non adfuerit , exheres sit . Proditionis damnatus cum advocato exulet . Reo proditionis patri disertus filius adfuit , rusticus non adfuit : damnatus abiit cum advocato ex exilium . Rusticus cum fortiter fecisset , praemii nomine impetravit restitutionem patris et fratris . Pater reversus intestatus decessit : petit rusticus partem bonorum , orator totum vindicat sibi .
|
" The man who refuses to appear in defence of his father when accused of treason shall be disinherited: the man who is condemned for treason shall be banished together with his advocate. A father accused of treason was defended by one son who was a fluent speaker, while another son, who was uneducated, refused to appear for him. The father was condemned and banished with his advocate. The uneducated son performed some heroic act and demanded as a reward the restoration of his father and brother. The father returned and died intestate. The uneducated son claims a portion of his estate, the orator claims the whole for himself. " |
| 2009 |
Hic illi eloquentes quibusque nos circa lites raras sollicitiores ridiculi videmur , invadent personas favorabiles . Actio pro rustico contra disertum , pro viro forti contra imbellem , pro restitutore contra ingratum , pro eo , qui parte contentus sit , contra eum , qui fratri nihil dare ex paternis velit . Quae omnia sunt ex materia et multum iuvant ,
|
In this case those paragons of eloquence, who laugh at us because we trouble our heads about cases that rarely occur, will always assume the popular rôle. They will defend the uneducated against the eloquent son, the brave against the coward, the son who secured the recall of his kin against the ungrateful son, the son who is content with a portion of the inheritance against the son who would refuse his brother a share in their patrimony. |
| 2010 |
victoria tamen non trahunt . In hac quaerentur sententiae , si fieri poterit , praecipites vel obscurae ( nam ea nunc virtus est ) , et pulchre fuerit cum materia tumultu et clamore transactum . Illi vero , quibus propositum quidem melius , sed cura ex proximo est , haec velut innatantia videbunt :
|
All these points are actually to be found in the case and are of considerable importance, but they are not such as to render victory a certainty. In such a case they will, as far as possible, search for daring or obscure reflexions (for to-day obscurity is accounted a virtue), and they will think they have given the theme a brilliant treatment by ranting and raving over it. Those, on the other hand, whose ideals are higher, but who restrict themselves merely to the obvious, will note the following points, which are, however, purely superficial. |
| 2011 |
excusatum esse rusticum , quod non interfuerit iudicio nihil collaturus patri ; sed ne disertum quidem habere , quod imputet reo , cum is damnatus sit ; dignum esse hereditate restitutorem ; avarum , impium , ingratum , qui dividere nolit cum fratre eoque sic merito ; quaestionem quoque illam primam scripti et voluntatis , qua non expugnata non sit sequentibus locus .
|
The uneducated son may be excused for not appearing at the trial on the ground that he could contribute nothing to his father's defence: but even the orator has no claim on the gratitude of the accused, since the latter was condemned: the man who secured the recall of his kin deserves to receive the inheritance, while the man who refuses to divide it with his brother, more especially with a brother who has deserved so well of him, is avaricious, unnatural and ungrateful: they will further note that the first and essential question is that which turns on the letter and intention of the law; unless this is first disposed of, all subsequent arguments must fall to the ground. |
| 2012 |
At qui naturam sequetur illa cogitabit profecto , primo hoc dicturum rusticum : Pater intestatus duos nos filios reliquit , partem iure gentium peto . Quis tam imperitus , quis tam procul a litteris , quin sic incipiat , etiamsi nescierit , quid sit propositio ?
|
He, however, who follows the guidance of nature will assuredly reflect as follows: the first argument of the uneducated son will be, " My father died intestate and left two sons, my brother and myself; I claim a share in his estate by the law of nations. " Who is so ignorant or so lacking in education as not to make this his opening, even though he does not know what is meant by a proposition? |
| 2013 |
Hanc communem omnium legem leviter adornabit ut iustam . Nempe sequetur , ut quaeramus , quid huic tam aequae postulationi respondeatur ? At id manifestum est . Lex est , quae iubet exheredem esse eum qui patri proditionis reo non adfuerit ; tu autem non adfuisti . Hanc propositionem necessaria sequitur legis laudatio et eius , qui non adfuerit , vituperatio .
|
He will then proceed to extol, though with due moderation, the justice of this common law of nations. The next point for our consideration is what reply can be made to so equitable a demand? The answer is clear:— " There is a law which disinherits the man who fails to appear in his father's defence when the latter is accused of treason, and you failed to appear. " This statement will be followed by the necessary praise of the law and denunciation of the man who failed to appear. |
| 2014 |
Adhuc versamur ex confessis ; redeat animus ad petitorem ; numquid non hoc cogitet necesse est , nisi qui sit plane hebes ? Si lex obstat , nulla lis est , inane iudicium est . Atqui et legem esse et hoc , quod ea puniat , a rustico factum extra dubitationem est . Quid ergo dicimus ? Rusticus eram .
|
So far we have been dealing entirely with admitted facts. Let us now return to the claimant. Unless he is hopelessly unintelligent, surely the following argument will suggest itself:— " If the law bars the way, there is no ground for action and the trial becomes a farce. But it is beyond question that the law exists and that the uneducated son did commit the offence for which it enacts a punishment. " What then shall we say? "I had no education." |