Institutio Oratoria

I do not of course deny that just as there may be some points which you should deny in your statement

of facts, others which you should add, and yet again others that you should alter, so there may be some which you should pass over in silence. But still only those points should be passed over which we ought and are at liberty to treat in this way. This is sometimes done for the sake of brevity, as in the phrase

He replied as he thought fit.

We must therefore distinguish between case and case. In those where there is no question of guilt but only of law, we may, even though the facts he against us, admit the truth.

He took money from the temple, but it was private property, and therefore he is not guilty of sacrilege. He abducted a maiden, but the father [*]( The victim can claim either that the ravisher should marry her or be put to death. Her father cannot however make either of these demands on her behalf. ) can have no option as to his fate. He assaulted a freeborn boy, and the latter hanged himself, but that is no reason for the author of the assault to be awarded capital punishment as having caused his death; he will instead pay 10,000 sesterces, the fine imposed by law for such a crime.

But even in making these admissions we may to some extent lessen the odium caused by the statement of our opponent. For even our slaves extenuate their own faults.

In some cases, too, we may mitigate a bad impression by words which avoid the appearance of a statement of facts. We may say, for instance,

He did not, as our opponent asserts, enter the temple with the deliberate intention of theft nor seek a favourable occasion for the purpose, but was led astray by the opportunity, the absence of custodians, and the sight of the money (and money has always an undue influence on the mind of man), and so yielded to temptation. What does that matter? He committed the offence and is a thief. It is

v4-6 p.89

useless to defend an act to the punishment of which we can raise no objection.