Institutio Oratoria

For these reasons there are some who disapprove of the partition adopted by Cicero in the pro Cluentio, [*]( iv. 9. Oppianicus had been indicted by Cluentius for an attempt upon his life and condemned. The previous judgments referred to were condemnations of his accomplices, which made Oppianicus' condemnation inevitable. Oppianicus was condemned, and it was alleged that this was due to bribery by Cluentius. Cluentius was now on his trial for the alleged murder of various persons. ) where he premises that he is going to show, first,

that no man was ever arraigned for greater crimes or on stronger evidence than Oppianicus,

secondly,

that previous judgments had been passed by those very judges by whom he was condemned,

and finally,

that Cluentius made no attempt to bribe the jury, but that his opponent did.

They argue that if the third point can be proved, there is no need to have urged the two preceding.

On the other hand you will find no one so unreasonable or so foolish as to deny that the partition in the pro Murena [*](v. 11.) is admirable.

I understand, gentlemen, that the accusation falls into three parts, the first aspersing my client's character, the second dealing with his candidature for the magistracy, and the third with charges of bribery.

These words make the case as clear as possible, and no one division renders any other superfluous.