I am not of the opinion of those who think that the facts ought always
to be related in the same order in which they happened. That manner of
narration is best which is of most advantage to the cause, and it may,
not improperly, call in the aid of a diversity of figures. Sometimes we
may pretend that a thing has been overlooked, so that it may be better
exprest elsewhere than it would be in its own order and place; assuring
the judges at the same time that we shall resume the proper order, but
that the cause in this way will be better understood. Sometimes, after
explaining the whole affair, we may subjoin the antecedent causes. And
thus it is that the art of defense, not circumscribed by any one
invariable rule, must be adapted to the nature and circumstances of the
cause.

It will not be amiss to intimate that nothing enhances so much the
credibility of a narration as the authority of him who makes it, and
this authority it is our duty to acquire, above all, by an
irreproachable life, and next, by the manner of enforcing it. The more
grave and serious it is, the more weight it will have. Here all
suspicion of cunning and artifice should, therefore, be particularly
avoided, for the judges, ever distrustful, are here principally on their
guard, and, likewise, nothing should seem a pure fiction, or the work of
study, which all might rather be believed to proceed from the cause than
the orator. But this we can not endure, and we think our art lost unless
it is seen; whereas it ceases to be art if it is seen.




DIVISION AND ARGUMENT