invention and not suggestive of study, but arising in the pleading from
the nature of the thing itself. Whence such figures are not unpleasing
as, "I had almost forgotten to say"; "It escaped my memory to acquaint
you"; and "You have given me a good hint." For if the proofs should be
proposed without something of a reputation of this kind, they would
lose, in the sequel, all the graces of novelty.

The distinguishing of questions, and the discussing of them, should be
equally avoided. But the listeners' passions ought to be excited, and
their attention diverted from its former bias, for it is the orator's
business not so much to instruct as to enforce his eloquence by emotion,
to which nothing can be more contrary than minute and scrupulously exact
division of a discourse into parts.


WHEN THE DIVISION IS DESIRABLE

If many things are to be avoided or refuted, the division will be both
useful and pleasing, causing everything to appear in the order in which
it is to be said. But if we defend a single crime by various ways,
division will be superfluous, as, "I shall make it clear that the person
I defend is not such as to make it seem probable that he could be guilty
of murder; it shall also be shown that he had no motives to induce him
to do it; and lastly, that he was across the sea when this murder took
place." Whatever is cited and argued before the third point must seem
quite unnecessary, for the judge is in haste to have you come to that
which is of most consequence, and the patient, will tacitly call upon
you to acquit yourself of your promise, or, if he has much business to
dispatch, or his dignity puts him above your trifling, or he is of a
peevish humor, he will oblige you to speak to the purpose, and perhaps