hese common topics,
and any others which arise out of any argument peculiar to the cause
in hand, may be turned either way.

But there is one certain topic for an accuser by which he exaggerates
the atrocity of an action, and there is another by which he says that
it is not necessary to pity the miserable. That, too, is a topic for
an advocate for the defence by which the false accusations of the
accusers are shown up with indignation, and that by which pity is
endeavoured to be excited by complaints. These and all other common
topics are derived from the same rules from which the other systems
of arguments proceed, but those are handled in a more delicate, and
acute, and subtle manner, and these with more gravity, and more
embellishment, and with carefully selected words and ideas. For in
them the object is, that that which is stated may appear to be true.
In these, although it is desirable to preserve the appearance of
truth, still the main object is to give importance to the statement.
Now let us pass on to another statement of the case.

XVII. When there is a dispute as to the name of a thing because the
meaning of a name is to be defined by words, it is called a definitive
statement. By way of giving an example of this, the following case may
be adduced. Caius Flaminius, who as consul met with great disasters in
the second Punic war, when he was tribune of the people, proposed, in
a very seditious manner, an agrarian law to the people, against the
consent of the senate, and altogether against the will of all the
nobles. While he was holding an assembly of the people, his own father
dragged him from the temple. He is impeached of treason. The charge
is--"You attacked the majesty of the people in dragging down a tribune
of the people from the temple." The denial is--"I did not attack the
majesty of the people." The question is--"Whether he attacked the
majesty of the people or not?" The argument is--"I only used the power
which I legitimately had over my own son." The denial of this argument
is--"But a man who, by the power belonging to him as a father, that is
to say, as a private individual, attacks the power of a tribune of the
people, that is to say, the power of the people itself, attacks the
majesty of the people." The question for the judges is--"Whether a man
attacks the majesty of the people who uses his power as a father in
opposition to the power of a tribune?" And all the arguments must be
brought to be