example of a rhetorical figure well used, it
cannot have been such a failure as is alleged by later writers. The
extant speech was written by Cicero at his leisure. None of the other
speeches are in the exact form in which they were delivered. Cicero's
method was to construct a _commentarius_ or skeleton of his speech,
which he used when speaking. If he was pleased with a speech he then
wrote it out for publication. Sometimes he omitted in the written speech
a subject on which he had spoken. A record of this is sometimes
preserved: e.g. "de Postumi criminibus" (_Mur._ 51), "de teste Fufio"
(_Cael._ 19). These _commentarii_ were published by his freedman Tiro
and are quoted by Asconius (_ad Orat. in Toga Candida_, p. 87).

Cicero in his speeches must be given all the privileges of an advocate.
Sometimes he had a bad client; he naively confesses the straits to which
he was put when defending Scamander (_Clu._ 51; cf. _Phil._ xiii. 26).
He thought of defending Catiline, though he says that his guilt is clear
as noon-day (_Att._ i. 1-2 and 2. 1). Sometimes the brief which he held
at the moment compelled him to take a view of facts contrary to that
which he had previously advocated. Thus in the _pro Caecina_ he alleges
judicial corruption against a witness, Falcula, while in the _pro
Cluentio_ he contends that the offence was not proved (_Caec._ 28,
_Clu._ 103). He says quite openly that "it is a great mistake to suppose
that statements in his speeches express his real opinions" (_Clu._ 139).
It is therefore idle to reproach him with inconsistencies, though these
are sometimes very singular. Thus in the _pro Cornelio_ he speaks with
praise of Aulus Gabinius, who, when a colleague vetoed his proposal,
proceeded to depose him after the precedent set by Tiberius Gracchus
(Asconius _in Cornel._ p. 71). In the _pro Cluentio_, 111, he contends
that nothing is easier than for a new man to rise at Rome. In the _pro
Caelio_ he says that Catiline had in him undeveloped germs of the
greatest virtues, and that it was the good in him that made him so
dangerous (_Cael._ 12-14). He sometimes deliberately puts the case upon
a wrong issue. In the _pro Milone_ he says that either Milo must have
lain in wait for Clodius or Clodius for Milo, leaving out of sight the
truth, that the encounter was due to chance. He used to boast that he
had cast dust into the eyes of the jury in the case of Cluentius
(Quintil. ii. 17-21).

Cicero had a perfect m