astery of all weapons wielded by a pleader in
Rome. He was specially famous for his pathos, and for this reason, when
several counsel were employed, always spoke last (_Orat._ 130). A
splendid specimen of pathos is to be found in his account of the
condemnation and execution of the Sicilian captains (_Verr._ (_Act_.
ii.) v. 106-122). Much exaggeration was permitted to a Roman orator.
Thus Cicero frequently speaks as if his client were to be put to death,
though a criminal could always evade capital consequences by going into
exile. His enemies scoffed at his "tear-drops." He indulged in the more
violent invective, which, though shocking to a modern reader, e.g. in
his speeches against Vatinius and Piso, was not offensive to Roman taste
(_de Orat._ ii. 216-290). He was much criticized for his jokes, and
even Quintilian (ii. 17-21) regrets that he made so many in his
speeches. He could never resist the temptation to make a pun. It must be
remembered, however, that he was the great wit of the period. Caesar
used to have a collection of Cicero's _bon-mots_ brought to him. Cicero
complains that all the jokes of the day were attributed to himself,
including those made by very sorry jesters (_Fam._ vii. 32. 1). A fine
specimen of sustained humour is to be found in his speech _pro Murena_,
where he rallies the jurisconsults and the Stoics. He was also
criticized for his vanity and perpetual references to his own
achievements. His vanity, however, as has been admirably remarked, is
essentially that of "the peacock, not of the gander," and is redeemed by
his willingness to raise a laugh at his own expense (Strachan-Davidson,
p. 192). Some critics have impugned his legal knowledge, but probably
without justice. It is true that he does not claim to be a great expert,
though a pupil of the Scaevolas, and when in doubt would consult a
jurisconsult; also, that he frequently passes lightly over important
points of law, but this was probably because he was conscious of a flaw
in his case.

(iii.) _Political and Philosophical Treatises._--These are generally
written in the form of dialogues, in which the speakers sometimes belong
to bygone times and sometimes to the present. The first method was known
as that of Heraclides, the second as that of Aristotle (_Att._ xiii. 19.
4). There is no reason to suppose that the speakers held the views with
which Cicero credits them, or had such literary powers as would make
them able to express such