QUINTILIAN

[The following is a modernization of the Latin text provided on page 20, which outlines the method of identifying the core issue in a legal dispute.]

When I had brought these points clearly into view, I thought of the case as much from my opponent’s side as from my own. 5 First (a simple thing to say, yet the most important to observe), I determined what each party aimed to achieve, and then through what means. I considered what the prosecutor would say first. This point would either be admitted or controversial. 6 If it were admitted, there could be no question at issue there. I therefore moved on to the response of the other party and scrutinized it in the same way; sometimes the point gathered from that was also admitted. A question only arose when the parties began to disagree. This works as follows: You killed a man. I killed him. It is agreed; I move on. The defendant must provide the reason why he killed him. It is lawful, he says, to kill an adulterer with his paramour. It is certain that this is the law. Now we must look for a third point, where the conflict lies. They were not adulterers; They were: here is the question; there is doubt regarding the fact, which is a matter of conjecture. 8 Sometimes even this third point is admitted—that they were adulterers. But, says the accuser, you had no right to kill them; for you were an exile, or you had forfeited your civil rights. Now the question is one of law. But if, when the prosecutor says, You killed them, the reply is at once, I did not kill them, the conflict begins immediately.