The favor of the judges toward us is more sparingly sued for in the
beginning, it being then sufficient to gain their attention, as the
whole discourse remains in which to make further impressions. But in the
peroration we must strive to bring the judge into that disposition of
the mind which it is necessary for us that he should retain when he
comes to pass judgment. The peroration being finished, we can say no
more, nor can anything be reserved for another place. Both of the
contending sides, therefore, try to conciliate the judge, to make him
unfavorable to the opponent, to rouse and occasionally allay his
passions; and both may find their method of procedure in this short
rule, which is, to keep in view the whole stress of the cause, and
finding what it contains that is favorable, odious, or deplorable, in
reality or in probability, to say those things which would make the
greatest impression on themselves if they sat as judges.
I have already mentioned in the rules for the exordium how the accuser
might conciliate the judges. Yet some things, which it was enough to
point out there, should be wrought to a fulness in the peroration,
especially if the pleading be against some one universally hated, and a
common disturber, and if the condemnation of the culprit should redound
as much to the honor of the judges as his acquittal to their shame. Thus
Calvus spoke admirably against Vatinius:
"You know, good sirs, that Vatinius is guilty, and no one is unaware
that you know it." Cicero, in the same way, informs the judges that if
anything is capable of reestablishing the reputation of their judgment,
it must be the condemnation of Verres. If it be proper to intimidate the
judges, as Cicero likewise does, against Verres, this is done with
better effect in the peroration than in the exordium. I have already
explained my sentiments on this point.