(3) if it is _quale sit_, the _status_ is _qualitas_, or _status generalis_. Though Cicero’s discussion[38] is necessarily conventional, he has keen practical suggestions. As to (2), which in his order is third, Antonius says: “We are often advised to define the crucial term briefly;[39] but that is puerile. What we need is not a brief or abstract definition, as of terms like _law_ or _state_ defined according to the rule of neither too little nor too much. In the case I have mentioned neither Sulpicius nor I attempted definition of that sort. Rather each of us dilated on treason with every means of amplification. For mere definition, in the first place, is often snatched out of your hands if a single word be objected to or added or omitted; in the second place, by its very nature it smacks of teaching (_doctrina_) and almost childish practise; and finally, it cannot enter the perception and mind of the judge, for before it is grasped it slips past.” But the case must be surveyed also as to its ἦθος and its πάθος. “Then I most carefully consider[40] both the appeal _of_ my client’s character and my own and the appeal _to_ the feelings of those whom I address. So every theory of speaking seeks persuasion[41] through (1) establishing the facts, (2) winning the sympathy of the audience, and (3) arousing those of whom the case demands action....” “Teachers,[42] indeed, have divided cases into several kinds and have provided a fund of arguments for each kind. This is adapted to the education of the young; for as soon as a case is posed, they know where to find arguments for it. Nevertheless not only is it slow-witted to pursue rivulets, not discerning the fount, but it is becoming to our age and habit to summon what we wish from the source whence all things flow.” The lore of preliminary analysis is concluded with a brilliant summary under three questions of Cicero’s own:[43] (1) what kind of case is it in general (_naturam causæ_), i.e., of fact or of interpretation? (2) on what does it turn, i.e., what is the point but for which there would be no debate? _(quid faciat causam; id est, quo sublato controversia stare non possit)?_ (3) why is it disputed? how does the dispute arise (_quid veniat in iudicium_)?