8. To Stephen, a priest skilled in the law (1125/6)

You undertook a long letter, but you do not well preserve the rhetoric in it, since you entitle [yourself] “skilled in law”. If done ignorant, it is to be forgiven. But if knowingly, it is to be considered obstinacy. The rules of the art demand that judgment in oration ought to be pleasing not exasperating. And in contradistinction, the letter which you sent sounded improper, smelled of insults, breathed of threats. Nothing ever is obtained with such persuasion except from the unwilling. What is sought usually is obtained by entreaties not threats, by requests not attacks. You cannot hope, therefore, that you will gain anything from us through such a means. For you argue your case unwisely and unlearnedly, when you aggravate him (before he is benevolent and obliging) whom (now irritated) you should try to please. Come, therefore, less attacking us … and you will not lose the promised profit from others, … and justice will dictate a response.