They also urge that a case is often diverted to the consideration of
some matter irrelevant to the question, and that
it is on this matter that judgment is given. I strongly disagree. Take
the question whether all who have spent their patrimony are to be
prohibited from addressing the people. This question must have its point for
decision, and therefore the question and
the point for decision are not different, but
there are more question and more than one point for
decision in the case. Again, in the case of Milo,
is not the question of fact ultimately referred
to the question of quality ? For if Clodius lay
in wait for Milo, it follows that he was justifiably killed. But when
the case is shifted to some other point far removed from the original
question, even in this case the question will be
found to reside in the point for decision.
As regards these questions Cicero is slightly inconsistent with himself.
For in the Rhetorica, as I have already mentioned, he followed
Hermagoras, while in the Topicai
Top. xxv.
95. disputed point is
originated by the basis, and in addressing the
lawyer Trebatius on this subject he calls it the point
at issue, and describes the elements in which it resides as central arguments or
foundations of the defence which hold it together and the removal of
which causes the whole defence to fall to the ground.
But in the Partitiones Oratoriae
foundation to that which is advanced
against the defence, on the ground that the central
argument, as it logically comes first, is put forward by the
accuser, while the line of defence is put forward
by the accused, and the point for the decision of the
judge arises from the question jointly raised by the central argument and the line
of defence. The view therefore of those who make the basis, the central
argument, and the point for the decision of
the judge identical, is at once more concise and nearer to the
truth. The central argument, they point out, is
that the removal of which makes the whole case fall to the ground.
In this central argument they seem to me to have
included both the alleged causes, that basis and the point for the decision of
the judge are in agreement; any other opinion would have been
inconsistent with their general views.
But this affectation of subtlety in the invention of technical terms is mere laborious ostentation: I have undertaken the task of discussing them solely that I might not be regarded as having failed to make sufficient inquiry into the subject which I have chosen as my theme. But it is quite unnecessary for an instructor proceeding on less technical lines to destroy the coherence of his teaching by attention to such minute detail.
Many however suffer from this drawback, more especially Hermagoras who, although he labours these points with such anxious diligence, was a man of penetrating intellect and in most respects deserves our admiration, so that even where we must needs blame him, we cannot withhold a certain meed of praise.
But the shorter method, which for that very reason is also by far the most lucid, will not fatigue the learner by leading him through a maze of detail, nor destroy the coherence of his eloquence by breaking it up into a number of minute departments. For he who has a clear view of the main issue of a dispute, and divines the aims which his own side and his opponents intend to follow and the means they intend to employ (and it is to the intentions of his own side that he must pay special attention), will without a doubt be in possession of a knowledge of all the points which I have discussed above.
And there is hardly anyone, unless he be a born fool without the least
acquaintance with the practice of speaking, who does cause or central
argument ) and what is the question
between the parties and the point on which the judge
has to decide, these three being identical. For the question is concerned with the matter in dispute
and the decision of the judge is given on the
point involved in the question.
Still we do not keep our attention rigidly fixed on such details, but the desire to win praise by any available means and the sheer delight in speaking make us wander away from the subject, since there is always richer material for eloquence outside the strict theme of the case, inasmuch as the points of any given dispute are always few, and there is all the world outside, and in the one case we speak according to our instructions, in the other on the subjects of our own choice.
We should teach not so much that it is our duty to discover the question, the
central
argument, and the point for the decision of
the judge (an easy task), as that we should continually keep
our attention on our subject, or if we digress, at least keep looking
back to it, lest in our desire to win applause we should let our weapons
drop from our grasp.
The school of Theodorus, as I have said, groups everything under heads, by which they mean several things. First
they mean the main question, which is to be
identified with the basis; secondly they mean the
other questions dependent on the main question,
thirdly the proposition and the statement of the proofs. The word is used as we use it when we
say It is the head of the whole business,
or, as Menander
says,
though I have done so at a greater length than was necessary. I have
also explained what are the various parts of forensic causes. My next
book therefore shall deal with the exordium.
I have now, my dear Marcellus Victorius, completed the third book of the work which I have dedicated to you, and have nearly finished a quarter of my task, and am confronted with a motive for renewed diligence and increased anxiety as to the judgment it may be found to deserve. For up to this point we were merely discussing rhetoric between ourselves and, in the event of our system being regarded as inadequate by the world at large, were prepared to content ourselves with putting it into practice at home and to confine ourselves to the education of your son and mine.
But now Domitianus Augustus has entrusted me with the education of his sister's grandsons, and I should be undeserving of the honour conferred upon me by such divine appreciation, if I were not to regard this distinction as the standard by which the greatness of my undertaking must be judged.
For it is clearly my duty to spare no pains in moulding the character of
my august pupils, that they may earn the deserved approval of the most
righteous of censors. The same applies to their intellectual
But no one is surprised at the frequency with which the greatest poets invoke the Muses not merely at the commencement of their works, but even further on when they have reached some important passage and repeat their vows and utter fresh prayers for assistance.
Assuredly therefore I may ask indulgence for doing what I omitted to do when I first entered on this task and calling to my aid all the gods and Himself before them all (for his power is unsurpassed and there is no deity that looks with such favour upon learning), beseeching him to inspire me with genius in proportion to the hopes that he has raised in me, to lend me propitious and ready aid and make me even such as he has believed me to be.
And this, though the greatest, is not the only motive for this act of
religious devotion, but my work is of such a nature that, as it
proceeds, I am confronted with greater and more arduous obstacles than
have yet faced me. For my next task is to explain the order to be
followed in forensic causes, which present the utmost complication and
variety. I must set forth the function of the exordium, the method of the statement of
facts, the cogency of proofs, whether we
are confirming our own assertions or refuting those of our opponents,
and the force of the peroration, whether we have
to refresh the memory of the judge by a brief recapitulation of the
facts, or to do what is far more effective, stir his emotions.
Some have preferred to give each of these points separate treatment,
fearing that if they undertook them as a whole the burden would be
greater than they