There is no point in the whole speech where confusion of memory or loss of fluency has a worse effect, for a faulty exordium is like a face seamed with scars; and he who runs his ship ashore while leaving port is certainly the least efficient of pilots.

The length of the exordium will be determined by the case; simple cases require a short introduction only, longer exordia being best suited to cases which are complicated, suspect or unpopular. As for those who have laid it down as a law applying to all exordia that they should not be more than four sentences long, they are merely absurd. On the other hand undue length is equally to be avoided, lest the head should seem to have grown out of all proportion to the body and the judge should be wearied by that which ought to prepare him for what is to follow.

The figure which the Greeks call apostrophe, by which is meant the diversion of our words to address some person other than the judge, is entirely banned by some rhetoricians as far as the exordium is concerned, and for this they have some reason, since it would certainly seem to be more natural that we should specially address ourselves to those whose favour we desire to win.

Occasionally however some striking expression of thought is necessary in the exordium which can be given greater point and vehemence if addressed to some person other than the judge. In such a case what law or what preposterous superstition is to prevent us from adding force to such expression of our thought by the use of this figure?

For the writers of text-books do not forbid it because they regard it as illicit, but because they think it useless. Consequently if its utility be proved, we shall have to employ it for the very reason for which we are now forbidden to do so.

Moreover Demosthenes turns to address Aeschines in his exordium, de Cor. while Cicero adopts the same device in several of his speeches, but more especially in the pro Ligario, i. 2. where he turns to address Tubero.

His speech would have been much less effective, if any other figure had been used, as will be all the more clearly realised, if the whole of that most vigorous passage You are, then, in possession, Tubero, of the most valuable advantage that can fall to an accuser etc. be altered so as to be addressed to the judge. For it is a real and most unnatural diversion of the passage, which destroys its whole force, if we say Tubero is then in possession of the most valuable advantage that can fall to an accuser.

In the original form Cicero attacks his opponent and presses him hard, in the passage as altered he would merely have pointed out a fact. The same thing results if you alter the turn of the passage in Demosthenes. Again did not Sallust when speaking against Cicero himself address his exordium to him and not to the judge? In fact he actually opens with the words I should feel deeply injured by your reflexions on my character, Marcus Tullius, wherein he followed the precedent set by Cicero in his speech against Catiline where he opens with the words How long will you continue to abuse our patience?

Finally to remove all reason for feeling surprise at the employment of apostrophe, Cicero in his defence of Scaurus, This speech is lost: the existing speech in his defence is on the charge of extortion. on a charge of bribery (the speech is to be found in his Notebooks; for he defended him twice) actually introduces an imaginary person speaking on behalf of the accused, while in his pro Rahirio and his speech in defence of this same Scaurus on a charge of extortion he employs illustrations, and in the pro Cluentio, as I have already pointed out, introduces division into heads.

Still such artifices, although they may be employed at times to good effect, are not to be indulged in indiscriminately, but only when there is strong reason for breaking the rule. The same remark applies to simile (which must however be brief), metaphor and other tropes, all of which are forbidden by our cautious and pedantic teachers of rhetoric, but which we shall none the less occasionally employ, unless indeed we are to disapprove of the magnificent example of irony in the pro Ligario to which I have already referred a few pages back.

The rhetoricians have however been nearer the truth in their censure of certain other faults that may occur in the exordium. The stock exordium which can be suited to a number of different cases they style vulgar; it is an unpopular form but can sometimes be effectively employed and has often been adopted by some of the greatest orators. The exordium which might equally well be used by our opponent, they style common. That which our opponent can turn to his own advantage, they call interchangeable, that which is irrelevant to the case, detached, and that which is drawn from some other speech, transferred. In addition to these they censure others as long and others as contrary to rule. Most of these faults are however not peculiar to the exordinum, but may be found in any or every portion of a speech.

Such are the rules for the exordium, wherever it is employed. It may however sometimes be dispensed with. For occasionally it is superfluous, if the judge has been sufficiently prepared for our speech without it or if the case is such as to render such preparation unnecessary. Aristotle Rhet. iii. 14. indeed says that with good judges the exordium is entirely unnecessary. Sometimes however it is impossible to employ it, even if we desire to do so, when, for instance, the judge is much occupied, when time is short or superior authority forces us to embark upon the subject right away.

On the other hand it is at times possible to give the force of an exordium to other portions of the speech. For instance we may ask the judges in the course of our statement of the facts or of our arguments to give us their best attention and good-will, a proceeding which Prodicus recommended as a means of wakening them when they begin to nod. A good example is the following: Cic. pro Var. fr. 8.

Gaius Varenus, he who was killed by the slaves of Ancharius—I beg you, gentlemen, to give me your best attention at this point. Further if the case involves a number of different matters, each section must be prefaced with a short introduction, such as Listen now to what follows, or I now pass to the next point. Even in the proof there are many passages which perform the same function as an exordium, such as the passage in the pro Cluentio xlii. 117. where Cicero introduces an attack on the censors and in the pro Murena iii. 7. when he apologises to Servius. But the practice is too common to need illustration.

However on all occasions when we have employed the exordium, whether we intend to pass to the statement of facts or direct to the proof, our intention should be mentioned at the conclusion of the introduction, with the result that the transition to what follows will be smooth and easy.

There is indeed a pedantic and childish affectation in vogue in the schools of marking the transition by some epigram and seeking to win applause by this feat of legerdemain. Ovid is given to this form of affectation in his Metamorphoses, but there is some excuse for him owing to the fact that he is compelled to weld together subjects of the most diverse nature so as to form a continuous whole.

But what necessity is there for an orator to gloss over his transitions or to attempt to deceive the judge, who requires on the contrary to be warned to give his attention to the sequence of the various portions of the speech? For instance the first part of our statement of the facts will be wasted, if the judge does not realise that we have reached that stage.

Therefore, although we should not be too abrupt in passing to our statement of facts, it is best to do nothing to conceal our transition. Indeed, if the statement of fact on which we are about to embark is somewhat long and complicated, we shall do well to prepare the judge for it, as Cicero often does, most notably in the following passage: pro Cluent. iv. 11. The introduction to my exposition of this point will be rather longer than usual, but I beg you, gentlemen, not to take it ill. For if you get a firm grasp of the beginning, you will find it much easier to follow what comes last. This is practically all that I can find to say on the subject of the exordium.

II. It is a most natural and frequently necessary proceeding, that after preparing the mind of the judge in the manner described above we should indicate the nature of the subject on which he will have to give judgment: that is the statement of facts.

In dealing with this question I shall deliberately pass over the divisions made by certain writers, who make too many classes and err on the side of subtlety. For they demand an explanation dealing not only with the facts of the case which is before the court, but with the person involved (as in the sentence, Sall. Hist. iv. 25. Marcus Lollius Palicanus, a Picentine of humble birth, a man gifted with loquacity rather than eloquence ) or of the place where an incident occurred (as in the sentence Cic. Verr. xxiv. 63. Lampsacus, gentlemen, is a town situated on the Hellespont ), or of the time at which something occurred (as in the verse Verg. G. i. 43. In early spring, when on the mountains hoarThe snows dissolve), or of the causes of an occurrence, such as the historians are so fond of setting forth, when they explain the origin of a war, a rebellion or a pestilence. Further they style some statements of fact complete, and others incomplete, a distinction which is self-evident. To this they add that our explanation may refer to the past (which is of course the commonest form), the present (for which compare Cicero's pro Rosc. Am. xxii. 60. remarks about the excitement caused among the friends of Chrysogonus when his name was mentioned), or of the future (a form permissible only to prophets): for hypotyposis or picturesque description cannot be regarded as a statement of facts.