Institutio Oratoria

We must remember, too, that there are many cases in which confession, excuse or modification are necessary with regard to our statements: and magnificence is a quality wholly out of keeping with such procedure. Magnificence of diction is therefore no more specially appropriate to the statement of facts than language calculated to excite pity or hatred, or characterised by dignity, charm or wit. Each of these qualities is admirable in its proper place, but none can be regarded as the peculiar and inalienable property of this portion of the speech.

Theodectes asserts that the statement of facts should not merely be magnificent, but attractive in style. But this quality again though suitable enough to the statement of facts, is equally so in other portions of the speech. There are others

And I will not conceal the fact that Cicero [*](Top. xxvi. 97. ) himself holds that more qualities are required. For in addition to demanding that it should be plain, brief and credible, he would have it clear, characteristic and worthy of the occasion. But everything in a speech should be characteristic and worthy of the occasion as far as possible. Palpalility, as far as I understand the term, is no doubt a great virtue, when a truth requires not merely to be told, but to some extent obtruded, still it may be included under lucidity. Some, however, regard this quality as actually being injurious at times, on the ground that in certain cases it is desirable to obscure the truth. This contention is, however, absurd.

For he who desires to obscure the situation, will state what is false in lieu of the truth, but must still strive to secure an appearance of palpability for the facts which he narrates.

A chance turn of the discussion has led us to a difficult type of statement of facts. I will therefore proceed to speak of those in which the facts are against us. Under such circumstances some have held that we should omit the statement of facts altogether. Nothing can be more easy, except perhaps to throw up the case altogether. But suppose you undertake a case of this kind with some good reason. It is surely the worst art to admit the badness of the case by keeping silence. We can hardly hope that the judge will be so dense as to give a decision in favour of a case which he knows we were unwilling to place before him.

I do not of course deny that just as there may be some points which you should deny in your statement

He replied as he thought fit.

We must therefore distinguish between case and case. In those where there is no question of guilt but only of law, we may, even though the facts he against us, admit the truth.

He took money from the temple, but it was private property, and therefore he is not guilty of sacrilege. He abducted a maiden, but the father [*]( The victim can claim either that the ravisher should marry her or be put to death. Her father cannot however make either of these demands on her behalf. ) can have no option as to his fate. He assaulted a freeborn boy, and the latter hanged himself, but that is no reason for the author of the assault to be awarded capital punishment as having caused his death; he will instead pay 10,000 sesterces, the fine imposed by law for such a crime.

In some cases, too, we may mitigate a bad impression by words which avoid the appearance of a statement of facts. We may say, for instance,

He did not, as our opponent asserts, enter the temple with the deliberate intention of theft nor seek a favourable occasion for the purpose, but was led astray by the opportunity, the absence of custodians, and the sight of the money (and money has always an undue influence on the mind of man), and so yielded to temptation. What does that matter? He committed the offence and is a thief. It is

v4-6 p.89

useless to defend an act to the punishment of which we can raise no objection.