<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:3.7.27-3.8.16</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:3.7.27-3.8.16</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2" type="translation" xml:lang="eng"><div n="3" type="textpart" subtype="book"><div n="7" type="textpart" subtype="section"><div n="27" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Praise too may be awarded to public works, in connexion with which their
                            magnificence, utility, beauty and the architect or artist must be given
                            due consideration. Temples for instance will be praised for their
                            magnificence, walls for <pb n="v1-3 p.479"/> their utility, and both for
                            their beauty or the skill of the architect. Places may also be praised,
                            witness the praise of Sicily in Cicero. <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">in Verr.</hi> ii. 1 <hi rend="italic">sqq.,</hi> iv. 48. </note> In such cases we
                            consider their beauty and utility: beauty calls for notice in places by
                            the sea, in open plains and pleasant situations, utility in healthy or
                            fertile localities. </p></div><div n="28" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Again praise in general terms may be awarded to noble sayings or deeds.
                            Finally things of every kind may be praised. Panegyrics have been
                            composed on sleep and death, and physicians have written eulogies on
                            certain kinds of food. While therefore I do not agree that panegyric
                            concerns only questions regarding what is honourable, I do think that it
                            comes as a rule under the heading of <hi rend="italic">quality,</hi>
                            although all three <hi rend="italic">bases</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Quality, conjecture, definition. See chap. vi.
                                for explanation of this term. </note> may he involved in Panegyric
                            and it was observed by Cicero <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Top.</hi> xxv. 94. </note> that all were
                            actually used by Gaius Caesar in his denunciation of Cato. But <hi rend="italic">panegyric</hi> is akin to <hi rend="italic">deliberative</hi> oratory inasmuch as the same things are usually
                            praised in the former as are advised in the latter. </p></div></div><div n="8" type="textpart" subtype="section"><div n="1" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p>VIII. I am surprised
                            that <hi rend="italic">deliberative</hi> oratory also has been
                            restricted by some authorities to questions of expediency. If it should
                            be necessary to assign one single aim to deliberative I should prefer
                            Cicero's <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">de
                                    Or.</hi> II. lxxxii. 334. </note> view that this kind of oratory
                            is primarily concerned with what is honourable. I do not doubt that
                            those who maintain the opinion first mentioned adopt the lofty view that
                            nothing can be expedient which is not good. </p></div><div n="2" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> That opinion is perfectly sound so long as we are fortunate enough to
                            have wise and good men for counsellors. But as we most often express our
                            views before an ignorant audience, and more especially before popular
                            assemblies, of which <pb n="v1-3 p.481"/> the majority is usually
                            uneducated, we must distinguish between what is honourable and what is
                            expedient and conform our utterances to suit ordinary understandings.
                        </p></div><div n="3" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For there are many who do not admit that what they really believe to be
                            the honourable course is sufficiently advantageous, and are misled by
                            the prospect of advantage into approving courses of the dishonourable
                            nature of which there can be no question: witness the Numantine treaty
                            and the surrender of the Caudine Forks. <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Mancinus was surrounded on retreat from
                                Numiantia in 137 B. C., while the surrender at the Caudine Forks
                                took place in 321 B. C. In both cases the Senate refused to ratify
                                the humiliating treaties which had been made the price of the
                                release of the Roman armies. </note>
                     </p></div><div n="4" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Nor does it suffice to restrict deliberative oratory to the <hi rend="italic">basis</hi> of <hi rend="italic">quality</hi> which is
                            concerned with questions of honour and expediency. For there is often
                            room for conjecture as well. Sometimes again <hi rend="italic">definition</hi> is necessary or <hi rend="italic">legal</hi>
                            problems require handling; this is especially the case when advice has
                            to be given on private matters, where there is some doubt of the
                            legality of the course under consideration. Of <hi rend="italic">conjecture'</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> For <hi rend="italic">conjecture</hi> see III. vi. 30 <hi rend="italic">sqq.</hi>
                        </note>
                     </p></div><div n="5" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> I shall speak more fully a little later on. Returning to <hi rend="italic">definition</hi> for the moment, we find it in the
                            question raised by Demosthenes, <quote>whether Philip should give or
                                restore Halonnesus,</quote>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Halonnesus had belonged to Athens, but had been seized by pirates.
                                Philip ejected the pirates. The Athenians asked him to restore it;
                                he replied that it belonged to him and that there could be no
                                question of restoration, but if they asked for it as a gift he
                                promised to give it them. </note> and to that discussed by Cicero in
                            the <hi rend="italic">Philippics</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> VIII. i. 2, where the question is discussed as
                                to whether the war with Antony is <hi rend="italic">bellum</hi> or
                                    <hi rend="italic">tumultus,</hi> the latter being the technical
                                name for any grave national emergency such as civil war or a Gallic
                                invasion within the bounds of Italy. </note> as to the nature of a
                                <hi rend="italic">tumultus.</hi> Again does not the question raised
                            in connection with the statue of Servius Sulpicius <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Phil.</hi> ix. 1. </note> as
                            to <quote> whether statues should be erected only in honour of those
                                ambassadors who perish by the sword </quote> bear a strong
                            resemblance to the questions that are raised in the law courts? </p></div><div n="6" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> The <hi rend="italic">deliberative</hi> department of oratory (also
                            called the <pb n="v1-3 p.483"/>
                        <hi rend="italic">advisory</hi>
                            department), while it deliberates about the future, also enquires about
                            the past, while its functions are twofold and consist in advising and
                            dissuading. <hi rend="italic">Deliberative</hi> oratory does not always
                            require an <hi rend="italic">exordium,</hi> such as is necessary in
                            forensic speeches, since he who asks an orator for his opinion is
                            naturally well disposed to him. But the commencement, whatever be its
                            nature, must have some resemblance to an <hi rend="italic">exordium.</hi> For we must not begin abruptly or just at the point
                            where the fancy takes us, since in every subject there is something
                            which naturally comes first. </p></div><div n="7" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> In addressing the senate or the people the same methods apply as in the
                            law courts, and we must aim as a rule at acquiring the goodwill of our
                            audience. This need cause no surprise, since even in <hi rend="italic">panegyric</hi> we seek to win the favour of our hearers when our
                            aim is praise pure and simple, and not the acquisition of any advantage.
                            Aristotle, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Rhet.</hi> iii. 14 </note>
                     </p></div><div n="8" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> it is true, holds, not without reason, that in <hi rend="italic">deliberative</hi> speeches we may often begin with a reference
                            either to ourselves or to our opponent, borrowing this practice <hi rend="italic">from</hi>
                        <hi rend="italic">forensic</hi> oratory, and
                            sometimes producing the impression that the subject is of greater or
                            less importance than it actually is. On the other hand he thinks that in
                                <hi rend="italic">demonstrative</hi> oratory the <hi rend="italic">exordium</hi> may be treated with the utmost freedom, </p></div><div n="9" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> since it is sometimes drawn from irrelevant material, as for example in
                            Isocrates' Praise of Helen, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">
                                The speech opens with a disquisition on the absurd and trivial
                                nature of much that is contained in the speeches of sophists and
                                rhetoricians. </note> or from something akin to the subject, as for
                            instance in the <hi rend="italic">Panegyricus</hi> of the same author,
                            when he complains that more honour is given to physical than to moral
                            excellence, or as Gorgias in his speech delivered at the Olympic games
                            praises the founders of the great national games. Sallust seems <pb n="v1-3 p.485"/> to have imitated these authors in his <hi rend="italic">Jugurthine War</hi> and in the introduction to his <hi rend="italic">Catiline,</hi> which has no connection with his
                            narrative. </p></div><div n="10" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> But it is time for me to return to <hi rend="italic">deliberative</hi>
                            oratory in which, even when we introduce an <hi rend="italic">exordium,</hi> we must content ourselves with a brief prelude,
                            which may amount to no more than a mere heading. As regards the <hi rend="italic">statement of facts,</hi> this is never required in
                            speeches on private subjects, at least as regards the subject on which
                            an opinion has to be given, because everyone is acquainted with the
                            question at issue. </p></div><div n="11" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Statements as to external matters which are relevant to the discussion
                            may however frequently be introduced. In addressing public assemblies it
                            will often be necessary to set forth the order of the points which have
                            to be treated. </p></div><div n="12" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> As regards appeals to the emotions, these are especially necessary in
                                <hi rend="italic">deliberative</hi> oratory. Anger has frequently to
                            be excited or assuaged and the minds of the audience have to be swayed
                            to fear, ambition, hatred, reconciliation. At times again it is
                            necessary to awaken pity, whether it is required, for instance, to urge
                            that relief should be sent to a besieged city, or we are engaged in
                            deploring the overthrow of an allied state. But what really carries
                            greatest weight in <hi rend="italic">deliberative</hi> speeches is the
                            authority of the speaker. </p></div><div n="13" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For he, who would have all men trust his judgment as to what is
                            expedient and honourable, should both possess and be regarded as
                            possessing genuine wisdom and excellence of character. In <hi rend="italic">forensic</hi> speeches the orator may, according to
                            the generally received opinion, indulge his passion to some extent. But
                            all will agree that the advice given by a speaker should be in keeping
                            with his moral character. <pb n="v1-3 p.487"/> The majority of Greek
                            writers have held that this kind of oratory is entirely concerned with
                            addressing public assemblies and have restricted it to politics. </p></div><div n="14" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Even Cicero <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">de Orat.</hi> ii. 82. </note> himself deals chiefly with this
                            department. Consequently those who propose to offer advice upon peace,
                            war, troops, public works or revenue must thoroughly acquaint themselves
                            with two things, the resources of the state and the character of its
                            people, so that the method employed in tendering their advice may be
                            based at once on political realities and the nature of their hearers.
                        </p></div><div n="15" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> This type of oratory seems to me to offer a more varied field for
                            eloquence, since both those who ask for advice and the answers given to
                            them may easily present the greatest diversity. Consequently there are
                            three points which must be specially borne in mind in advice or
                            dissuasion: first the nature of the subject under discussion, secondly
                            the nature of those who are engaged in the discussion, and thirdly the
                            nature of the speaker who offers them advice. </p></div><div n="16" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> As to the subject under discussion its practicability is either certain
                            or uncertain. In the latter case this will be the chief, if not the only
                            point for consideration; for it will often happen that we shall assert
                            first that something ought not to be done, even if it can be done, and
                            secondly, that it cannot be done. Now when the question turns on such
                            points as to whether the Isthmus can be cut through, the Pontine Marshes
                            drained, or a harbour constructed at Ostia, or whether Alexander is
                            likely to find land beyond the Ocean, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> the theme of a <hi rend="italic">suasoria</hi>
                                of the elder Seneca ( <hi rend="italic">Suas.</hi> i.).
                                    <quote>Alexander deliberates whether to sail forth into the
                                    ocean.</quote>
                        </note> we make use of <hi rend="italic">conjecture.</hi>
                     </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>