<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-eng2:3.8.70-3.9.4</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:3.8.70-3.9.4</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="8" type="textpart" subtype="section"><div n="70" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> I would have my younger readers realise that these words are penned for
                            their special benefit that they may not desire to adopt a different
                            style in their exercises from that in which they will be required to
                            speak, and may not be hampered by having to unlearn what they have
                            acquired. For the rest if they are ever summoned to take part in the
                            counsels of their friends, or to speak their opinions in the senate, or
                            advise the emperor on some point on which he <pb n="v1-3 p.515"/> may
                            consult them, they will learn from practice what they cannot perhaps put
                            to the credit of the schools. </p></div></div><div n="9" type="textpart" subtype="section"><div n="1" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p>IX. I now come to the forensic kind of
                            oratory, which presents the utmost variety, but whose duties are no more
                            than two, the bringing and rebutting of charges. Most authorities divide
                            the forensic speech into five parts: the <hi rend="italic">exordium,</hi> the <hi rend="italic">statement of facts,</hi> the
                                <hi rend="italic">proof,</hi> the <hi rend="italic">refutation,</hi>
                            and the <hi rend="italic">peroration.</hi> To these some have added the
                                <hi rend="italic">partition into heads, proposition</hi> and <hi rend="italic">digression,</hi> the two first of which form part of
                            the <hi rend="italic">proof.</hi>
                     </p></div><div n="2" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For it is obviously necessary to <hi rend="italic">propound</hi> what
                            you are going to <hi rend="italic">prove</hi> as well as to conclude.
                            Why then, if <hi rend="italic">proposition</hi> is a part of a speech,
                            should not <hi rend="italic">conclusion</hi> be also? <hi rend="italic">Partition</hi> on the other hand is merely one aspect of <hi rend="italic">arrangement,</hi> and <hi rend="italic">arrangement</hi> is a part of rhetoric itself, and is equally
                            distributed through every theme of oratory and their whole body, just as
                            are <hi rend="italic">invention</hi> and <hi rend="italic">style.</hi>
                     </p></div><div n="3" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Consequently we must regard <hi rend="italic">partition</hi> not as one
                            part of a whole speech, but as a part of each individual question that
                            may be involved. For what question is there in which an orator cannot
                            set forth the order in which he is going to make his points? And this of
                            course is the function of <hi rend="italic">partition.</hi> But how
                            ridiculous it is to make each question an aspect of <hi rend="italic">proof,</hi> but <hi rend="italic">partition</hi> which is an aspect
                            of a question a part of the whole speech. </p></div><div n="4" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> As for <hi rend="italic">digression (egressio,</hi> now more usually
                            styled <hi rend="italic">excessus</hi> ), if it lie outside the case, it
                            cannot be part of it, while, if it lie within it, it is merely an
                            accessory or ornament of that portion of the case from which <hi rend="italic">digression</hi> is made. For if anything that lies
                            within the case is to be called part of it, why not <pb n="v1-3 p.517"/>
                            call <hi rend="italic">argument, comparison, commonplace, pathos,
                                illustration</hi> parts of the case? </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>