<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-eng2:5.12.15-5.13.6</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:5.12.15-5.13.6</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="5" type="textpart" subtype="book"><div n="12" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="15" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> I have been content to give a brief outline of my views concerning these
                            points, and have put them forward in such a way as to show as clearly as
                            was in <pb n="v4-6 p.307"/> my power the various topics and kinds of
                            arguments. Others have dealt with the subject at greater length,
                            preferring to deal with the whole subject of commonplaces and to show
                            how each topic may be treated. </p></div><div n="16" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> This seems to me unnecessary, since it is as a rule obvious what should
                            be said against the injurious conduct or avarice of our opponents, or
                            against a hostile witness or powerful friends; to say everything on all
                            these subjects is an endless task, as endless in fact as if I were to
                            attempt to lay down rules for dealing with every dispute that can ever
                            occur and all the questions, arguments and opinions thereby involved.
                        </p></div><div n="17" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> I do not venture to suppose that I have pointed out all the
                            circumstances that may give rise to arguments, but I think that I have
                            done so in the majority of cases. This was a task which required all the
                            more careful handling because the declamations, which we used to employ
                            as foils wherewith to practise for the duels of the forum, have long
                            since departed from the true form of pleading and, owing to the fact
                            that they are composed solely with the design of giving pleasure, have
                            become flaccid and nerveless: indeed, declaimers are guilty of exactly
                            the same offence as slave-dealers who castrate boys in order to increase
                            tile attractions of their beauty. </p></div><div n="18" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For just as the slave-dealer regards strength and muscle, and above all,
                            the beard and other natural characteristics of manhood as blemishes, and
                            softens down all that would be sturdy if allowed to grow, on the ground
                            that it is harsh and hard, even so we conceal the manly form of
                            eloquence and power of speaking closely and forcibly by giving it a
                            delicate complexion of style and, so long as what we say is smooth and
                                <pb n="v4-6 p.309"/> polished, are absolutely indifferent as to
                            whether our words have any power or no. </p></div><div n="19" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> But I take Nature for my guide and regard any man whatsoever as fairer
                            to view than a eunuch, nor can I believe that Providence is ever so
                            indifferent to what itself has created as to allow weakness to be an
                            excellence, nor again can I think that the knife can render beautiful
                            that which, if produced in the natural course of birth, would be
                            regarded as a monster. A false resemblance to the female sex may in
                            itself delight lust, if it will, but depravity of morals will never
                            acquire such ascendancy as to succeed in giving real value to that to
                            which it has succeeded in giving a high price. </p></div><div n="20" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Consequently, although this debauched eloquence (for I intend to speak
                            with the utmost frankness) may please modern audiences by its effeminate
                            and voluptuous charms, I absolutely refuse to regard it as eloquence at
                            all: for it retains not the slightest trace of purity and virility in
                            itself, not to say of these qualities in the speaker. </p></div><div n="21" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> When the masters of sculpture and painting desired to carve or paint
                            forms of ideal beauty, they never fell into the error of taking some
                            Bagoas or Megabyzus <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">Eunuchs.</note> as models, but rightly selected the well-known
                            Doryphorus, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> The famous statue
                                of Polycletus, regarded as the standard of manly beauty and
                                proportion. Many copies have survived. Doryphorus= the Spearbearer.
                            </note> equally adapted either for the fields of war or for the
                            wrestling school, and other warlike and athletic youths as types of
                            physical beauty. Shall we then, who are endeavouring to mould the ideal
                            orator, equip eloquence not with weapons but with timbrels? </p></div><div n="22" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Consequently, let the youth whom we are training devote himself, as far
                            as in him lies, to the imitation of truth and, in view of the fact that
                            the battles of the forum that await him are not few, let him strive for
                            victory in the schools and learn <pb n="v4-6 p.311"/> how to strike the
                            vitals of his foe and protect his own; and let his instructor insist on
                            his doing this above all else and reserve his special approval for the
                            mastery of this art. For though young men may be lured to evil practices
                            by praise, they still prefer to be praised for what is right. </p></div><div n="23" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> At the present time the misfortune is that teachers more often than not
                            pass over what is necessary in silence, and utility is not accounted one
                            of the good qualities of eloquence. But I have dealt with these points
                            in another work, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Perhaps the
                                lost <hi rend="italic">de causis corruptae eloquentiae.</hi>
                        </note>
                            and shall often have to recur to them in this. I will now return to my
                            prescribed course. </p></div></div><div n="13" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="1" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Refitation may be understood in two senses. For the duty of the defence
                            consists wholly in refutation, while whatever is said by our opponents
                            must be rebutted, whether we are speaking for the defence or the
                            prosecution. It is in this sense that refutation is assigned the fourth
                            place <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> (i) exoidium, (ii)
                                statement of facts, (iii) confirmation, (iv) refutation, (v)
                                peroration. </note> in pleadings, but the methods required in either
                            case are identical. For the principles of argument in refutation can
                            only be drawn from the same sources as those used in proof, while topics
                            and thoughts, words and figures will all be on the same lines. </p></div><div n="2" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> As a rule no strong appeal to the emotions is made in refutation. It is
                            not, however, without reason that, as Cicero so often testifies, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> It is not clear what passages
                                Quintilian has in his mind. </note> the task of defence has always
                            been considered harder than that of prosecution. In the first place
                            accusation is a simpler task: for the charge is put forward in one
                            definite form, but its refutation may take a number of different forms,
                            since as a rule it is sufficient for the accuser that his charge should
                            be true, whereas counsel for the defence may deny <pb n="v4-6 p.313"/>
                            or justify the facts, raise the question of competence, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> See III. vi. 23. No exact
                                rendering of <hi rend="italic">translatio</hi> is possible.
                                Literally it means <quote>transference of the charge</quote> : it
                                would seem to cover cases where the charge was brought in the wrong
                                court or by the wrong person. It is used generally to indicate a
                                plea made by defendant in bar of plaintiff's action. </note> make
                            excuses, plead for mercy, soften, extenuate, or divert the charge,
                            express contempt or derision. The task of the accuser is consequently
                            straightforward and, if I may use the phrase, vociferous; but the
                            defence requires a thousand arts and stratagems. </p></div><div n="3" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Moreover the prosecutor generally produces a speech which he has
                            prepared at home, while the counsel for the defence has frequently to
                            deal with quite unexpected points. The prosecutor brings forward his
                            witnesses, while counsel for the defence has to refute the charge by
                            arguments drawn from the case itself. The prosecutor draws his material
                            from the odium excited by the charges, even though it have no
                            justification, denouncing parricide, sacrilege, or treason, whereas
                            counsel for the defence can only deny them. Consequently quite moderate
                            speakers have proved adequate in prosecution, while no one can be a good
                            counsel for the defence unless he possesses real eloquence. In a word,
                            it is just so much easier to accuse than to defend as it is easier to
                            inflict than to heal a wound. </p></div><div n="4" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> The nature of the arguments put forward by our opponent and the manner
                            in which he produces them will, however, make an enormous difference to
                            our task. We must therefore first consider what it is to which we have
                            to reply, whether it is part and parcel of the actual case or has been
                            introduced from circumstances lying outside the case. For in the former
                            case we must deny or justify the facts or raise the question of
                            competence: for these are practically the sole methods of defence
                            available in the courts. Pleas for mercy, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">See vii. iv. 17.</note>
                     </p></div><div n="5" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> which are not in any sense a method of actual defence, can rarely be
                            used, and <pb n="v4-6 p.315"/> only before judges who are not limited to
                            some precise form of verdict. <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">e. g.</hi> in the emperor's court as opposed
                                to the <hi rend="italic">quaestiones perpetuae</hi> or civil
                                actions. </note> Even those speeches delivered before Gaius Caesar
                                <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> As in the <hi rend="italic">pro Ligario</hi> and <hi rend="italic">pro
                                    Deiotaro</hi> pleaded in Caesar's house. It is not known what
                                cases were tried before the (2nd) triumvirate. </note> and the
                            triumvirs on behalf of members of the opposite party, although they do
                            employ such pleas for mercy, also make use of the ordinary methods of
                            defence. For I think you will agree with me that the following passage
                            contains arguments of a strongly defensive character <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Cic. <hi rend="italic">pro
                                    Lig.</hi> iv. 10 </note> : <quote>What was our object, Tubero,
                                save that we might have the power that Caesar has now</quote> But
                            if, </p></div><div n="6" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> when pleading before the emperor or any other person who has power
                            either to acquit or condemn, it is incumbent on us to urge that, while
                            our client has committed an offence that deserves the death penalty, it
                            is still the duty of a merciful judge to spare him despite his sins, it
                            must be noted in the first place that we have to deal, not with our
                            adversary, but with the judge, and secondly that we shall have to employ
                            the deliberative rather than the forensic style. For we shall urge the
                            judge to fix his desire rather on the glory that is won by clemency than
                            on the pleasure that is given by vengeance. </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>