On the other hand, all those embellishments which differ in character from these are none the less virtues whose importance is such that without them all oratory will be little less than unintelligible. For how can the judge be adequately instructed unless lucidity characterise our performance of the following tasks: explanation, proposition, promise of proofs, definition, distinction, exposition of our own opinion, logical conclusion, defence by anticipation, introduction of comparisons or precedents, disposition and distribution, interruption, repression of those who interrupt us, antithesis, exculpation and personal attack?

Again, what would eloquence do if deprived of the artifices of amplification and its opposite? of which the first requires the gift of signifying more than we say, that is emphasis, together with exaggeration and overstatement of the truth, while the latter requires the power to diminish and palliate. What scope is there for the stronger emotions if the orator is not allowed to give free rein to his speech, to flame out in anger, to reproach, to wish or execrate? Or for the milder emotions without the assistance of commendation, conciliation and humour?

What pleasure can an orator hope to produce, or what impression even of the most moderate learning, unless he knows how to fix one point in the minds of the audience by repetition, and another by dwelling on it, how to digress from and return to his theme, to divert the blame from himself and transfer it to another, or to decide what points to omit and what to ignore as negligible? It is qualities such as these that give life and vigour to oratory; without them it lies torpid like a body lacking the breath to stir its limbs.

But more than the mere possession of these qualities is required; they must be deployed, each in their proper place and with such variety that every sound may bewitch the hearer with all the charm of music. But these qualities are as a rule open and direct, manifesting themselves without disguise. They do, however, as I have said, admit of figures, as the instances to which I shall proceed will show.

What is more common than to ask or enquire? For both terms are used indifferently, although the one seems to imply a desire for knowledge, and the other a desire to prove something. But whichever term we use, the thing which they represent admits a variety of figures. We will begin with those which serve to increase the force and cogency of proof to which I assign the first place.

A simple question may be illustrated by the line: quanquam, Spalding: quam cum, A: cum, B. But who are ye and from what shores are come? On the other hand, a question involves a figure, whenever it is employed not to get information, but to emphasise our point, as in the following examples: pro. Lig. iii. 9 and in Cat. i. 1. What was that sword of yours doing, Tubero, that was drawn on the field of Pharsalus? and How long, Catiline, will you abuse our patience? and Do you not see that your plots are all laid bare? with the whole passage that follows.

How much greater is the fire of his words as they stand than if he had said, You have abused our patience a long time, and Your plots are all laid bare. We may also ask what cannot be denied, as Was Gaius Fidiculanius Falcula, I ask you, brought to justice? pro Cluent. xxxvii. 103. Or we may put a question to which it is difficult to reply, as in the common forms, How is it possible? How can that be?

Or we may ask a question with a view to throw odium on the person to whom it is addressed, as in the words placed by Seneca in the mouth of Medea: Med. 451. What lands dost bid me seek? Or our aim may be to excite pity, as is the case with the question asked by Sinon in Virgil: Aen. ii. 69. Alas, what lands, lie cried,What seas can now receive me? Or to embarrass our opponent and to deprive him of the power to feign ignorance of our meaning, as Asinius does in the following sentence: Do you hear? The will which we impugn is the work of a madman, not of one who lacked natural affection. In fact questions admit of infinite variety.

They may serve our indignation, as in the line: Are any leftThat still adore Juno's divinity?Aen. i. 48. Or they may still express wonder, as in: To what dost thou not drive the hearts of men,Accursed greed of gold?Aen. iii. 56. Again, at times they may express a sharp command,

as in: Will they not rush to arms and follow forthFrom all the city?Aen. iv. 592. Or we may ask ourselves, as in the phrase of Terence, What, then, shall I do? Eun. I. i. 1.

A figure is also involved in a reply, when one question is asked and another is answered, because it suits the respondent's purpose better to do so, or because it aggravates the charge brought against the accused. For example, a witness for the prosecution was asked whether he had been cudgelled by the plaintiff, and replied, And what is more, I had done him no harm. Or the purpose may be to elude a charge, a very common form of reply. The advocate says, I ask if you killed the man? The accused replies, He was a robber. The advocate asks, Have you occupied the farm? The accused replies, It was my own.

Again, the answer may be of such a kind as to make defence precede confession. For example, in the Eclogues Ecl. iii. 17 and 21. of Virgil, when one shepherd asks: Did I not see you, villain, snare a goatOf Damon's? the other replies: I vanquished him in song, and should he notPay me the prize, my due?

Akin to this kind of answer is the dissimulatory reply, which is employed solely with the purpose of raising a laugh, and has therefore been treated in its appropriate place. VI. iii. 68. If it were meant seriously, it would be tantamount to a confession. Further, there is the practice of putting the question and answering it oneself, which may have quite a pleasing effect. Take as an example the following passage from the pro Ligario, iii. 7. where Cicero says, Before whom do I say this? Before one who, although he was aware of these facts, yet restored me to my country even before he had seen me.