Institutio Oratoria

VII. I will begin with the class of causes which are concerned with praise and blame. This class appears to have been entirely divorced by Aristotle, [*](Rhet. 1358 b. 2. ) and following him by Theophrastus, from the practical side of oratory (which they call πραγματικῇ, ) and to have been reserved solely for the delectation of audiences, which indeed is shown to be its peculiar function by its name, which implies display. [*](sc.ἐπιδεικτική.)

Roman usage on the other hand has given it a place in the practical tasks of life. For funeral orations are often imposed as a duty on persons holding public office, or entrusted to magistrates by decree of the senate. Again the award of praise or blame to a witness may carry weight in the courts, while it is also a recognised practice to produce persons to praise the character of the accused. Further the published speeches of Cicero directed against his rivals in the election to the consulship, [*]( The speech was known as in Toga Candida. Only fragments survive. ) and against Lucius Piso, Clodius and Curio, [*]( The in Pisonem survives, the in Clodium et Curionem, to which he refers again (v. x. 92), is lost. ) are full of denunciation, and were notwithstanding delivered in the senate as formal expressions of opinion in the course of debate.

I do not deny that some compositions of this kind are composed solely with a view to display, as, for instance, panegyrics of gods and heroes of the past, a consideration which provides the solution of a question which I discussed a little while back, [*](III. v. 3.) and proves that those are wrong who hold that an orator will never speak on a subject unless it involves some problem.