Book: The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Volume 4

C >> Cicero >> The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Volume 4







THE TWO BOOKS WHICH REMAIN OF THE TREATISE BY M.T. CICERO ON
RHETORICAL INVENTION.

* * * * *

BOOK I.

* * * * *


These essays on rhetoric were composed by Cicero when he was about one
and twenty years of age, and he mentions them afterwards in his more
elaborate treatise _De Oratore_, (Lib. i. c. 2,) as unworthy of his
more mature age, and more extended experiences. Quintilian also (III.
c. 63,) mentions them as works which Cicero condemned by subsequent
writings. This treatise originally consisted of four books, of which
only two have come down to us.

I. I HAVE often and deeply resolved this question in my mind, whether
fluency of language has been beneficial or injurious to men and to
cities, with reference to the cultivation of the highest order of
eloquence. For when I consider the disasters of our own republic, and
when I call to mind also the ancient calamities of the most important
states, I see that it is by no means the most insignificant portion
of their distresses which has originated from the conduct of the most
eloquent men. But, at the same time, when I set myself to trace back,
by the aid of written memorials and documents, affairs which, by
reason of their antiquity, are removed back out of the reach of any
personal recollection, I perceive also that many cities have been
established, many wars extinguished, many most enduring alliances and
most holy friendships have been cemented by deliberate wisdom much
assisted and facilitated by eloquence. And as I have been, as I say,
considering all this for some time, reason itself especially induces
me to think that wisdom without eloquence is but of little advantage
to states, but that eloquence without wisdom is often most
mischievous, and is never advantageous to them.

If then any one, neglecting all the most virtuous and honourable
considerations of wisdom and duty, devotes his whole attention to the
practice of speaking, that man is training himself to become useless
to himself, and a citizen mischievous to his country; but a man who
arms himself with eloquence in such a manner as not to oppose the
advantage of his country, but to be able to contend in behalf of them,
he appears to me to be one who both as a man and a citizen will be of
the greatest service to his own and the general interests, and most
devoted to his country.

And if we are inclined to consider the origin of this thing which is
called eloquence, whether it be a study, or an art, or some peculiar
sort of training or some faculty given us by nature, we shall find
that it has arisen from most honourable causes, and that it proceeds
on the most excellent principles.

II. For there was a time when men wandered at random over the fields,
after the fashion of beasts, and supported life on the food of beasts;
nor did they do anything by means of the reasoning powers of the mind;
but almost everything by bodily strength. No attention was as yet paid
to any considerations of the religious reverence due to the gods, or
of the duties which are owed to mankind: no one had ever seen any
legitimate marriages, no one had beheld any children whose parentage
was indubitable; nor had any one any idea what great advantage
there might be in a system of equal law. And so, owing to error and
ignorance, cupidity, that blind and rash sovereign of the mind, abused
its bodily strength, that most pernicious of servants, for the purpose
of gratifying itself. At this time then a man,[56] a great and a wise
man truly was he, perceived what materials there were, and what great
fitness there was in the minds of men for the most important affairs,
if any one could only draw it out, and improve it by education. He,
laying down a regular system, collected men, who were previously
dispersed over the fields and hidden in habitations in the woods into
one place, and united them, and leading them on to every useful and
honourable pursuit, though, at first, from not being used to it they
raised an outcry against it; he gradually, as they became more eager
to listen to him on account of his wisdom and eloquence, made them
gentle and civilized from having been savage and brutal. And it
certainly seems to me that no wisdom which was silent and destitute of
skill in speaking could have had such power as to turn men on a sudden
from their previous customs, and to lead them to the adoption of
a different system of life. And, moreover, after cities had been
established how could men possibly have been induced to learn to
cultivate integrity, and to maintain justice, and to be accustomed
willingly to obey others, and to think it right not only to encounter
toil for the sake of the general advantage, but even to run the risk
of losing their lives, if men had not been able to persuade them by
eloquence of the truth of those principles which they had discovered
by philosophy? Undoubtedly no one, if it had not been that he was
influenced by dignified and sweet eloquence, would ever have chosen
to condescend to appeal to law without violence, when he was the most
powerful party of the two as far as strength went; so as to allow
himself now to be put on a level with those men among whom he might
have been preeminent, and of his own free will to abandon a custom
most pleasant to him, and one which by reason of its antiquity had
almost the force of nature.

And this is how eloquence appears to have originated at first, and to
have advanced to greater perfection; and also, afterwards, to have
become concerned in the most important transactions of peace and war,
to the greatest advantage of mankind? But after that a certain sort of
complaisance, a false copyist of virtue, without any consideration
for real duty, arrived at some fluency of language, then wickedness,
relying on ability, began to overturn cities, and to undermine the
principles of human life.

III. And, since we have mentioned the origin, of the good done by
eloquence, let us explain also the beginning of this evil.

It appears exceedingly probable to me that was a time when men who
were destitute of eloquence and wisdom, were not accustomed to meddle
with affairs of state, and when also great and eloquent men were not
used to concern themselves about private causes; but, while the most
important transactions were managed by the most eminent and able men,
I think that there were others also, and those not very incompetent,
who attended to the trifling disputes of private individuals; and as
in these disputes it often happened that men had recourse to lies, and
tried by such means to oppose the truth, constant practice in speaking
encouraged audacity, so that it became unavoidable that those other
more eminent men should, on account of the injuries sustained by the
citizens, resist the audacious and come to the assistance of their own
individual friends.

Therefore, as that man had often appeared equal in speaking, and
sometimes even superior, who having neglected the study of wisdom, had
laboured to acquire nothing except eloquence, it happened that in the
judgment of the multitude he appeared a man worthy to conduct even the
affairs of the state. And hence it arose, and it is no wonder that
it did, when rash and audacious men had seized on the helm of the
republic, that great and terrible disasters occurred. Owing to which
circumstances, eloquence fell under so much odium and unpopularity
that the ablest men, (like men who seek a harbour to escape from some
violent tempest) devoted themselves to any quiet pursuit, as a refuge
from a life of sedition and tumult. So that other virtuous and
honourable pursuits appear to me to have become popular subsequently,
from having been cultivated in tranquillity by excellent men; but
that this pursuit having been abandoned by most of them, grew out of
fashion and obsolete at the very time when it should have been more
eagerly retained and more anxiously encouraged and strengthened.

For the more scandalously the temerity and audacity of foolish and
worthless men was violating a most honourable and virtuous system,
to the excessive injury of the republic, the more studiously did
it become others to resist them, and to consult the welfare of the
republic.

IV. And this principle which I have just laid down did not escape the
notice of Cato, nor of Laelus, nor of their pupil, as I may fairly
call him, Africanus, nor of the Gracchi the grandson of Africanus; men
in whom there was consummate virtue and authority increased by their
consummate virtue and eloquence, which might serve as an ornament to
these qualities, and as a protection to the republic. Wherefore, in
my opinion at least, men ought not the less to devote themselves to
eloquence, although some men both in private and public affairs misuse
it in a perverse manner; but I think rather that they should apply
themselves to it with the more eagerness, in order to prevent wicked
men from getting the greatest power to the exceeding injury of the
good, and the common calamity of all men; especially as this is the
only thing which is of the greatest influence on all affairs both
public and private; and as it is by this same quality that life is
rendered safe, and honourable, and illustrious, and pleasant. For it
is from this source that the most numerous advantages accrue to the
republic, if only it be accompanied by wisdom, that governor of all
human affairs. From this source it is that praise and honour and
dignity flow towards all those who have acquired it; from this source
it is that the most certain and the safest defence is provided for
their friends. And, indeed, it appears to me, that it is on this
particular that men, who in many points are weaker and lower than the
beasts, are especially superior to them, namely, in being able to
speak.

Wherefore, that man appears to me to have acquired an excellent
endowment, who is superior to other men in that very thing in which
men are superior to beasts. And if this art is acquired not by nature
only, not by mere practice, but also by a sort of regular system of
education, it appears to me not foreign to our purpose to consider
what those men say who have left us some precepts on the subject of
the attainment of it.

But, before we begin to speak of oratorical precepts, I think we must
say something of the nature of the art itself; of its duty, of
its end, of its materials, and of its divisions. For when we have
ascertained those points, then each man's mind will, with the more
ease and readiness, be able to comprehend the system itself, and the
path which leads to excellence in it.

V. There is a certain political science which is made up of many and
important particulars. A very great and extensive portion of it is
artificial eloquence, which men call rhetoric. For we do not agree
with those men who think that the knowledge of political science is
in no need of and has no connexion with eloquence; and we most widely
disagree with those, on the other hand, who think that all political
ability Is comprehended under the skill and power of a rhetorician. On
which account we will place this oratorical ability in such a class as
to assert that it is a part of political science. But the duty of this
faculty appears to be to speak in a manner suitable to persuading men;
the end of it is to persuade by language. And there is difference
between the duty of this faculty and its end; that with respect to the
duty we consider what ought to be done; with respect to the end we
consider what is suitable to the duty. Just as we say, that it is the
duty of a physician to prescribe for a patient in a way calculated to
cure him; and that his end is to cure him by his prescriptions. And
so we shall understand what we are to call the duty of an orator, and
also what we are to call his end; since we shall call that his duty
which he ought to do, and we shall term that his end for the sake of
which he is bound to do his duty.

We shall call that the material of the art, on which the whole art,
and all that ability which is derived from art, turns. Just as if we
were to call diseases and wounds the material of medicine, because
it is about them that all medical science is concerned. And in like
manner, we call those subjects with which oratorical science and
ability is conversant the materials of the art of rhetoric. And these
subjects some have considered more numerous, and others less so. For
Gorgias the Leontine, who is almost the oldest of all rhetoricians,
considered that an orator was able to speak in the most excellent
manner of all men on every subject. And when he says this he seems to
be supplying an infinite and boundless stock of materials to this art.
But Aristotle, who of all men has supplied the greatest number of aids
and ornaments to this art, thought that the duty of the rhetorician
was conversant with three kinds of subjects; with the demonstrative,
and the deliberative, and the judicial.

The demonstrative is that which concerns itself with the praise or
blame of some particular individual; the deliberative is that which,
having its place in discussion and in political debate, comprises a
deliberate statement of one's opinion; the judicial is that which,
having its place in judicial proceedings, comprehends the topics of
accusation and defence; or of demand and refusal. And, as our own
opinion at least inclines, the art and ability of the orator must be
understood to be conversant with these tripartite materials. VI For
Hermagoras, indeed, appears neither to attend to what he is saying,
nor to understand what he is promising, for he divides the materials
of an orator into the cause, and the examination. The cause he defines
to be a thing which has in itself a controversy of language united
with the interposition of certain characters. And that part, we too
say, is assigned to the orator, for we give him those three parts
which we have already mentioned,--the judicial, the deliberative, and
the demonstrative. But the examination he defines to be that
thing which has in itself a controversy of language, without the
interposition of any particular characters, in this way--"Whether
there is anything good besides honesty?"--"Whether the senses may be
trusted?"--"What is the shape of the world?"--"What is the size of
the sun?" But I imagine that all men can easily see that all such
questions are far removed from the business of an orator, for it
appears the excess of insanity to attribute those subjects, in
which we know that the most sublime genius of philosophers has been
exhausted with infinite labour, as if they were inconsiderable
matters, to a rhetorician or an orator.

But if Hermagoras himself had had any great acquaintance with these
subjects, acquired with long study and training, then it would be
supposed that he, from relying on his own knowledge, had laid down
some false principles respecting the duty of an orator, and had
explained not what his art could effect, but what he himself could do.
But as it is, the character of the man is such, that any one would
be much more inclined to deny him any knowledge of rhetoric, than to
grant him any acquaintance with philosophy. Nor do I say this because
the book on the art which he published appears to me to have been
written with any particular incorrectness, (for, indeed, he appears to
me to have shown very tolerable ingenuity and diligence in arranging
topics which he had collected from ancient writings on the subject,
and also to have advanced some new theories himself,) but it is the
least part of the business of an orator to speak concerning his art,
which is what he has done: his business is rather to speak from his
art, which is what we all see that this Hermagoras was very little
able to do. And so that, indeed, appears to us to be the proper
materials of rhetoric, which we have said appeared to be such to
Aristotle. VII. And these are the divisions of it, as numerous writers
have laid them down: Invention; Arrangement; Elocution; Memory;
Delivery. Invention, is the conceiving of topics either true or
probable, which may make one's cause appear probable; Arrangement, is
the distribution of the topics which have been thus conceived with
regular order; Elocution, is the adaptation of suitable words and
sentences to the topics so conceived; Memory, is the lasting sense in
the mind of the matters and words corresponding to the reception of
these topics. Delivery, is a regulating of the voice and body in a
manner suitable to the dignity of the subjects spoken of and of the
language employed.

Now, that these matters have been briefly defined, we may postpone to
another time those considerations by which we may be able to elucidate
the character and the duty and the object of this art; for they would
require a very long argument, and they have no very intimate connexion
with the definition of the art and the delivery of precepts relating
to it. But we consider that the man who writes a treatise on the art
of rhetoric ought to write about two other subjects also; namely,
about the materials of the art, and about its divisions. And it seems,
indeed, that we ought to treat of the materials and divisions of this
art at the same time. Wherefore, let us first consider what sort of
quality invention ought to be, which is the most important of all the
divisions, and which applies to every description of cause in which an
orator can be engaged.

VIII. Every subject which contains in itself any controversy existing
either in language or in disputation, contains a question either
about a fact, or about a name, or about a class, or about an action.
Therefore, that investigation out of which a cause arises we call a
stating of a case. A stating of a case is the first conflict of causes
arising from a repulse of an accusation; in this way. "You did so and
so;"--"I did not do so;"--or, "it was lawful for me to do so." When
there is a dispute as to the fact, since the cause is confirmed by
conjectures, it is called a conjectural statement. But when it is a
dispute as to a name, because the force of a name is to be defined by
words, it is then styled a definitive statement. But when the thing
which is sought to be ascertained is what is the character of the
matter under consideration, because it is a dispute about violence,
and about the character of the affair, it is called a general
statement. But when the cause depends on this circumstance, either
that that man does not seem to plead who ought to plead, or that he
does not plead with that man with whom he ought to plead, or that
he does not plead before the proper people, at the proper time,
in accordance with the proper law, urging the proper charge, and
demanding the infliction of the proper penalty, then it is called a
statement by way of demurrer; because the arguing of the case appears
to stand in need of a demurrer and also of some alteration. And
some one or other of these sorts of statement must of necessity be
incidental to every cause. For if there be any one to which it is not
incidental, in that there can be no dispute at all; on which account
it has no right even to be considered a cause at all.

And a dispute as to fact may be distributed over every sort of time.
For as to what has been done, an inquiry can be instituted in this
way--"whether Ulysses slew Ajax;" and as to what is being done, in
this way--"whether the people of Tregellae are well affected towards
the Roman people;" and as to what is going to happen, in this way--"if
we leave Carthage uninjured, whether any inconvenience will accrue to
the republic."

It is a dispute about a name, when parties are agreed as to the fact,
and when the question is by what name that which has been done is to
be designated. In which class of dispute it is inevitable on that
account that there should be a dispute as to the name; not because the
parties are not agreed about the fact, not because the fact is not
notorious, but because that which has been done appears in a different
light to different people, and on that account one calls it by one
name and another by another. Wherefore, in disputes of this kind
the matter must be defined by words, and described briefly; as, for
instance, if any one has stolen any sacred vessel from a private
place, whether he is to be considered a sacrilegious person, or a
simple thief. For when that is inquired into, it is necessary to
define both points--what is a thief, and what is a sacrilegious
person,--and to show by one's own description that the matter which
is under discussion ought to be called by a different name from that
which the opposite party apply to it. IX. The dispute about kind
is, when it is agreed both what has been done, and when there is
no question as to the name by which it ought to be designated; and
nevertheless there is a question of what importance the matter is, and
of what sort it is, and altogether of what character it is; in this
way,--whether it be just or unjust; whether it be useful or useless;
and as to all other circumstances with reference to which there is any
question what is the character of that which has been done, without
there being any dispute as to its name. Humagoras assigned
four divisions to this sort of dispute: the deliberative, the
demonstrative, the judicial, and the one relating to facts. And, as it
seems to us, this was no ordinary blunder of his, and one which it is
incumbent on us to reprove; though we may do so briefly, lest, if we
were to pass it over in silence, we might be thought to have had no
good reason for abandoning his guidance; or if we were to dwell too
long on this point, we might appear to have interposed a delay and an
obstacle to the other precepts which we wish to lay down.

If deliberation and demonstration are kinds of causes, then the
divisions of any one kind cannot rightly be considered causes; for the
same matter may appear to be a class to one person, and a division to
another; but it cannot appear both a class and a division to the same
person. But deliberation and demonstration are kinds of argument; for
either there is no kind of argument at all, or there is the judicial
kind alone, or there are all three kinds, the judicial and the
demonstrative and the deliberative. Now, to say there is no kind of
argument at the same time that he says that there are many arguments,
and is giving precepts for them, is foolishness. How, too, is it
possible that there should be one kind only, namely the judicial, when
deliberation and demonstration in the first place do not resemble one
another, and are exceedingly different from the judicial kind, and
have each their separate object to which they ought to be referred. It
follows, then, that there are three kinds of arguments. Deliberation
and demonstration cannot properly be considered divisions of any kind
of argument. He was wrong, therefore, when he said that they were
divisions of a general statement of the case.

X. But if they cannot properly be considered divisions of a kind of
argument, much less can they properly be considered divisions of a
division of an argument. But all statement of the case is a division
of an argument. For the argument is not adapted to the statement of
the case, but the statement of the case is adapted to the argument.
But demonstration and deliberation cannot be properly considered
divisions of a kind of argument, because they are separate kinds
of arguments themselves. Much less can they properly be considered
divisions of that division, as he calls them. In the next place,
if the statement of the case, both itself as a whole; and also any
portion of that statement, is a repelling of an accusation, then that
which is not a repelling of an accusation is neither a statement of a
case, nor a portion of a statement of a case; but if that which is not
a repelling of an attack is not a statement of a case, nor a portion
of a statement of a case, then deliberation and demonstration are
neither a statement of a case, nor a portion of a statement of a
case. If, therefore, a statement of a case, whether it be the whole
statement or some portion of it, be a repelling of an accusation, then
deliberation and demonstration are neither a statement of a case, nor
any portion of such statement. But he himself asserts that it is
a repelling of an accusation. He must therefore assert also that
demonstration and deliberation are neither a statement of a case, nor
a portion of such a statement. And he will be pressed by the same
argument whether he calls the statement of a case the original
assertion of his cause by the accuser, or the first speech in answer
to such accusation by the advocate of the defence. For all the same
difficulties will attend him in either case.

In the next place a conjectural argument cannot, as to the same
portion of it, be at the same time both a conjectural one and a
definitive one. Again, a definitive argument cannot, as to the same
portion of it, be at the same time both a definitive argument and one
in the form and character of a demurrer. And altogether, no statement
of a case, and no portion of such a statement, can at one and the same
time both have its own proper force and also contain the force of
another kind of argument. Because each kind of argument is considered
simply by its own merits, and according to its own nature; and if any
other kind be united with it, then it is the number of statements of
a case that is doubled, and not the power of the statement that is
increased.

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.