Book: The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Volume 4

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




XXII. But when the question is what a thing is; the notion is to be
explained, and the property, and the division, and the partition. For
these things are all attributed to definition. Description also is
added, which the Greeks call [Greek: charaktaer]. A notion is inquired
into in this way: "Whether that is just which is useful to that person
who is the more powerful." Property, in this way: "Whether melancholy
is incidental to man alone, or whether beasts also are liable to it."
Division, and also partition, in this manner: "Whether there are three
descriptions of good things." Description, like this: "What sort of
person a miser is; what sort of person a flatterer;" and other things
of that sort, by which the nature and life of a man are described.

But when the inquiry is what the character of something is, the
inquiry is conducted either simply, or by way of comparison.
Simply, in this way: "Whether glory is to be sought for." By way of
comparison, in this way: "Whether glory is to be preferred to riches."
Of simple inquiries there are three kinds; about seeking for or
avoiding anything, about the right and the wrong; about what is
honourable and what is discreditable. But of inquiries by way of
comparison there are two; one of the thing itself and something else;
one of something greater and something else. Of seeking for and
avoiding a thing, in this way: "Whether riches are to be sought
for: whether poverty is to be avoided." Concerning right and wrong:
"Whether it is right to revenge oneself, whoever the person may be
from whom one has received an injury." Concerning what is honourable
and what is discreditable: "Whether it is honourable to die for one's
country." But of the other kind of inquiry, which has been stated to
be twofold, one is about the thing in question and something else;
as if it were asked, "What is the difference between a friend and
a flatterer, between a king and a tyrant?" The other is between
something greater and something less; as if it were asked, "Whether
eloquence is of more consequence than the knowledge of civil law." And
this is enough about theoretical inquiries.

It remains to speak of practical ones; of which there are two kinds:
one relating to one's duty, the other to engendering, or calming, or
utterly removing any affection of the mind. Relating to duty thus: as
when the question is, "Whether children ought to be bad." Relating to
influencing the mind, when exhortations are delivered to men to defend
the republic, or when they are encouraged to seek glory and praise:
of which kind of addresses are complaints, and encouragements, and
tearful commiseration; and again, speeches extinguishing anger, or at
other times removing fear, or repressing the exultation of joy, or
effacing melancholy. As these different divisions belong to general
inquiries, they are also transferable to causes.

XXIII. But the next thing to be inquired is, what topics are adapted
to each kind of inquiry; for all those which we have already mentioned
are suitable to most kinds; but still, different topics, as I have
said before, are better suited to different investigations. Those
arguments are the most suitable to conjectural discussion which can be
deduced from causes, from effects, or from dependent circumstances.
But when we have need of definition, then we must have recourse to the
principles and science of defining. And akin to this is that other
argument also which we said was employed with respect to the subject
in question and something else; and that is a species of definition.
For if the question is, "Whether pertinacity and perseverance are the
same thing," it must be decided by definitions. And the topics which
are incidental to a discussion of this kind are those drawn from
consequents, or antecedents, or inconsistencies, with the addition
also of those two topics which are deduced from causes and effects.
For if such and such a thing is a consequence of this, but not a
consequence of that; or if such and such a thing is a necessary
antecedent to this, but not to that; or if it is inconsistent with
this, but not with that; or if one thing is the cause of this, and
another the cause of that; or if this is effected by one thing,
and that by another thing; from any one of these topics it may be
discovered whether the thing which is the subject of discussion is the
same thing or something else.

With respect to the third kind of inquiry, in which the question is
what the character of the matter in question is, those things are
incidental to the comparison which were enumerated just now under the
topic of comparison. But in that kind of inquiry where the question
is about what is to be sought for or avoided, those arguments are
employed which refer to advantages or disadvantages, whether affecting
the mind or body, or being external. And again, when the inquiry is
not what is honourable or discreditable, all our argument must be
addressed to the good or bad qualities of the mind.

But when right and wrong are being discussed, all the topics of equity
are collected. These are divided in a two-fold manner, as to whether
they are such by nature or owing to institutions. Nature has two
parts to perform, to defend itself, and to indicate right. But the
agreements which establish equity are of a threefold character: one
part is that which rests on laws; one depends on convenience; the
third is founded on and established by antiquity of custom. And again,
equity itself is said to be of a threefold nature: one division of it
having reference to the gods above; another, to the shades below; a
third, to mankind. The first is called piety; the second, sanctity;
the third, justice or equity.

XXIV. I have said enough about propositions. There are now a few
things which require to be said about causes. For they have many
things in common with propositions.

There are then three kinds of causes; having for their respective
objects, judgment, deliberation, and panegyric. And the object of each
points out what topics we ought to employ in each. For the object of
judicial judgment is right; from which also it derives its name. And
the divisions of right were explained when we explained the divisions
of equity. The object of deliberation is utility; of which the
divisions have also been already explained when we were treating of
things to be desired. The object of panegyric is honour; concerning
which also we have already spoken.

But inquiries which are definite are all of them furnished with
appropriate topics, as if they belonged to themselves, being divided
into accusation and defence. And in them there are these kinds of
argumentation. The accuser accuses a person of an act; the advocate
for the defence opposes one of these excuses: either that the thing
imputed has not been done; or that, if it has been done, it deserves
to be called by a different name; or that it was done lawfully and
rightly. Therefore, the first is called a defence either by way of
denial or by way of conjecture; the second is called a defence by
definition; the third, although it is an unpopular name, is called the
judicial one.

XXV. The arguments proper to these excuses, being derived from the
topics which we have already set forth, have been explained in our
oratorical rules. But the refutation of an accusation, in which there
is a repelling of a charge, which is called in Greek [Greek: stasis],
is in Latin called _status_. On which there is founded, in the first
place, such a defence as may effectually resist the attack. And also,
in the deliberations and panegyrics the same refutations often have
place. For it is often denied that those things are likely to happen
which have been stated by some or other in his speech as sure to take
place; if it can be shown either that they are actually impossible, or
that they cannot be brought about without extreme difficulty. And in
this kind of argumentation the conjectural refutation takes place. But
when there is any discussion about utility, or honour, or equity, and
about those things which are contrary to one another, then come in
denials, either of the law or of the name of the action. And the same
is the case in panegyrics. For one may either deny that that has been
done which the person is praised for; or else that it ought to bear
that name which the praiser has conferred on it, or else one may
altogether deny that it deserves any praise at all, as not having been
done rightly or lawfully. And Caesar employed all these different kinds
of denial with exceeding impudence when speaking against my friend
Cato. But the contest which arises from a denial is called by the
Greeks [Greek: krinomenon]; I, while writing to you, prefer calling it
"the precise point in dispute." But for the parts within which this
discussion on the point in dispute is contained, they may be called
the containing parts; being as it were the foundations of the defence;
and if they are taken away there would be no defence at all. But since
in arguing controversies there ought to be nothing which has more
weight than the law itself, we must take pains to have the law as our
assistant and witness. And in this there are, as it were, other new
denials, which are called legitimate subjects of discussion. For then
it is urged in defence, that the law does not say what the adversary
states it to say, but something else. And that happens when the terms
of the law are ambiguous, so that they can be understood in two
different senses. Then the intention of the framer is opposed to the
letter of the law; so that the question is, whether the words or the
intention ought to have the greatest validity? Then again, another law
is adduced contrary to this law. So there are three kinds of doubts
which can give rise to a dispute with respect to every written
document; ambiguity of expression, discrepancy between the expression
and the intention, and also written documents opposed to the one in
question. For this is evident; that these kinds of disputes are no
more incidental to laws than to wills, or covenants, or to anything
else which is contained in writing. And the way to treat these topics
is explained in other books.

XXVI. Nor is it only entire pleadings which are assisted by these
topics, but the same are useful in the separate parts of an orator;
being partly peculiar and partly general. As in the opening of a
speech, in which the orator must employ peculiar topics in order to
render his hearers well disposed to him, and docile, and attentive.
And also he must attend to his relations of facts, so that they may
have a bearing on his object, that is to say, that they may be plain,
and brief, and intelligible, and credible, and respectable, and
dignified: for although these qualities ought to be apparent
throughout the whole speech, still they are peculiarly necessary in
any narration. But since the belief which is given to a narration is
engendered by persuasiveness, we have already, in the treatises which
we have written on the general subject of oratory, explained what
topics they are which have the greatest power to persuade the hearers.
But the peroration has other points to attend to, and especially
amplification; the effect of which ought to be, that the mind of the
hearer is agitated or tranquillized by it; and if it has already been
affected in that way, that the whole speech shall either increase its
agitation, or calm it more completely.

For this kind of peroration, by which pity, and anger, and hatred,
and envy, and similar feelings of the mind are excited, rules are
furnished in those books, which you may read over with me whenever you
like. But as to the point on which I have known you to be anxious,
your desires ought now to be abundantly satisfied. For, in order
not to pass over anything which had reference to the discovery of
arguments in every sort of discussion, I have embraced more topics
than were desired by you; and I have done as liberal sellers often do,
when they have sold a house or a farm, the movables being all excepted
from the sale, still give some of them to the purchaser, which appear
to be well placed as ornaments or conveniences. And so we have chosen
to throw in some ornaments that were not strictly your due, in
addition to that with which we had bound ourselves to furnish you.

* * * * *




A DIALOGUE CONCERNING ORATORICAL PARTITIONS.

BY MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO.

* * * * *


The persons introduced in this dialogue are Cicero and his son. It is
not known when, or under what circumstances it was written.


I. _Cicero Fil._ I wish, my father, to hear from you in Latin the
rules which you have already given me in Greek, concerning the
principles of speaking, if at least you have leisure and inclination
to instruct me in them.

_Cicero Pat._ Is there anything, my Cicero, which I can be more
desirous of than that you should be as learned as possible? And in the
first place, I have the greatest possible leisure, since I have
been able to leave Rome for a time; and in the next place, I would
willingly postpone even my own most important occupations to the
furthering of your studies.

_C. F._ Will you allow me, then, to ask you questions in my turn, in
Latin, about the same subjects on which you are accustomed to put
questions to me in regular order in Greek?

_C. P._ Certainly, if you like; for by that means I shall perceive
that you recollect what you have been told, and you will hear in
regular order all that you desire.

_C. F._ Into how many parts is the whole system of speaking divided?

_C. P._ Into three.

_C. F._ What are they?

_C. P._ First of all, the power of the orator; secondly, the speech;
thirdly, the subject of the speech.

_C. F._ In what does the power of the orator consist?

_C. P._ In ideas and words. But both ideas and words have to be
discovered and arranged. But properly the expression "to discover"
applies to the ideas, and the expression "to be eloquent" to the
language; but the arranging, though that is common to both, still is
usually referred rather to the discovery. Voice, gesture, expression
of countenance, and all action, are companions of eloquence; and the
guardian of all these things is memory.

_C. F._ What? How many parts of an oration are there?

_C. P._ Four: two of them relate to explaining any subject,--namely,
relation and confirmation; two to exciting the minds of the
hearers,--the opening and the peroration.

_C. F._ What? Has the manner of inquiry any divisions?

_C. P._ It is divided into the infinite, which I term consultation;
and the definite, which I call the cause.

II. _C. F._ Since, then, the first business of the orator is
discovery, what is he to look for?

_C. P._ He is to seek to find out how to inspire those men whom he
is desirous to persuade, with belief in his words; and how to affect
their minds with such and such feelings.

_C. F._ By what means is belief produced?

_C. P._ By arguments, which are derived from topics either existing in
the subject itself, or assumed.

_C. F._ What do you mean by topics?

_C. P._ Things in which arguments are concealed.

_C. F._ What is an argument?

_C. P._ Something discovered which has a probable influence in
producing belief.

_C. F._ How, then, do you divide these two heads?

_C. P._ Those things which come into the mind without art I call
remote arguments, such as testimony.

_C. F._ What do you mean by those topics which exist in the thing
itself?

_C. P._ I cannot give a clearer explanation of them.

_C. F._ What are the different kinds of testimony?

_C. P._ Divine and human. Divine,--such as oracles, auspices,
prophecies, the answers of priests, soothsayers, and diviners:
human,--which is derived from authority, from inclination, and from
speech either voluntary or extorted; and under this head come written
documents, covenants, promises, oaths, inquiries.

_C. F._ What are the arguments which you say belong to the cause?

_C. P._ Those which are fixed in the things themselves, as definition,
as a contrary, as those things which are like or unlike, or which
correspond to or differ from the thing itself or its contrary, as
those things which have as it were united, or those which are as it
were inconsistent with one another, or the causes of those things
which are under discussion, or the results of causes, that is to say,
those things which are produced by causes, as distributions, and the
genera of parts, or the parts of genera, as the beginnings and as it
were outriders of things, in which there is some argument, as the
comparisons between things, as to which is greater, which is equal,
which is less, in which either the natures or the qualities of things
are compared together.

III. _C. F._ Are we then to derive arguments from all these topics?

_C. P._ Certainly we must examine into them all, and seek them from
all, but we must exercise our judgment in order at all times to reject
what is trivial, and sometimes pass over even common topics, and those
which are not necessary.

_C. F._ Since you have now answered me as to belief, I wish to hear
your account of how one is to raise feelings.

_C. P._ It is a very reasonable question, but what you wish to know
will be explained more clearly when I come to the system of orations
and inquiries themselves.

_C. F._ What, then, comes next?

_C. P._ When, you have discovered your arguments, to arrange them
properly, and in an extensive inquiry the order of the topics is very
nearly that which I have set forth, but in a definite one, we must use
those topics also which relate to exciting the required feelings in
the minds of the hearers.

_C. F._ How, then, do you explain them?

_C. P._ I have general precepts for producing belief and exciting
feelings. Since belief is a firm opinion, but feelings are an
excitement of the mind either to pleasure, or to vexation, or to fear,
or to desire, (for there are all these kinds of feelings, and many
divisions of each separate genus,) I adapt all my arrangement to the
object of the inquiry. For the end in a proposition is belief, in a
cause, both belief and feeling wherefore, when I have spoken of the
cause, in which proposition is involved, I shall have spoken of both.

_C. F._ What have you then to say about the cause?

_C. P._ That it is divided according to the divisions of hearers. For
they are either listeners, who do nothing more than hear; or judges,
that is to say, regulators both of the fact and of the decision; so
as either to be delighted or to determine something. But he decides
either concerning the past as a judge, or concerning the future as
a senate. So there are three kinds,--one of judgment, one of
deliberation, one of embellishment; and this last, because it is
chiefly employed in panegyric, has its peculiar name from that.

IV. _C. F._ What objects shall the orator propose to himself in these
three kinds of oratory?

_C. P._ In embellishment, his aim must be to give pleasure; in
judicial speaking, to excite either the severity or the clemency of
the judge; but in persuasion, to excite either the hope or the fear of
the assembly which is deliberating.

_C. F._ Why then do you choose this place to explain the different
kinds of disputes?

_C. P._ In order to adapt my principles of arrangement to the object
of each separate kind.

_C. F._ In what manner?

_C. P._ Because in those orations in which pleasure is the object
aimed at, the orders of arrangement differ. For either the degrees of
opportunities are preserved, or the divisions of genera; or we ascend
from the less to the greater, or we glide down from the greater to the
less; or we distinguish between them with a variety of contrasts, when
we oppose little things to great ones, simple things to complex ones,
things obscure to things which are plain, what is joyful to what is
sad, what is incredible to what is probable; all which topics are
parts of embellishment.

_C. F._ What? What is your aim in a deliberative speech?

_C. P._ There must either be a short opening, or none at all. For the
men who are deliberating are ready for their own sake to hear what
you have to say. And indeed it is not often that there is much to be
related; for narration refers to things either present or past, but
persuasion has reference to the future. Wherefore every speech is to
be calculated to produce belief, and to excite the feelings.

_C. F._ What next? What is the proper arrangement in judicial
speeches?

_C. P._ The arrangement suitable to the accuser is not the same as
that which is good for the accused person; because the accuser follows
the order of circumstances, and puts forward vigorously each separate
argument, as if he had a spear in his hand; and sums them up
with vehemence; and confirms them by documents, and decrees, and
testimonies; and dwells carefully on each separate proof; and avails
himself of all the rules of peroration which are of any force to
excite the mind; and in the rest of his oration he departs a little
from the regular tenor of his argument; and above all, is he earnest
in summing up, for his object is to make the judge angry.

V. _C. F._ What, on the other hand, is the person accused to do?

_C. P_. He is to act as differently as possible in every respect.
He must employ an opening calculated to conciliate good-will. Any
narrations which are disagreeable must be cut short; or if they are
wholly mischievous, they must be wholly omitted; the corroborative
proofs calculated to produce belief must be either weakened or
obscured, or thrown into the shade by digressions. And all the
perorations must be adapted to excite pity.

_C. F._ Can we, then, always preserve that order of arrangement which
we desire to adopt?

_C. P._ Surely not; for the ears of the hearers are guides to a wise
and prudent orator; and whatever is unpleasing to them must be altered
or modified.

_C. F._ Explain to me then now, what are the rules for the speech
itself, and for the expressions to be contained in it.

_C. P._ There is, then, one kind of eloquence which seems fluent by
nature; another which appears to have been changed and modified by
art. The power of the first consists in simple words; that of the
second, in words in combination. Simple words require discovery;
combined expressions stand in need of arrangement.

And simple expressions are partly natural, partly discovered. Those
are natural which are simply appellative; those are discovered which
are made of those others, and remodelled either by resemblance, or by
imitation, or by inflection, or by the addition of other words. And
again, there is this distinction between words: some are distinguished
according to their nature; some according to the way in which they are
handled: some by nature, so that they are more sonorous, more grave,
or more trivial, and to a certain extent neater: but others by the way
in which they are handled, when either the peculiar names of things
are taken, or else others which are added to the proper name, or new,
or old-fashioned, or in some way or other modified and altered by the
orator,--such as those which are used in borrowed senses, or changed,
or those which we as it were misuse; or those which we make obscure;
which we in some incredible manner remove altogether; and which we
embellish in a more marvellous manner than the ordinary usage of
conversation sanctions.

VI. _C. F._ I understand you now as far as simple expressions go; now
I ask about words in combination.

_C. P_. There is a certain rhythm which must be observed in such
combination, and a certain order in which words must follow one
another. Our ears themselves measure the rhythm; and guard against
your failing to fill up with the requisite words the sentence which
you have begun, and against your being too exuberant on the other
hand. But the order in which words follow one another is laid down
to prevent an oration being a confused medley of genders, numbers,
tenses, persons, and cases; for, as in simple words, that which is not
Latin, so in combined expressions, that which is not well arranged,
deserves to be blamed.

But there are these five lights, as it were, which are common to both
single words and combined expressions,--they must be clear, concise,
probable, intelligible, agreeable. Clearness is produced by common
words, appropriate, well arranged, in a well-rounded period: on the
other hand, obscurity is caused by either too great length, or a too
great contraction of the sentence; or by ambiguity; or by any misuse
or alteration of the ordinary sense of the words. But brevity is
produced by simple words, by speaking only once of each point, by
aiming at no one object except speaking clearly. But an oration is
probable, if it is not too highly decorated and polished; if there is
authority and thought in its expressions; if its sentiments are either
dignified, or else consistent with the opinions and customs of men.
But an oration is brilliant, if expressions are used which are chosen
with gravity, and used in metaphorical and hyperbolical senses; and if
it is also full of words suited to the circumstances, and reiterated,
and having the same sense, and not inconsistent with the subject under
discussion, and with the imitation of things: for this is one part of
an oration which almost brings the actual circumstances before our
eyes, for then the sense is most easily arrived at but still the other
senses also, and especially the mind itself, can be influenced by it.
But the things which have been said about a clear speech, all have
reference also to the brilliant one which we are now speaking of, for
this is only a kind somewhat more brilliant than that which I have
called clear. By one kind we are made to understand, but by the other
one we actually appear to see. But the kind of speaking which is
agreeable, consists first of all of an elegance and pleasantness of
sounding and sweet words, secondly, of a combination which has no
harsh unions of words, nor any disjoined and open vowels, and it must
also be bounded with limited periods, and in paragraphs easily to be
pronounced, and full of likeness and equality in the sentences. Then
again, arguments derived from contrary expressions must be added,
so that repetitions must answer to repetitions, like to like and
expressions must be added, repeated, redoubled, and even very
frequently reiterated, the construction of the sentences must at one
time be compacted by means of conjunctions, and at another relaxed by
separation of the clauses. For an oration becomes agreeable when you
say anything unexpected, or unheard of, or novel, for whatever excites
wonder gives pleasure. And that oration especially influences the
hearer which unites several affections of the mind, and which indicate
the amiable manners of the orator himself, which are represented
either by signifying his own opinion, and showing it to proceed from a
humane and liberal disposition, or by a turn in the language, when for
the sake either of extolling another or of disparaging himself, the
orator seems to say one thing and mean another, and that too seems to
be done out of courtesy rather than out of levity. But there are many
rules for sweetness in speaking, which may make a speech either more
obscure or less probable, therefore, while on this topic, we must
decide for ourselves what the cause requires.

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