Notes on Quintilian's
Institutiones oratoriae
(Based on the trans. by H. E.
Butler,
Loeb Classical Library 124-127
[London: W. Heinemann; Cambridge,
MA: Harvard UP])
By
Prof. A.
Robert Lauer
MLLL
5063: Early Literary Criticism
OU, Fall 2006
QUINTILIAN 1:
MARCUS FABIUS QUINTILIANUS (AD ca.
35 – ca. 95):
Quintilian, the “Father of Rhetoric,” was
born in Calagurris (Calahorra [La Rioja]), in the Roman Province of Hispania
Tarraconensis (Spain). His father was a rhetorician. As a young
man, Quintilian was sent to Rome for his education. His teachers
were the grammaticus Remmius Palaemon and the rhetorician Domitius Afer.
He then returned to Hispania to teach rhetoric. He returned to Rome
in 68 AD; there, Emperor Vespasian (69-79) made him Professor of Latin
Rhetoric; hence he became the first rhetorician to set up a public school
and to receive a salary from the Empire. He taught for 20 years.
Some of his famous pupils were Pliny and the two sons of Domitilla, sister
of Emperor Domitian. He was a successful pleader in the courts.
He married later in life and had two sons. They died before him.
He wrote three works: De causis corruptae eloquentiae, Institutio oratoria,
and a defense of the uxoricide Naevius Arpinianus. Only the second
work survives. He was known as humane, kindly, and affectionate,
gifted with a strong common sense and a sound literary judgment.
His style is difficult on account of compression and an epigrammatic style,
but he is still under the influence of the Ciceronian (Golden) age.
The Institutio oratoria, consisting of 12 books, is highly technical.
INSTITUTIO ORATORIA:
BOOK I:
PREFACE: The work is dedicated to Marcellus
Victorius for the purpose of educating his son Geta. It deals with
how an orator ought to be trained since infancy. The first essential
element of a perfect orator’s education is that he should be a good man
and have the gift of speech. A good character is imperative, though.
He ought to be a good citizen and be able to guide the state with his counsel
and purge vice by his judgments. He ought to have the virtues of
courage, justice, and self-control (iustitia, fortitudine, temperantia
[the four cardinal virtues among the Romans <prudentia is the fourth
one>]).). He should have imagination and amplitude of diction (inventio
and elocutio). Wicked men use eloquence for profit and do not study
moral philosophy or ethics. A genuine orator is a philosopher.
The first book of the Institutio oratoria will deal the education preliminary
to the duties of the teacher of rhetoric. The second will deal with
the rudiments of the schools of rhetoric. Books 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
will deal with Invention (and Arrangement [Dispositio]). Books 8,
9, 10, and 11 will deal with Eloquence (Elocutio) [and Memory and Delivery
{Pronuntiatio}]. In book 12 the complete orator will be delineated.
Without natural gifts, technical rules
are useless. With natural gifts, one still needs skilful teachers, persistent
study, and continuous and extensive practice in writing, reading, and speaking.
BOOK 1:
CHAPTER 1: Reasoning comes as
naturally to man as flying to birds. Those who are dull and unteachable
are but few in number.
A child’s nurse should speak correctly and be of good character.
She should be a philosopher. A child’s parents (both of them) should
be highly educated. Even a child’s tutor (pedagogue) and friends
should be educated. A child should be corrected when he makes errors.
A child should learn Greek first, then Latin. His studies should
be made an amusement. He should be questioned and praised when he
has done well. If he refuses instruction, use a child’s envy of others
to make him do well. Engage him in competition. He should be
encouraged to do his best. The lines a child copies should express
thoughts of significance and convey moral lessons. That will help
him form his character, which will last until old age. Select poems
for a child to memorize. Children like poetry and this practice strengthens
and develops the mind.
CHAPTER 2: No one can be a good orator
unless he is also a good man. Children should not be spoiled.
Habit becomes second nature. Children should not be raised to become
luxurious or effeminate. Also, children should be educated in a school,
with other children, and not in isolation (in private), for they will need
to be stimulated by other students and set standards among themselves (models
of common feeling); they also need to learn to deal with people in society
eventually. He should also engage in private study. Teaching
should not be a duty but a labor of love. “Ambition is the mother
of virtues” (51). Emulation promotes progress. Also,
surpassing one’s peers is also good (besides emulation and competition).
A feeling of shame (disgrace) is also good. Also, eloquence can not
develop in solitude. We need others with whom to talk.
CHAPTER 3: Memory should be 1) quick
to take in and 2) faithful to retain impressions of what it receives.
The power of imitation suggests that a child is teachable. He who
is truly gifted will also above all else be good. A child should
be spurred on by praise, delighted by success, and ready to weep over failure.
Rebuke will bite him to the quick. Honor will be a spur. He
must not be indolent, although some relaxation should be required since
play in the young is a sign of a lively disposition. A child should
be taught that his actions must be unselfish, honest, self-controlled.
No flogging (fitting only for slaves). Children who are beaten develop
a negative sense of shame, the kind that unnerves and depresses the mind.
CHAPTER 4: A child should be taught
literature as soon as he is able to read and write. The art of writing
is combined with that of speaking, and correct reading precedes interpretation.
A child should read many things (not just poetry) for the subject matter
and also for the vocabulary. Music teaches meter and rhythm.
Philosophy is necessary. Literature is indispensable. The force
of language resides in the verbs (not the nouns). Articles were added
later to language; then prepositions, the appellations (adjectives) to
nouns, then pronouns, then participles, then adverbs (for verbs).
Interjections also. Boys should learn to decline nouns and conjugate
verbs. Names are frequently derived from races, places, and many
other causes.
CHAPTER 5: Style has three kinds of
excellence: correctness, lucidity, and elegance. Individual words
will either be native or imported, simple or compound, literal or metaphorical,
in current use or newly coined. When we have to choose one of two
synonyms, we ought to choose the one that sounds best. Barbarisms
and solecisms should be avoided. Synaeresis and synaloephas are anomalies
peculiar to poetry and should not be considered faults (lengthening or
shortening syllables). We must aim for an exact and pleasing articulation
(correct pronunciation). Three errors (solecisms) are pleonasms (an
unnecessary addition [“shoppe” instead of “shop”]), ellipsis (omissions:
“Who there?”]), and anastrophe (transposition [“I ‘aksed’ him” instead
of “I ‘asked’ him”]). Words are proper when they bear their original
meaning; metaphorical when they are used in a sense different from their
natural meaning. Current words are safest to use; there is a spice
of danger in coining new.
CHAPTER 6: Language is based on reason,
antiquity, authority, and usage. Reason finds its chief support in
analogy and sometimes in etymology (this last science demands profound
erudition). Archaic words give style a certain majesty and charm
if used sparingly. Usage in speech is the agreed practice of educated
men.
CHAPTER 7: The rule of writing well
is the province of orthography. Words should be spelt as they are
pronounced. For the use of letters is to preserve the sound of words.
CHAPTER 8: The practice of reading
(aloud). The golden rule here is that the reader must understand
what he reads to know when the sense ends or begins, when to take a breath,
when to pause, when to raise or lower the voice, when to read fast or slow,
or speak with greater or lesser energy. One’s reading should be manly
and combine dignity and charm. The voice should be modulated when
impersonating another speaker. They should read what is eloquent and also
morally excellent. Start with Homer and Virgil so that they can sense
the majesty of heroic verse and the greatness of themes and sentiments.
Tragedy and lyric poetry (but not Greek lyric, which is licentious) will
also nourish the mind. Comedy introduces different characters and
emotions. A child’s mind should be enlarged and his intellect
nourished with good literature. Literature also contributes richness
of vocabulary. It provides arrangement also. It shows appropriate
character. It also gives tropes and various figures of speech.
CHAPTER 9: Teachers of literature are
either 1) methodic? (when they deal with the art of speaking correctly)
or 2) historic? (when they deal with the interpretation of authors).
A pupil should learn to write aphorisms (sententiae) [general propositions]
, moral essays (chriae) [they take some action as their text], and delineations
of character (ethologiae) [of persons]. Short stories from the poets
should be read not for the style but as a means to increase knowledge.
CHAPTER 10: Boys ought to be
instructed before being handled over to the teacher of rhetoric.
Music is the oldest of the arts related to literature. The praises
of heroes and of gods were sung to the music of the lyre at the feasts
of kings. The music of the spheres corresponds to the notes of the
heptachord. The art of letters and the art of music were once united.
Music has two modes of expression: 1) in the voice (divided into rhythm
[measure] and melody [sound and song]) and 2) in the body (music includes
dancing). Knowledge of music is necessary for orators (for pleading)
for three reasons: 1) gestures, 2) arrangement of words, and 3) inflexions
of the voice. Eloquence varies tone and rhythm to express sublime
thoughts with elevation, pleasing thoughts with sweetness; ordinary with
gentle utterances. By the raising, lowering, or inflexion of the
voice, the orator stirs the emotions of the hearers. Also, the motion
of the body must be suitable and becoming (eurhythmic). The music
of old was used to praise brave men.
Geometry (all mathematics), concerned with a) numbers and b)
figures, exercises a pupil’s mind, sharpens his wits, and generates quickness
of perception. Logical development is one of the necessities of geometry
and of oratory. Geometry arrives at its conclusions from definite
premises and by arguing from what is certain proves what was previously
uncertain. By syllogism, geometry is closer to logic than to rhetoric.
The orator sometimes will prove his point by formal logic. The most
absolute form of proof is linear demonstration. Oratory sometimes
discovers the truth by the use of geometric methods. Geometry by
its calculations demonstrates the fixed and ordained courses of the stars
and hence we acquire the knowledge that all things are ruled by order and
destiny.
CHAPTER 11: The comic actor will help
a future orator in the art of delivery. A boy should not talk with
the shrillness of a woman or in the tremulous accents of old age, or copy
the motions of a drunkard or the manners of a slave, or learn to express
the emotions of love, avarice, or fear. He must avoid staginess.
A teacher should correct faults of pronunciation and see that the utterance
is distinct and that each letter has its proper sound. No words should
be uttered from the depth of the throat. The quality of speech should
be continuously maintained. Gestures and voice should be mutually
appropriate. The speaker should face his audience. The face
should not be thrown back nor the eyes fixed on the ground, nor the neck
slanted to the right or the left. Do not raise your eyebrows while
you talk (especially first one, then another) or wear a perpetual frown.
Nothing unbecoming can have a pleasant effect. An actor can teach
an orator how to deliver a narrative, how to indicate an authoritative
tone (when advising), how to show excitement (to mark anger), and how to
indicate a change of tone (for pathos). Delivery, voice, and memory
should be simultaneously trained.
Gymnastics. Devote some time to gymnastics,
but don’t kill the mind by over-attention to the body. When gesturing,
the arms should be extended in a proper manner, and the hands, and the
feet and head must move with poise. Chironomy is the law of gesture.
An orator should learn to move his body in a bold and manly fashion derived
not from actors on a stage but from martial and gymnastic exercises.
CHAPTER 12: The mind can do several
things simultaneously. Variety refreshes and restores the mind.
It is actually harder to work at one subject without intermission.
Youth can endure fatigue with greater ease than the old. Also, the
mind is all the easier to teach before it is set.
Oratory is the queen of all the world.
END OF BOOK ONE
INSTITUTIO ORATORIA:
BOOK 2:
CHAPTER 1: Grammatice is the science
of letters. It deals with correct speech.
CHAPTER 2: A rhetorician should be
of good character, not have vices, and exercise self-control; he should
also uphold strict discipline and not tolerate vice in others. Pupils
should not be corrupted. A rhetorician takes the place of the parents
(in loco parentis). Rhetoricians should be strict but not austere;
genial but not too familiar. His discourse should deal with what
is good and honorable. The more he admonishes the less he will have
to punish. He must control his temper. His instructions must
be free from affectation. He must be ready to answer questions.
In praising the recitation of his pupils, he should be neither grudging
nor over-generous. In correcting faults, he must avoid sarcasm and
above all abuse. He must be liked so as to make it easier for his
pupils to imitate him. The worst form of politeness is indiscriminate
applause. An audience should keep their eyes fixed on their teacher’s
face, since thus they will learn to distinguish between what is praiseworthy
and what is not. Boys should not sit mixed with young men.
CHAPTER 3: The more learned the teacher,
the more lucid and intelligible is his instruction. Clearness is
the first virtue of eloquence. The worse a teacher is the harder
he will be to understand. The teacher should be as distinguished
for his eloquence as for his good character.
CHAPTER 4: There are three forms of
narrative: 1) the fictitious narrative (tragedy, poems [which may have
elements of the wondrous, as in Ovid’s Metamorphoses]), 2) the realistic
narrative (comedy [containing verisimilitude]), and 3) the historical narrative
(with an exposition of actual fact). Poetic narratives are the property
of the teacher of literature (the grammarian). The rhetorician should
begin with the historical narrative. It should be neither dry nor
jejune; tortuous or reveling in elaborate descriptions. A little
exuberance is OK, though. The young should be more daring and inventive
and should rejoice in their inventions. Exuberance is easily remedied,
but barrenness is incurable. The boy who gives less promise is the
one in whom the critical faculty develops in advance of the imagination.
A pupil should avoid a dry teacher. Such a teacher stunts a pupil’s
growth. Undue severity in correcting faults is liable to discourage
a boy’s mind from effort. He will come to hate his work and fearing
everything attempts nothing. A teacher, hence, should be as kindly
as possible at an early stage. Some portions of the work must be
praised, others tolerated, others altered. There is nothing like
hope to make study a pleasure. To narratives is annexed the task
of refuting and confirming them. Historians sometimes doubt or disagree
about what happened. From this the pupils will proceed to more important
themes, like the praise of famous men and the denunciation of the wicked.
The mind is exercised by the variety and multiplicity of the subject matter,
while the character is molded by the contemplation of virtue and vice.
The next step is to compare the respective merits of two characters.
Commonplaces (loci communes) deal with the
denunciation of vices (e.g., adultery, gambling, profligacy) in a general
(theoretical) sense, without attacking particular (known) persons [these
would be rhetorical exercises] and come straight from the courts.
As a rule, the general character of a commonplace is usually given a special
turn (the adulterer is blind, the gambler poor, the profligate advanced
in years).
Theses are concerned with the comparison of
things and involve questions such as “what is preferable: town or country
life?” These provide the most attractive and copious practice in
the art of speaking and are useful for deliberations or judicial cases.
Theses deal with conjectural cases and may be a form of moral essay (chria).
The praise or denunciation of laws requires
greater powers. There are three kinds of law: sacred, public, and
private. Qualities like justice, piety, and religion fall under the
category of the right.
CHAPTER 5: The teacher must point out
how the orator seeks to win the favor of the judge in his exordium (prooemio),
what skill is used in the division into heads, and how an orator establishes
his sway over the emotions of his audience. As regards the style,
he will emphasize the appropriateness, elegance, and sublimity of particular
words, and will call attention to brilliant metaphors, figures of speech,
and passages of manly vigor. Everybody has a preference for hearing
the faults of others censured rather than his own. Pupils should
read the best authors from the very beginning (and not read simple and
most intelligible passages). Once the judgment is formed and free
of the danger of perversion, a pupil should read ancient authors.
In their ideals, ancient authors are superior to us (moderns).
CHAPTER 6: On arrangements and proofs.
Instruction is always more readily received than reproof.
CHAPTER 7: It is better to memorize
the writing of others (ancient authors) than one’s own. In this way
one becomes acquainted with the best writings, which will become models
which will unconsciously reproduce the style of the speech impressed upon
the memory. [NB: theory of imitation here].
CHAPTER 8: A good teacher should know
the abilities of his respective pupils and know their natural bent.
The perfect orator should know all fields of knowledge.
CHAPTER 9: The learners should love
their masters no less than their studies and should regard them as the
parents of their mind. Under their influence they find it a pleasure
to listen to their teachers, believe what they say, and long to be like
them, come cheerfully to class, are not angry when corrected, rejoice when
praised, and try to win their master’s affection by the devotion with which
they pursue their studies. For as it is the duty of the master to
teach, it is the duty of the pupil to show himself teachable. Eloquence
can never come to maturity unless teacher and taught are in perfect sympathy.
CHAPTER 10: When the pupil has been
thoroughly instructed and exercised, he should attempt deliberative and
forensic themes. However, declamation is not a preparation for the
actual work of the courts. Forensic and deliberative speeches are
concerned with truth. Declamation should therefore resemble the truth
(NB: keep it real).
CHAPTER 11: Definition of a figure
and a thought.
CHAPTER 12: The educated speaker knows
how to moderate his style and to impart variety and artistic form to his
speech. He is an expert in delivery and will suit his action to the
tone of each utterance. He should possess the reality and present
the appearance of self-control.
CHAPTER 13: Quintilian will not offer
a rigid code of rules for speeches. A speech, however, must have
an 1) exordium (prooemio > preamble > introduction) to lead the way
(is it necessary or superfluous? Should it be short or long? Addressed
to the judge or, by apostrophe, to someone else?), a 2) statement of facts
(narratio) [should it be concise or developed, continuous or divided into
sections, follow the actual or an artificial order of events?], and a 3)
proposition (propositio) or digression (excursio). But an orator
should adapt to circumstances of time and place, the nature of the case
and necessity, and view what is becoming and what expedient. Dress,
expression, and attitude are also frequently varied. An impression
of grace and charm is produced by rhetorical figures (figures of thought
or figures of speech), for they involve a certain departure from the straight
line and have the merit of variation from the ordinary usage. In speaking,
also, there are things that have to be concealed. But rules can be
shaken and overthrown. The art of speaking can only be attained by
hard work and assiduity of study, by a variety of exercises and repeated
trial, the highest prudence and unfailing quickness of judgment.
Nevertheless, here are the traditional rules . . . .
CHAPTER 14: Rhetoric is a Greek term
that is translated into Latin as oratoria. The rhetoric with which we are
concerned is eloquentia. Rhetoric is best treated under the three
following heads: 1) the art (of speaking well, acquired by study), 2) the
artist (the orator, whose task is to speak well), and 3) the work (good
speaking).
CHAPTER 15: What is rhetoric [definition
to follow]? Only a good man can be an orator. The task of oratory
lies in persuasion by speaking (leading men [judges] by the power of speech
to the conclusion desired by the orator). For Aristotle, rhetoric
is the power of discovering all means of persuading by speech. Other
definitions by other authors follow, more or less similar. Rhetoric
may be a power, a science, or an art. A true rhetorician ought to
be just and possess a knowledge of justice. Sophists are men who
use rhetoric for evil purposes or profit. Hence, an ideal orator
is a good man. Also, no man can speak well who is not himself (and
a good man). Hence, rhetoric is the science of speaking rightly.
It persuades men to do what is right. An orator thinks and speaks
rightly. Oratory is the science of speaking well.
CHAPTER 16: Is rhetoric useful?
Although rhetoricians were banned from Sparta on the grounds of being pernicious,
in Rome, orators have always being held in highest honor. If an orator
is a good man, rhetoric is useful. Reason is the greatest gift of
the Almighty. But reason needs the power of speech to be expressed.
CHAPTER 17: Is rhetoric an art?
Some say it is a natural gift though they admit it can be developed by
practice. Everything that art has brought to perfection originated
in nature. Oratory is the product of art and did not exist before
it. Experience is the best of all schools. Rhetoric is an art
that belongs (according to some) in the department of politics and logic.
The orator must need to excite the passions, if necessary, to lead a judge
to justice, for judges are not always enlightened and often have to be
tricked to prevent them from falling into error. Art aids us in the
fight to win our (just) case. But if a case is based on injustice,
rhetoric has no place therein. However, there are occasions when
the public interest demands that he should defend what is untrue.
Also, Cicero (Oratore 2.7.30) reminds us that art deals with things that
are known, but the pleading of an orator is based on opinion, not knowledge.
And yet, an orator must treat a case based on opinion in the same way that
a doctor treats illnesses on the (true, accurate) opinion expressed by
a patient. The orator knows that what he states is no more than probable.
Rhetoric, like other arts, is based on examination and practice (like medicine).
CHAPTER 18: Some arts (theoretical
arts) are based on examination, like astronomy (astrologia in the Latin
original). Other arts (practical arts) are concerned with actions
(like dancing). Other arts (productive arts) produce a certain result
(like painting). Rhetoric is concerned with action, for in action
it accomplishes that which is its duty to do. But it partakes of
the other arts as well, for the highest of all pleasures is that which
we derive from private study (literate) and self-contemplation (in this
case, the study of rhetoric would be merely theoretical). Orators
also write speeches and historical narratives (hence, producing results).
CHAPTER 19: Does eloquence derive most
from nature or from education? The ideal orator must necessarily
be the result of a blend of both. The average orator owes most to
nature; a perfect (consummate) orator owes more to education.
CHAPTER 20: How can an orator succeed
in panegyric unless he can distinguish between what is honorable and the
reverse? How can he urge a policy unless he has a clear perception
of what is expedient? How can he plead in a law-court if he is ignorant
of the nature of justice?
CHAPTER 21: For Quintilian, the material
of rhetoric is composed of everything that may be placed before it as a
subject for speech. Rhetoric is concerned not merely with law-courts
and public assemblies, but with private and domestic affairs as well.
No one can be an absolutely perfect orator unless he has acquired a knowledge
of all important subjects and arts. Or at least an orator should
not be ignorant of the subject on which he has to speak. Hence, the
material of rhetoric is composed of everything that comes before the orator
for treatment. Aristotle (Rhetoric 1.3.3) brought everything
into the orator’s domain by his tripartite division of oratory into 1)
forensic, 2) deliberative, and 3) demonstrative.
END OF BOOK TWO
INSTITUTIO ORATORIA:
BOOK 3:
CHAPTER 1: Hence, rhetoric is an art,
useful, a virtue, and its material is all and every subject that might
come up for treatment. Empedocles (Sicily, ca. 492-432 BC) [NB: one
of the Pre-Socratic philosophers {4 elements, Love/Strife guy} <notice
the priority of rhetoric to Platonic philosophy {and its simultaneous origin
with philosophy}>] was the first writer to discuss rhetoric. Others
were Gorgias of Leontini, Thrasymachus, Protagoras, Hippias, Polycrates,
Cicero, Isocrates, Aristotle, Apollodorus, Cato, Cornificius, Celsus, Pliny,
etc.
CHAPTER 2: As to the origin of rhetoric,
mankind received the gift of speech from nature at its birth; the usefulness
of speech brought improvement and study; method and exercise gave speech
perfection. Hence, nature created speech and observation originated
the art of speaking. Cicero (De inventione 1.2) attributes the origin
of oratory to the founders of cities and the makers of law, since they
must have needed the gift of eloquence.
CHAPTER 3: The art of oratory consists
of five parts: 1) Invention (inventio) [and Judgment <iudicium>], 2)
Arrangement (dispositio), 3) Expression (elocutio), 4) Memory (memoria),
and 5) Delivery or Action (pronuntiatio / actio). But all speech
expressive of purpose involves also a subject and words. Cicero (Partitiones
oratoriae 1.3) divides oratory into 1) Invention (a. Matter and b. Arrangement),
2) Expression (elocutio) [a. Words and b. Delivery], and III. Memory (common
to all). There are three kinds (some call them parts) of rhetoric:
1) Panegyric, 2) Deliberative (Public), and 3) Forensic.
CHAPTER 4: There are, of course, multiple
possibilities, as when we complain, console, pacify, excite, terrify, encourage,
instruct, explain obscurities, narrate, plead for mercy, thank, congratulate,
reproach, abuse, describe, command, retract, express our desires and opinions,
etc. [NB: speech acts]. There are three kinds of audiences: a) the
one that comes for the sake of getting pleasure (about past events [panegyrics]),
2) the one that comes to get advice (for the future [deliberations]), and
3) the one that gives judgments on causes (in the present [forensic matters]).
We praise or blame what is certain. Where doubt exists, deliberation
comes in. Anaximenes regarded forensic and public oratory as genera
but held that there were seven species: [1. DELIBERATIVE:] 1) exhortation,
2) dissuasion; [2. DEMONSTRATIVE:] 3) praise; [and 3. FORENSIC:] 4) denunciation,
5) accusation, 6) defense, and 7) inquiry.
DEMONSTRATIVE ORATORY is concerned with praise
and blame. It is also called LAUDATORY, ENCOMIASTIC, EPIDEICTIC,
and PANEGYRIC. The second kind is DELIBERATIVE; the third, FORENSIC.
All other species fall within these three genera. However, all three
kinds of rhetoric deal to some extent with praise or blame, advise or dissuasion,
driving home or refuting a charge, as well as conciliation, narration,
proof, exaggeration, extenuation, and the molding of the minds of the audience
by exciting or allaying their passions. Laudatory rhetoric is concerned
with what is honorable; deliberative with what is expedient; forensic with
what is just. But all of this can be mixed.
CHAPTER 5: The orator must also
have three aims in view: 1) he must instruct, 2) he must move, and 3) he
must charm (delectet) the hearers. Some things in rhetoric require
proof; other don’t. All questions must be concerned with something
written (these would be questions of law [legal questions]) or something
not written (questions of fact [rational questions]). Questions are
either 1) definite (involving facts, persons, and time [hypotheses, actual
causes, disputes]) or 2) indefinite (those maintained without reference
to specific persons, time, or place [theoretical theses, propositions,
general questions relating to civil life, questions suited for philosophical
discussion, parts of a cause, questions of knowledge or of action]).
The indefinite questions are more comprehensive since it is from them that
the definite questions arise.
CHAPTER 6: The basis ([status] constitution,
question, that which may be inferred from the question, general head) is
that to which everything must be referred. The bases of questions
may depend on conjecture or definition. There may be several questions
in one matter of dispute. The most trivial question occupies the
first place. Denial of the facts is the stronger line of defense.
The basis originates with the accuser. But the origin of the basis
varies and depends on the circumstances of the individual case. In
conjectural cases, an affirmation may determine the basis. For Aristotle
(Categ. 2.7), there are 10 categories on which every question seems to
turn: [BASES:] 1) Essence (whether a thing is), 2) Quality, 3) Quantity
(a. Magnitude and b. Number), 4) Relation (involving questions of competence
and comparison); [TOPICS FOR ARGUMENT:] 5) When, 6) Where, 7) Doing, 8)
Suffering, 9) Possessing (was a person armed or clothed?), and 10) Position
(being in a certain position, as warm, standing, or angry). Others
have established 9 categories: 1) Person (mind, body, external circumstances
by which to establish conjecture or quality), 2) Time (kronos [chronological]),
3) Place, 4) Time (kairos [duration]), 5) Action (performed wittingly,
unwittingly, by accident, by compulsion), 6) Number (questions of quantity),
7) Cause, 8) Manner (things done in a certain way), 9) Opportunity (for
action). But there are many topics not covered by these categories.
Some rhetoricians recognize one kind of basis,
the conjectural. Others recognize two bases: 1) the Conjectural (uncertain,
circumstantial, presumed, or negative basis) and 2) the Definitive (certain,
presumptive, or juridical). Cicero (Orator 14.45) recognizes three
general bases or legal questions: 1) Conjectural (whether it is [was a
thing done or not done?]), 2) Definitive [Legal] (what it is [was it just
or unjust?]), and 3) Qualitative [Juridical] (what kind it is [was it good
or bad?]). Athenaeus lays down 4 bases: 1) Hortative (deliberations),
2) Contributory (conjectural), 3) Definitive, and 4) Juridical. Cicero:
1) Fact (conjecture), 2) Names (definition), 3) Kinds (quality), and 4)
Legal Action (law). Others say there are 5, 6, 7, and 8. Quintilian’s
take on the general rational bases: 1) Conjectural, 2) Qualitative, 3)
Definitive, [and <a legal question, not a base> 4) Legal (subdivided
into several species: a. dealing with the letter of the law and intention,
b. contradictory laws, c. the syllogism, d. ambiguity, [and e. competence])].
Cicero: there are three things on which enquiry
is made in every case: 1) we ask whether a thing is, 2) what it is, and
3) what kind it is. No legal problem can be settled save by the aid
of 1) definition, 2) quality, and 3) conjecture. The four methods
of self-defense are: 1) deny the charge (the strongest), 2) the particular
act was never committed, 3) the act was committed but justified, 4) the
action has been brought against me illegally. The accuser has 4 things
which he must keep in mind: 1) he must prove that something was done, 2)
that a particular act was done, 3) that it was wrongly done, and 4) that
he brings his charge according to law.
In complicated cases, 2 or 3 bases may be
found, or different bases. Further, every kind of case will contain
1) a cause, 2) a point for the decision of the judge, and 3) a central
argument.
CHAPTER 7: The class of causes concerned
with praise and blame was removed from the practical side of oratory by
Aristotle, who reserved it solely for the delectation of audiences.
The Romans place this class of display within the practical tasks of life.
Funeral orations. Denunciations. Formal expressions of opinion.
Panegyrics. The proper function of panegyric is to amplify or embellish
its themes. This is the oratory used to praise gods and men.
In the praise of men, one takes into consideration time, the period following
their death, things preceding a man’s birth, his country, his parents,
his ancestors, references to omens or prophecies foretelling their future
greatness. The praise of the individual himself will be based on
his character, his physical endowments, and external circumstances. At
times we extol beauty and strength. The glory of good deeds may be
enhanced by the smallness of their resources. Wealth, power, and
influence are the sources of strength and the surest test of character
for good or evil. Praise awarded to character is always just.
Mention of virtues. Chronological order. Celebration of deeds
which the hero was the first to accomplish. Emphasis on what was
done for others. Monuments of genius. Children reflect glory
on their parents, cities on their founders, laws on those who made them.
Denunciation. Humble origins. Vices. Vice may be denounced
as virtue praised. The vices of the children bring hatred on their
parents; founders of cities are detested for concentrating a race which
is a curse to others (example given: Moses). Much depends on the
character of the audience. Praise the audience (captatio benevolentiae).
Cities are praised after the same fashion as men. The founder takes
the place of the parent, and antiquity carries great authority. Fortifications,
citizens, temples, walls, all merit praise. Places may be praised
for their beauty and utility. Things of every kind may be praised,
even food. All three bases may be involved in panegyric (quality,
conjecture, definition).
CHAPTER 8: Deliberative (Advisory,
Dissuasive, about the future) oratory is usually concerned with questions
of expediency and what is honorable. An audience here might be uneducated.
A deliberation does not always require an exordium (prooemio) [which would
be essential in forensic oratory], but we must still catch the good will
of the audience before we commence to speak; hence, it can be a brief prelude.
A statement of facts is not required in speeches on private subjects since
everybody would know the issue at hand. A list of points to be treated
is appropriate in this kind of oratory. Appeals to the emotions are
especially necessary in deliberations (anger, fear, ambition, hatred, reconciliation,
pity). What carries the greatest weight in a deliberation is the
character of the speaker. He should be wise and honorable.
The advice given by the speaker should be in keeping with his moral character.
This is political oratory. Eloquence is indispensable in deliberations.
One must know the resources of the state and the character of its people.
Three things are indispensable in advice or dissuasion: 1) the nature of
the subject under discussion, 2) the nature of those engaged in the discussion,
and 3) the nature of the speaker who offers them advice. The three
main considerations in an advisory speech are honor and expediency [necessity
would be excluded from a deliberation, which is involved only with the
feasible and the doubtful]. Right, justice, piety, equity, and mercy
are virtues that come under the heading of what is honorable. Matters
of expediency are: easy, great, pleasant, free from danger. Honor
must come before expediency, but at times we prefer expediency to honor.
As a rule, there will never be any doubt about circumstances wholly in
our favor in deliberative oratory. All deliberative speeches are
based on comparison: we must consider what we gain. Questions of
expediency deal with time, place, particular persons, method of action,
and degree. Examples are of the greatest value in deliberative speeches.
The character of the speaker is essential, as well as sex, rank, and age.
People not moved by honor must be suaded by other means: by what is advantageous;
or by terror (in the case of unprincipled men), since fear of evil is easier
to understand than hope of good. If the deliberator is not of excellent
character, he should address his audience in a humbler tone. If he
is going to recommend a criminal act, the act should appear as little wicked
as possible, for no man is so evil as to wish to seem so. Impersonation
(in controversial themes) is the most difficult of tasks. Deliberations
require moderation. In controversial speeches, the tone is often
lowered in the exordium, the narration, and the argument. The language
used in deliberations should be free from any affectation. Advice
requires only truth and prudence (unlike demonstrative rhetoric, which
uses display in writing; or forensic oratory, which may be deceptive for
the sake of expediency). Advice should also be simple and dignified.
The use of examples is best suited for deliberations, since history seems
to repeat itself and the experience of the past is a valuable support to
reason. Avoid abrupt openings in deliberative speeches (the forensic
style is the most impetuous of the two). Also, forensic speeches
are often shorter than deliberations.
CHAPTER 9: Forensic oratory has two
functions only: a) the bringing or b) the refuting of charges. A
forensic speech has 5 parts: 1) exordium, 2) statement of facts (what prepares
the way for the proofs), 3) proof (a. partition into heads and 2. proposition
[constructive]), 4) refutation [destructive], and 5) peroration.
[Digression also forms a part of any of the above. Also, Aristotle
removes refutation, which, for him, forms part of the proof]. One
must consider how best to win the judge to take our view.
CHAPTER 10: Causes in which one side
attacks and the other defends consist of either one or more controversial
questions: the firs is called simple, the second complex. There are
also comparative causes. There are mutual accusations.
CHAPTER 11: 1) What is the question
at issue (everything on which two or more plausible opinions may be advanced
[the bases <what it is, was it done, was it rightly done> or general
heads, within which are special or minor heads]), 2) the line of defense
(the method by which an admitted act is defended [establish the motive,
the initium or beginning, the ratio or reason, the cause]), 3) the point
for the judge’s decision (the number of alleged motives for the deed; the
real point for the decision of the judge), and 4) the central point (the
foundation of the case [the strongest argument of the defender and the
most relevant to the decision of the judge, when all enquiry ceases]).
END OF BOOK THREE
Emperor Domitianus Augustus
(51-96)
QUINTILIAN 2:
INSTITUTIO ORATORIA:
BOOK 4:
PREFACE: Emperor Domitian [Domitanus
Augustus] has entrusted Quintilian with the education of his sisters’
grandsons. The order to be followed in forensic causes is this one:
1) exordium (prooemio), 2) statement of facts (narratio), 3) confirmation
(proofs [probatio] {confirmation of our assertions or refutation of the
opponents}), 4) refutation (refutatio), and 5) peroration (peroratio) [a
brief recapitulation of the facts to refresh the memory of the judge and
to stir his emotions].
CHAPER 1: The commencement or exordium
is what the Greeks call a proem or prelude (a [musical] tune or introduction).
It is an introduction to the subject to win the indulgence or good will
of the judges (captatio benevolentiae). The proem is the portion
of the speech addressed to the judge. The sole purpose of the exordium
is to prepare an audience to be well disposed to receive instruction.
Plaintiff (accuser), defendant (the accused), and judge (the arbiter).
Being a good man (the pleader) secures the best good will from an audience.
The case must also be free from suspicion of meanness, personal spite,
or ambition. Patriotism and personal considerations carry much weight
in a case. Appearing in a weaker position to the opponent helps,
since an audience side with the underdog. One must not give the impression
of being abusive, malignant, proud, or slanderous toward any individual.
Judges also give greater credence to those whom it is a pleasure to listen.
As far as a client is concerned, we should stress his worth or his weakness.
Sex (women), age (old men or wards), and situation are also important factors
in securing good will. Praising the judge helps (appeal to his rank
[if defending a client of good birth], his sense of justice [when defending
the lowly], his pity [in pleading cases of misfortune], or his severity
[when we champion the victims of wrong]). Sometimes judges are hostile
to us and friendly to our adversaries. If the judge has this kind
of prejudice towards us, it is our obligation to remove it or, if the opposite
is the case (he is partial towards us), to strengthen it. One may also
instill fear in the judge by threatening him with the displeasure of the
Roman people. The exordium differs from the peroration in that the
former deals with the future, the latter with the past. In our opening,
any preliminary appeal to the compassion of the judge must be restrained,
but in the peroration we may give full rein to the emotions. External
circumstances affecting a case are time, the appearance of the court, public
opinion, the ill-repute of the law courts, and the popular expectation
excited by the case. Confidence may be seen as arrogance. But
one secures good will universally by expressions of wishing, detestation,
entreaty, or anxiety, for it keeps the judge’s attention on the alert,
if he is led to think the case novel, important, scandalous, or likely
to set a precedent. The exordium does not expound but merely propounds;
it indicates the points on which the orator proposes to speak.
There are five kinds of causes: 1) the honorable,
2) the mean (or scandalous), 3) the doubtful or ambiguous, 4) the extraordinary
(or scandalous), and 5) the obscure. In ambiguous cases, it is especially
important to secure the good will of the judge; in the obscure, to render
him ready to receive instruction; in the mean to excite his attention.
Honorable cases win the approval of the judge. In the scandalous
and extraordinary, some kind of palliation is required.
The exordium may have two parts: 1) the introduction
(where good will is secured) and 2) the insinuation (where good will insinuates
itself little by little in the minds of the judges, especially in scandalous
cases). If the case is weak, we may derive help from the character
of our client. If the client’s character is doubtful, we may find
salvation in the nature of the case. If both are hopeless, we must
look out for something that will damage our opponent. When all fails,
we should strive to minimize actual dislike. When the charges cannot
be denied, we should show the charges to be an exaggeration, or that the
act is not what is alleged, or that the facts are irrelevant to the case,
or that what was done may be atoned by penitence or that our client has
already been sufficiently punished. An opportune display of wit also
helps. Effective exordia draw their material from the speech of our
opponents. An exordium is also effective if the speaker displays
a certain simplicity in his thoughts, style, voice, and looks. Do
not display too much confidence. Judges dislike self-confidence in
a pleader. Avoid all display of art. In fact, no art should
be noticed in an exordium. The exordium should be simple and unpremeditated.
This way it insinuates itself better into the minds of our hearers.
The length of the exordium is determined by the case. Simple cases
require a brief introduction; complicated, suspect, or unpopular cases
require longer exordia. Sometimes an apostrophe might be used (instead
of addressing a judge directly). Some exordia are vulgar, common,
interchangeable, transferred, and contrary to rule. Sometimes the
exordium may be dispensed with. At times the exordium may be used
in other portions of the speech (e.g., in the Statement of Facts).
A complex case may require brief introductions in different sections (the
statement of facts and the proofs). Our intention should be mentioned at
the end of our introduction to provide a smooth transition to the statement
of facts.
CHAPTER 2: The Statement of Facts.
The Statement of Facts would seem to be indispensable. However, it
may be dismissed by one of the parties. The Statement may also be
summarized in only one sentence. The sequence of events and the motive
for the deed will be matters for the defense to expound. The Statement
of Facts gives a general account of the charge before the court.
There are two Statements of Facts in forensic speeches: 1) the one expounding
the facts of the case, and 2) the one that sets forth facts that have a
bearing on the case. For the purpose of the Statement of Facts
is not merely to instruct but rather to persuade the judge. The proof
cannot be brought forward until the facts of the case are known.
After first rebutting the charge, we make our Statement of Facts the opening
of an incrimination of the other party (just as in a fight we parry our
adversary’s blows before we strike him down ourselves). A Statement
of Facts should be lucid (plain), brief, and plausible (credible).
A Statement of Facts is a persuasive exposition of that which either has
been done, or is supposed to have been done. It is a speech instructing
the audience as to the nature of the case in dispute. The Statement
of Facts will be either wholly in our favor or wholly in that of our opponent
or a mixture of both. We should not be obscure (from excessive abridgment),
we should preserve due proportion, and we should say only what is likely
to win belief (what is necessary and sufficient). We achieve lucidity
and clearness in our Statement of Facts by setting our story in words that
are appropriate, significant, and free from any taint of meanness.
Our delivery must be adapted to our matter. It is just when an orator
gives the impression of absolute truth that he is speaking best.
The Statement of Facts should be brief, concise, and have no irrelevant
material. Avoid abruptness of speech. At times, circumstances
necessitate a long Statement of Facts. When this happens, Division
[e.g., three short statements rather than one long one] of our Statement
of Facts into its various heads is a method used to avoid tedium.
At times we might interrupt the narrative. At times, a brief summary
after the Statement of Facts might be necessary. The Statement of
Facts will be credible 1) if we say nothing contrary to nature, 2) if we
assign reasons and motives for the facts, 3) if we keep the character of
the actors in agreement with the actions to be presented (to make the act
believable [a person accused of theft must be shown as covetous; an adulterer
as lustful, a homicidal killer as rash, etc.]). It might also be
useful to scatter hints of our proofs here and there (in the Statement
of Facts). Our opponents may make a Statement of Facts wherein are
added comments of a prejudicial nature against us and make the facts seem
worse than they are by the language they might use. If that is the
case, we must restate the Statement of Facts in a different way, alleging
other motives and another purpose, and putting a different complexion on
the case. Some imputations we may mitigate by the use of other words:
luxury will be softened down into generosity, service into economy, carelessness
into simplicity. I would also try to get some favor or pity by look,
voice, and attitude. Sometimes a frank confession is of itself sufficient
to move the jury to tears. A Statement of Facts should be a Proof
put forward in continuous form, while a Proof is a verification of the
facts as put forward in the Statement of Facts. It is important to
put in our Statement of Facts anything that can be given a different complexion
from that put upon it by our opponent. The Statement of Facts may
be repeated. After all, a Statement of Facts is placed before the
Proof merely to prevent the judge from being ignorant of the question at
issue. Sometimes we get a false Statement of Facts. We must
make sure not to contradict ourselves. If we invent things, they
should not be able to be checked with evidence. We can put words
in the mouth of the dead or in someone whose interests are identical to
ours (for they will not contradict us), or even in the mouth of our opponents
(who would not contradict us, for if they do they would not be believed).
Also, certain things can only be proved by persistent assertion.
Digressions should be short and appear to have been forced by a momentary
emotion. You can use the emotions when presenting the Statement of
Facts (whose main function is to inform the judge). If you wait for
the peroration to show emotion it might be too late. The Statement
of Facts more than any other portion of our speech should be adorned with
the utmost grace and charm. The utmost care must be exercised in
choice of words. The rhythm should be unobtrusive. There is
no portion of a speech at which the judge is more attentive. The
judge is more ready to accept what charms his ear and is lured by pleasure
to belief. In some cases we might excite horror by our narration
or abominable wrongs or pity by a tale of woe. A powerful effect
may be created if to the actual facts of the case we add a plausible picture
of what occurred, such as will make our audience feel as if they were actual
eyewitnesses of the scene. There is also credit that accrues to the
Statement of Facts from the authority of the speaker. Such authority
should first and foremost be the reward of our manner of life, but may
also be conferred by our style of eloquence. For the more dignified
and serious our style, the greater will be the weight that it will lend
our assertions. We should never go to the extent of repeating the
Statement of Facts in its entirety. We can attain the same result
by a repetition only of parts. Some hold that the Statement of Facts
should always begin by referring to some person, whom we must praise if
he is on our side, and abuse if he is on the side of our opponents.
CHAPTER 3: In the natural order of
things the Statement of Fact is followed by the Verification (confirmatio),
for it is necessary to prove the points which we stated with the proof
in view. There is no part of speech so closely connected with any
other as the Statement of Fact with the Proof. There is room for
Digression (egressio). In difficult cases one might add a second
exordium to the Proof to mollify a judge. Digressions are used to
express indignation, pity, hatred, rebuke, excuse, conciliation, or to
rebut invective. Digressions are used also to amplify or abridge
a topic, to make an emotional appeal, or to introduce topics that add charm
to oratory. Some topics are inserted in the midst of matter even
when they have no connection with it to strive to excite, admonish, appease,
entreat, or praise the judge. If an orator breaks away in the middle
of his speech, he should not be long in returning to the point from which
he departed.
CHAPTER 4: After the Statement of Facts
some place the Proposition, but the beginning of every Proof is a Proposition.
It is not always necessary to employ it. The nature of the main question
is sometimes sufficiently clear without any Proposition, especially if
the Statement of Facts ends exactly where the question begins. Consequently,
the Recapitulation generally employed in the case of arguments is sometimes
placed immediately after the Statement of Facts. Sometimes Proposition
is advantageous when the fact cannot be defended. In difficult cases,
Proposition makes the case clearer and serves to make it more moving.
Propositions may be single, double, or manifold. If Propositions
are combined with Proofs, they fall under the head of Partition.
CHAPTER 5: Partition may be defined
as the enumeration in order of our own propositions, those of our adversary,
or both.
END OF BOOK FOUR
INSTITUTIO ORATORIA:
BOOK V:
PREFACE: The duty of the orator is
to instruct and to appeal to the emotions. Of the five parts into
which one divides judicial cases (IO 3.9.1), any single of them may on
occasion be dispensed with except the Proof. There can be no suit
without Proof.
CHAPTER 1: There are two kinds of Proofs:
1) Inartificial Proofs (proofs requiring no art on the orator’s part, hence:
decisions of previous courts, rumors, evidence extracted by torture, documents,
oaths, and witnesses) and 2) Artificial Proofs (deduced by the orator himself,
involving art).
CHAPTER 2: Decisions of previous courts:
precedents, praeiudicium. Two cases are scarcely ever alike in all
their details.
CHAPTER 3: Rumors: the verdict of public
opinion for some; vague talk and malignity for others. It will be
easy for both parties to produce precedents to support their arguments.
CHAPTER 4: Evidence extracted by torture:
an infallible method of discovering the truth for some; prone to result
in false testimony in the opinion of others.
CHAPTER 5: Documents: they can be rebutted
and attacked as forgeries.
CHAPTER 6: Oaths: a sign of bad faith
unless both parties (defender and opponent) take it.
CHAPTER 7: Evidence may be given orally
(by witnesses present in court) or in writing. Documentary evidence
is easier to dispose of. The absence of the witness who signed a
document is an indication of bad faith. One can also attack the witnesses
to someone’s signature. Witnesses (in court) can be made to trip;
once a witness loses his composure and presence of mind he will do more
harm to his own side than good. Reluctant witnesses should be extorted
to tell the truth. This is done by questioning that seems irrelevant
(about antecedent or subsequent acts related to the case) and which will
lure him into making an admission or a contradiction (by comparing previous
with subsequent replies). Keep him in the witness-box for an unusual
length of time. Make him a suspect witness so that the opposition
will get rid of him while it can. Too few witnesses? > Insufficient
evidence. Too many? > A conspiracy. Minimize the importance
of inconspicuous witnesses. If the witnesses are too powerful, complain
about undue influence. A timid witness may be terrorized; a fool
outwitted; an irascible man provoked; vanity flattered; a shrewd and self-possessed
witness should be dismissed as malicious and obstinate; if a witness’s
past life admits of criticism, his credit may be overthrown; honest and
respectable witnesses should not be pushed too hard so that they can be
mollified by courtesy. Skill in examination comes from natural talent
of practice. Fortune at times is kind and gives us a witness who
is inconsistent or one who contradicts himself. Questions should
be asked in everyday speech so that even the uneducated can understand
them. Documentary evidence is not frequently in conflict with oral.
Supernatural evidence. So much for Inartificial Proofs.
CHAPTER 8: And now to Artificial Proofs,
those requiring art and which are shown to produce belief. Much can
be gained by pleasing the audience and stirring their emotions. Nothing
can be proved except by reference to something else (greater, less than,
or equal to it). All Proofs fall into three classes: 1) necessary,
2) credible, and 3) not impossible. There are four forms of Proofs:
1) we may argue that because one thing is, another thing is not (“it is
day; therefore, it is not night”); 2) we may argue that because one this
is, another thing is (“the sun is risen; therefore it is day”); 3) it may
be argued that because one thing is not, another thing is (“it is not night;
therefore it is day”); 4) it may be argued that because one thing is not,
another thing is not (“he is not a reasoning being; therefore he is not
a man”).
CHAPTER 9: Every artificial Proof consists
either or 1) Indication (a bloodstained garment, a shriek, a dark bloth),
2) Arguments, or 3) Examples. Indications as a rule come under the
head of inartificial proofs; they are not discovered by the orator but
are given to him with the case itself. Arguments are only possible
in controversial matters. But if they are doubtful they are not arguments
but require arguments to support them. When an indication is irrefutable,
there can be no dispute as to facts. But indications which are probabilities
do not involve a necessary conclusion. A signum (sign) is also called
an indicium (an indication) or a vestigium (trace). Signs enable
us to infer that something else has happened (blood may indicate that a
murder has taken place or that someone had a nose bleed, etc.). A
sign in conjunction with other indications may be produce as evidence.
What was before a suspicion may now be a certainty. Great things
are sometimes indicated by trivial signs.
CHAPTER 10: Arguments. An enthymeme
(commentum or commentatio in Latin [an incomplete syllogism]) has three
meanings: a) anything conceived in the mind, b) a proposition with a reason,
and c) a conclusion or an argument drawn either from denial or consequents
or from incompatibles. A conclusion from consequents is an epicheireme.
A conclusion from incompatibles is an enthymeme. It is a contrarium
or argument from contraries. It is a rhetorical syllogism or an incomplete
syllogism. It is an aggressio or an attempt (an attempted or imperfect
Proof). A definite conception of some thought consists of at least
three parts (a major, a minor, and a conclusion). An apodeixis is
portion of an epicheireme (the part containing the truth). A form of reasoning
or probatio. There must be something which either is or is believed
to be true, by means of which doubtful things may be rendered credible.
We may regard as certainties those things we perceive through the senses;
those things about which there is general agreement; those things that
are established by law or have passed into current usage. With regard
to credibility, there are three degrees: a) the highest (based on what
usually happens), b) the highly probably, and c) that where there is nothing
absolutely against an assumption. The places of arguments: arguments
may be drawn from persons or things (causes, time, place, occasion, instruments,
means) such as birth, nationality, race, country, sex, age, education,
training, bodily constitution, natural disposition, occupation, personal
ambitions, past utterances, design, certain dispositions of mind, names:
these are the accidents of persons.
Now things: Actions, Why, Where, When, How,
By what means? Arguments are drawn from the causes of past or future actions.
Right actions have right motives. Evil actions are the result of
false opinions. Questions of definition are at times intimately connected
with motives. Arguments are also drawn from place. Motives
of actions may belong to past time. Some things are done because
something else is likely to follow. Accidental circumstances also
provide matter for arguments (as in subsequent time). One must consider
the resources possessed by the parties concerned. Instruments provide
us with indications of actions. Manner is concerned with quality
and the letter of the law.
We must give attention to three things: Whether
it is, What it is, and Of what kind it is. Arguments may be drawn
from definition (genus, species, difference, property). We must proceed
from the genus to the ultimate species. Property and difference.
Properties serve to establish definitions; differences to overthrow them.
A property is that which happens to one particular object and that alone;
speech and laughter for instance are properties of man. What is not
a property will be a difference. Exact definition. Definition
is assisted by division and partition. It is the property of a good
man to act rightly; of an angry man to be violent in speech and action.
Division is valuable for both the Proof and
the Refutation. By the elimination of previous suppositions he is
shown to belong to another. As far as Time is concerned, everything
has a beginning, growth, and consummation (a quarrel, blows, murder).
A conclusion may be inferred from a beginning; or a beginning from a conclusion;
or from the growth of a situation, we may infer either its beginning or
its end.
Arguments may also be drawn from similarities
(induction) or from unlikes; or from contraries; or from contradictions.
Arguments may be reversed, be consequent, or insequent. There are
also arguments from causes: apposite or comparative. Genus/species:
“what has happened once may happen often.”
Such in the main are the usual topics of Proof
as specified by teachers of rhetoric.
CHAPTER 11: The third kind of Proof:
comparisons of like with like (especially historical parallels).
One can also argue from the greater to the less or from the less to the
greater. Arguments from unlikes are most useful in exhortation.
Arguments from unlikes present great variety, for they may turn on kind,
manner, time, place, etc. Another method to be pursued in arguments
is to quote from the fictions of the poets (although this would have less
force as Proof). Fables or apologues or examples. Also, arguments
may be drawn from similar, opposite, and dissimilar points of law.
Arguments by analogy or similarity. Authority may be drawn from external
sources to support a case (judgments or adjudications [examples and precedents]):
opinions of nations, peoples, philosophers, distinguished citizens, illustrious
poets, common sayings, popular beliefs: they form a testimony). Supernatural
evidence; supernatural arguments.
CHAPTER 12: An argument to be effective
must be based on certainty. Still, some things which are adduced
as Proof require proof themselves. There are no stronger proofs than
those in which uncertainty has been converted into certainty. In
insisting on our strongest arguments we must take them singly; whereas
our weaker arguments should be massed together. Trivial arguments
may have a cumulative effect. Certain arguments must not merely be
stated but supported as well. Pathetic and emotional arguments.
Aristotle said (Rhet. 1.2.4) that the strongest argument in support of
a speaker is that he is a good man. But to seem good is also of value.
Another form of proof is provided by asseveration. A more forcible
kind of proof is that drawn from character and supported by some plausible
reason. The strongest arguments should be placed first (to take possession
of a judge’s mind) AND last (to leave a good, final impression on the judge).
Weaker arguments should be in the middle to gain strength from their neighbors.
We should avoid descending from the strongest proofs to the weakest.
CHAPTER 13: The duty of the defense
consists solely in Refutation. Whatever is said by our opponents
must be rebutted. As a rule, no strong appeal to the emotions is
made in refutation. Defense is harder than prosecution. It
is easier to accuse than to defend, as it is easier to wound than to heal.
In Refutation, we must deny or justify the facts or raise the question
of competence. Pleas of mercy can rarely be used. Confidence
and knowledge of the case carries much weight. Defenders must begin
by refutation. But from our answers to objections new objections
will arise. These will be like the strokes of gladiators.
CHAPTER 14: An Enthymeme is an incomplete
syllogism (e.g., a proposition and a reason but without a conclusion).
The most effective enthymeme is the one in which a reason is subjoined
to a dissimilar or contrary proposition. An epicheireme consists
of 3 or 5 parts: a major premise and its reason, a minor premise and its
proof, and a conclusion. The conclusion makes the necessary inference
from the preceding parts. It is deductive reasoning. There
is no difference between the epicheireme and a syllogism, except that the
latter has a number of forms and infers truth from truth, whereas the epicheireme
is frequently concerned with statements that are no more than credible.
This kind of proof may be countered in three ways: by attacking all its
parts. If the major or minor premises are false, the conclusion cannot
be true. The enthymeme draws its conclusion from denial of consequents.
However, dialectical reasoning is good for philosophers, not so good for
forensic cases, where the audience may be uneducated and an appeal to their
emotions might be necessary. Arguments should be distinct and clear.
If the subject is of great importance, every kind of ornament should be
used, as long as one’s meaning is not obscured. It should be well
disguised, though, to convince an audience.
END OF BOOK FIVE
INSTITUTIO ORATORIA:
BOOK 6:
PREFACE: Quintilian expresses his sorrow
after having lost his wife (aged 19) and two children (aged 5 and 9).
“Literature can provide true solace in adversity.”
CHAPTER 1: Peroration (completion,
conclusion, epilogue, enumeration, recapitulation). There are two
kinds: 1) the one dealing with the facts, 2) the one dealing with the emotional
aspects of the case. The repetition and grouping of the facts serve
to refresh the memory of the judge and to place the whole case before his
eyes. Their cumulative effect is considerable. The final recapitulation
or enumeration must be as brief as possible (otherwise it might resemble
a second speech). Appeals to emotion are necessary if there are no
other means for securing the victory of truth, justice, and the public
interest. Recapitulation may be profitably employed in other portions
of the speech as well. The defender has to appeal with greater frequency
to the emotions than the prosecutor. The prosecutor arouses the judge;
the defender softens him. Our attempts to sway the judges are made
more sparingly at the commencement of the speech. An appeal to fear
is also common in the peroration. The peroration also provides freer
opportunities for exciting the passions of jealousy, hatred, and anger.
The accuser will make a case against his client appear atrocious and deplorable
(to incite the judge to anger and justice). The manner of the act
contributes most to the impression of its atrocity (other factors could
be age, sex, place, etc.). The accuser will also try to excite pity
(for the victims). Appeals to the future (of the victims) will arouse
pity and compassion. Appeals to pity are the best, though.
Impersonations may be employed with profit. Appeals to pity should
be brief, though, since nothing dries so quickly as tears. The peroration
is the place where the appeal to the emotions should be more pronounced.
Actions (bringing bloodied garments or unkempt witnesses in rags, etc.)
as well as words may be employed to move to court to tears. Invocation
to the gods or throwing yourself at the judge’s feet helps too.
The client should help too, though, and not be incongruous with the words
of his defender. Moving an audience to tears is the most effective
emotional appeal. The chief task of the peroration consists
of amplification. Complicated cases require a peroration to be distributed
among different portions of a speech.
CHAPTER 2: The peroration is the most
important part of forensic pleading, and in the main consists of appeals
to the emotions. A Peroration can have more force than a Proof.
It is in its power over the emotions that the life and soul of oratory
is to be found. Emotions are of two classes: 1) pathos (adfectus,
emotion, the more [momentary] violent emotions [love, hate, anger, dislike,
fear, pity] that command or disturb [resembling tragedy]) and 2) ethos
(mores, morals, ethics, moral philosophy, every attitude of the mind, the
calm and gentle [continuous] emotions [like affection] that persuade [ingratiate]
and induce a feeling of [courtesy and] good will [resembling comedy]).
To defy hatred, pass censure on violence by silence. It is better
to make your antagonist unpopular than to abuse him. Ethos denotes
moral character. Our speech must be based on ethos. Ethos requires
the speaker to be a man of good character and courtesy. The excellence
of his good character will make his pleading convincing. Three styles:
1) Attic (Greek: restrained), 2) Intermediate (pleasant and persuasive
[the one orators should use]), 3) Asiatic (grand style). We use Amplification
(amplification) [Gr. deinosis: “making terrible”) to make things appear
worse than they are (e.g., making words more injurious than blows, or disgrace
worse than death, etc.). The prime essential for stirring the emotions
of others is first to feel those emotions oneself. Visions, hallucinations,
or vivid descriptions are effective. From such impressions one gains
clearness, illumination and actuality. To awaken pity, we must feel
pity ourselves and take the place of those suffering. Acting.
CHAPTER 3: Laughter. Cicero was
unduly addicted to jests (Demosthenes wasn’t). Sayings designed to
raise a laugh are generally untrue (and falsehood always involves a certain
meanness) and are often deliberately distorted and never complimentary.
Laughter is elicited by words, deeds, and even touch. We laugh at
things that are witty, but also at things that reveal folly, anger, or
fear. Laughter is never far removed from derision. Laughter
has its basis in some kind or other of deformity or ugliness. Laughter
may be regarded as a trivial matter, and an emotion frequently awakened
by buffoons, actors, or fools. In matters of great importance, laughter
dispels hatred or anger. Wit always appears to greater advantage
in reply than in attack. On wit: 1) urbanitas (city humor, learned,
used by the educated classes), 2) venustus (what is said with grace and
charm), 3) salsus (the laughable), 4) facetus (what raises a laugh), 5)
iocus (the opposite of seriousness), 6) diacitas (banter [attack]).
Wit saves a speech from becoming tedious. We laugh at a) others (reprove,
refute, deride), b) ourselves (absurdity), or c) things intermediate (things
taken in a different sense and which affect neither party to the suit).
There is also a humorous look, manner, or gesture. Jests are either
free, gentle, and lively; or abusive, bitter, and wounding. Our jests
should never wound. Orators should not distort their features or
use uncouth gestures. Ribald jokes and obscenity are out. Insolence
and arrogance are to be avoided. Sarcasm is injudicious. A
good man will see that everything he says is consistent with his dignity
and the respectability of his character. Laughter may be derived
from the physical appearance of our opponent, or from his character, or
from external sources. The narration of a clever story may be a good
device for an orator to use. Brevity in wit gives greater point and
speed. Double entendres and coarse jibes should be avoided in the
courtroom. Humor by metalepsis (substitution). Jests that turn
on the meaning of things are at once more pointed and more elegant.
Hyperbole, irony, allegory, emphasis, and metaphor are used for humor.
Refutation consists in denying, rebutting, defending, or making light of
a charge, and each of these affords scope for humor. To make jokes
about oneself should be done by buffoons only, not professional orators.
Brutal jests, although they may raise a laugh, are unworthy of a gentleman.
The prettiest kind of humor is the jest that depends for success on deceiving
anticipation or taking another’s words in a sense other than he intended
(date joke here). Ambiguity: the essence of all wit lies in the distortion
of the true and natural meaning of words. The most agreeable of all
jests are those which are good humored and easily digested. Apt quotation
of verse may add to the effect of wit. Effects of mild absurdity
are produced by the simulation of folly.
CHAPTER 4: Forensic debate. Altercatio:
follows the set speeches and takes the form of a number of brief arguments
pro and con (like gladiatorial parrying and striking). Debate consists
in attack and defense. This is a brief and discontinuous for of oratory.
Debate consists of questions and replies. At times, the debate may
be the deciding factor in a case. Inartificial cases give rise to
the most heated debates. There is no point of a trial where the judge’s
attention is keener. For debate, one must have a quick and nimble
understanding and a shrewd and ready judgment, for there is no time to
think. Some debates become brawls. The skilled debater must control
his anger; anger being the greatest enemy of reason. Moderation and
longsuffering are the best policies. The opponent’s statements have to
be refuted; they must also be treated with contempt or made light of or
held up to ridicule (where wit would be displayed). If our opponents
adopt turbulent methods, we must put on a bold front and resist their impudence
with courage. Some advocates will interrupt us in the middle of a
sentence and confuse us. We must repel their onslaughts with vigor
by crushing their insolence and making appeals to the judges or insisting
on following the proper order of speaking. Acumen is the most serviceable
quality in a debate: never lose track of the issue at hand. Surprise
attacks (bringing up arguments excluded earlier) resemble an ambush.
Unscrupulous violence makes an unpleasant impression on a judge.
Where defeat is inevitable, it is better to yield. Surrender with
a good grace will generally secure some mitigation of punishment.
It is wise to conceal some of our weapons or yield ground to our opponent
(to confuse him or lead him astray). The debate is a battle between
advocates. Prudence unsupported by learning will accomplish more
than learning unsupported by prudence.
END OF BOOK SIX
QUINTILIAN 3:
INSTITUTIO ORATORIA:
BOOK 7:
PREFACE: Enough has been said on the
subject of invention in the previous books. Now, ARRANGEMENT will
be reduced to reduce Invention to order and to give it connection and structure.
Arrangmenet is the second of the five departments of Oratory (the parts
are: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery). No two
cases have ever been alike.
PART 1: Division means the division
of a group of things into its component parts. Partition is the separation
of an individual whole into its elements. Order is the correct disposition
of things in such a way that what follows coheres with what precedes.
Arrangement is the distribution of things and parts to the places which
it is expedient that they should occupy. But arrangement is generally
dependent on expediency, and the same question will not always be discussed
first by both parties. It will always be expedient for the parties
to place different points first. The facts of the case are definite
and called themes or propositions. Consider them from my opponent’s
point of view and from my own. Consider what the prosecutor will
say first: his point must either be admitted or controversial: if admitted,
no question could arise in this connection. Only when the parties
cease to agree on facts does any question arise. We must consider
what constitutes the first question. The charge may be simple or
complex. Complex cases have several questions and bases. One
must consider what needs to be refuted. As regards the prosecutor,
the first place should be given to some strong argument. Weak arguments
are placed in the middle. Finish the case with a strong argument.
Wit the defense things are different: the strongest arguments have to be
disposed of first; but this is subject to alteration if minor arguments
are obviously false and the more serious argument difficult. Attack
then the strongest argument last and discredit the prosecution by demonstrating
the falsity of the weaker (false) arguments. Charges brought against
the past life of the accused should generally be dealt with first.
Determine whether the question is of fact (if a fact, deny it or justify
it [some minor facts may be dropped]) or law (the letter or the intention
of the law? Under what law? Contradictory laws). When we are
defending, there should be an increase of force in the treatment of questions
and we should proceed from the weaker to the stronger. As a general
rule, it is of advantage to the accuser to mass his facts together and
to the defense to separate them. The means to secure the acquittal
of an accused person are strictly limited: a) his innocence may be established,
b) some superior authority may intervene, c) force or bribery may be employed,
d) his guilt may be difficult to prove, e) there may be collusion between
the advocates. Questions of equity should be introduced last, since
judges pay close attention to those.
CHAPTER 2: Questions of fact: all conjecture
is concerned either with facts or intention. Each of these may occur
in one of three times: past, present, or future. Questions concerning
facts are either general or definite. In the law courts, past time
is of most importance, since all accusations are concerned with what has
actually been done, while what is being done or is likely to be done is
inferred from the past. We should also enquire into origins.
We seek for the motives of an act. Further, there is more than one
way of transferring the charge to another. At times this results
in mutual accusation. At times the charge is transferred to some
person who cannot be brought to trial. The accused will always begin
by denying the act, since if this can be successfully proved, there is
no need to say anything more, while if it is not proved, there remain other
means of defense. A third type of conjectural case is where the fact
is admitted and the only question is as to the author. In dealing
with a case, we first ask what the accused intended to do, next what he
was in a position to do, and lastly what he actually did. Consequently,
the first point on which we must fix our attention is the character of
the accused. If this does not work, claim that the charges made are
not relevant to the case. Rank may be pleaded in defense of the accused,
although at times it may be used to prove his guilt. Poverty, humble
rank, and wealth may be used as arguments for or against the accused.
Upright character, however, and the blamelessness of his past life are
always of the utmost assistance to the accused. The next type of
proof is derived from causes or motives, such as anger, hatred, fear, greed,
or hope. However, not all motives apply to all persons. Should
we deal with persons first or with motives? Quintilian prefers persons
(Cicero motives). Next we must consider the intention. There
is also the question why the accused should have chosen that particular
place or time or means for the commission of the crime. Next we inquire
as to whether the person accused of a fact was in a position to commit
it. The question whether he actually did the deed belongs to the
second division of time, namely the present, and secondly to time that
is almost though not actually contemporary: under this latter head come
circumstances such as noise, cries, or groans, while concealment, fear,
and the like belong to subsequent time. Any ambiguity in our own
words will always tell against us. [Cases of adultery, forgery, treason,
and tyranny follow].
CHAPTER 3: Conjecture is followed by
definition. The laws that govern definition also govern conjecture.
Sometimes we may pass from quality to definition, as in actions concerned
with lunacy, cruelty, and offenses against the State. Definition
is the statement of the fact called in question in appropriate, clear,
and concise language: genus, species, difference, and property. For
instance, a horse belongs to the genus “animal”; the species “mortal”;
the difference “irrational” (since man is also mortal); and the property
“neighing.” Sometimes we have recourse to quality. Definition
is concerned with identity and difference (since he who denies the applicability
of one term must always produce another term which he regards as preferable).
Definition falls into three types or species. There is also great
variety in definitions. The order to be followed in definition is:
First we should ask what a thing is (in establishing what a thing is, we
must establish our own definition and destroy that of our opponent), and
then, whether it is this. A definition may be overthrown on two grounds:
1) it may be false or 2) it may be too narrow. The most effective
method of establishing and refuting definitions is derived from the examination
of properties and differences, and sometimes even from considerations of
etymology. Etymology is rarely of assistance. Great ingenuity
may be exercised with regard to properties and differences. By settling
what a thing is we have come near to determining its identity, for our
purpose is to produce a definition that is applicable to our case.
Now the msot important element in a definition is provided by quality,
as for example in the question whether love is a form of madness.
Arguments may also be drawn from contraries. Quality is the matter
that comes next in order of discussion.
CHAPTER 4: When speaking on quality,
sometimes the question turns on size and number. In all these cases
we arrive at our conclusions by conjecture, yet each involves a question
of quality. Such questions are sometimes treated in deliberative
themes. Similarly, all the topics of demonstrative oratory involve
a qualitative basis. When a judge decides to punish, the duty of
the pleader is to defend, extenuate, or excuse the act, or to plead for
mercy. The strongest defense is to assert that the act that forms
the charge is actually honorable. Justice is either natural or conventional.
Natural justice is found in actions of inherent worth. Under this
head the virtues of piety, loyalty, self-control, etc., are listed.
To retaliate, or meet violence with violence does not imply injustice.
In cases where justice is on both sides, the two parties must both come
under the same law and the same conditions. Convention, on the other
hand, is to be found in laws, customs, legal precedents, and agreements.
Another kind of defense consists if defending an act in itself indefensible
by arguments drawn from without. One can also appeal to the interests
of the State. In a comparison of evils, the lesser evil must be regarded
as a positive god. Defense by comparison. If an act can’t be
defended, shift the blame to another. At times the blame may be shifted
to a thing. Or we may plead necessity. Or we can blame fortune
and assert that although we undoubtedly did wrong, we did so with the best
intentions. Or we can extenuate the offense and appeal to a quantitative
basis. In the last resource we may plead for mercy, especially if
we may hope that the accused (a member useful to society) will never do
the crime again. Or we may claim our client has suffered enough to
expiate for his crime. Or that he has sincerely repented. We
must also base his appeal on his external circumstances, his birth, his
rank, his connections, his friendships. We must also appeal to the
judge trying the case by emphasizing his clemency (and not weakness).
With respect to rewards, is our client worthy of it; and if there are two
claimants, who is worthier? Consider the immediate object of the
gift, the occasion, and the intention. The real task of oratory is to demonstrate
quality (questions of moral obligation). Under quality we find cases
of disinheritance, lunacy, cruelty to a wife, and claims of female orphans
to marry relatives. It is definition which tells us what precisely
is meant by lunacy or cruelty to a wife. Cases concerned with lunacy
arise either out of what has been done or out of something which may or
may not be done in the future. The accused must assume a temperate
tone in his defense, for the reasons that, as a rule, anger and excitement
are near akin to madness. Other controversial themes involving quality
are: assault, appointment of a prosecutor or divinations, guardianship,
fraud on the part of an agent, conduct of business, crimes not covered
by the law, misconduct on the part of an ambassador, action contrary to
the interests of the state, cases of ingratitude, cases of unjust divorce,
and wills. Quantity also falls as a rule under the head of quality,
whether it is concerned with measure or number.
CHAPTER 5: He who neither denies nor
defends his act, nor asserts that it was of a different nature from that
alleged, must take his stand on some point of law that tells in his favor,
a form of defense which generally turns on the legality of the action brought
against him. This usually comes up during the course of the actual
trial (prescription or demurrer). When the dispute turns on prescription,
there is no need to enquire into the facts of the case itself. Every
law either gives or takes away, punishes or commands, forbids or permits.
The letter (of the law) is either clear or obscure or ambiguous.
What is true about laws is true about wills, agreements, contracts, documents,
and verbal agreements.
CHAPTER 6: Lawyers frequently raise
the question of the letter and the intention of the law. Such questions
arise when the law presents some obscurity. Under these circumstances,
both parties will seek to establish their own interpretation of the passage
and to overthrow that advanced by their opponent. There are three
ways to combat the letter: 1) it is impossible to always observe the letter
of the law; 2) Different laws show one cannot stand by the letter of (the)
one law; 3) the actual wording of the law may enable us to prove the intention
of the legislator was different.
CHAPTER 7: Contrary laws. When
one law contradicts another, both parties attack the letter and raise the
question of intention. It is important to consider which course is
best from the point of view of morality and justice.
CHAPTER 8: The syllogistic basis.
The syllogism is sometimes employed in conjunction with definition: for
often if the definition is weak it takes refuge in the syllogism.
The syllogistic basis, then, deduces from the letter of the law that which
is uncertain; and since this conclusion is arrived at by reason, the basis
is called ratiocinative. We infer what is doubtful from what is certain.
What is similar may be greater, equal, or less. Appeal to equity
(the best policy).
CHAPTER 9: Ambiguity. In the
opinion of certain philosophers, there is not a single word which has not
a diversity of meanings. Single words give rise to error, when the
same noun applies to a number of things or persons (homonymy). There
is another form of ambiguity where a word has one meaning when entire and
another when divided. A third kind of ambiguity is caused by the
use of compound words. Groups of words give rise to more serious
ambiguity.
CHAPTER 10: There is a certain affinity
between all these bases. In all cases where the letter and the intention
of a document have to be considered, it is ambiguity that gives rise to
the question at issue. Subdivisions require to be arranged in the
order which is appropriate to them. This gift of arrangement is to
oratory what generalship is to war. The skilled commander will know
how to distribute his forces for battle. But to possess this gift,
our orator will require all the resources of nature, learning, and industrious
study. Let no man hope he can acquire eloquence merely by the labor
of others. He must burn the midnight oil, persevere to the end, and
grow pale with study. He must have his weapons ready for immediate
use. Our speech must give the impression of natural continuity.
Style is the next theme of the following book.
END OF BOOK SEVEN
INSTITUTIO ORATORIA:
BOOK 8:
PREFACE: Rhetoric is the science of
speaking well. It is useful, an art, and a virtue. It subject
matter consists of everything on which an orator may be called to speak.
There are three classes of oratory: DEMONSTRATIVE, DELIBERATIVE, and FORENSIC.
Every speech is composed of matter and words. As regards matter,
we must study invention. As regards words, we must study style.
As regards both matter and words, we must study arrangement. All
of this is the task of memory to retain and delivery to render attractive.
The duty of an orator is composed of instructing, moving, and delighting
his hearers. Statement of facts and arguments fall under the head
of instruction. Emotional appeals are concerned with moving the audience
and are more effective at the beginning and end of speeches. The
element of charm is the special sphere of style. There are two kinds
of questions: indefinite and definite. And they involve considerations
of persons and circumstances of tie and place. Whatever our subject
matter, there are three questions which we must ask: 1) is it? What is
it? Of what kind is it? Demonstrative oratory consists of praise
and denunciation. This task is also concerned with what is honorable
or expedient. In deliberations one must consider whether the subject
of deliberation is possible or likely to happen. It is important
to know who it is that is speaking, before whom he is speaking, and what
he says. Forensic cases turn at times on one point of dispute; at
times on several. In some cases it is the attack, in others the defense
that determines the basis. Every defense rests on denial. Questions
must turn on something written or something done. The nature of all
cases, criminal or civil, falls under the heads of the letter and intention,
the syllogism, ambiguity, or contrary laws. Forensic speeches have
five parts: exordium (to conciliate the audience), statement of facts (instruction),
proof (confirmation of our propositions), refutation (overthrow the arguments
of the opponent), and peroration (to refresh the memory of the hearers
or play upon their emotions). Now, Cicero claims that while invention
and arrangement are within the reach of any man of good sense, eloquence
belongs to the orator alone. Style requires greater care and industry.
Eloquence cannot be acquired without the assistance of the rules of art.
The Attic style is dry; the Asiatic unrestrained. Style is elegance
itself, the fairest of all the glories of oratory, but only when it is
natural and unaffected. A tasteful and magnificent dress lends added
dignity to its wearer. The best words are essentially suggested by
the subject matter. Those words are best which are least far-fetched
and give the impression of simplicity and reality. The worst fault
in speaking is to adopt a style inconsistent with the idiom of ordinary
speech and contrary to the common feeling of mankind. The most satisfactory
words are those that give the best expression to the thoughts of our mind
and produce the effect which we desire upon the minds of the judges.
Such style will give pleasure and awaken admiration. The pleasure
evoked by the charm will have nothing morbid about it but will be praiseworthy
and dignified.
CHAPTER 1: Elocutio is style. The words
we use should be Latin, clear, elegant, and well-adapted to produce the
desired effect. They must also be correct. Our words should
have nothing provincial or foreign about them. Our voice and all
our words should be such as to reveal the native of this city, so that
our speech may seem to be of genuine Roman origin.
CHAPTER 2: Clearness results from propriety
in the use of words. But sometimes we must not call things by their
right names to avoid what is obscene, unseemly, or mean. Language
is mean when it is beneath the dignity of the subject or the rank of the
speaker. The opposite, flying to the other extreme, is impropriety.
The original term from which the others are derived is styled the proper
term. Emphasis makes a thing more intelligible. Obscurity results
from the employment of obsolete words. It should be avoided.
Sentence obscurity (with lots of hyperbaton) should also be avoided, as
well as parenthesis also (unless it’s short). Useless words also,
should be avoided. Don’t do the opposite and become excessively brief,
for words necessary to the sense will be lost. Clearness is the first
essential of good style. There must be propriety in our words, their
order must be straightforward, the conclusion of the period must not be
long postponed, and there must be nothing lacking and nothing superfluous.
Thus our language will be approved by the learned and clear to the uneducated.
CHAPTER 3: On ornament (ornatum).
A speaker wins but trifling praise if he does no more than speak with correctness
and lucidity; in fact, his speech seems rather to be free from blemish
than to have any positive merit. When our audience find it a pleasure
to listen, their attention and their readiness to believe what they hear
are both alike increased, while they are generally filled with delight,
and sometimes even transported by admiration. Eloquence which evokes
no admiration is unworthy of the name. But such ornament must be
bold, manly, and chaste, free from all effeminate smoothness and the false
hues derived from artificial dyes, and must glow with health and vigor.
True beauty and usefulness always go hand in hand. However, the same
form of ornament will not suit demonstrative, deliberative, and forensic
speeches. For the oratory of display aims solely at delighting the
audience, and therefore develops all the resources of eloquence to aim
solely at honor and glory. But in statements of fact, adornment is
unseemly. Public trials demand a more exact style. There is
a certain loftiness of style in deliberations. The style must be
adapted to the matter at hand. Since several words may have the same
meaning (synonyms), some will be more distinguished and euphonious than
others. Words require to be used in different ways. Horrible
things are best described by words that are harsh in sound. Use the
most agreeable sounds and the most elegant words. A cultivated man
should not use coarse or low words. Do not use mean words to describe
great things. Again, our style need not always dwell on the heights;
at times it is desirable that it should sink. For there are occasions
when the very meanness of the words employed adds force to what we say.
Words are: 1) proper, 2) newly-coined, or 3) metaphorical. With respect
to proper words, there is a special dignity conferred by antiquity, since
old words give our style a venerable and majestic air. But don’t
overdo it. Many new words have been coined in imitation of the Greeks.
The meatphorical use of words cannot be recommended except in connected
discourse. An acceptable style is defined by Cicero as one which
is not over-elegant. Avoid words to which a perverted usage has given
an obscene meaning. Avoid also unfortunate collocations of words
(or division of words) that might produce an obscene suggestion.
Avoid indecency and meanness. Meanness occurs when the grandeur or
dignity of anything is diminished by the words used, as in calling small
things by extravagant names. Avoid meagerness and inadequacy of expression.
But meiosis (litotes [an understatement]) may be deliberately used as a
figure, or tautology (the repetition of a word or phrase: “Judges, this
judgment was not merely unlike a judgment”). A worse fault is sameness,
a monotonous style which has no variety to relieve its tedium (this is
one of the surest signs of lack of art). We must also avoid macrology
(the employment of more words than are necessary (“they went back home,
whence they had come”). However, periphrasis, which is similar to macrology,
is regarded as a virtue. Another fault is pleonasm, when we overload
our style with a superfluity of words (“I saw it with my own eyes”). However,
pleonasm might have a pleasing effect when employed for the sake of emphasis:
“With mine own ears his voice I heard.” But when the addition is
not deliberate but merely tame and redundant, it is a fault. Superfluous
elaboration is a fault, as well as every word which neither helps the sense
nor the style. Cacozelia, or perverse affectation, is a fault, and
it includes all that is turgid, trivial, luscious, redundant, far-fetched,
or extravagant (when the mind loses its critical sense and is misled by
the false appearance of beauty). Corruption of style is revealed
in the employment of improper or redundant words, in obscurity of meaning,
effeminacy of rhythm, or in the childish search for similar or ambiguous
expressions. Further, it always involves insincerity, for it consists
in saying something in an unnatural or unbecoming or superfluous manner.
Faulty arrangement is the faulty use of figures and the faulty collocation
of words. It is also faulty to use several dialects, or to make an
indiscriminate mixture of grand words with mean, old with new, poetic with
colloquial (this would be a monstrous medley). It is a great gift
to be able to set forth the facts on which we are speaking clearly and
vividly. Use vivid descriptions to move an audience [ECPHRASIS].
We shall secure the vividness we seek only if our descriptions give the
impression of truth. We may even add fictitious incidents.
A vivid impression may be secured by the mention of the “accidents” of
each situation (“trembling mothers clasped their children to their breast”).
Fix your eyes on nature and follow her. “All eloquence is concerned
with the activities of life, while every man applies to himself what he
hears from others, and the mind is always readiest to accept what it recognizes
to be true to nature.” Similes are used to help our proof or arguments,
or to make our pictures yet more vivid. Similes serve to make oratory
sublime, rich, attractive, and striking. The more remote the simile
is from the subject to which it is applied, the greater the impression
of novelty and the unexpected which it produces (“As doctors ampute limbs,
we must lop away foul criminals”). Antapodosis. Reciprocal
representation. Brachylogy is the brevity that says nothing more
than what is absolutely necessary (“Mithridates is huge of stature, and
armed to match”). Emphasis (“Be a man!” or “He is but mortal”).
The omission of a word (which is expected) is produced by aposiopesis (“becoming
silent” [generally a dash is used with this figure to suggest the sudden
“silence”]). Copiousness (copia) consists either in wealth of thought
or luxuriance of language. Force. Sublimity. Imagination
assists us to form mental pictures of things. Finish produces completeness
of effect (it reasserts our proofs and clinches the argument by repetition).
Vigor derives its name from action and its function is to secure that nothing
that we say is tame. Pungency may also be used when necessary, as
well as abuse (“You, Sir, are an ignoramus!”).
CHAPTER 4: Amplification (“murdered”
[instead of “beaten”]) and Attenuation (“touched” [instead of “struck”]).
There are four different methods of amplification: 1) augmentation (the
most impressive method, effected by one step or several, carried
to the highest degree or beyond), 2) comparison (seeks to rise from the
less to the greater, comparing whole with whole and part with part), 3)
reasoning (it is by reasoning that our hearers are led on from the first
point to the second which we desire to emphasize), and 4) accumulation
([CONGERIES] by an accumulation of words and sentences identical in meaning,
the climax is reached by the piling of words instead of by a series of
steps). The heightening of effect may also be produced by making
the words rise to a climax (insurgentibus). Attenuation is effected
by the same method, since there are as many degrees of descent as ascent.
Hyperbole is a species of amplification.
CHAPTER 5: Sententia is a felling or
opinion. The ancients regarded sensus as referring merely to the senses
of the body. But modern usage applies sensus to concepts of the mind,
while sententia is applied to striking reflections such as are more especially
introduced at the close of our periods, a practice rare in earlier days,
but carried even to excess in our own. The oldest type of sententia
is the aphorism. Such utterances resemble the decrees or resolutions
of public bodies. Aphorisms are reflections which form part of the
enthymeme (a reflection drawn from contraries); at times they form part
of the conclusion of an epichireme (an epiphonema [an epigrammatic summary]
or exclamation attached to the close of a statement or a proof by way of
climax). Some are cast by opposition, others in the form of a direct
statement. Such reflections are best suited to those speakers whose
authority is such that their character itself will lend weight to their
words. A noema (“an obscure and subtle speech”) is a conception expressed
in such a way as to make itself understood without actually stating it
(“You deserve to have all your fingers” = “You deserve to be a gladiator
all your days”). A clausula (a close, conclusion, end) is a conclusion
[what follows] in a logical sense: “You must, therefore, first confess
your own offense before you accuse Ligarius of anything.” There is
a type of reflection that depends on surprise for its effect. Others
are of an allusive type. We may also double a phrase. We may
contrast opposites. Those which turn on play upon words will always
be bad. Every reflection is isolated and consequently a fresh stat
is necessary after each. This produces a discontinuous style.
Keep epigrams to a minimum for maximum effect.
CHAPTER 6: Tropes (modes). A
trope (tropis) [“a turn” in Greek] is the artistic alteration of a word
or phrase from its proper meaning to another. Some tropes arise from words
used properly and others from words used metaphorically. The changes
involved concern not merely individual words but also our thoughts and
the structure of our sentences. The commonest and most beautiful
of tropes is the metaphor (translatio). It serves to provide a name
for everything (for which we might not have a proper name). A noun
or a verb is transferred from the place to which it properly belongs to
another where there is either no literal term or the transferred is better
than the literal. We do this because it is necessary, or to make our meaning
clearer, or to produce a decorative effect. We say that a man is
“hard” or “rough,” there being no literal term for these temperaments.
Metaphor is a shorter form of simile: in the latter we compare some object
to the thing which we wish to describe; in the former this object is actually
substituted for the thing. Metaphors fall into four classes: 1) in
the first we substitute one living thing for another (“Cato barked [like
a dog] at Scipio [a human being]”); 2) Inanimate things may be substituted
for inanimate (“And gave his fleet [an inanimate object] the rein [ditto]”);
3) An Inanimate object may be substituted for an animate one (“Did the
Argive bulwark fall by sword or fate?”); 4) Or animate for inanimate (“The
shepherd sits unknowing on the height / Listening the roar from some far
mountain brow”). These four kinds of metaphor are further subdivided
into a number of species, such as transference from rational beings to
rational and from irrational to irraional and the reverse; and from the
whole to its parts and from the parts to the whole. But don’t overuse
metaphors, for then the style will become obscure and our audience weary.
Our language will become allegorical and enigmatic. A metaphor must
not be too great for its subject or too little or inappropriate.
Synecdochè gives variety to our language by making us realize many
things from one, the whole from a part (pars pro toto), the genus from
a species, things which follow from things which have preceded (ferrum
[steel] may be used to indicate a sword). It is where numbers are
concerned that synecdochè can be most freely employed in prose (“The
Roman [i.e., Romans] won the day”; “We [i.e., “I”] have spoken”).
When an omission of a [n expected] word occurs, it is called an ellipse.
Metonymy (meta + onoma [change of name]: denominatio, transmutatio, transnominatio)
consists in the substitution of one name for another and is called hypallage
(“interchange”) by the rhetoricians. These devices are employed to
indicate an invention by substituting the name of the inventor, or a possession
by substituting the name of the possessor (i.e., Vulcan for fire, Mars
for fight, Venus for coitus; or “harvest” in the expression “Ceres [i.e.,
the harvest] by water spoiled”). It is permissible to describe what
is possessed by reference to its possessor (as when we speak of Virgil
when we mean Virgil’s poems: “I’ve read Virgil” instead of “I’ve read Virgil’s
poems”). We sometimes indicate cause by effect (“Pale death knocks
at the poor man’s door”). Antonomasia occurs when we substitute something
else for a proper name: we substitute an epithet to the name which it replaces
(“The Philosopher” [Aristotle], “The Poet” [Petrarch], “The Madonna” [St.
Mary]), or by indicating the most striking characteristics of an individual
(“The gray-eyed goddess” [Pallas Athena / Minerva]). Onomatopoea
is the creation of a word to suit the sensation which it expresses (hiss,
murmur, roar). It is unbecoming for Romans to use this figure (although
the Greeks like it). Catachresis (abuse) is the practice of adapting
the nearest available term to describe something for which no actual term
exists (Equum divina Palladis arte / Aedificant: “A horse they build by
Pallas’ art divine” [it is an abuse to use the term aedificant, which means
literally to make a house]; or to call a tyrannicide a parricide [a term
which includes the murder not only of a father but also of a mother, a
brother, and a tyrant]). Metalepsis (“to change the sense”) or Transumption
(transumptio) is a trope that involves a change of meaning (“he is a lead
foot” [he drives fast]). It is the nature of metalepsis to form a
kind of intermediate step between the term transferred and the thing to
which it is transferred, having no meaning in itself, but merely providing
a transition. It’s useful only in comedy. The remaining tropes
are employed solely to adorn and enhance our style: the epithet (appositum,
sequens) is redundant (“white teeth,” “liquid wine”). Allegory (inversio)
presents one thing in words and another in meaning, or else something absolutely
opposed to the meaning of the words. It is a series of metaphors.
When an allegory is too obscure it becomes a riddle, hence, a blemish.
An allegory whose meaning is contrary to that suggested by the words, involve
an element of irony, called illusio by the rhetoricians. It is permissible
to censure with counterfeited praise and praise under a pretense of blame.
We may employ allegory and disguise bitter taunts in gentle words by way
of wit, or we may indicate our meaning by saying exactly the opposite (sarcasm,
urbane wit, contradiction, mockery). Periphrasis is when we use many
words to describe something requiring only a few. It is a circuitous
mode of speech. It is sometimes necessary, as when one conceals something
that would be indecent if expressed in so many words (“To meet the demands
of nature”). When circumlocution passes into excess it is called
perissology (Gr. perissos = redundant; logos = speech), for whatever is
not a help is a hindrance. Hyperbaton (pl. hyperbata) is the transposition
of a word often demanded by the structure of the sentence and the claims
of elegance. “For our language would often be harsh, rough, limp
or disjointed, if the words were always arranged in their natural order.”
It is impossible to make our prose rhythmical except by artistic alterations
in the order of words. When the transposition is confined to two
words only, it is called anastrophe, that is, a reversal of order (inversio,
reversio). It is the transposition of a word to some distance from
its original place, in order to secure an ornamental effect, that is strictly
called hyperbaton. Hyperbole is a bold figure, an elegant straining
of the truth, employed for exaggeration of attenuation. We may say
more than the actual facts (“faster than a speeding bullet” [Superman]).
Hyperbole lies, though without any intention to deceive. Hyperbole
will often cause a laugh. Everybody has an innate passion for exaggeration
or attenuation of actual facts, and no one is ever contented with the simple
truth.
END OF BOOK EIGHT
INSTITUTIO ORATORIA:
BOOK 9:
CHAPTER 1: “In my last book I spoke
of tropes. I now come to figures.” For many authors, figures are
identical with tropes. They are also called motions (motus), for
they add force and charm to our matter. The resemblance between them
is so close that it is not easy to distinguish between them. Both
involve a departure from the simple and straightforward method of expression.
E.g., irony belongs to figures of thought just as much as to tropes; periphrasis,
hyperbaton, and onomatopoeia have been ranked as figures of speech rather
than tropes. The name of trope is applied to the transference of
expressions from their natural and principal signification to another,
with a view to the embellishment of style. A figure is the term employed
when we give our language a conformation other than the obvious and ordinary.
Therefore the substitution of one word for another is placed among tropes,
e.g., metaphor, metonymy, antonomasia, metalepsis, synecdoche, catachresis,
allegory, and hyperbole. Onomatopoeia, periphrasis, epithet, antonomasia,
hyperbaton: none of these are figures. For a figure does not necessarily
involve any alteration either of the order or the strict sense of words.
Irony is both a trope and a figure. The term figure is used in two
senses: 1) in the first it is applied to any form in which thought is expressed;
2) in the second and special sense, in which it is called a schema, it
means a rational change in meaning or language from the ordinary and simple
form. A figure is a form of expression to which a new aspect is given
by art. A figure of thought may include several figures of speech,
for the former lies in the conception, the latter in the expression of
our thought. The two are frequently combined, however. Hence,
there are two classes of figures: figures of thought (of the mind, feeling,
or conceptions) and figures of speech (words, diction, expression, language,
style). Figures of thought will be discussed first. Figures
serve to commend what we say to those that hear us, whether we seek to
win approval for our character as pleaders, or to win favor for the cause
which we plead, to relieve monotony by variation of our language, or to
indicate our meaning in the safest or most seemly way. Dissimulation.
Hesitation. By the introduction of fictitious personages we may bring
into play the most forcible form of exaggeration. As regards diction,
this may either be employed like weapons for menace and attack, or handled
merely for the purpose of display. Sometimes the repetition of words
will produce an impression of force, at other times of grace. The
same words may be repeated sometimes at the beginning of a sentence and
sometimes at the end, or the sentence may be made to open and close with
the same phrase. Asyndeton, paral[e]ipsis (occultatio), correction,
exclamation, meiosis (litotes: “the pond” for the Atlantic Ocean), hesitation,
immutation (change). The same word may be reiterated, either at the
beginning or at the conclusion, or may be repeated, but in a different
sense. Antitheses, gradations, asyndeton.
CHAPTER 2: Questions admit of infinite
variety. There is the practice of putting the question and answering
it oneself. A different method is to ask a question and not to wait
for a reply, but to subjoin the reply at once yourself. This is a
figure which some call suggestio. Again, a question may involve comparison.
Anticipation (prolepsis) is used to forestall objections and is of great
use in pleading. It is especially useful in the exordium. Confession.
Prediction. Self-correction. Preparation. Qualification.
Hesitation may lend an impression of truth to our statements, when, for
example, we pretend to be at a loss. Communication is when we actually
take our opponents into consultation. Suspension. Paradox or
surprise. Concession occurs when we leave some things to the judgment
of the jury. The figures best adapted for intensifying emotion consist
chiefly in simulation, for we may feign that we are angry, glad, afraid,
filled with wonder, grief, or indignation. Exclamation. License.
A bolder type of figure is impersonation, a device which lends wonderful
variety and animation to oratory. By this means we display the inner
thoughts of our adversaries as though they were talking with themselves;
or without sacrifice of credibility we may introduce conversations between
ourselves and others, or of others among themselves, and put words of advice,
reproach, complaint, praise, or pity into the mouths of appropriate persons.
We are even allowed in this form of speech to bring down the gods from
heaven and raise the dead. Dialogue. Sermocinatio. Parody.
We often personify the abstract. To impersonation we add the figure
known as ellipse, which in this case consists in the omission of any indication
as to who is speaking. At times impersonation takes the form of a
narrative. Apostrophe consists in the diversion of our address from
the judge; it is wonderfully stirring. There is another figure that
Cicero calls ocular demostration, when we proceed to show in full detail
how something was done. Quintilian calls this figure vivid illustration.
This appeals to the eye rather than the ear. We are not bound to
imagine only past or present actions. We can present a picture of
what is likely to happen orr might have happened [ECPHRASIS]. This
involves a transference of time. Topography is the vivid description
of places [ECPHRASIS]. Irony as dissimulation. In irony we find a
figure by which we understand something which is the opposite of what is
actually said. A man’s whole life may be colored with irony, as was
the case with Socrates, who was called an ironist because he assumed the
rôle of an ignorant man lost in wonder at the wisdom of others.
A continued metaphor develops into allegory. Akin to irony also are
the following figures, which have a strong family resemblance: confession
(of a kind that can do our case no harm), concession (when we pretend to
admit something actually unfavorable to ourselves by way of showing our
confidence in our cause), agreement (when we agree to something which is
really likely to tell in our favor). Aposiopesis (reticentia, oblicentia,
interruptio) is used to indicate passion or anger (“Whom I— But better
first these billows to assuage”), or to give an impression of anxiety or
scruple. It may also be used as a means of transition (“Cominius,
however,— nay pardon me, gentlemen”). This last instance also involves
digression. There is another kind of figure, which is not aposiopesis,
since that involves leaving a sentence unfinished (name?). Banter.
Emphasis. A hidden meaning for the hearer to discover (name?).
Figures should be used in moderation and not appear too obvious (hence,
ineffective). Figures are most effective when the judge thinks we
use them reluctantly. A sense of shame (pudor) is stronger in a good
man than fear. Antithesis. Other figures of thought are concentration
(a term used when a number of different arguments are used to establish
one point), consequence (of an argument), inference, threats, exhortations,
Celsus lists other figures like exclusion, asseveration, refusal, excitement
of the judge, the use of proverbs, the employment of quotations from poetry,
jests, invidious remarks or invocation to intensify a charge, flattery,
pardon, disdain, admonition, apology, entreaty, and rebuke. Also
partition, proposition, division, and affinity. Other figures are refutation,
amplification, arguments from opposites, enthymeme, commentum, epicheireme,
consequence, general reflections, enhancement, prohibition, and incidental
narrative.
CHAPTER 3: Figures of speech have always
been liable to change and are continually in process of change in accordance
with the variations of usage. We find that practically everything
we say nowadays is figurative. Figures of speech fall into two main
classes: 1) the one is defined as the form of language (this is more grammatical),
2) while the other is mainly to be sought in the arrangement of words (this
is more rhetorical). The former originates from the same sources
as errors of language, divergences from direct and simple language, but
excellences nevertheless. They relieve tedium. Interpositio
(interclusio) or parenthesis or paremptosis (interrpuption of the continuous
flow of our language by the insertion of some remark). Hyperbaton.
Apostrophe. Transition. Addition (adiectone), as in amplification
or doubling of words (“I have slain! I have slain!” [the first is a statement,
the second emphasis]). Doubling of words may also be used to excite
pity, or, if used ironically, with a view of disparagement. A number
of clauses may begin with the same word for the sake of force and emphasis
[anaphora]. The end may correspond with the beginning [antistrophe].
There is also a repetition of the middle of two clauses. Regression.
The repetition may serve to mark a contrast. “In this case the details
are massed together, but they may equally be distributed or dissipated,
as I think Cicero says” [a probably allusion to frequentatio]. Synonymy.
Disjunction. Pleonasm (language fuller than is absolutely required:
“Myself before my very eyes I saw”). Asyndeton (dissolution) is absence
of connecting particles and is useful when we are speaking with special
vigor, for it at once impresses the details on the mind and makes them
seem more numerous than they really are. This kind of figure is also
called brachylogy (conciseness [detachment without loss of connection]).
The opposite of asyndeton is polysyndeton, which is characterized by the
number of connecting particles employed. In this figure we may repeat
the same connecting particle a number of times. These figures make
our utterances more vigorous and emphatic and produce an impression of
vehemence. Gradation or climax is too obvious and should be sparingly
employed. Moreover, it involves addition, since it repeats what has
already been said and, before passing to a new point, dwells on those which
precede. Figures produced by omission rely for their charm in the
main on conciseness and novelty. There is an aposiopesis in all cases
where what is omitted is left to be understood (“Lust conquered shame,
boldness fear, madness reason”). Words are decently omitted to spare
our modesty. There is a figure in which a number of clauses are all
connected by the same verb. Or it may come last. The verb may
even be placed in the middle so as to serve both what precedes and what
follows. Distinction is used when we distinguish between similar
things (“Are you wise or astute?”). There is a third kind of figure
which attracts the ear of the audience and excites their attention by some
resemblance, equality, or contrast of words. To this class belongs
paranomasia or adnominatio (puns). Traductio (“transference” [Gr.
polyptoton]) is the transference of the meaning of one word to another
(same word is repeated). There is a certain charm in the contrast
between two words not dissimilar in sound. Homoeoteleuton is when
clauses conclude alike, the same syllables being placed at the end of each,
with a correspondence in the ending of two or more sentences. It
is also desirable that the clauses should be of equal length. Antithesis
(contrapositum, contentio) happens when single words are contrasted with
single; or the contrast may be between pairs of words; or sentence may
be contrasted with sentence. Antithesis may also be produced by chiasmus
(I do not live to eat, but eat to live). There is a charm in placing
names in antithesis. Hesitation (dubitatio) and correction (emendatio):
correction emends; hesitation expresses a doubt. Mutatio (immutatio,
hypallage, metonymy). “Too much care for our words under such circumstances
weakens the impression of emotional sincerity.”
CHAPTER 4: Artistic structure (composition).
Nothing can attain its full strength without the assistance of art, and
art is always productive of beauty. The study of structure is of
the utmost value, not merely for charming the ear, but for stirring the
soul. Man is naturally attracted by harmonious sounds. Otherwise
it would not be the case that musical instruments, in spite of the fact
that their sounds are inarticulate, still succeed in exciting a variety
of different emotions in the hearer. The most closely welded style
is composed of three elements: the comma (incisum), the colon (membrum),
and the period (ambitus, circumductum, continuatio, conclusio). [these
are stops, originally referred to varying lengths of clauses or sentences].
Further, in all artistic structure there are three necessary qualities:
order, connection, and rhythm. ORDER: Words taken singly are known
as asyndeta (unconnected). Sentences should rise and grow in force.
There is a natural order in things: “men and women,” “day and night,” “rising
and setting,” should be preferred to their reverse order. Nouns should
precede verbs, and verbs should precede adverbs. Epithets and pronouns
should follow their substantives. If the demands of artistic structure
permit, it is far best to end the sentence with a verb, for it is in verbs
that the real strength of language resides. The happiest effects
of language are produced when it is found possible to employ the natural
order, apt connection, and appropriate rhythm. If the order is faulty,
our language will be deservedly liable to the charge of lacking artistic
construction, however compact and rhythmical it may be. CONNNECTION:
there should be connection between words, commata, cola, and periods.
Hiatus is not to be regarded as so very terrible a crime. It is a
blemish to have too many monosyllables in succession, since the inevitable
result is that owing to the frequency of the pauses, the rhythm degenerates
into a series of jerks. It is a fault to end a number of successive
sentences with similar cadences, terminations, and inflections. RHYTHM:
All combination, arrangement, and connection of words involves either rhythms
(numeri [the rhythm of the tune]) or meters (measure). Both rhythm
and meter consist of feet. Rhythm consists of certain lengths of
time, while meter is determined by the order in which these lengths are
arranged; hence, one is concerned with quantity, the other with quality.
Rhythm may depend on equal balance, as in the case of dactylic rhythm,
where one long syllable balances two short / ? - - / [marvelous].
A paean (paeanic rhythm) is / ? - - - / or / - - - ? / [formidable].
Rhythm merely takes into consideration the measurement of the time.
Other rhythms: anapest (antidactylus) / - - ? / [unconcerned]; spondee
/ ? ? / [heartburn]; dochmiac / - ? ? - ? / [?]; pyrrhic or pariambus (also
dibrach) / two short [unaccented] syllables: / - - / [“the sea | son of
| mists”]; iambus / - ? / [consist]; choreus or trochee / ? - / [former];
amphimacer or cretic / ? - ? / [happy days]; amphibrachus /- ? -
/ [contentment]; bacchius / - ? ? / [renouncing]; palimbacchius / ? ? -
/ [accorded]; tribrach / - - - / [Lat. populus]; molossus / ? ? ? / [“Break,
break, break” –poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson]. Also, rhythm has unlimited
space over which it may range, whereas the spaces of meter are confined.
Meter is concerned with words alone, while rhythm extends also to the motion
of the body. Greater license is admitted when the time is measured
by the beat of the feet or fingers. In prose the rhythm should be
more definite and obvious to all. The most important task is to know
what word is best fitted to any given place. The most accomplished
artist will be the man who does not arrange his words solely with a view
to rhythmic effect. Rhythm pervades the whole body of prose through
all its extent. Iambic endings are less noticeable because that meter
is near akin to prose. Although the language of prose is bound by
certain laws, it should appear to be free. In prose, the preferred
rhythms are the paean and the dactyl (both feet provide a happy mixture
of long and short). Avoid the spondee (too slow) and the trochee
(too rapid). As a rule, endings composed of two spondees, a termination
which causes comment even in a verse, are to be deprecated. Aristotle
thinks the dactyl is too dignified, the iambus too commonplace, and the
trochee too hasty. Feet, however, should be mixed. Long syllables
carry the greater dignity and weight, while the short syllables create
an impression of speed. If the latter are intermixed with a few long
syllables, their gait will be a run, but a gallop if they are continuous.
When a short syllable is followed by a long the effect is one of vigorous
ascent, while a long followed by a short produces a gentler impression
and suggests descent. The conclusion of a sentence is stronger when
long [accented] syllables preponderate. Oratory should possess a
vigorous flow. Rhythmical structure will hold the same place in prose
that is held by versification in poetry. The best judge as to rhythm
is the ear, which appreciates fullness of rhythm or feels the lack of it,
is offended by harshness, soothed by smooth and excited by impetuous movement,
and approves stability, while it detects limping measures and rejects those
that are excessive and extravagant. Why again in periods do we get
an impression of incompleteness, despite the fact that the sense is complete?
The demonstrative type of oratory requires freer and more expansive rhythms,
while forensic and deliberative oratory will vary the arrangement of their
words in conformity with the variety of their themes. No one will
deny that some portions of our speech require a gentle flow of language,
while others demand speed, sublimity, pugnacity, ornateness, or simplicity,
as the case may be, or that long syllables are best adapted to express
dignity, sublimity and ornateness. Passages where we argue, distinguish,
jest, or use colloquial speech are better served by short syllables.
The statement of fact as a rule requires slower and more modest feet.
Lofty speeches which employ long and sonorous vowels, are specially well
served by the amplitude of the dactyl and the paean (they have short [unstressed?]
syllables). Where violence is required, use iambs (a two-syllable
beat is more frequent and gives the effect of an ascent from short to long
[the choreus {trochee} would go from long to short]). Subdued passages
(e.g., in the peroration) require slow syllables. Our rhythm must
be designed to suit our delivery. It is natural that what is sublime
should have a stately stride. Spondees and iambi are the pompous
rhythms found mainly in tragedy. Comedy uses pyrrhics and trochees
(tribrachs) for speed, at the expense of dignity. Violent and abusive
language requires iambs for attacks. “I should prefer my rhythm to
be harsh and violent rather than nerveless and effeminate.” Artistic
structure must be decorous, pleasing, and varied.
END OF BOOK NINE
QUINTILIAN 4:
INSTITUTIO ORATORIA:
BOOK 10:
CHAPTER 1: The rules of style are part
of a student’s theoretical knowledge but they are not sufficient to give
him oratorical power. He needs the facility that is best acquired
by writing, reading, or speaking. They are intimately and inseparably
connected. Eloquence acquires strength by frequent practice in writing,
and this requires good reading models. These are an orator’s eloquence
weapons: the power of speech, the power of imitation, and the diligent
practice in writing. Words must be acquired to suit all and every
case. This is attained by reading the best writers and listening
to the best orators. When learning new vocabulary, one should be
acquainted not only with its meaning but also with its form and rhythmical
value. All language is received first through the ear. Reading
will provide us with a rich store of expressions. Examples are effective
(more effective than rules). The advantages conferred by reading
and listening are not identical. The speaker stimulates us by the
animation of his delivery, and kindles the imagination. We are moved
by his voice, the grace of his gestures, and the adaptation of his delivery.
In reading, the critical faculty is a surer guide. It is slower than
oral delivery. We can re-read passages to fix them in the memory.
We should only read the best authors. In speeches, it is important
to read and know the case well in advance. The reading of poets is
of great service to the orators. It inspires and excites, and treats
character. Poetry is compared to the oratory of display and aims
solely at giving pleasure, which it seeks to secure by inventing what is
not merely untrue but sometimes even incredible. History, also, has
an affinity with poetry and may be regarded as a kind of prose poem, while
it is written for the purpose of narrative, not of proof, and designed
not for immediate effect (as in a forensic case) but to record events for
the benefit of posterity. It also uses figures to avoid the monotony
of narrative [ARL: notice the similarity between historical discourse and
a narrative <descriptive> “literary” paper. An analytical literary
paper would be similar to a forensic case <proofs>]. An orator
should also have knowledge of historical facts and precedents.
Orators should read Cicero and Demosthenes, orators who have stood the
test of time. Homer has given us a model and an inspiration for every
department of eloquence. His eloquence is shown in praise, exhortation,
consolation. He was master of all emotions (tender and vehement alike).
He also gives one good examples of perorations (in the prayers which Priam
addresses to Achilles). Hesiod is full of maxims of moral wisdom.
Not until our taste is formed shall we have leisure to study the elegiac
poets as well. Callimachus is the best in this department.
Of the nine lyric poets, Pindar is by far the greatest. Stesichorus
of Himera in Sicily (fl. Ca. 600 BC) is great for singing about the greatest
wars (e.g., Trojan) and the most glorious chieftains. Simonides of
Ceos (556-468 BC) is great to excite pity in his funeral odes. The
old comedy preserves intact the true grace of Attic diction. Attic
diction serves to denounce vice. The best writer of the old comedy
is Aristophanes. The first Greek tragedian is Aeschylus (he is lofty,
dignified, and grandiloquent). Sophocles and Euripides brought tragedy
to perfection. Euripides is useful for those training to plead in
court, for his language is like that of oratory and is full of striking
reflections. He rivals the philosophers. He is supreme in the
power to excite pity. Menander is perfect in his representation of
actual life. As to history, Thucydides is compact and terse; he also
excels in vigor, speeches, and the expression of the stronger passions.
Herodotus is pleasant, lucid, and diffuse, and depicts well conversations
and the delineation of the gentler emotions. Xenophon is like a philosopher.
As to orators, Athens produced 10 remarkable ones. Demosthenes is
the greatest. His language is compact, his style is muscular, and
he is self-controlled. Lysias (fl. 403-380) is subtle and elegant.
Isocrates is neat and polished and better suited to the fencing school
than to the battlefield. He had trained himself for the lecture-room
and not the law-courts. He is ready in invention, his moral ideas
are high, and his writing has rhythm to a fault (ARL: there are three styles
of oratory: the plain [Attic > {used by the Atheninans}], the “intermediate”
<“Rhodian”> [the most appropriate for Roman orators], and the grand
[Asiatic {used in the eastern provinces}]). Among the philosophers, Plato
is supreme in acuteness, perception, and style (his style is worthy of
Homer). Xenophon. Aristotle is important for his knowledge
and multiple writings, as well as for the penetration of his thought. Theophrastus
(Aristotle’s successor as head of his school [322-287]) has a superhuman
brilliance of style. Among the Roman authors, Virgil is the Roman
Homer in epic. Macer and Lucretius are worth reading, although the
former is tame and the latter difficult. Ovid has a lack of seriousness,
although portions of his work merit our praise. Lucan is fiery and
passionate and remarkable for the grandeur of his general reflections.
The Romans also challenge the supremacy of the Greeks in elegy (Tibullus
[terse and elegant], Propertius, Ovid [sportive], Cornelius Gallus [severe]).
In satire, the Romans are supreme (Lucilius, Horace [terse and pure], Persius,
Terentius Varro [Menippean satire]). Among lyric poets, Horace is
the only one worth reading. Comedy is the weakest point among the
Romans (Plautus, Terence [the most elegant writer of comedy]). In
history, the Romans hold their own with the Greeks. Sallust and Thucydides
can be matched, as well as Herodotus and Titus Livius. The Romans
also match the Greeks in oratory. Here Cicero, with Demosthenes,
reigns supreme. They are excellent in their judgment, their arrangement,
division, preparation, proof, and invention. Demosthenes is more
concentrated and makes his period shorter (his weapon is the rapier); Cicero
is more diffuse and his periods are longer (at times he uses the bludgeon).
The Greeks are more studied; the Romans more natural. In wit and
the power of exciting pity, the Romans have the advantage. The reason
may be that Demosthenes could not produce powerful perorations because
of an alleged law in Athens that forbade making appeals to the emotions.
The Greeks have the advantage of having come first (with Demosthenes).
Thanks to him (Demosthenes), Cicero was able to attain greatness.
Gaius (Julius) Caesar would have been a serious rival to Cicero if he had
devoted himself to the courts since he had force, penetration, and energy.
He was as vigorous in speech as in war. He had a marvelous elegance
of language. As far as writers of philosophy are concerned, Cicero
stands out as the rival of Plato. Cornelius Celsus is also worthy
of notice, and Seneca among the Stoics. Seneca had a quick and fertile
intelligence, and wide knowledge. He dealt with almost every department
of knowledge, although in philosophy he showed a lack of critical power.
He has moral reflections. His style is corrupt, though, and dangerous
(he has many vices, and attractive).
CHAPTER 2: From the above authors we
should draw our stock of words, the variety of our figures, and our methods
of composition. In art, no small portion of our task lies in imitation.
Although invention comes first, it is expedient to imitate whatever has
been invented with success. It is a universal rule of life that we
should wish to copy what we approve in others. We must, in fact,
either be like or unlike those who have proved their excellence.
It is rare for nature to produce such resemblance, which is more often
the result of imitation. Imitation alone is not sufficient, though.
We should be spurred to search for novelty and discover yet other things.
Throughout history, no art has remained just as it was when it was discovered.
No further development is possible for those who restrict themselves to
imitation. The man whose aim is to prove himself better than another,
even if he does not surpass him, may hope to equal him. Whatever
is like another object must necessarily be inferior to the object of imitation.
The same is true of oratory. The best qualities of an orator (talent,
invention, force, facility [what is independent of art]) are beyond imitation.
The nicest judgment is required in the examination of everything connected
with this department of study. First we must consider whom to imitate.
Every student should realize what it is that he is to imitate, and should
know why it is good. Some things require a gentle and others a violent
style. Some require an impetuous and others a calm diction.
Demosthenes is by far the most perfect of Greek orators. It is sufficient,
though, to model our every utterance on Cicero. Imitation, however,
should not be confined merely to words. We must observe the judgment and
powers of arrangement which they reveal. We must note their procedure
in the exordium. The method and variety of their statement of facts, the
power displayed in proof and refutation, the skill revealed in their appeal
to every kind of emotion. The man who to these good qualities adds
his own will be the perfect orator in our search.
CHAPTER 3: Such are the aids that we
may derive from external sources; as regards those which we must supply
for ourselves, it is the pen which brings at once the most labor and the
most profit. Write as much as possible and with the utmost care.
It is in writing that eloquence has its roots and foundations; it is writing
that provides that holy of holies where the wealth of oratory is stored.
The larger the animal, the longer should be the period of gestation.
At first our pen must be slow yet sure. We must search for what is
best and refuse to welcome every thought the moment it presents itself.
We must first criticize the fruits of our imagination, and then, once approved,
arrange them with care. For we must select both thoughts and words
and weigh them one by one. We must consider the order in which they should
be placed, and must examine all the possible varieties of rhythm.
We must frequently revise what we have just written. We must give
them a critical revision and go carefully over any passage where we have
reason to regard our fluency with suspicion. Write as well as possible.
Speed will come with practice. Gradually, thoughts will suggest themselves
with increasing readiness, the words will answer to our call and rhythmical
arrangement will follow. If one writes quickly one will never write
well. If one writes well one will soon write quickly. We must
aim at speaking as well as we can, but must not try to speak better than
our nature will permit. For to make any real advance we need study,
not self-accusation. Also, it is not merely practice that will enable
us to write at greater length and with increased fluency. We need
judgment as well. One should not study in the woods (too many distractions)
but retire like Demosthenes to a place [an underground room] where no voice
was to be heard in the silence of night, within closed doors. We
must rest or sleep when necessary. Night work provides the best form
of privacy. Silence, seclusion, night time. When writing, leave
blank pages to make additions when we will.
CHAPTER 4: The correction of our work
is the most important portion of our study. Correction takes the
form of addition, excision, and alteration. We must prune what is
turgid, elevate what is mean, repress exuberance, arrange what is disorderly,
introduce rhythm where lacking, and modify it where it is emphatic.
It helps to put aside one’s work for a while and return to it later.
CHAPTER 5: To acquire facility in writing,
early orators recommended translation from Greek into Latin. Paraphrase
from the Latin (esp. poetry) is also good. Rival and vie with the
original in the expression of the same thoughts. There is grace in
both brevity and copiousness, metaphor and literalness, direct expression
or figures. There is merit in expanding what is compressed, amplifying
the small, lending variety to sameness, charm to the commonplace, and to
say a quantity of good things about a very limited number of subjects.
As writing exercises, engage in theses, indefinite questions, and commonplaces.
Select an orator to follow and imitate. Attend many trials.
Write speeches. Argue from both sides.
CHAPTER 6: Premeditation derives force
from the practice of writing and forms an intermediate stage between the
labors of the pen and the more precarious fortunes of improvisation.
Memory is more attentive of thoughts not put in writing. Allow improvisation
to step in if need be. By developing the memory our conceptions will
flow from us without fear of disaster.
CHAPTER 7: The crown of all our study
and the highest reward of our long labors is the power of improvisation.
There will be countless occasions when we will have to improvise without
having done prior preparation. If our written proofs fail us, we
must suddenly change route before being hit by a storm. We must note
the direction which the argument is likely to take. We must realize
what should come first, second, etc. The orator must know what to
look for in each portion of his case. He must confine himself to
certain definite bounds. For this, division is necessary. We
must have a store of the best words and phrases we have written down before,
since writing may help even our improvisations. Practice speaking
a lot too, since facility is mainly the result of habit and exercise.
Pay close attention to voice, delivery, and gesture. A speech, to
be called that, must be orderly, ornate, and fluent. Otherwise it
would merely be rant. It is feeling and force of imagination that
make us eloquent. Dread of the shame of failure is also a powerful
stimulant to oratory. Eloquence gives pleasure and is influenced
by praise and renown. However, our confidence in our power of speaking
extempore should never be so great that we should neglect to devote a few
minutes to the consideration of what we are going to say. Theory
once mastered is not forgotten. But it has to be maintained with
practice. Speak daily before an audience of several persons.
This gives strength to our voice, fluency to our tongue, and vigor to our
gesture. Speak alone if necessary. We should never be careless
about our language. Whatever we say under whatever circumstances
should be perfect in its way. Writing will give us greater precision
of speech; speaking will make us write with greater facility. We
must write, whenever possible; if we cannot write, we must meditate.
Memory will be discussed in the next book.
END OF BOOK TEN
INSTITUTIO ORATORIA:
BOOK 11:
CHAPTER 1: After acquiring the power
of writing and thinking, and also of pleading extemporare, if occasion
demands, our next task is to ensure that appropriateness of speech which
Cicero considers the fourth department of style). One single style
of oratory is not suited to every case, or to every audience, nor every
speaker, nor every occasion. Eschew antique, metaphorical, and newly-coined
words in the exordium, statement of facts, and arguments. Avoid flowing
periods and elaborate grace when the case has to be divided and distinguished
under several heads. Avoid mean and colloquial language in the peroration,
and jests in speeches whose theme is compassion. Ornaments derive
their effect from circumstances. Socrates could have been saved if
he had used ordinary forensic methods of defense and adopted a submissive
tone. But that would have been unworthy of his character. A
man must act and speak always as befits a man of honor. All boasting
is a mistake. Humankind has a lofty and unbending pride and we don’t
tolerate superiority. We help the poor and the submissive because
it gives us a conscience of superiority. But a man who exalts himself
shows contempt for others and makes them feel small. Those beneath
him will feel a grudge against him; his superiors will laugh at him; the
good will disapprove. Arrogance implies a false self-esteem, whereas
those who possess true merit find satisfaction enough in the consciousness
of possession. False modesty, however, is worse than self-glorification.
Let us leave it to others to praise us. It’s becoming to blush when
we are praised by others. But although it is unseemly to boast of
one’s eloquence, at times it is permissible to express confidence in it.
But show a little modesty. An impudent, disorderly, and angry tone
is always unseemly, and it becomes more reprehensible in proportion to
the age, rank, and experience of the speaker. For a man’s character
is revealed by his manner of speaking. Some vices of a mean type
are: groveling flattery, affected buffoonery, immodesty and obscenity,
disregard of authority. Different types of eloquence suit different
speakers. A haughty, bold, and florid style is not becoming in old
men (who should use a restrained, mild, and precise style). With
respect to attire, purple and scarlet raiment goes ill with grey hairs.
The young can use a rich, even, and risky style. But a dry, careful,
compressed style is unbecoming of the young. Soldiers should use
a simple style. Commanders and conquerors are a class apart (and
have their own unique style which would be unbecoming in anyone else [in
others, the same style would be seen as freedom of speech, madness, or
arrogance]). The tragic and comic poets put a lot of special attention
to character. Impersonation is highly demanding of orators. An orator
should display the qualities of courtesy, kindliness, moderation, and benevolence.
But not always. Circumstances of time and place demand special consideration.
There are cases when the success of the pleader depends on apology, entreaties
for mercy, or confession of error. An epiphonemata is an exclamation
attached to the close of a statement or a proof by way of climax.
In all accusations, we should express regret at consenting to undertake
such cases. When disparaging a man, mention his other virtues and
try to explain his one fault (too credulous, too obstinate, too quick to
anger, acting under the influence of others, etc.). We should award
praise where it is deserved, whatever the character of the person praised
may be. If a judge is hostile, pretend he will be just. If
the judge gets angry, express regret, apologize, and induce the judge to
feel compunction for his anger. If the same judge has to revisit
a case, explain that other facts have come up, etc. Say nothing against
the first judge who tried the case (if there was a previous [different]
judge). If we have to denounce someone of something we have been
guilty of, explain how the circumstances differed in both cases or admit
guilt. A man who expresses penitence for his former errors may perhaps
be regarded as sufficiently reformed. In cases of rape, especially
of an unnatural type [sodomy?], soften the harshness of the language and
use a more conciliatory tone, since the retelling of facts will shame the
sufferer more than the criminal. Refrain from insulting whole classes,
races, or communities. If we must reproof, qualify the statement
(e.g., rapacious soldiers suffer great duress). Defeating our opponents
with reasoning is the gentlest method of attack. All extravagance
of any kind is indecorous.
CHAPTER 2: Memory is a gift but
may be improved by cultivation. Our whole education depends upon
memory. Some hold that certain impressions are made upon the mind,
analogous to those which a signet-ring makes on wax. The retentiveness
or slowness of the memory depends upon our physical condition. Ironically,
we retain old memories and forget the recent ones. Plato (Phaedrus
275 a) says that the use written characters is a hindrance to memory.
One we commit a thing to writing we cease to guard it in our memory. The
first art of memory was invented by Simonides. It is an assistance
to the memory if localities are sharply impressed upon the mind.
If a long speech has to be remembered it is best to remember piecemeal
so as not to overburden the mind. Symbols are highly efficacious
to assist the memory, since one idea suggests another. Origin of
people helps too. The mind should be kept alert by the sound of the
voice so that the memory may derive assistance from the double effort of
speaking and listening. But our voice should be subdued, rising scarcely
above a murmur. Learning by heart (like writing) depends on good
health, sound digestion, and freedom from worry. It is easier to
learn verse than prose, or prose that is artistically constructed.
Practice memory daily. We should begin with poetry, then oratory,
then ordinary speech and legal writings. A good memory will give
us credit for quickness of wit and will create the impression that our
words have not been prepared in advance but are the result of sudden inspiration.
However, it is safer to secure a good grasp of the facts themselves and
to leave ourselves free to speak as we will. Cyrus knew the names
of every one of his soldiers.
CHAPTER 3: Delivery (Pronuntiatio)
is often styled action (actio). But the first word is derived from the
voice, the second from the gesture. Action is a form of speech, a
form of physical eloquence. Cicero divides action into two elements:
voice and movement. The manner of our speech is important for an
audience to hear. All emotional appeals will fall flat unless they
are given the fire that voice, look, and the whole carriage of the body
can give them. When actors recite, their verse moves us more on the
stage than when read. A mediocre speech well delivered will be more
effective than the best speech without such accompaniment. Demosthenes
thought delivery was the most important part of oratory. It is indeed
the only virtue of oratory. Cicero also regards action as the supreme
element of oratory. Words, voice, and gesture combined create perfection.
Delivery is a natural impulse worthy of a manly speaker. We cannot
attain perfection unless nature is assisted by study. But nature
is assigned the first place, for it cannot help in the case of physical
uncouthness and a weak voice. All delivery is concerned with voice
and gesture. The one appears to the ear, the other to the eye, the
senses by which all emotion reaches the soul. But the voice holds
first place. The tone of the voice must be agreeable and not harsh.
Intonation may be intense or relaxed, high or low, and move in slow or
quick time. Training can improve the voice; neglect can impair it.
Physical robustness is essential (no feeble, shrill voices, please [the
voices associated with eunuchs, women, and invalids]). To be robust
one must take walks, rub down with oil, abstain from sex, have an easy
digestion, and partake of the simple life. The throat must be sound,
soft, and smooth. The voice can suffer from fatigue too, like the
body. Strengthen the voice by practice, by learning passages by heart
daily. The orator should not speak when dyspeptic, replete, or drunk,
or immediately after vomiting. A boy’s voice is weak and should not
be strained. Our utterances must be fluent, clear, pleasant, urbane,
and free from all traces of a rustic or a foreign accent. The delivery
is correct if the voice is sound (not dull, coarse, exaggerated, hard,
stiff, hoarse, thick, thin, hollow, sharp, feeble, soft, or effeminate).
The breath must not be too short or difficult to sustain or recover.
The delivery will be clear if the words are uttered in their entirety,
instead of being swallowed or clipped. Words must be given their
full phonetic value. Also, our language must be properly punctuated.
We should know when to pause and be momentarily suspended, and when to
come to a full stop. Stops vary in length depending on whether they
mark the conclusion of a phrase or a sentence. It is at times necessary
to take breath without any perceptible pause. Correctness of punctuation
may seem to be but a trivial merit, but without it all the other merits
of oratory are nothing worth. Delivery will be ornate when a voice
is easy, strong, rich, flexible, firm sweet, enduring, resonant, pure,
carrying far and penetrating the ear. The voice must be easily managed
and possess all the necessary inflexions and modulations. It must
have strong lungs to sustain it, and ample breathing power. A deep
bass (too full) or treble voice (too thin) are unsuited to oratory.
Intermediate notes are better, for they can be raised when we speak with
energy, and lowered when we adopt a more subdued tone. The first
essential of a good delivery is evenness. But there should be a variety
of tone. We must avoid what the Greeks call monotony. We must
adapt the voice to suit the nature of our subject. We may vary the
tone as we move from the Exordium to the Statement of the Facts, the Peroration,
etc. We always speak our second sentence with less timidity. But
the voice must not be pressed beyond its powers. Excessive slowness
of speech is a sign of lack of readiness in invention. We must not
gasp for air or be precipitate in our speech. We must exercise our
breathing capacity to make it as great as possible. Don’t pant incessantly
or create hissing sounds (esp. for those without teeth). Don’t cough
of spit while speaking. Don’t spread your nearest bystanders with
phlegm. Don’t chant while speaking. Modify your voice: in flattery,
admission, apology, or question, the voice will be gentle and subdued.
If we advise, warn, promise, or console, the voice will be grave and dignified.
If we express fear or shame, our voice will be modest; muffled in appeals
to pity. In exposition of facts or conversation, the voice will be
even and pitched half-way between high and low, rising and falling according
to the demands of its theme.
Discussion of gesture which conforms to the
voice. We indicate our will with gestures of the hands or noddings
of our head. Signs are the language of the dumb. The movements
of the dance are full of meaning and appeal to the emotions without any
aid from words. With our head we express consent, refusal, affirmation,
modesty, hesitation, wonder, and indignation. If our gestures and
expression of the face are out of harmony, our words will not carry conviction.
Gesture and movement are productive of grace. Demosthenes used to
practice his delivery in front of a mirror. To secure grace, the
head should be carried naturally and erect. A droop suggests humility.
If the head is thrown back it suggests arrogance. If inclined to
one side, languor. If the head is too stiff or rigid, it suggests
a rude and savage temper. We show aversion by turning away the face.
Don’t nod the head continuously, or toss it or roll it till our hair flies
free (this is suggestive of a fanatic).
The glance. By means of a glance we
express supplication, threats, flattery, sorrow, joy, pride, or submission.
It is on this that our audience hang. Our glance inspires the hearer
with affection or dislike. Our glances are more powerful than our
words. In comedy, the figure of the father has one eyebrow raised
and the other normal, to express excitement and calmness. The eyes
are most important because they reveal the temper of the mind. When
the eyes move they become intent, indifferent, proud, fierce, mild, or
angry. The eyes must never be fixed or protruding, languid or sluggish,
lifeless, lascivious, restless, nor swim with a moist voluptuous glance,
nor look aslant nor leer in amorous fashion, nor must they seem to promise
or ask a boon. Only a fool would keep one’s eyes closed or partially
closed while delivering a speech. The eyebrows: complete immobility
or lack of mobility would be faults, as well as the tendency to raise one
and lower the other, as in comedy. Blushes. The lips
and nostrils can be used to indicate derision, contempt, or loathing.
Censure is passed even on blowing the nose too often. It is an ugly
habit to protrude the lips. Don’t let them droop or talk on one side
of the mouth. It is unbecoming to lick or bite the lips often.
The neck must be straight, not stiff or bent backward. Contracting
and stretching the throat are unbecoming. It is unbecoming to raise
or contract the shoulders, for it shortens the neck and produces a mean
and servile gesture.
Becoming gestures: when talking, extend the
arm with shoulders thrown back and open the fingers of the hand as the
hand moves forward. The arm should be thrown out in a stately sidelong
sweep. The hands are almost as expressive as words. We use
our hands to demand, promise, summon, dismiss, threaten, supplicate, express
aversion or fear, question, or deny. We also use them to express
joy, sorrow, hesitation, confession, penitence, measure, quantity, number,
and time. They have the power to excite and prohibit, to express
approval, wonder, and shame. They take the place of adverbs or pronouns
when we point at places and things. All peoples of all nations share
in common the universal language of the hands. A gesture common for
the exordium is to place the middle finger against the thumb and extending
the remaining three. We use the index finger in denunciations.
If lowered, it indicates affirmation or insistence.
Language possesses certain imperceptible stresses
to which the gestures of most speakers conform. The slower the delivery,
the greater its emotional power. The same applies to movements.
On the stage, young men, the old, soldiers, and married women walk sedately.
Slaves, maidservants, parasites, and fishermen are more lively in their
movements. The hand must not be raised above the level of the eyes
or lowered beneath that the breast. The hand should not be lifted
to the top of the head or lowered to the lower portions of the belly.
We should not protrude the chest or stomach. Such gesture is unsightly.
Slapping the thigh (OK) is a mark of indignation. Our feet: we need
to be careful about our gait. It is unsightly to stand with the right
foot advanced or to thrust forward the same foot and hand. When walking,
we should not turn our backs to the judges but walk diagonally. Sometimes
we can walk backwards and stamp our feet. Do not jerk the shoulders
to and fro. To cross over to the seats of our opponents borders on
impudence. Do not eat or drink while pleading. This shows contempt
for his profession and his audience.
How an orator dresses. The attire of
an orator comes under greater scrutiny than that of other men. It
should therefore be distinguished and manly, as it ought to be with all
men of position. But excessive care with regard to the cut of the
toga, the style of the shoes, or the arrangement of the hair can be as
reprehensible as excessive carelessness. The hand should not be overloaded
with rings. The most becoming gesture for the hand is to raise the
thumb and slightly curving the fingers. At the end of a speech, everything
is allowed. We may stream with sweat, show signs of fatigue, and
let our dress fall in careless disorder. Disheveled locks make an
additional appeal to the emotions.
The various portions of the speech are the
exordium, statement of facts, arguments, and peroration. In panegyrics
(except funerals), the delivery must be luxuriant, magnificent, and grand.
In funeral orations, or those dealing with the accused, the delivery should
be melancholy and subdued. When we speak in the senate, it will be
authoritative; when we address the people, dignified; when pleading in
private cases, restrained. Delivery should be conciliatory, persuasive,
and moving. A conciliatory effect is secured by charm of style and
by producing an impression of excellence of character, revealed by voice
and gesture. A persuasive effect is produced by the power of assertion.
We must reveal both confidence and firmness. The method of arousing
the emotions depends on our power to represent or imitate the passions.
It is a mistake to look at the ceiling or
rub the face.
A gentle delivery is most often used in an
exordium. Modesty works here, as well a quiet voice, a modest gesture,
a toga sitting well upon the shoulder, and a gentle motion of the sides
to right and left, accompanied by a corresponding movement of the eyes.
In the statement of facts, the voice should be colloquial but slightly
more emphatic, while there should be uniformity of tone. The proofs
require the utmost variety of delivery. We use a colloquial tone
but at times mimic or deride our opponents. Argument is livelier,
more energetic, and aggressive, and requires bold and rapid gestures.
Some arguments require more energy. Digressions are characterized
by gentleness, calm, and placidity, for subjects lying outside the main
question in dispute demand a less combative tone. The peroration,
if it involves a recapitulation, requires an even utterance of short, clear-cut
clauses. If it is meant to move the judges, it will require various
qualities already discussed. Our delivery must be adapted to our
matter and conform to our actual words. What is becoming is the main
consideration in delivery, for different methods will often suit different
speakers. Every man must know his own peculiarities and must consult
the general rules of technique and his own nature as well with a view to
forming his delivery.
END OF BOOK ELEVEN
INSTITUTIO ORATORIA:
BOOK 12:
INTRODUCTION: The perfect
orator must be a good man skilled in speaking. This is essential,
that he be a good man. No man can be an orator unless he is a good
man. A bad man is necessarily a fool. A fool will never become
an orator. The mind that finds leisure for the study of the noblest
tasks must first be free from vice. It is impossible for the same
mind to harbor good and evil thoughts. An evil mind is preoccupied,
distracted, rent and torn by varied passions. An evil man is full
of anxiety, remorse, and fear. Simplicity of life is essential if
we are to be able to endure the toil entailed by study. What can
we hope to get from lust or luxury? Oratory is in the main
concerned with the treatment of what is just and honorable. Can a
bad and unjust man speak on such themes as the dignity of the subject demands?
The bad man and the perfect orator can never be identical. The good
man will no doubt more often say what is true and honorable. But
even if an orator’s duty obliges him to make statements which are false,
his words are still certain to carry greater weight with the audience.
But bad men, even when they tell the truth, fail to win belief, and an
advocate to a case of this nature serves as an indication of the badness
of the case. And yet, even Demosthenes and Cicero were considered
bad men. In Quintilian’s estimation, they were great men deserving
of our veneration, but they did not attain the highest perfection of man’s
nature. Cicero was a perfect orator, but he never claimed to be the
perfect sage. The advocate who is called to defend the accused must
be a man of honor which greed cannot corrupt, influence seduce, or fear
dismay. The good will never be at a loss for honorable words or fail
to find matter full of virtue for utterance, since among his virtues practical
wisdom will be one. If honor dictates his words, eloquence will be
found therein. Pursue virtue and eloquence in the hope of attaining
perfection. If our powers are inadequate to the task, we would still
be better off for our efforts. Eloquence cannot be combined with
vice. But at times we need to defend falsehood and even injustice,
so as to know the enemy better. It is in the interests of the commonwealth
that guilty persons should be acquitted rather than punished, if it is
possible to convert them to a better state of mind, a possibility that
is generally conceded. If a skilful commander without whose aid the
state cannot hope to crush its enemies is laboring under a charge which
is obviously true, the common interest should irresistibly summon the orator
to defend him. This will not make the perfect orator a bad man.
There are countless elements which are common to both good cases and bad.
Virtue is in part derived from certain natural impulses but requires to
be perfected by instruction. The orator must above all things devote
his attention to the formation of moral character and must acquire a complete
knowledge of all that is just and honorable. No one will achieve
sufficient skill even in speaking unless he makes a thorough study of all
the workings of nature and forms his character on the precepts of philosophy
and the dictates of reason. For a considerable time, the instructors
of morals and of eloquence were identical. The perfect orator should
be a wise man in the Roman sense, that is, one who reveals himself as a
true statesman, not in the discussions of the study, but in the actual
practice and experience of life. The perfect orator must read authors
who have discoursed on the nature of virtue. The perfect orator must
have a knowledge of things human and divine. Philosophy falls into
three divisions: physics, ethics, and dialectic. Of these, dialectic
is of great use to the orator. However, one should not employ dialectic
with minute attention when pleading a case in court since he orator’s task
is not merely to instruct but to move and delight an audience. For
this, an orator needs strength, impetuosity, and grace. Ethics, of
course, is entirely related to the orator, since he deals with equity,
virtue, and honor. Physics includes ethics. An orator should
have ample knowledge. The orator should be eclectic in his philosophical
preferences. An orator, besides philosophy, must know history.
CHAPTER 3: an orator must also
know civil law, and the custom and religion of the state in whose life
he is to bear his part.
CHAPTER 4: An orator should know
many examples. This is what gives old age authority: knowledge of
examples.
CHAPTER 5: The orator should
have a store of words and figures, power of imagination, skill in arrangement,
retentiveness of memory, and grace of delivery. He should avoid the
following vices: arrogance, temerity, impudence, presumption. He
should uphold the following virtues: loftiness of soul, constancy, confidence,
courage, art, study, proficiency, even modesty. But excess of modesty
is just fear deterring the soul from doing what is its duty to do.
The best cure for this excess of modesty is confidence. Also, the
natural instruments can be improved by care such as voice, lungs, and grace
of carriage and movement.
CHAPTER 6: The orator should
begin to plead when he is strong enough to do
so. Practice without theory is more useful than theory without
practice. It is only when theory and practice are brought into a
perfect harmony that the orator reaps the reward of all his study.
CHAPTER 7: A good man will prefer
defense to prosecution, but he should not refuse to call any man to render
an account of his way of life. But his passion should be to correct
vice and reform morals, not to secure the punishment of the guilty.
Fear is the only means of restraining those who cannot be led to better
ways by the voice of reason. But a good orator should not defend
all (like, e.g., pirates). He should be influenced (to take a case)
by the (virtuous) character of the litigants themselves. An orator
should not wittingly defend injustice. It is just and necessary that
an orator should be paid, but he should not seek to make more money than
is sufficient for his needs. Gratitude is the business of the debtor.
CHAPTER 8: Many clients lie.
Hence, question them to find out the truth. A client should be subjected
to a hostile cross-examination. Witnesses feel envy of superiors,
hate towards equals, and contempt towards inferiors.
CHAPTER 9: In the actual pleading
of a case, an orator should not desire to win applause to the neglect of
the interests of the actual case.
CHAPTER 10: What kind of
style to be used remains to be discussed. Quintilian first discusses
art and sculpture and discusses how the sundry artists differ in technique.
It is the same with oratory. The “simple” (early) orators who lacked
polish were Laelius, Africanus, Cato, the Gracchi. The “intermediate”
style orators are Lucius Crassus, Quintus Horteensius, Caesar, Caelius,
Calidius, Pollio, Messala, Calvus, Brutus, Sulpicius, Cassius, Seneca,
Africanus, Afer, Crispus, Trachalus, Secundus, and Cicero (although in
this last case his enemies attacked him for being bombastic, Asiatic, redundant,
repetitive, overly witty, sensuous, extravagant, and almost effeminate
in his rhythms). What is the difference between the Attic and the
Asiatic styles? The first are concise and healthy, tasteful and restrained;
the latter empty and inflated, full of superfluous matter and unrestrained.
But there is an intermediate style, the Rhodian. Latin eloquence
closely resembles Greek eloquence in invention, arrangement, and judgment,
but not in elocution, since Latin is allegedly harsher than Greek.
But since Roman elocution cannot be delicate, let it be stronger.
If the Greeks are subtle, the Romans will prevail by weight; if the Greeks
are more precise, the Romans will have fullness of expression. Romans
can also delight and move an audience, unlike the Greeks. But the
Greeks are better at comedy. The minds of an uneducated audience
require to be moved and led. There is no difference between writing
and speaking well. An orator should always speak as he writes.
There are three styles of speaking (all of the correct): 1) the plain (based
on acumen, which is good for instructing [this is the style to be used
for to state our facts and advance our proofs]), 2) the grand and forcible
(which is forceful, and good for moving [amplification and hyperbole may
be used to raise the dead and bring down the gods] and to inspire anger
and pity, as in a peroration), and 3) the intermediate or florid (which
is gentle, and good for charming and conciliating an audience [this style
will have metaphors and figures, will introduce digressions, and will be
neat in rhythms and flow]). An orator will use all styles as circumstances
may demand, and the choice will be determined by the case. An orator
will not maintain the same tone throughout the exordium, statement of fact,
arguments, digression, and peroration. But observe the mean, be manly
and imaginative. Be great but not extravagant; sublime, not bombastic;
bold, not rash; severe, not gloomy; grave, not slow; rich, not luxuriant;
pleasing, not effeminate; grand, not grandiose. The mean is safest.
CHAPTER 11: The orator depends
not merely on his knowledge, which increases with the years, but on his
voice, lungs, and powers of endurance. The orator should sound the
retreat and seek harbor while his ship is yet intact. For the fruits
of his studies will not be lessened by retirement. What can be more
honorable than to teach that which you know surpassingly well? The
theory of speaking does not demand many years for its acquisition.
The rest depends entirely on practice. Even though we cannot hope
to surpass the great, it is still a high honor to follow in their footsteps.
END OF BOOK TWELVE
END OF INSTITUTIO ORATORIA
|