Institutio Oratoria

It need disturb no one that one law should originate two bases. The law is twofold, and therefore has the force of two laws. [*](101) To the son who desires to re-enter the family, the disinherited's first reply is,

Even though you are allowed to re-enter the family, I am still the heir.

Both the disinherited and the bastard will object,

You cannot re-enter the family, for our father did not die childless.

Again the bastard in his turn will urge that his father did not die childless, employing the same arguments that he had used in putting forward his claim that he ranked as a son; unless indeed he too has recourse to definition, and raises the question whether even bastards are not sons. Thus in one case we shall have either two special legal bases, namely the letter of the law and intention, with the syllogism and also definition, or those three [*](See § 82.) which are really the only bases strictly so called, conjecture as regards the letter of the law and intention, quality in the syllogism, [*](See § 88.) and definition, which needs no explanation.

Further every kind of case will contain a cause, a point for the decision of the judge, and a central argument. [*](For discussion of these technical terms see chap. xi.) For nothing can be said which does not contain a reason, something to which the decision of the judge is directed, and finally something which, more than aught else, contains the substance of the matter at issue. But as these vary in different cases and are as a rule explained by writers on judicial causes, I will postpone them to the appropriate portion of my work. For the present I shall follow the order which I prescribed by my division [*](Chaps. iii. and iv.) of causes into three classes.

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

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

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

But what problem is involved by the praise of Jupiter Capitolinus, a stock theme of the sacred Capitoline contest, [*]( The quinquennial contest in honour of Jupiter Capitolinus, founded by Domitian in 86. ) which is undoubtedly treated in regular rhetorical form?