Institutio Oratoria

Quintilian

Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria, Volume 1-4. Butler, Harold Edgeworth, translator. Cambridge, Mass; London: Harvard University Press, William Heinemann Ltd., 1920-1922.

Athenaeus laid down that there were four bases: the προτρεπτικὴ or παρορμητική, that is, the hortative, which is peculiar to deliberative themes; the συντελική [*](συντελική lit. = contributory. ) which is shown to be the conjectural, not so much from the name itself, but from what

v1-3 p.435

follows; the ὑπαλλακτική or definitive, for it consists in a change of terms. [*]( The defendant admits the act, but gives it a different name, e.g. theft, not sacrilege. ὑπαλλακτική = changing. ) ; and the juridical to which he gives the name employed by other Greek writers. [*](δικαιολογικός)

For, as I have said, there is a great variety in the names employed. There are some who, arguing from its meaning of change, hold that ὑπαλλακτική is the translative basis, which is concerned with competence. Others, Caecilius [*](Caec. fr. 49, Burkh.) and Theon for instance, hold that there are the same number of bases, but make them of a different kind, namely, those covered by the questions whether a thing is, what it is, of what kind it is and how great it is.

Aristotle [*]( Ar. Rhet. 1416 b : 1374 a . ) in his Rhetoric states that all enquiry turns on the questions whether a thing is, of what kind it is, how great it is, and of how many parts it consists. In one place however he recognises the force of definition as well, saying that certain points are defended on the following lines:—

I took it, but did not steal it.

I struck him, but did not commit an assault.

Cicero [*](de Inv. I. viii. 10. ) again in his Rhetorica makes the number of bases to be four, namely those concerned with fact, names, kinds, and legal action, that is to say conjecture is concerned with fact, definition with names, quality with kinds, and law with action: under this latter head of law he included questions of competence. But in another passage he treats [*](Part. Or. 31 and 38. ) legal questions as a species of action. Some writers have held that there are five bases:

the conjectural, definitive, qualitative, quantitative and relative. Theodorus, also, as I have said, [*](§ 36.) adopts the same number of general heads, whether a thing is, what it is, of what kind it is, how great it is, and to what it refers. The last he considers to be chiefly concerned with comparison, since better and worse, greater and less

v1-3 p.437

are meaningless terms unless referred to some standard.

But questions of relation, as I have already pointed out, enter also into translative questions, that is, questions of competence, since in cases such as

Has this man a right to bring an action?

Is it fitting that he should do such and such a thing, or against this man, or at this time, or in this manner?

For all these questions must be referred to a certain standard.

Others hold that there are six bases: conjecture or γένεσις, quality, particularity or ἰδιότης by which word they mean definition, quantity or ἀξία, comparison and competence, for which a new term has been found in μετάστασις I call it new when applied to a basis, for Hermagoras employs it to describe a species of juridical question.

Others think there are seven, while refusing to recognise competence, quantity or comparison, in place of which they substitute four legal bases, [*](See § 46.) completing the seven by the addition of those three which they call rational. [*](Conjectural, definitive, qualitative.)

Others again make eight by the addition of competence to the above-mentioned seven. Some on the other hand have introduced a fresh method of division, reserving the name of bases for the rational, and giving the name of questions to the legal, as I mentioned above, [*](§ 46.) since in the former the problem is concerned with facts, in the latter with the letter of the law. Some on the contrary reverse this nomenclature calling the legal questions bases and the rational grounds questions.

But others have thought that there are only three rational bases, covered by the questions whether a thing is, what it is, and of what kind it is? Hermagoras is alone in thinking that there are four, namely conjecture, particularity, competence, and quality: to the latter he

v1-3 p.439

appends the phrase κατὰ συμβεβηκός

according to its accidents,

illustrating his meaning by putting a case where it is enquired whether a man happen to be good or bad. He then subdivides quality into four species: first that which is concerned with things to he sought or avoided, which belongs to deliberative oratory:

secondly those concerned with persons, by which he indicates panegyric: thirdly the practical or pragmatic, which is concerned with things in general without reference to persons, and may be illustrated by questions such as whether he is free who is claimed as a slave and waiting the trial of his case, [*](assertio = a trial in which the question of a person's liberty is involved. When waiting trial, this person is described as in assertiolle. ) whether riches beget insolence, and whether a thing is just or good; lastly there is the juridical species, under which practically the same questions arise, but in relation to certain definite persons, as for instance when it is asked whether that particular man has done well or ill.

I am aware that another explanation is given by Cicero in the first book of his Rhetorica [*](de Inv. i. xi. 14. ) of the species known as practical, where he says that it is

the department under which we consider what is right according to civil usage and equity: this department is regarded by us as the special sphere of the lawyer.

But I have already mentioned [*](de Inv. i. xi. 14. ) what his opinion was about this particular work. The Rhetorica are simply a collection of school-notes on rhetoric which he worked up into this treatise while quite a young man. Such faults as they possess are due to his instructor. In the present instance he may have been influenced by the fact that the first examples given by Hermagoras of this species are drawn from legal questions, or by the fact that the Greeks call interpreters of the law πραγματικοί.

But for these early efforts Cicero

v1-3 p.441

substituted his splendid de Oratore and therefore cannot be blamed for giving false instruction. I will now return to Hermagoras. He was the first rhetorician to teach that there was a basis concerned with competence, although the elements of this doctrine are found in Aristotle, [*](Rhet. II. xv. 8. ) without however any mention of the name.

The legal questions were according to Hermagoras of five kinds. First the letter of the law and its intention; the names which he gives to these are κατὰ ῥητόν and ὑπεξαίρεσις, that is to say the letter of the law and the exceptions thereto: the first of these classes is found in all writers, but the term exception is less in use. The number is completed by the ratiocinative basis and those dealing with ambiguity and contradictory laws.

Albutius adopts this classification, but eliminates competence, including it under the juridical basis. Further he holds that in legal questions there is no ratiocinative basis. I know that those who are prepared to read ancient writers on rhetoric more carefully than I have, will be able to discover yet more on this subject, but I fear that I may have been too lengthy even in saying what I have said.