Institutio Oratoria

The best kind of preparatory remarks are those which cannot be recognised as such: Cicero, [*](pro Mil. x. 28. ) for instance, is extraordinarily happy in the way he mentions in advance everything that shows that Clodius lay in wait for Milo and not Milo for Clodius. The most effective stroke of all is his cunning feint of simplicity:

Milo, on the other hand, having been in the senate all day till the house rose, went home, changed his shoes and clothes, and waited for a short time, while his wife was getting ready, as is the way with women.

What an absence of haste and premeditation this gives to Milo's proceedings. And the great orator secures this effect not merely by producing facts which indicate the slow and tardy nature of Milo's departure, but by the use of the ordinary language of everyday speech and a careful concealment of his art. Had he spoken otherwise, his words would by their very sound have warned the judge to keep an eye on the advocate.

The majority of readers regard this passage as lacking in distinction, but this very fact merely serves

If a student requires to be told that we must avoid contradiction and inconsistency in our statement of facts, it will be vain to attempt to instruct him on the remaining points, although some writers of text-books produce this precept as if it were a mystery only discovered by their own personal penetration.

To these three qualities some add magnificence of diction or μεγαλοπρέπεια as they call it this quality is not, however, suitable to all cases. For what place has language that rises above the ordinary level in the majority of private suits dealing with loans, letting and hiring and interdicts? Nor yet is it always expedient, as may be inferred from the passage just cited from the pro Milone.

We must remember, too, that there are many cases in which confession, excuse or modification are necessary with regard to our statements: and magnificence is a quality wholly out of keeping with such procedure. Magnificence of diction is therefore no more specially appropriate to the statement of facts than language calculated to excite pity or hatred, or characterised by dignity, charm or wit. Each of these qualities is admirable in its proper place, but none can be regarded as the peculiar and inalienable property of this portion of the speech.

Theodectes asserts that the statement of facts should not merely be magnificent, but attractive in style. But this quality again though suitable enough to the statement of facts, is equally so in other portions of the speech. There are others

And I will not conceal the fact that Cicero [*](Top. xxvi. 97. ) himself holds that more qualities are required. For in addition to demanding that it should be plain, brief and credible, he would have it clear, characteristic and worthy of the occasion. But everything in a speech should be characteristic and worthy of the occasion as far as possible. Palpalility, as far as I understand the term, is no doubt a great virtue, when a truth requires not merely to be told, but to some extent obtruded, still it may be included under lucidity. Some, however, regard this quality as actually being injurious at times, on the ground that in certain cases it is desirable to obscure the truth. This contention is, however, absurd.

For he who desires to obscure the situation, will state what is false in lieu of the truth, but must still strive to secure an appearance of palpability for the facts which he narrates.

A chance turn of the discussion has led us to a difficult type of statement of facts. I will therefore proceed to speak of those in which the facts are against us. Under such circumstances some have held that we should omit the statement of facts altogether. Nothing can be more easy, except perhaps to throw up the case altogether. But suppose you undertake a case of this kind with some good reason. It is surely the worst art to admit the badness of the case by keeping silence. We can hardly hope that the judge will be so dense as to give a decision in favour of a case which he knows we were unwilling to place before him.

I do not of course deny that just as there may be some points which you should deny in your statement

He replied as he thought fit.

We must therefore distinguish between case and case. In those where there is no question of guilt but only of law, we may, even though the facts he against us, admit the truth.

He took money from the temple, but it was private property, and therefore he is not guilty of sacrilege. He abducted a maiden, but the father [*]( The victim can claim either that the ravisher should marry her or be put to death. Her father cannot however make either of these demands on her behalf. ) can have no option as to his fate. He assaulted a freeborn boy, and the latter hanged himself, but that is no reason for the author of the assault to be awarded capital punishment as having caused his death; he will instead pay 10,000 sesterces, the fine imposed by law for such a crime.

In some cases, too, we may mitigate a bad impression by words which avoid the appearance of a statement of facts. We may say, for instance,

He did not, as our opponent asserts, enter the temple with the deliberate intention of theft nor seek a favourable occasion for the purpose, but was led astray by the opportunity, the absence of custodians, and the sight of the money (and money has always an undue influence on the mind of man), and so yielded to temptation. What does that matter? He committed the offence and is a thief. It is

v4-6 p.89

useless to defend an act to the punishment of which we can raise no objection.

Again we may sometimes go near condemning our client ourselves.

Do you wish me to say that you were under the influence of wine? that you made a mistake? that the darkness deceived you? That may be true. But still you committed an assault on a freeborn boy; pay your 10,000 sesterces.

All the evidence points to the guilt of three sons who had conspired against their father. After drawing lots they entered their father's bedroom while he slept, one following the other in the order predetermined and each armed with a sword. None of them had the heart to kill him, he woke and they confessed all.

If, however, the father, who has divided his estate among them and is defending them when accused of parricide, pleads as follows:

As regards my defence against the law, it suffices to point out, that these young men are charged with parricide in spite of the fact that their father still lives and is actually appearing on behalf of his children. What need is there for me to set forth the facts as they occurred since the law does not apply to them? But if you desire me to confess my own guilt in the matter, I was a hard father to them and watched over my estate, which would have been better managed by them, with miserly tenacity.

And if he then should add,

they were spurred to attempt the crime by others who had more indulgent fathers; but their real feelings towards their father have been proved by the result; they could not bring themselves to

v4-6 p.91

kill him. It would have been quite unnecessary for them to take an oath to kill him, if they had really had the heart to do the deed, while the only explanation of their drawing lots is that each of them wished to avoid the commission of the crime.

But if the question is whether an act has been committed or what its nature may be, even though everything be against us, how can we avoid a statement of facts without gross neglect of our case? The accuser has made a statement of facts facts, and has done so not merely in such a way as to indicate what was done, but has added such comments as might excite strong prejudice against us and made the facts seem worse than they are by the language which he has used. On the top of this have come the proofs, while the peroration has kindled the indignation of the judges and left them full of anger against us.