Institutio Oratoria

Quintilian

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

The fifth place they assign to the conclusion which either merely makes the necessary inference from the preceding parts ( i.e.

Therefore the universe is governed by reason

) or after briefly bringing major and minor premise together adds what is deduced from them with the following result:

But if on the one hand things that are controlled by reason are better governed than things which are not and on the other nothing is better administered than the universe, then it follows that the universe is governed by reason.

As regards this part of the epicheireme I agree.

I have said that the epicheireme consists of three parts: its form is not however invariable. There is

v4-6 p.355

firstly the form in which the conclusion is identical with what has already been stated in the major premise.

The soul is immortal, since whatever derives its motion from itself is immortal. But the soul derives its motion from itself. Therefore the soul is immortal.

This process occurs not merely in individual arguments, but in whole cases, provided they are of a simple character, and also in questions. [*](See III. vi. 9, 10.)

For cases and questions always have first a major premise, such as

You have committed sacrilege,

Not everyone who has killed a man is guilty of murder.

Second comes a reason, which is stated at greater length in cases and questions than in separate arguments, while finally comes the conclusion in which as a rule they set forth the point they have proved either by enumeration of particulars or in the form of a hasty conclusion. In this type of epicheireme the major premise is doubtful, since it is still under investigation.

There is another form of conclusion which is not actually identical with the major premise, but has the same force

Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved into its elements is devoid of' feeling, and that which is devoid of feeling is nothing to us.

There is a third form in which the major premise and the conclusion are different.

All animate things are better than inanimate, but there is nothing better than the universe, wherefore the universe is animate.

It may be thought that in this case there is no real major premise, since it would be possible to state the reasoning in the following form:

The universe is animate, for all things animate are better than inanimate,

etcetera.

This major premise is either an admitted fact as in the last example or requires

v4-6 p.357

to be proved as in the following:

He who wishes to live a happy life, must be a philosopher

: for this is not an acknowledged truth, and the premises must be established before we can arrive at the conclusion. Sometimes again the minor premise is an admitted fact, as for instance,

But all men wish to live a happy life,

while sometimes it requires to be proved, as for example the statement quoted above,

That which is dissolved into its elements is devoid of feeling,

since it is doubtful whether the soul is immortal after its release from the body or only continues to exist for a time. Some call this a minor premise, some a reason.

There is no difference between the epicheireme and the 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. For if it were always possible to prove controversial points from admitted premises, the orator would have little to do in this connexion.

For what skill does it require to say,

The property is mine, for I am the only son of the deceased,

I am the sole heir, since possession of the testator's estate is given by the law of property in accordance with the terms of his will: the property therefore belongs to me

But when the reason given is itself disputable, we must establish the certainty of the premises by which we are proposing to prove what is uncertain. For example, if our opponent says

You are not his son

You are illegitimate

You are not his only son

; or, again,

You are not his heir

The will is invalid

You are not entitled to inherit

You have co-heirs,

we must prove the validity

v4-6 p.359

of the reason on which we base our claim that the property should be adjudicated to us.