Institutio Oratoria

Quintilian

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

We shall do this by considering what the law is which gives rise to the dispute, that is to say under what law the court has been constituted. In scholastic themes, for example, the laws are sometimes stated merely with a view to connecting the arguments of the cases. Take the following case:

A father who recognises a son whom he has exposed in infancy, shall only take him back after paying for his keep. A disobedient son may be disinherited.
v7-9 p.15
A man who took back a son whom he had exposed orders him to marry a wealthy neighbour. The son desires to marry the daughter of the poor man who brought him up.

The law about children who have been exposed affords scope for emotional treatment, while the decision of the court turns on the law of disinheritance. [*]( The first law is strictly irrelevant to the case, but can be employed by the son to stir the jury's emotions. He owes a deep debt of gratitude to his poor foster-father, and his love for his foster-sister is based on life-long acquaintance. The father, on the other hand, will urge that his payment for his son's nurture has discharged the debt due to the poor man and that his son is once more under the patria potestas. The introduction of the first law thus enables the pleader to introduce fresh arguments and is thus said to link up the arguments. ) On the other hand, a question may turn on more laws than one, as in cases of ἀντινομία or contradictory laws. [*](cp. III. vi. 46. and vii. ) It is by consideration of such points as these that we shall be able to determine the point of law out of which the dispute arises.

As an example of complex defence I may quote the pro Rabirio:

If he had killed him, he would have been justified in so doing: but he did not kill him.

But when we advance a number of points in answer to a single proposition, we must first of all consider everything that can be said on the subject, and then decide which out of these points it is expedient to select and where to put them forward. My views on this subject are not identical with those which I admitted a little while ago [*](§ 10.) on the subject of propositions and on that of arguments in the section which I devoted to proofs, [*](v. xii. 14.) to the effect that we may sometimes begin with the strongest.

For when we are defending, there should always be an increase of force in the treatment of questions and we should proceed from the weaker to the stronger, whether the points we raise are of the same or of a different character.

Questions of law will often arise from one ground of dispute after another, whereas questions of fact are always concerned with one point; [*]( This statement amounts to no more than that there may be infinite complication where questions of law are concerned, but questions of fact are simple and there is but one point to be considered, was such and such an act committed? )

v7-9 p.17

but the order to be followed is the same in both cases. We must, however, deal first with points that differ in character. In such cases the weakest should always be handled first, for the reason that there are occasions when after discussing a question we make a concession or present of it to our opponents: for we cannot pass on to others without dropping those which come first.

This should be done in such a way as to give the impression not that we regard the points as desperate, but that we have deliberately dropped them because we can prove our case without them. Suppose that the agent for a certain person claims the interest on a loan as due under an inheritance. The question may here arise whether such a claim can be made by an agent. [*](See IV. iv. 6.) Assume that, after discussing the question,