Institutio Oratoria

Quintilian

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

it is granted that they were adulterers.

But,

says the accuser,

you had no right to kill them, for you were an exile

had forfeited your civil rights.

The question is now one of law. On the other hand, if when the prosecution says,

You killed them,

the defence at once replies,

I did not,

the issue is raised without more delay.

v7-9 p.11

If it requires some search to discover where the dispute really begins, we must consider what constitutes the first question. The charge may be simple,

as for example

Rabirius killed Saturninus,

[*](cp. v. xi. 6. ) or complex like the following:

The offence committed by Lucius Varenus falls under the law of assassination for he procured the murder of Gaius Varenus, the wounding of Gnaeus Varenus and also the murder of Salarius.

[*](cp. v. xiii. 38. ) In the latter case there will be a number of propositions, a statement which also applies to civil suits as well. But in a complex case there may be a number of questions and bases : [*](cp. III. vi. 1 sq. ) for instance the accused may deny one fact, justify another and plead technical grounds to show [*](cp. III. vi. 23 and 52. ) that a third fact is not actionable. In such cases the pleader will have to consider what requires refutation and where that refutation should be placed.

As regards the prosecutor, I do not altogether disagree with Celsus, who, though no doubt in so doing he is following the practice of Cicero, insists with some vehemence on the view that the first place should be given to some strong argument, but that the strongest should be reserved to the end, while the weaker arguments should be placed in the middle, since the judge has to be moved at the beginning and forcibly impelled to a decision at the end. But with the defence it is different:

the strongest arguments as a rule require to be disposed of first, for fear that the judge through having his thoughts fixed on those arguments should regard the defence of other points with disfavour. Sometimes, however, this order is subject to alteration; for example if the minor arguments are obviously false and the refutation of the most serious argument a matter of some

v7-9 p.13

difficulty, we should attack it last of all, after discrediting the prosecution by demonstrating the falsity of the former, thereby disposing the judges to believe that all their arguments are equally unreliable. We shall, however, require to preface our remarks by explaining why we postpone dealing with the most serious charge, and by promising that we will deal with it at a later stage: otherwise the fact that we do not dispose of it at once may give the impression that we are afraid of it.