Institutio Oratoria

Quintilian

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

There is also another type of conjectural case which, though it involves two questions, is different from cases of mutual accusation; such cases are concerned with rewards and may be illustrated by the following controversial theme.

A tyrant, suspecting that his physician had given him poison, tortured him and, since he persisted in denying that he had done so, sent for a second physician. The latter asserted that poison had been administered, but that he would provide an antidote; he gave him a draught: the tyrant drank it and died. Both physicians claim a reward for slaying the tyrant.
Now just as in cases of mutual accusation where each party shifts the guilt to his opponent, so in this
v7-9 p.63
case we compare the characters, motives, means, opportunities, instruments and evidence of the persons who claim the reward.

There is yet another type of case which, though not one of mutual accusation, is treated in the same way: I mean a case in which we enquire, without accusing anyone, which of two acts has taken place. For both parties make and defend their own statement of the case. Thus in the suit concerning the estate of Urbinia [*](cp. i. 11. and VII. ii. 4. ) the claimant says that Clusinius Figulus, the son of Urbinia, on the defeat of the army in which he was serving, fled and after various misfortunes, being even even kept in captivity by the king, at length returned to Italy and his own home in the Marrucine district, where he was recognised. To this Pollio replies that he had been a slave to two masters at Pisaurum, that he had practised medicine, and finally, after receiving his freedom, inserted himself into a gang of slaves who were for sale [*]( For another meaning of venalis, newly-bought, see VIII. ii. 8. ) and was at his own request purchased by himself.