Institutio Oratoria

The whole of this book, therefore, will be devoted to arrangement, an art the acquisition of which would never have been such a rarity, had it been possible to lay down general rules which would suit all subjects. Put since cases in the courts have always presented an infinite variety, and will continue to do so, and since through all the centuries there has never been found one single case which was exactly like any other, the pleader must rely upon his sagacity, keep his eyes open, exercise his powers of invention and judgment and look to himself for advice. On the other hand, I do not deny that there are some points which are capable of demonstration and which accordingly I shall be careful not to pass by.

Division, as I have already stated, [*](v. x. 63.) means the division of a group of things into its component parts, partition is the separation of an individual whole into its elements, order the correct disposition

But we must remember that arrangement is generally dependent on expediency, and that the same question will not always be discussed first by both parties. An example of what I mean, to quote no others, is provided by Demosthenes and Aeschines, who adopt a different order in the trial of Ctesiphon, since the accuser begins by dealing with the legal question involved, in which he thought he had the advantage, whereas the advocate for the defence treats practically every other topic before coming to the question of law, with a view to preparing the judges for a consideration of the legal aspect of the case.

For it will often be expedient for the parties to place different points first; otherwise the pleading would always be determined by the good pleasure of the prosecution. Finally, in a case of mutual accusation, [*](cp. III. x. 4. ) where both parties have to defend themselves before accusing their antagonist, the order of everything must necessarily be different. I shall therefore set forth the method adopted by myself, about which I have never made any mystery: it is the result in part of instruction received from others, in part of my own reasoning.

When engaged in forensic disputes I made it a point to make myself familiar with every circumstance connected with the case. [*](cp iv. iv. 8; IV. ii. 28. ) (In the schools, of course, the facts of the case are definite and limited in number and are moreover set out before we begin to declaim: the Greeks call them themes, which Cicero [*](Top., 21. ) translates by propositions. ) When I

The first point which I set myself to determine (it is easy enough to state, but is still all-important) was what each party desired to establish and then what means he was likely to adopt to that end. My method was as follows. I considered what the prosecutor would say first: his point must either be admitted or controversial: if admitted, no question could arise in this connexion.

I therefore passed to the answer of the defence and considered it from the same standpoint: even there the point was sometimes one that was admitted. It was not until the parties ceased to agree that any question arose. 'fake for example the following case.

You killed a man.

Yes, I killed him.

which has to produce the motive for the homicide.

It is lawful,

to kill an adulterer with his paramour.

They were not adulterers,

They were,

it is granted that they were adulterers.

But,

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

had forfeited your civil rights.

You killed them,

I did not,

as for example

Rabirius killed Saturninus,

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.

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

Charges brought against the past life of the accused should generally be dealt with first in order that the judge may be well disposed to listen to our defence on that point on which lie has to give his verdict. But Cicero in the pro Vareno postpones his treatment of such charges to the conclusion, being guided not by the general rule, but by the special circumstances of the case.

When the accusation is simple, we must consider whether to give a single answer to the charge or several. In the former case, we must decide whether the question is one of fact or of law: if it is one of fact, we must deny the fact or justify it: if, on the other hand, it is a question of law, we must decide on what special point the dispute arises and whether the question turns on the letter or the intention of the law.

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.