12. Such in the main are the views about proof
which I have either heard from others or learned by
experience. I would not venture to assert that this
is all there is to be said; indeed I would exhort
students to make further researches on the subject,
for I admit the possibilities of making further
discoveries. Still anything that may be discovered
will not differ greatly from what I have said here.
[p. 299]
I will now proceed to make a few remarks as to how
proofs should be employed.
[2]
It has generally been laid down that an argument
to be effective must be based on certainty; for it is
obviously impossible to prove what is doubtful by
what is no less doubtful. Still some things which are
adduced as proof require proof themselves. “You
killed your husband, for you were an adulteress.”1
Adultery must first be proved: once that is certain it
can be used as an argument to prove what is uncertain. “Your javelin was found in the body of the
murdered man.” He denies that it was his. If this
point is to serve as a proof, it must itself be proved.
It is,
[3]
however, necessary in this connection to point
out that there are no stronger proofs than those in
which uncertainty has been converted into certainty.
“You committed the murder, for your clothes were
stained with blood.” 'This argument is not so
strong if the accused admits that his clothes were
bloodstained as if the fact is proved against his
denial. For if he admits it, there are still a number
of ways in which the blood could have got on to his
clothes: if on the other hand he denies it, lie makes
his whole case turn on this point, and if his contention is disproved, he will he unable to make a
stand on any subsequent ground. For it will be
thought that he would never have told a lie in
denying the allegation, unless he had felt it a hopeless task to justify himself if he admitted it.
[4]
In insisting on our strongest arguments we must
take them singly, whereas our weaker arguments
should be massed together: for it is undesirable
that those arguments which are strong in themselves should have their force obscured by the
[p. 301]
surrounding matter, since it is important to show
their true nature: on the other hand arguments
which are naturally weak will receive mutual support
if grouped together.
[5]
Consequently arguments
which have no individual force on the ground
of strength will acquire force in virtue of their
number, since all tend to prove the same thing.
For instance, if one man is accused of having murdered another for the sake of his property, it may
be argued as follows: “You had expectations of
succeeding to the inheritance, which was moreover
very large: you were a poor man, and at the time
in question were specially hard pressed by your
creditors: you had also offended him whose heir
you were, and knew that he intended to alter his
will.” These arguments are trivial and commonplace in detail, but their cumulative force is
damaging. They may not have the overwhelming
force of a thunderbolt, but they will have all the
destructive force of hail.
[6]
There are certain arguments, which must not
merely be stated, but supported as well. If we say,
“The motive for the crime was greed,” we must
show the force of greed as a motive: if we say that
anger was the motive, we must show the sway that
this passion has over the minds of men. Thus our
arguments will not only be strengthened, but will
be more ornamental as well, since we shall have
produced something more than a mere fleshless
skeleton. It also makes an enormous difference,
[7]
supposing that we allege hatred as the motive for a
crime, whether such hatred was due to envy, injury
or unlawful influence, whether it was recent or of
long standing, whether it was directed against an
[p. 303]
inferior, an equal or a superior, against a stranger
or a relative. There are special methods for the
treatment of all these arguments, and tile treatment
to be selected will depend on the interests of the
case which we are defending.
[8]
On tile other hand
we must not always burden the judge with all the
arguments we have discovered, since by so doing we
shall at once bore him and render him less inclined
to believe us. For he will hardly suppose those
proofs to be valid which we ourselves who produce
them regard as insufficient. On the other hand,
where the facts are fairly obvious, it would be
as foolish to argue about them as to bring some
artificial light into broad sunlight.
[9]
To these proof's some authorities would add those
which they call pathetic or emotional. Aristotle2
indeed holds that the strongest argument in support
of a speaker is that he is a good man. This no
doubt is the best support, but to seem good is also
of value, though the semblance is but a bad second
to the reality.
[10]
Of this nature is the noble defence
of Scaurus. “Quintus Varius of Sucro asserts that
Aemilius Scaurus has betrayed the interests of the
Roman people: Aemilius Scaurus denies it.” A
similar defence is said to have been employed by
Iphicrates3 : he asked Aristophon who was accusing
him on a similar charge of treason whether lie
would consent to betray his country for a bribe:
when Aristophon replied in the negative, he continued, “Have I then done what you would have
refused to do?”
[11]
We must however take the
character of the judge into consideration and seek
out such arguments as will appeal to him. I have
already spoken of this in the rules which I laid
[p. 305]
down for the exordium and for deliberative oratory.4
[12]
Another form of proof is provided by asseveration
as in “I did this,” “You told me this,” or “O
outrageous crime!” and the like. Every pleading
should contain some such asseverations; if it does
not, the loss will be considerable. Still asseverations must not be regarded as supports of the first
importance, since they can be produced by either
party in the same case with the same emphasis.
[13]
A more forcible kind of proof is that drawn
from character and supported by some plausible
reason, as for instance, “It is not likely that a
wounded man or one who has lost his son would
accuse anyone who is not guilty, since if he accused
an innocent man, he would free the real offender
from all risk of punishment.” It is from such
arguments that fathers seek support when pleading
against their sons or one relative against another.
[14]
The further question has been raised as to whether
the strongest arguments should be placed first, to
take possession of the judge's mind, or last, to leave
an impression on it; or whether they should be
divided between the commencement and close of the
proof, adopting the Homeric disposition of placing
the weakest in the centre of the column,5 so that
they may derive strength from their neighbours.
But in the disposition of our arguments we must be
guided by the interests of the individual case: there
is only one exception to this general rule in my
opinion, namely, that we should avoid descending
from the strongest proofs to the weakest.
[15]
I have been content to give a brief outline of my
views concerning these points, and have put them
forward in such a way as to show as clearly as was in
[p. 307]
my power the various topics and kinds of arguments.
Others have dealt with the subject at greater length,
preferring to deal with the whole subject of commonplaces and to show how each topic may be treated.
[16]
This seems to me unnecessary, since it is as a rule
obvious what should be said against the injurious
conduct or avarice of our opponents, or against a
hostile witness or powerful friends; to say everything on all these subjects is an endless task, as
endless in fact as if I were to attempt to lay down
rules for dealing with every dispute that can ever
occur and all the questions, arguments and opinions
thereby involved.
[17]
I do not venture to suppose that
I have pointed out all the circumstances that may
give rise to arguments, but I think that I have
done so in the majority of cases.
This was a task which required all the more careful
handling because the declamations, which we used
to employ as foils wherewith to practise for the duels
of the forum, have long since departed from the
true form of pleading and, owing to the fact that
they are composed solely with the design of giving
pleasure, have become flaccid and nerveless: indeed,
declaimers are guilty of exactly the same offence as
slave-dealers who castrate boys in order to increase
tile attractions of their beauty.
[18]
For just as the
slave-dealer regards strength and muscle, and above
all, the beard and other natural characteristics of
manhood as blemishes, and softens down all that
would be sturdy if allowed to grow, on the ground
that it is harsh and hard, even so we conceal the
manly form of eloquence and power of speaking
closely and forcibly by giving it a delicate complexion
of style and, so long as what we say is smooth and
[p. 309]
polished, are absolutely indifferent as to whether our
words have any power or no.
[19]
But I take Nature for
my guide and regard any man whatsoever as fairer
to view than a eunuch, nor can I believe that
Providence is ever so indifferent to what itself has
created as to allow weakness to be an excellence, nor
again can I think that the knife can render beautiful
that which, if produced in the natural course of
birth, would be regarded as a monster. A false
resemblance to the female sex may in itself delight
lust, if it will, but depravity of morals will never
acquire such ascendancy as to succeed in giving real
value to that to which it has succeeded in giving a
high price.
[20]
Consequently, although this debauched
eloquence (for I intend to speak with the utmost
frankness) may please modern audiences by its
effeminate and voluptuous charms, I absolutely refuse
to regard it as eloquence at all: for it retains not
the slightest trace of purity and virility in itself, not
to say of these qualities in the speaker.
[21]
When the
masters of sculpture and painting desired to carve
or paint forms of ideal beauty, they never fell into
the error of taking some Bagoas or Megabyzus6 as
models, but rightly selected the well-known Doryphorus,7 equally adapted either for the fields of war
or for the wrestling school, and other warlike and
athletic youths as types of physical beauty. Shall
we then, who are endeavouring to mould the ideal
orator, equip eloquence not with weapons but with
timbrels?
[22]
Consequently, let the youth whom we
are training devote himself, as far as in him lies, to
the imitation of truth and, in view of the fact that
the battles of the forum that await him are not few,
let him strive for victory in the schools and learn
[p. 311]
how to strike the vitals of his foe and protect his
own; and let his instructor insist on his doing this
above all else and reserve his special approval for the
mastery of this art. For though young men may be
lured to evil practices by praise, they still prefer to
be praised for what is right.
[23]
At the present time
the misfortune is that teachers more often than not
pass over what is necessary in silence, and utility is
not accounted one of the good qualities of eloquence.
But I have dealt with these points in another work,8
and shall often have to recur to them in this. I will
now return to my prescribed course.
1 cp. v. xi. 39.
2 Rhet. I. ii. 4.
3 At. Rhet. II. xxiii. 7.
4 IV. i. 17 sq., III. viii. 36 sq.
5 I. iv. 299.
6 Eunuchs.
7 The famous statue of Polycletus, regarded as the standard of manly beauty and proportion. Many copies have survived. Doryphorus= the Spearbearer.
8 Perhaps the lost de causis corruptae eloquentiae.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.