 Book 6, Chapter 3, Part 2 of On the Education of an Orator by Quintilian, translated by H. E. Butler. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. We may note, therefore, that jests which turn on the meaning of things are at once more pointed and more elegant. In such cases, resemblances between things produce the best effects, more especially if we refer to something of an inferior or more trivial nature, as in the jests of which our forefathers were so fond, when they called lentilus spinther andcipiocerapio. But such jests may be drawn not merely from the names of men, but from animals as well. For example, when I was a boy, Junius Bassus, one of the wittiest of men, was nicknamed the White Ass, and Sarmentus compared Messius Caesarus to a wild horse. The comparison may also be drawn from inanimate objects. For example, Publius Blasius called a certain Julius who was dark, lean and bent, the iron buckle. This method of raising a laugh is much invoked today. Such resemblances may be put to the service of witt either openly or elusively. Of the latter type is the remark of Augustus, made to a soldier who showed signs of timidity in presenting a petition. Don't hold it out, as if you were giving a penny to an elephant. Some of these jests turn on similarity of meaning. Of this kind was the witticism uttered by Vatinius when he was prosecuted by Calvis. Vatinius was wiping his forehead with a white handkerchief, and his accuser called attention to the unseemliness of the act. Whereupon Vatinius replied, Though I am on my trial, I go on eating white bread all the same. Still more ingenious is the application of one thing to another, on the ground of some resemblance, that is to say, the adaptation to one thing of a circumstance which usually applies to something else, a type of jest which we may regard as being an ingenious form of fiction. For example, when ivory models of captured towns were carried in Caesar's triumphal procession, and a few days later wooden models of the same kind were carried at the triumph of Fabius Maximus, Chrysippus remarked that the latter were the cases for Caesar's ivory towns. And Pito said of a heavy-armed gladiator who was pursuing another armed with a net and failed to strike him. He wants to catch him alive. Resemblance and ambiguity may be used in conjunction. Galba, for example, said to a man who stood very much at his ease when playing ball, you stand as if you were one of Caesar's candidates. The ambiguity lies in the word stand, while the indifference shown by the player supplies the resemblance. I need to say no more on this form of humor, but the practice of combining different types of jest is very common, and those are best which are of this composite character. Thus a Roman knight was once drinking at the gains, and Augustus sent him the following message. If I want to die in, I go home. To which the other replied, yes, but you are not afraid of losing your seat. Contrary's fight rise to more than one kind of jest. For instance, the following jests made by Augustus and Galba differ in form. Augustus was engaged in dismissing an officer with dishonor from his service. The officer kept interrupting him with entreaties and said, what shall I say to my father? Augustus replied, tell him that I fell under your displeasure. Galba, when a friend asked him for the loan of a cloak, said, I cannot lend it to you as I am going to stay at home, the point being that the rain was pouring through the roof of his garret at the time. I will add a third example, although out of respect to its author I withhold his name. You are more lustful than a new nook, where we are surprised by the appearance of a word which is the very opposite of what we should have expected. Under the same heading, although it is quite different from any of the preceding, we must place the remark made by Marcus Vestinus when it was reported to him that a certain man was dead. Someday then he will seize the stink, was his reply. But I shall overload this book with illustrations and turn it into a common jest book if I continue to quote each jest that was made by our forefathers. All forms of argument afford equal opportunity for jests. Augustus, for example, employed definition when he said of two ballet dancers who were engaged in a contest, turn and turn about, as to who could make the most exquisite gestures, that one was a dancer and the other merely interrupted the dancing. Galba, on the other hand, made use of partition when he replied to a friend who asked him for a cloak. It is not raining and you don't need it, if it does rain I shall wear it myself. Similar material for jests is supplied by genus, species, property, difference, conjugates, adjuncts, antecedents, consequence, contraries, causes, effects and comparisons of things greater, equal or less, as it is also by all forms of trope. Are not a large number of jests made by means of hyperbole? Take for instance Cicero's remark about a man who was remarkable for his height. He bumped his head against the Fabian arch, or the remark made by Publius Appius about the family of the lentuli to the effect that since the children were always smaller than their parents, the race would perish by propagation. Again, what of irony? Is not even the most severe form of irony a kind of jest? Offer made a witty use of it when he replied to Didius Gallus, who, after making the utmost effort to secure a provincial government, complained on receiving the appointment that he had been forced into accepting. Well then, do something for your country's sake. Cicero also employed metaphor to serve his jest, when on receiving a report of uncertain authorship to the effect that Vatinius was dead, he remarked, well for the meantime I shall make use of the interest. He also employed allegory in the witticism that he was fond of making about Marcus Cilius, who was better at bringing charges than at defending his client against them, to the effect that he had a good right hand but a weak left. As an example of the use of emphasis, I may quote the jest of Aulus Vilius, that Tusius was killed by his sword falling upon him. Figures of thought, which the Greeks call schematadianoias, may be similarly employed, and some writers have classified jests under their various headings. For we ask questions, express doubts, make assertions, threaten, wish and speak in pity or in anger, and everything is laughable that is obviously a pretense. It is easy to make fun of folly, for folly is laughable in itself, but we may improve such jests by adding something of our own. Tidius Maximus put a foolish question to Campasius, who was leaving the theatre, when he asked him if he had been watching the play. No, replied Campasius, I was playing ball in the stalls, whereby he made the question seem even more foolish than it actually was. Refutation consists in denying, rebutting, defending or making light of a charge, and each of these affords scope for humor. Many as curious, for example, showed humor in the way in which he denied a charge that had been brought against him. His accuser had produced a canvas, in every scene of which he was depicted, either as naked and in prison, or as being restored to freedom by his friends, paying off his gambling debts. His only comment was, did I never win, then? Sometimes we rebut a charge openly, as Cicero did when he refuted the extravagant lies of Vivius Curius about his age. Well, then, he remarked, in the days when you and I used to practice declamation together, you were not even born. At other times we may rebut it by pretending to agree. Cicero, for example, when Fabia, the wife of Dallabella, asserted that her age was 30, remarked, that is true, for I have heard it for the last 20 years. Sometimes, too, it is effective to add something more biting in place of the charge which is denied, as was done by Junius Bassus when Demetia, the wife of Pacianus, complained that, by way of accusing her of meanness, he had alleged that she even sold old shoes. No, he replied. I never said anything of the sort. I said you bought them. A witty travesty of defense was once produced by a Roman knight who was charged by Augustus with having squandered his patrimony. I thought it was my own, he answered. As regards making light of a charge, there are two ways in which this may be done. We may throw cold water on the excessive boasts of our opponent, as was done by Gaius Caesar when Pomponius displayed a wound in his face which he had received in the Rebellion of Sulpicius in which he boasted he had received while fighting for Caesar. You should never look round, he retorted, when you are running away. Or we may do the same with some charge that is brought against us, as was done by Cicero when he remarked to those who approached him for marrying Poblilia, a young unwedded girl, when he was already over sixty. Well, she will be a woman tomorrow. Some style this type of jest consequent on the ground that both jests seem to follow so naturally and inevitably class it with the jest which Cicero levelled against Curio who always began his speeches by asking indulgence for his youth. You will find your exordium easier every day, he said. Another method of making light of a statement is to suggest a reason. Cicero employed this method against Vatinius. The latter was lame and wishing to make it seem that his health was improved said that he could now walk as much as two miles. Yes, said Cicero, for the days are longer. Again, Augustus, when the inhabitants of Taracco reported that a palm had sprung up on the altar dedicated to him, replied, that shows how often you can go fire upon it. Cassius Severus showed his wit by transferring a charge made against him to a different quarter. For, when he was reproached by the preter on the ground that his advocates had insulted Lucius Varus and Epicurean and a friend of Caesar, he replied, I do not know who they were who insulted him. I suppose they were Stoics. Of retorts there are a number of forms. The wittiest being that which is helped out by a certain verbal similarity as in the retort made by Chacalus to Suvelius. The latter had said, if that is the case, you go into exile, to which Chacalus replied, and if it is not the case, you go back into exile. Cassius Severus baffled an opponent who reproached him with the fact that Proculeus had forbidden him to enter his house by replying, do I ever go there? But one jest may also be defeated by another, for example, Augustus of blessed memory Vols gave him a golden necklace weighing a hundred pounds and dollabella speaking in jest, but with an eye to the success of his jest said, General, give me your necklace, replied. I had rather give you the crown of oak leaves. So, too, one lie may be defeated by another. Galba, for instance, when someone told him that he once bought a lempre five feet long for half a denarius in Sicily, replied. There's nothing extraordinary in that, for they grow to such a length in those seas that the fishermen tie them round their waists in the air of ropes. Then there is the opposite of denial, namely a feign confession, which likewise may show no small wit. Thus offer, when pleading against a freedman of Claudius Caesar, and when another freedman called out from the opposite side of the court, you are always speaking against Caesar's freedman, replied. Yes, but I make precious little headway. A similar trick is not to deny a charge, though it is obviously false, and affords good opportunity for an excellent reply. For example, when Philippus said to Catilus, why do you bark so? The latter replied, I see a thief. To make jokes against oneself is scarcely fit for any safe professed buffoons and is strongly to be disapproved in an orator. This form of jest has precisely the same varieties as those which we make against others, and therefore I pass it by, although it is not infrequently employed. On the other hand, scurrilous or brutal jests, although they may raise a laugh, are quite unworthy of a gentleman. I remember a jest of this kind being made by a certain man against an inferior who had spoken with some freedom against him. I will smack your head and bring an action against you for having such a hard school. In such cases, it is difficult to say whether the audience should laugh or be angry. There remains the prettiest of all forms of humor, namely the jest which depends for success on deceiving anticipations or taking another's words in a sense other than he intended. The unexpected element may be employed by the attacking party, as in the example cited by Cicero. What does this man lack save wealth and virtue? Or in the remark of Afer, for pleading causes he is most admirably dressed. Or it may be employed to meet a statement made by another, as it was by Cicero on hearing a false report on Vatinius' death. He had met one of the latter's freedmen and asked him, Is all well? The freedman answered, all is well. To which Cicero replied, Is he dead then? But the loudest laughter of all is produced by simulation and dissimulation, proceedings which differ but little and are almost identical. But the rest, simulation implies the pretense of having a certain opinion of one's own. Dissimulation consists in feigning that one does not understand someone else's meaning. Afer employed simulation when his opponents, in a certain case, kept saying that Solcina, who was an influential lady, knew all about the facts and he, pretending to believe that she was a man, said, Who is he? Cicero, on the other hand, employed dissimulation when Sextus' analysis gave evidence damaging to the client whom he was defending and the accuser kept pressing him with the question. Tell me, Marcus Tullius, what have you to say about Sextus' analysis? To which he replied by beginning to recite the sixth book of the Annals of Aeneas, which commences with the line, Who made the causes of vast war unfold? This kind of jest finds its most frequent opportunity in ambiguity, as, for example, when Casselius, being consulted by a client who said, I wish to divide my ship, replied, You will lose it, then. But there are also other ways of distorting the meaning. We may, for instance, give a serious statement a comparatively trivial sense, like the man who, when asked what he thought of a man who had been caught in the act of adultery, replied that he had been too slow in his movements. Of a similar nature are jests whose point lies in insinuation. Such was the reply which Cicero quotes as given to the man who complained that his wife had hung herself on a fig tree. I wish, said someone, you would give me a slip of that tree to plant. For there the meaning is obvious, though it is not expressed in so many words. Indeed, the essence of all wit lies in the distortion of the true and natural meaning of words. A perfect instance of this is when we misrepresent our own or another's opinions or assert some impossibility. Juba misrepresented another man's opinion when he replied to one complain of being bespattered by his horse. What, do you think I'm a centaur? Gaius Cassius misrepresented his own when he sat to a soldier whom he saw hurrying into battle without his sword. Shoe yourself a handyman with your fists, comrade. So too did Galba when served some fish that had been partially eaten the day before and had been placed on the table with the uneaten sides turned uppermost. We must lose no time, he said, for there are people under the table at work on the other side. Lastly, there is the jive that Cicero made against Curius which I have already cited, for it was clearly impossible that he should be still unborn at a time when he was already declaiming. There's also a form of misrepresentation which has its basis in irony of which a saying of Gaius Caesar will provide an example. A witness asserted that the accused attempted to wound him in the thighs and although it would have been easy to ask him why he attacked that portion of his body above all others, he merely remarked what else could he have done when you had a helmet and breastplate? Best of all, is it when pretense is met by pretense as was done in the following instance by the mischus offer. He had made his will long ago and one of his more recent friends in the hopes of securing a legacy if he could persuade him to change it produced a fictitious story and asked him whether he should advise a senior centurion who, being an old man had already made his will to revise it, to which offer replied don't do it, you will offend him. But the most agreeable of all jests are to which are good-humored and easily digested. Take another example from Afer noting that an ungrateful client avoided him in the forum he sent his servant to him to say I hope you are obliged to me for not having seen you. Again, when his steward being unable to account for certain sums of money kept saying I have not eaten it I live on bread and water, he replied Master Sparrow pay what you owe. Such jests the Greek style Hipoto etos or adapted to character. It is a pleasant form of jest to reproach a person with less than would be possible as Afer did when in answer to a candidate who said I have always shown my respect for your family, he replied although he might easily have denied the statement you are right, it is quite true. Sometimes it may be a good joke to speak of oneself while one may often raise a laugh by reproaching a person to his face with things that it would have been merely bad mannered to bring up against him behind his back. Of this kind was the remark made by Augustus when a soldier was making some and Marcianas, whom he suspected of intending to make some no less unfair request turned up at the same moment I will no more grant you a request comrade than I will that which Marcianas is just going to make. Apt quotation a verse may add to the effect of the wit the lines may be quoted in their entirety without alteration which is so easy a task that Ovid composed an entire book of his bad poets out of lines taken from the quatrains of Masser. Such a procedure is rendered especially attractive if it be seasoned by a spice of ambiguity as in the line which Cicero quoted against Larshis a shrewd and cunning fellow who was suspected of unfair dealing in a certain case had not Ulysses Larshis intervened or the words may be slightly altered as in the line quoted against the senator who although he had always in private times been regarded as an utter fool was after inheriting a nested asked to speak first on a motion what men call wisdom is a legacy where legacy is substituted for the original faculty or again we may invent verses resembling well-known lines a trick-style parody by the Greeks a neat application of proverbs may also be effective as when one man replies to another a worthless fellow who had fallen down and asked to be helped to his feet let someone pick you up who does not know you or we may show our culture by drawing on legend for a jest as Cicero did in the Trial of Varys when Hortensius said to him as he was examining a witness I do not understand these riddles you ought to then said Cicero as you have got things at home Hortensius had received a bronze things of great value as a present from Varys effects of mild absurdity are produced by the simulation of folly and would indeed themselves be foolish were they not fictitious take as an example the remark of the man who when people wondered why he had bought a stumpy candlestick said it will do for lunch there are also saying supposedly resembling absurdities which derive great point from their sheer irrelevance like the reply of Dullabella's slave who on being asked whether his master had advertised a sale of his property answered he has sold his house sometimes you may get out of a tight corner by giving a humorous explanation of your embarrassment as the man did who asked a witness who alleged that he had been moonded by the accused whether he had any scar to show for it the witness proceeded to show a huge scar on his thigh on which he remarked I wish he had wounded you in the side a happy use may also be made of insult Hispo for example when the accuser charged him with scandalous crimes replied you judge my character by your own while Fulvia is propinqueous when asked by the representative of the emperor whether the documents which he produced were autographs replied yes sir and the handwriting is genuine too such I have either learned from others or discovered from my own experience to be the commonest sources of humor but I must repeat that the number of ways in which one may speak wittily are of no less infinite variety than those in which one may speak seriously for they depend on persons, plays, time and chances which are numberless I have therefore touched on the topics of humor that I may not be taxed with having omitted them but with regard to my remarks on the actual practice and manner of jesting I venture to assert that they are absolutely indispensable to these the Missius Marces who wrote an elaborate treatise on urbanity adds several types of saying which are not laughable but rather elegant sayings with a certain charm and attraction of their own which are suitable even to speeches of the most serious kind they are characterized by a certain urbane witt but not of a kind to raise a laugh and as a matter of fact his work was not designed to deal with humor but with urbane witt a quality which he regards as peculiar to this city though it was not till a late period that it was understood in this sense after the word odibs had come to be accepted as indicating Rome without the addition of any proper noun he defines it as follows urbanity is a certain quality of language compressed into the limits of a brief saying and adapted to delight and movement to every kind of emotion but specially suitable to resistance or attack according as the person or circumstances concerned may demand but this definition if we accept the quality of brevity includes all the virtues of oratory for it is entirely concerned with persons and things to deal with which in appropriate language is nothing more nor less than the task of perfect eloquence why he insisted on brevity I do not know since in the same book he asserts that many speakers have revealed their urbanity in narrative and a little later he gives the following definition which is as he says based on the views expressed by Cato urbanity is the characteristic of a man who has produced many good sayings and replies and who whether in conversation in social or convivial gatherings in public speeches or under any other circumstances will speak with humor and appropriateness if any orator do this he will undoubtedly succeed in making his audience laugh but if we accept these definitions we shall have to allow the title of urbane to anything that is well said it was natural therefore that the author of this definition should classify such sayings under three heads serious, humorous and intermediate since all good sayings may be thus classified but in my opinion there are certain forms of humorous saying that may be regarded as not possessing sufficient urbanity for to my thinking urbanity involves the total absence of all that is incongruous coarse, unpolished and exotic whether in thought, language, voice or gesture and resides not so much in isolated sayings as in the whole complexion language, just as for the Greeks edicism meant that elegance of taste that was peculiar to Athens however, out of respect for the judgment of Marces, who was a man of the greatest learning I will add that he divides serious utterances into three classes the honorific, the derogatory and the intermediate as an example of the honorific he quotes the words uttered by Cicero in the Proligario reference to Caesar you who forget nothing save injuries the derogatory he illustrates by the words used by Cicero of Pompey and Caesar in a letter to Atticus I know whom to avoid but whom to follow I know not finally, he illustrates the intermediate which he calls apothecmatic as it is by the passage from Cicero's speech against Catiline where he says death can never be grievous to the brave nor premature for one who has been counsel nor a calamity to one that is truly wise all these are admirable sayings but what special title they have to be called urbane I do not see if it is not merely as I think the whole complexion of our oratory that deserves this title but if it is to be claimed for individual sayings as well I should give the name only to those sayings that are of the same general character as humorous sayings without actually being humorous I will give an illustration of what I mean it was said of a sinious polio who had equal gifts for being grave or gay that he was a man for all hours and of a pleader who was a fluent speaker extemporary that his ability was all in ready money of the same kind too was the remark recorded by Marces as having to be made by Pompey to Cicero when the latter expressed distrust of his party go over to Caesar and you will be afraid of me had this last remark been uttered on a less serious subject and with less serious purpose or had it not been uttered by Pompey himself we might have counted it among examples of humor I may also add the words used by Cicero in a letter to Cerelia to explain how he endured the supremacy of Caesar so patiently these ills must either be endured with the courage of Cato or the Stomach of Cicero for here again the word Stomach has a spice of humor in it I felt that I ought not to conceal my feelings on this point if I am wrong in my views I shall not at any rate lead my readers astray since I have stated the opposite view as well which they are at a liberty to adopt if they prefer it with regard to the principles to be observed in forensic debate it might seem that I should delay such instructions until I had finished dealing with all the details of continuous speaking since such debates come after the set speeches are done but since the art of debate turns on invention alone does not admit of arrangement has little need for the embellishments of style and makes no large demand on memory or delivery I think that it will not be out of place to deal with it here before I proceed to the second of the five parts since it is entirely dependent on the first other writers have admitted to deal with it on the ground perhaps that they thought the subject had been sufficiently covered by their precepts on other topics for debate consists in attack and defense on which enough has already been said since whatever is useful in a continuous speech for the purpose of proof must necessarily be of service in the brief and discontinuous form of oratory for we say the same things in debate though we say them in a different manner since debate consists of questions and replies a topic with which we have dealt fairly exhaustively in connection with the examination of witnesses but since this work is designed on an ample scale and since no one can be called a perfect orator unless he be an expert debater we must devote a little special attention to this accomplishment as well which as a matter of fact is not seldom the deciding factor in a forensic victory for just as the continuous speech is the predominant weapon in general questions of quality where the inquiry is as to whether an act was right or wrong and as a rule is adequate to clear up questions of definition and almost all those in which the facts are ascertained or inferred by conjecture from artificial proof so on the other hand those cases which are the most frequent of all and depend on proofs which are either entirely inartificial or of a composite character give rise to the most violent debates in fact I should say that there is no occasion when the advocate has to come to closer grips with his adversary for all the strongest points of the argument have to be sharply impressed on the memory of the judge while we have also to make good all the promises we may have made in the course of our speech and to refute the lies of our opponents there is no point of a trial where the judge's attention is keener and even mediocre speakers have not without some reason acquire the reputation of being good speakers simply by their excellence in debate some on the other hand think they have done their duty to their clients by an ostentations and fatigue in display of elaborate declamation in straight way march out of court attended by an applauding crowd and leave the desperate battle of debate to uneducated performers who often are of but humble origin as a result in private suits you will generally find that different counsel are employed to prove the case if the duties of advocacy are to be thus divided the latter duty must surely be accounted the more important of the two and it is a disgrace to oratory that inferior advocates should be regarded as adequate to render the greater service to the litigants in public cases at any rate the actual pleader is cited by the usher as well as the other advocates for the bait the chief requisites are a quick and nimble understanding and a shrewd and ready judgment for there is no time to think the advocate must speak at once and return the blow almost before it has been dealt by his opponent consequently while it is most important for every portion of the case that the advocate should not merely have given a careful study to the whole case but that he should have it at his fingers ends when he comes to the debate it is absolutely necessary that he should possess a thorough acquaintance with all the persons instruments and circumstances of time and place involved otherwise he will often be reduced to silence and forced to give a hurry a descent to those who prompt him as to what he should say suggestions which are often perfectly fatuous owning to excessive zeal on the part of the prompter as a result it sometimes happens that we are put to the blush by too ready acceptance of the foolish suggestions of another moreover we have to deal with others beside these prompters who speak for our ear alone some go so far as to turn the debate into an open brawl for you may sometimes see several persons shouting angrily at the judge and telling him that the arguments suggested are contrary to the truth and calling his attention to the fact that some point which is prejudicial to the case has been deliberately passed over in silence consequently the skilled debater must be able to control his tendency to anger there is no passion that is a greater enemy to reason while it often leads an advocate right away from the point and forces him both to use gross and insulting language and to receive it and return occasionally it will even excite him to such an extent as to attack the judges moderation and sometimes even long-suffering is the better policy for the statements of our opponents have not merely to be refuted they are often best treated with contempt made light of or held up to ridicule methods which afford unique opportunity for the display of wit this injunction however applies only so long as the case is conducted with order and decency if on the other hand our opponents adopt turbulent methods we must put on a bold front and resist their impudence with courage for there are some advocates so brazen faced that they bluster and bellow at us interrupt us in the middle of a sentence and try to throw everything into confusion while then it would be wrong to pay them the compliment of imitation we must nonetheless repel their own slots with vigor by crushing their insolence and making frequent appeals to the judges or presiding magistrates to insist on the observance of the proper order of speaking the debate's task is not one that suits a meek temper or excessive modesty and we are apt to be misled because that which is really weakness is dignified in the name of honesty but the quality which is the most serviceable in debate is acumen which while it is not the result of art for natural gifts cannot be taught may nonetheless be improved by art in this connection the chief essential is never for a moment to lose sight either of the question at issue or the end which we have in view if we bear this in mind we must send to mere brawling nor waste the time allotted to the case by indulging in abuse while we shall rejoice if our adversary does so those who have given a careful study to the arguments that are likely to be produced by their opponents or the replies which may be made by themselves are almost always ready for the fray there is however a further device available which consists in some way introducing into the debate arguments deliberately concealed in our set speech it is a procedure which resembles a surprise attack or a sally from an ambush the occasion for its employment arises when there is some point to which it is difficult to improvise an answer though it would not be difficult to meet if time were allowed for consideration for solid and irrefutable arguments are best produced at once in the actual pleading in order that they may be repeated and treated at greater length I think I need hardly insist on the necessity for the avoidance in debate of mere violence and noise in such forms of pleasantry as are dear to the uneducated for unscrupulous violence although annoying to one's antagonist makes an unpleasant impression on the judge it is also bad policy to fight hard for points which you cannot prove for where defeat is inevitable it is wisest to yield since if there are a number of other points in dispute we shall find it easier to prove what remains while if there is only one point at issue surrender with a good grace who generally secures some mitigation of punishment for obstinacy in the defense of a suit more especially after detection is simply the commission of a fresh fault while the battle still rages the task of luring on our adversary when he has once committed himself to error and of forcing him to commit himself as deeply as possible even to the extent at times of being puffed up with extravagant hopes of success requires great prudence and skill it is therefore wise to conceal some of our weapons our opponents will often press their attack and stake everything on some imagined weakness of our own and will give fresh weight to our proves by the instancy with which they demand us to produce them it may even be expedient to yield ground which the enemy thinks advantageous to himself for, in grasping at the fancy advantage he may be forced to surrender some greater advantage at times too it may serve our purpose to give him a choice between two alternatives neither of which he can select without damage to his cause such a course is more effective in debate than in a set speech for the reason that in the letter we reply to ourselves while in the former our opponent replies and thereby delivers himself into our hands it is above all the mark of a shrewd debater to perceive what remarks impress the judge and what he rejects may often be detected from his looks and sometimes from some action or utterance arguments which help us must be pressed home while it will be wise to withdraw as gently as possible from such as are of no service we may take a lesson from doctors who continue or seize to administer remedies according as they note that they are received or rejected by the Stomach sometimes if we find difficulty in developing our point it is desirable to raise another question and to divert the attention of the judge to it if this be feasible for what can you do if you are unable to answer an argument save invent another to which your opponent can give no answer in most respects the rules to be observed in debate are as I have said identical with those for the cross examination of witnesses the only difference lying in the fact that the debate is a battle between advocates whereas cross examination is a fight between advocate and witness to practice the art of debate is however far easier for it is most profitable to agree with a fellow student on some subject real or fictitious and to take different sides debating it as would be done in the courts the same may also be done with the simpler class of questions I would further have an advocate realize the order in which his proofs should be presented to the judge the method to be followed is the same as in arguments the strongest should be placed first and last for those which are presented first dispose the judge to believe us and those which come last to decide in our favor Chapter 5 having dealt with these points to the best of my ability I should have had no hesitation in proceeding to discuss arrangement which is logically the next consideration did I not fear that since there are some who include judgment under the head of invention they might think that I had deliberately omitted all discussion of judgment although personally I regarded as so inextricably blend with and involved in every portion of this work that its influence extends even to single sentences or words and it is no more possible to teach it than it is to instruct the powers of taste and smell consequently all I can do is now and hereafter to show what should be done or avoided in each particular case with a view thereby to guide the judgment what use then is it for me to lay down general rules to the effect that we should not attempt impossibilities that we should avoid whatever contradicts our case or is common to both and shun all incorrectness or obscurity of style in all these cases it is common sense that must decide in common sense cannot be taught there is no great difference in my opinion between judgment and sagacity except that the former deals with evident facts while the latter is concerned with hidden facts where such as have not yet been discovered or still remain in doubt again judgment is more often than not a matter of certainty while sagacity is a form of reasoning from deep line premises which generally weighs and compares a number of arguments and in itself involves both invention and judgment but here again you must not expect me to lay down any general rules for sagacity depends on circumstances and will often find its scope in something preceding the pleading of the cause for instance in the prosecution of varies Cicero seems to have shown the highest sagacity in preferring to cut down the time available for his speech rather than allow the trial to be postponed to the following year when Quintus Hortensius was to be consul and again in the actual pleading sagacity holds the first and most important place for it is the duty of sagacity to decide what we should say and what we should pass by in silence or postpone whether it is better to deny an act or to defend it when we should employ an exhortium and on what lines it should be designed whether we should base our plea on law or equity and what is the best order to adopt while it must also decide on all the nuances of style and settle whether it is expedient to speak harshly gently or even with humility but I have already given advice on all these points as far as each occasion permitted and I shall continue to do the same in the subsequent portions of this work in the meantime however I will give a few instances to make my meaning clearer since it is not possible in my opinion to do so by laying down general rules we praise the Mostanese for his sagacity because when he urged a policy of war upon the Athenians after they had met with a series of reverses he pointed out that so far their action had been entirely irrational for they might still make amends for their negligence whereas if they had made no mistakes they would have had no ground for hopes of better success in the future again, since he feared to give offense if he taxed the people with lack of energy in defending the liberties of their country he preferred to praise their ancestors for their courageous policy thus he gained a ready hearing with the natural result that the pride which they felt in the heroic past made them repent of their own degenerate behavior if we turn to Cicero we shall find that one speech alone the Procluentio will suffice to provide a number of examples the difficulty is to know what special exhibition of sagacity to admire most in his speech his opening statement of the case by which he discredited the mother whose authority pressed so hardly on her son the fact that he preferred to throw the charge of having bribed the jury back upon his opponents rather than deny it on account of what he calls the notorious infamy of the verdict or his recourse, last of all to the support of the law in spite of the odious nature of the affair a method by which he would have set the judges against him but for the fact that he had already softened their feelings towards him or the skill which he shows in stating that he had adopted this discourse in spite of the protests of his client what again am I to select as an outstanding instance of his sagacity in the promilone the fact that he refrains from proceeding to his statement of facts until he has cleared the ground by disposing of the previous verdicts against the accused the manner in which he turns the odium of the attempted ambush against Claudius although as a matter of fact the encounter was a pure chance the way in which he at one and the same time praised the actual deed and showed that it was forced upon his client or the skill with which he avoided making Milo plead for consideration and undertook the role of suppliant himself it would be an endless task to quote all the instances of his sagacity how he discredited Cata how he put forward his own case in defense of Ligarius and saved Cornelius by his bold admission of the facts it is enough I think to say that there is nothing not merely an oratory but in all the tasks of life that is more important than sagacity and that without it all formal instruction is given in vain while prudence unsupported by learning will accomplish more than learning unsupported by prudence it is sagacity again that teaches us to adapt our speech to circumstances of time and place and to the persons with whom we are concerned but since this topic covers a wide field and is intimately connected with eloquence itself I shall reserve my treatment of it till I come to give instructions on the subject of appropriateness in speaking End of Chapter 5 End of On the Education Order by Quintilian Volume 2 translated by H.E. Butler