Status theory (rhetoric)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Status or constitutio are the Latin terms for the Greek stasis . They come from the ancient legal eloquence and mean something like "the setting up", "the position" of a fighter.

The status theory is the rhetorical system of the possible questions in legal cases - mostly litigation speeches. In doing so, the legal starting point is examined which forms the starting point for prosecution or defense, i.e. H. the question from which the goal of the argument arises.

The founder of the doctrine of status was Hermagoras of Temnos (2nd century BC). In his writing Technai rhetorikai he differentiates between two large groups of objects of investigation ( quaestiones ) and within these two groups four types of questions:

  • Questions about the facts of the matter ( quaestiones rationales / logikaí )
  • Questions about the interpretation of laws and other documents ( quaestiones legales / nomikaí )
  1. Clarification of the question of the fact ( stochasmós, constitutio coniecturalis ): Did the act happen? Did the defendant really do the deed?
  2. Definition of the offense ( hóros, constitutio definitiva ): What exactly did the accused actually do? (e.g. murder or negligence)
  3. Ethical assessment of the act ( poiótes, constitutio generalis ): Is it a matter of self-defense, compulsion to command, murder of tyrants? Are there any extenuating circumstances?
  4. Procedural question, objections to the court ( metálepsis, constitutio translativa ): Is the procedure even permissible? Is the court competent? Is the judge biased?
  1. Text and Intention ( scriptum et voluntas ): The wording and meaning of a law are controversial.
  2. Contest of opposing laws ( contentio legum contrarium ): Two or more laws come into question in this case.
  3. Ambiguity ( ambiguitas ): The wording of a law is ambiguous.
  4. Conclusion ( collectio ): In the absence of a relevant law, may conclusions be drawn from other laws?

Lausberg translates status "appropriately to the picture with 'fighting situation' at the beginning of ' actio '" (§ 115).

  1. The strongest position is the rejection of the first question: "It wasn't me" or "Nobody was killed here at all."
  2. The next position admits the act, but denies the applicability of the law to the specific case. "I killed him, but it wasn't murder, it was an accident."
  3. The most honorable defense also admits the act, but declares that it was rightly done: "I killed him because he wanted to kill my family right now."
  4. The last and weakest defense leaves the question of the fact open, but denies the jurisdiction of the tribunal: “Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone!” Or “We could discuss this for a long time and would never end. "

The status can change in the course of a negotiation. A defense with the argument of legality (status tertius) can be questioned by the prosecutor himself (“The victim was a harmless fellow citizen”), whereby the status primus occurs and the new question of the offense must first be clarified.

history

The writing of Hermagoras became the basis of rhetorical instruction in republican Rome because of its clear layout . Here Cicero (106–43 BC) took over the teaching in De inventione and Quintilian (35–96 AD) in his Institutio oratoria .

Hermogenes of Tarsus (2nd century AD) and Zenon of Athens differentiate between 13 statuses that no longer apply to oratorial practice - the forum had lost its importance during the imperial era - but exclusively to the fictitious issues in the lecture halls of rhetoric schools were tailored. Sulpicius Victor (around 400 AD) from Gaul edited the rhetorical handbook of Zenon in his Institutiones oratoriae and also distinguished 13 statuses . The Ars Rhetorica of C. Chirius Fortunatianus from the 4th century adopted the status theory of Hermogenes of Tarsus.

literature