“But finally[34] to bring the orator whom we are forming to actual cases ... we will teach him first—laugh if you will—to know them thoroughly and deeply. This is not taught in school; for the cases assigned to boys are easy. For example: ‘The statute forbids a stranger (_peregrinus_) to climb a wall; [this man] climbed; he repulsed the enemy; he is brought to trial.’ No labor to know a case of this sort; for rightly nothing is taught [in school] about studying a case. But in the forum one has to know documents, contracts and agreements, decrees, the lives of the parties. Through carelessness in getting such knowledge men who in their anxiety to appear much in demand undertake too many cases often lose.[35] Not only so, but they may be suspected of bad faith or of incompetence. “For my part,[36] I take pains to learn the case from the client himself, alone, that he may talk more freely, and to debate against him, that he may defend himself and advance whatever arguments he has thought out. When I have dismissed him, I quite dispassionately take three parts: my own, my opponent’s, the judge’s. Whatever arguments promise more help than embarrassment I settle on, rejecting others in the same way. By this plan I manage to think at one time and speak at another.[37] Some speakers have the confidence to do both at once; but I am sure that they too would speak somewhat better if they recognized the advisability of setting aside one time for thought, another for speech.” Though this is a conventional topic, and though its application here is legal, it is none the less instructive generally; and it might directly improve the teaching of argument and the practise of debate in our colleges. The second heading under _inventio_ is also conventional, the _status_, or determination of the main character of the case and the main issues. The _status_ was determined in the classical system by applying certain traditional questions. The _status legalis_ may be set aside as applicable only to legal pleading. The _status rationalis_, or _status_ considered in the general aspects of reason as an affair of common argument, was determined by asking oneself how far the debate hinged (1) on fact, on whether such-and-such things had happened, or (2) on definition, the facts being generally admitted, or (3) more broadly, on the interpretation of admitted facts and definitions. Though most cases need to be looked at from all these three points of view, in most there will be found a decided predominance of one; and forecast of this will direct the emphasis of the whole argument, will tell where to throw one’s weight. This one is the _status_ of that case. In the Latin terms: (1) if the main question is _an sit_, the _status_ is _coniectura_, or _status coniecturalis_; (2) if it is _quid sit_, the _status_ is _finis_, or _status definitivus_;