---
title: "Rhetoric · Ῥητορική"
author: "Aristotle"
translator: "John Henry Freese"
languages: [grc, en]
shelf: "Philosophy"
section: 12 of 12
url: https://scriptura.si/works/aristotle-rhetoric/12/
cite: "Aristotle, tr. John Henry Freese, Rhetoric · Ῥητορική, section 12. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/aristotle-rhetoric/12/"
---

# Rhetoric · Ῥητορική

*Aristotle, tr. John Henry Freese*

The art of persuasion: argument, character, and the emotions of the audience.

> Greek: ed. William David Ross, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-greekLit, tlg0086.tlg038, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: John Henry Freese, from the Perseus Digital Library (tlg0086.tlg038.perseus-eng2). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (books, chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## 12. Book III · chapters 14–19

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/aristotle-rhetoric/12/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/aristotle-rhetoric/12/#p-N

[¶0] 14.1. The exordium is the beginning of a speech, as the prologue in poetry and the prelude in flute-playing; for all these are beginnings, and as it were a paving the way for what follows. The prelude resembles the exordium of epideictic speeches; for as flute-players begin by playing whatever they can execute skilfully and attach it to the key-note, so also in epideictic speeches should be the composition of the exordium; the speaker should say at once whatever he likes, give the key-note and then attach the main subject. And all do this, an example being the exordium of the Helen of Isocrates; for the eristics and Helen have nothing in common. At the same time, even if the speaker wanders from the point, this is more appropriate than that the speech should be monotonous.

> Greek: 14.1. τὸ μὲν οὖν προοίμιόν ἐστιν ἀρχὴ λόγου, ὅπερ ἐν ποιήσει πρόλογος καὶ ἐν αὐλήσει προαύλιον· πάντα γὰρ ἀρχαὶ ταῦτʼ εἰσί, καὶ οἷον ὁδοποίησις τῷ ἐπιόντι. τὸ μὲν οὖν προαύλιον ὅμοιον τῷ τῶν ἐπιδεικτικῶν προοιμίῳ· καὶ γὰρ οἱ αὐληταί, ὅ τι ἂν εὖ ἔχωσιν αὐλῆσαι, τοῦτο προαυλήσαντες συνῆψαν τῷ ἐνδοσίμῳ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐπιδεικτικοῖς λόγοις δεῖ οὕτως γράφειν, ὅ τι [γὰρ] ἂν βούληται εὐθὺ εἰπόντα ἐνδοῦναι καὶ συνάψαι, ὅπερ πάντες ποιοῦσιν. παράδειγμα τὸ τῆς Ἰσοκράτους Ἑλένης προοίμιον· οὐθὲν γὰρ κοινὸν ὑπάρχει τοῖς ἐριστικοῖς καὶ Ἑλένῃ. ἅμα δὲ καὶ ἐὰν ἐκτοπίσῃ, ἁρμόττει, καὶ μὴ ὅλον τὸν λόγον ὁμοειδῆ εἶναι.

[¶1] 14.2. In epideictic speeches, the sources of the exordia are praise and blame, as Gorgias, in the Olympiacus, says, “Men of Greece, you are worthy to be admired by many,” where he is praising those who instituted the solemn assemblies. Isocrates on the other hand blames them because they rewarded bodily excellences, but instituted no prize for men of wisdom.

> Greek: 14.2. λέγεται δὲ τὰ τῶν ἐπιδεικτικῶν προοίμια ἐξ ἐπαίνου ἢ ψόγου (οἷον Γοργίας μὲν ἐν τῷ Ὀλυμπικῷ λόγῳ ὑπὸ πολλῶν ἄξιοι θαυμάζεσθαι, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἕλληνες· ἐπαινεῖ γὰρ τοὺς τὰς πανηγύρεις συνάγοντας· Ἰσοκράτης δὲ ψέγει ὅτι τὰς μὲν τῶν σωμάτων ἀρετὰς δωρεαῖς ἐτίμησαν, τοῖς δʼ εὖ φρονοῦσιν οὐθὲν ἆθλον ἐποίησαν), καὶ ἀπὸ συμβουλῆς (οἷον ὅτι δεῖ τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς τιμᾶν, διὸ καὶ αὐτὸς Ἀριστείδην ἐπαινεῖ, ἢ τοὺς τοιούτους οἳ μήτε εὐδοκιμοῦσιν μήτε φαῦλοι, ἀλλʼ ὅσοι ἀγαθοὶ ὄντες ἄδηλοι, ὥσπερ Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Πριάμου·

[¶2] 14.3. Exordia may also be derived from advice, for instance, one should honor the good, wherefore the speaker praises Aristides, or such as are neither famous nor worthless, but who, although they are good, remain obscure, as Alexander, son of Priam; for this is a piece of advice. Again, they may be derived from forensic exordia, that is to say, from appeals to the hearer, if the subject treated is paradoxical, difficult, or commonly known, in order to obtain indulgence, like Choerilus:
But now when all has been allotted.
These then are the sources of epideictic exordia—praise, blame, exhortation, dissuasion, appeals to the hearer. And these exordia may be either foreign or intimately connected with the speech.

> Greek: 14.3. οὗτος γὰρ συμβουλεύει)· ἔτι δʼ ἐκ τῶν δικανικῶν προοιμίων· τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶν ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὸν ἀκροατήν, εἰ περὶ παραδόξου λόγος ἢ περὶ χαλεποῦ ἢ περὶ τεθρυλημένου πολλοῖς, ὥστε συγγνώμην ἔχειν, οἷον Χοιρίλος
νῦν δʼ ὅτε πάντα δέδασται. τὰ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἐπιδεικτικῶν λόγων προοίμια ἐκ τούτων, ἐξ ἐπαίνου, ἐκ ψόγου, ἐκ προτροπῆς, ἐξ ἀποτροπῆς, ἐκ τῶν πρὸς τὸν ἀκροατήν· δεῖ δὲ ἢ ξένα ἢ οἰκεῖα εἶναι τὰ ἐνδόσιμα τῷ λόγῳ.

[¶3] 14.5. As for the exordia of the forensic speech, it must be noted that they produce the same effect as dramatic prologues and epic exordia (for those of dithyrambs resemble epideictic exordia: “For thee and thy presents or spoils).”

> Greek: 14.5. τὰ δὲ τοῦ δικανικοῦ προοίμια δεῖ λαβεῖν ὅτι ταὐτὸ δύναται ὅπερ τῶν δραμάτων οἱ πρόλογοι καὶ τῶν ἐπῶν τὰ προοίμια· τὰ μὲν γὰρ τῶν διθυράμβων ὅμοια τοῖς ἐπιδεικτικοῖς· διὰ σὲ καὶ τεὰ δῶρα εἴτε σκῦλα.

[¶4] 14.6. But in speeches and epic poems the exordia provide a sample of the subject, in order that the hearers may know beforehand what it is about, and that the mind may not be kept in suspense, for that which is undefined leads astray; so then he who puts the beginning, so to say, into the hearer's hand enables him, if he holds fast to it, to follow the story. Hence the following exordia:
Sing the wrath, O Muse.
Tell me of the man, O Muse.
Inspire me with another theme, how from the land of Asia a great war crossed into Europe.
Similarly, tragic poets make clear the subject of their drama, if not at the outset, like Euripides, at least somewhere in the prologue, like Sophocles,
My father was Polybus.
It is the same in comedy. So then the most essential and special function of the exordium is to make clear what is the end or purpose of the speech; wherefore it should not be employed, if the subject is quite clear or unimportant.

> Greek: 14.6. ἐν δὲ προλόγοις καὶ ἔπεσι δεῖγμά ἐστιν τοῦ λόγου, ἵνα προειδῶσι περὶ οὗ [ᾖ] ὁ λόγος καὶ μὴ κρέμηται ἡ διάνοια· τὸ γὰρ ἀόριστον πλανᾷ· ὁ δοὺς οὖν ὥσπερ εἰς τὴν χεῖρα τὴν ἀρχὴν ποιεῖ ἐχόμενον ἀκολουθεῖν τῷ λόγῳ. διὰ τοῦτο
μῆνιν ἄειδε, θεά.
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα.
ἥγεό μοι λόγον ἄλλον, ὅπως Ἀσίας ἀπὸ γαίης
ἦλθεν ἐς Εὐρώπην πόλεμος μέγας.
καὶ οἱ τραγικοὶ δηλοῦσι περὶ ⟨οὗ⟩ τὸ δρᾶμα, κἂν μὴ εὐθὺς ὥσπερ Εὐριπίδης ἐν τῷ προλόγῳ, ἀλλά πού γε, ὥσπερ [καὶ] Σοφοκλῆς
ἐμοὶ πατὴρ ἦν Πόλυβος.
καὶ ἡ κωμῳδία ὡσαύτως. τὸ μὲν οὖν ἀναγκαιότατον ἔργον τοῦ προοιμίου καὶ ἴδιον τοῦτο, δηλῶσαι τί ἐστιν τὸ τέλος οὗ ἕνεκα ὁ λόγος (διόπερ ἂν δῆλον ᾖ καὶ μικρὸν τὸ πρᾶγμα, οὐ χρηστέον προοιμίῳ)·

[¶5] 14.7. All the other forms of exordia in use are only remedies, and are common to all three branches of Rhetoric. These are derived from the speaker, the hearer, the subject, and the opponent. From the speaker and the opponent, all that helps to destroy or create prejudice. But this must not be done in the same way; for the defendant must deal with this at the beginning, the accuser in the epilogue. The reason is obvious. The defendant, when about to introduce himself, must remove all obstacles, so that he must first clear away all prejudice; the accuser must create prejudice in the epilogue, that his hearers may have a livelier recollection of it. The object of an appeal to the hearer is to make him well disposed or to arouse his indignation, and sometimes to engage his attention or the opposite; for it is not always expedient to engage his attention, which is the reason why many speakers try to make their hearers laugh. As for rendering the hearers tractable, everything will lead up to it if a person wishes, including the appearance of respectability, because respectable persons command more attention. Hearers pay most attention to things that are important, that concern their own interests, that are astonishing, that are agreeable; wherefore one should put the idea into their heads that the speech deals with such subjects. To make his hearers inattentive, the speaker must persuade them that the matter is unimportant, that it does not concern them, that it is painful.

> Greek: 14.7. τὰ δὲ ἄλλα εἴδη οἷς χρῶνται, ἰατρεύματα καὶ κοινά. λέγεται δὲ ταῦτα ἔκ τε τοῦ λέγοντος καὶ τοῦ ἀκροατοῦ καὶ τοῦ πράγματος καὶ τοῦ ἐναντίου περὶ αὐτοῦ μὲν καὶ τοῦ ἀντιδίκου οἷά περ διαβολὴν λῦσαι καὶ ποιῆσαι (ἔστιν δὲ οὐχ ὁμοίως· ἀπολογουμένῳ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον τὰ πρὸς διαβολήν, κατηγοροῦντι δʼ ἐν τῷ ἐπιλόγῳ· διʼ ὃ δέ, οὐκ ἄδηλον· τὸν μὲν γὰρ ἀπολογούμενον, ὅταν μέλλῃ εἰσάξειν αὑτόν, ἀναγκαῖον ἀνελεῖν τὰ κωλύοντα, ὥστε λυτέον πρῶτον τὴν διαβολήν· τῷ δὲ διαβάλλοντι ἐν τῷ ἐπιλόγῳ διαβλητέον, ἵνα μνημονεύσωσι μᾶλλον). τὰ δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἀκροατὴν ἔκ τε τοῦ εὔνουν ποιῆσαι καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ὀργίσαι, καὶ ἐνίοτε τὸ προσεκτικὸν ἢ τοὐναντίον· οὐ γὰρ ἀεὶ συμφέρει ποιεῖν προσεκτικόν, διὸ πολλοὶ εἰς γέλωτα πειρῶνται προάγειν. εἰς δὲ εὐμάθειαν ἅπαντα ἀνάξει, ἐάν τις βούληται, καὶ τὸ ἐπιεικῆ φαίνεσθαι· προσέχουσι γὰρ μᾶλλον τούτοις. προσεκτικοὶ δὲ τοῖς μεγάλοις, τοῖς ἰδίοις, τοῖς θαυμαστοῖς, τοῖς ἡδέσιν· διὸ δεῖ ἐμποιεῖν ὡς περὶ τοιούτων ὁ λόγος· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ προσεκτικούς, ὅτι μικρόν, ὅτι οὐδὲν πρὸς ἐκείνους, ὅτι λυπηρόν.

[¶6] 14.8. But we must not lose sight of the fact that all such things are outside the question, for they are only addressed to a hearer whose judgement is poor and who is ready to listen to what is beside the case; for if he is not a man of this kind, there is no need of an exordium, except just to make a summary statement of the subject, so that, like a body, it may have a head.

> Greek: 14.8. δεῖ δὲ μὴ λανθάνειν ὅτι πάντα ἔξω τοῦ λόγου τὰ τοιαῦτα· πρὸς φαῦλον γὰρ ἀκροατὴν καὶ τὰ ἔξω τοῦ πράγματος ἀκούοντα· ἐπεὶ ἂν μὴ τοιοῦτος ᾖ, οὐθὲν δεῖ προοιμίου, ἀλλʼ ἢ ὅσον τὸ πρᾶγμα εἰπεῖν κεφαλαιωδῶς, ἵνα ἔχῃ ὥσπερ σῶμα κεφαλήν.

[¶7] 14.9. Further, engaging the hearers' attention is common to all parts of the speech, if necessary; for attention slackens everywhere else rather than at the beginning. Accordingly, it is ridiculous to put this at the beginning, at a time when all listen with the greatest attention. Wherefore, when the right moment comes, one must say, “And give me your attention, for it concerns you as much as myself”; and, “I will tell you such a thing as you have never yet” heard of, so strange and wonderful. This is what Prodicus used to do; whenever his hearers began to nod, he would throw in a dash of his fifty-drachma lecture.

> Greek: 14.9. ἔτι τὸ προσεκτικοὺς ποιεῖν πάντων τῶν μερῶν κοινόν, ἐὰν δέῃ· πανταχοῦ γὰρ ἀνιᾶσι μᾶλλον ἢ ἀρχόμενοι· διὸ γελοῖον ἐν ἀρχῇ τάττειν, ὅτε μάλιστα πάντες προσέχοντες ἀκροῶνται· ὥστε ὅπου ἂν ᾖ καιρός, λεκτέον καί μοι προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν· οὐθὲν γὰρ μᾶλλον ἐμὸν ἢ ὑμέτερον, καὶ ἐρῶ γὰρ ὑμῖν οἷον οὐδεπώποτε ἀκηκόατε δεινὸν ἢ οὕτω θαυμαστόν. τοῦτο δʼ ἐστίν, ὥσπερ ἔφη Πρόδικος, ὅτε νυστάζοιεν οἱ ἀκροαταί, παρεμβάλλειν ⟨τι⟩ τῆς πεντηκονταδράχμου αὐτοῖς.

[¶8] 14.10. But it is clear that one does not speak thus to the hearer qua hearer; for all in their exordia endeavor either to arouse prejudice or to remove their own apprehensions:
O prince, I will not say that with haste [I have come breathless].
Why this preamble?
This is what those also do who have, or seem to have, a bad case; for it is better to lay stress upon anything rather than the case itself. That is why slaves never answer questions directly but go all round them, and indulge in preambles.

> Greek: 14.10. ὅτι δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἀκροατὴν οὐχ ᾗπερ [ὁ] ἀκροατής, δῆλον· πάντες γὰρ ἢ διαβάλλουσιν ἢ φόβους ἀπολύονται ἐν τοῖς προοιμίοις·
ἄναξ, ἐρῶ μὲν οὐχ ὅπως σπουδῆς ὕπο,
τί φροιμιάζῃ;,
καὶ οἱ πονηρὸν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἔχοντες ἢ δοκοῦντες· πανταχοῦ γὰρ βέλτιον διατρίβειν ἢ ἐν τῷ πράγματι, διὸ οἱ δοῦλοι οὐ τὰ ἐρωτώμενα λέγουσιν ἀλλὰ τὰ κύκλῳ, καὶ προοιμιάζονται.

[¶9] 14.11. We have stated how the hearer's goodwill is to be secured and all other similar states of mind. And since it is rightly said,
Grant that on reaching the Phaeacians I may find friendship or compassion,
the orator should aim at exciting these two feelings. In epideictic exordia, one must make the hearer believe that he shares the praise, either himself, or his family, or his pursuits, or at any rate in some way or other. For Socrates says truly in his Funeral Oration that “it is easy to praise Athenians in the presence of Athenians, but not in the presence of Lacedaemonians.”

> Greek: 14.11. πόθεν δʼ εὔνους δεῖ ποιεῖν, εἴρηται, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον τῶν τοιούτων. ἐπεὶ δʼ εὖ λέγεται
δός μʼ ἐς Φαίηκας φίλον ἐλθεῖν ἠδʼ ἐλεεινόν,
τούτων δεῖ δύο στοχάζεσθαι. ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἐπιδεικτικοῖς οἴεσθαι δεῖ ποιεῖν συνεπαινεῖσθαι τὸν ἀκροατήν, ἢ αὐτὸν ἢ γένος ἢ ἐπιτηδεύματʼ αὐτοῦ ἢ ἄλλως γέ πως· ὃ γὰρ λέγει Σωκράτης ἐν τῷ ἐπιταφίῳ, ἀληθές, ὅτι οὐ χαλεπὸν Ἀθηναίους ἐν Ἀθηναίοις ἐπαινεῖν, ἀλλʼ ἐν Λακεδαιμονίοις.

[¶10] 14.12. Deliberative oratory borrows its exordia from forensic, but naturally they are very uncommon in it. For in fact the hearers are acquainted with the subject, so that the case needs no exordium, except for the orator's own sake, or on account of his adversaries, or if the hearers attach too much or too little importance to the question according to his idea. Wherefore he must either excite or remove prejudice, and magnify or minimize the importance of the subject. Such are the reasons for exordia; or else they merely serve the purpose of ornament, since their absence makes the speech appear offhand. For such is the encomium on the Eleans, in which Gorgias, without any preliminary sparring or movements, starts off at once, “Elis, happy city.”

> Greek: 14.12. τὰ δὲ τοῦ δημηγορικοῦ ἐκ τῶν τοῦ δικανικοῦ λόγου ἐστίν, φύσει δὲ ἥκιστα ἔχει· καὶ γὰρ καὶ περὶ οὗ ἴσασιν, καὶ οὐδὲν δεῖται τὸ πρᾶγμα προοιμίου, ἀλλʼ ἢ διʼ αὐτὸν ἢ τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας, ἢ ἐὰν μὴ ἡλίκον βούλει ὑπολαμβάνωσιν, ἀλλʼ ἢ μεῖζον ἢ ἔλαττον, διὸ ἢ διαβάλλειν ἢ ἀπολύεσθαι ἀνάγκη, καὶ ἢ αὐξῆσαι ἢ μειῶσαι. τούτων δὲ ἕνεκα προοιμίου δεῖται, ἢ κόσμου χάριν, ὡς αὐτοκάβδαλα φαίνεται ἐὰν μὴ ἔχῃ. τοιοῦτον γὰρ τὸ Γοργίου ἐγκώμιον εἰς Ἠλείους· οὐδὲν γὰρ προεξαγκωνίσας οὐδὲ προανακινήσας εὐθὺς ἄρχεται Ἦλις, πόλις εὐδαίμων.

[¶11] 15.1. One way of removing prejudice is to make use of the arguments by which one may clear oneself from disagreeable suspicion; for it makes no difference whether this suspicion has been openly expressed or not; and so this may be taken as a general rule.

> Greek: 15.1. περὶ δὲ διαβολῆς ἓν μὲν τὸ ἐξ ὧν ἄν τις ὑπόληψιν δυσχερῆ ἀπολύσαιτο (οὐθὲν γὰρ διαφέρει εἴτε εἰπόντος τινὸς εἴτε μή, ὥστε τοῦτο καθόλου)·

[¶12] 15.2. Another way consists in contesting the disputed points, either by denying the fact or its harmfulness, at least to the plaintiff; or by asserting that its importance is exaggerated; or that it is not unjust at all, or only slightly so; or neither disgraceful nor important. These are the possible points of dispute: as Iphicrates, in answer to Nausicrates, admitted that he had done what the prosecutor alleged and inflicted damage, but denied that he had been guilty of wrongdoing. Again, one may strike the balance, when guilty of wrongdoing, by maintaining that although the action was injurious it was honorable, painful but useful, or anything else of the kind.

> Greek: 15.2. ἄλλος τόπος ὥστε πρὸς τὰ ἀμφισβητούμενα ἀπαντᾶν, ἢ ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν, ἢ ὡς οὐ βλαβερὸν ἢ οὐ τούτῳ, ἢ ὡς οὐ τηλικοῦτον, ἢ οὐκ ἄδικον ἢ οὐ μέγα, ἢ οὐκ αἰσχρὸν ἢ οὐκ ἔχον μέγεθος· περὶ γὰρ τοιούτων ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις, ὥσπερ Ἰφικράτης πρὸς Ναυσικράτην· ἔφη γὰρ ποιῆσαι ὃ ἔλεγεν καὶ βλάψαι, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἀδικεῖν. ἢ ἀντικαταλλάττεσθαι ἀδικοῦντα, εἰ βλαβερόν, ἀλλʼ οὖν καλόν, εἰ λυπηρόν, ἀλλʼ ὠφέλιμον, ἤ τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτον.

[¶13] 15.3. Another method consists in saying that it was a case of error, misfortune, or necessity; as, for example, Sophocles said that he trembled, not, as the accuser said, in order to appear old, but from necessity, for it was against his wish that he was eighty years of age. One may also substitute one motive for another, and say that one did not mean to injure but to do something else, not that of which one was accused, and that the wrongdoing was accidental: “I should deserve your hatred, had I acted so as to bring this about.”

> Greek: 15.3. ἄλλος τόπος ὡς ἐστὶν ἁμάρτημα ἢ ἀτύχημα ἢ ἀναγκαῖον, οἷον Σοφοκλῆς ἔφη τρέμειν οὐχ ὡς ὁ διαβάλλων ἔφη, ἵνα δοκῇ γέρων, ἀλλʼ ἐξ ἀνάγκης· οὐ γὰρ ἑκόντι εἶναι αὑτῷ ἔτη ὀγδοήκοντα. καὶ ἀντικαταλλάττεσθαι τὸ οὗ ἕνεκα, ὅτι οὐ βλάψαι ἐβούλετο ἀλλὰ τόδε, καὶ οὐ τοῦτο ὃ διεβάλλετο ποιῆσαι, συνέβη δὲ βλαβῆναι· δίκαιον δὲ μισεῖν, εἰ ὅπως τοῦτο γένηται ἐποίουν.

[¶14] 15.4. Another method may be employed if the accuser, either himself or one closely related to him, has been involved in a similar charge, either now or formerly;

> Greek: 15.4. ἄλλος, εἰ ἐμπεριείληπται ὁ διαβάλλων, ἢ νῦν ἢ πρότερον, ἢ αὐτὸς ἢ τῶν ἐγγύς τις.

[¶15] 15.5. or, if others are involved who are admittedly not exposed to the charge; for instance, if it is argued that so-and-so is an adulterer, because he is a dandy, then so-and-so must be.

> Greek: 15.5. ἄλλος, εἰ ἄλλοι ἐμπεριλαμβάνονται οὓς ὁμολογοῦσιν μὴ ἐνόχους εἶναι τῇ διαβολῇ, οἷον εἰ, ὅτι καθάριος, ὁ ⟨δεῖνα⟩ μοιχός, καὶ ὁ δεῖνα ἄρα.

[¶16] 15.6. Again, if the accuser has already similarly accused others, or himself been accused by others; or if others, without being formally accused, have been suspected as you are now, and their innocence has been proved.

> Greek: 15.6. ἄλλος, εἰ ἄλλους διέβαλεν ἢ ἄλλος ⟨ἢ⟩ αὐτός, ἢ ἄνευ διαβολῆς ὑπελαμβάνοντο ὥσπερ αὐτὸς νῦν, οἳ πεφήνασιν οὐκ ἔνοχοι.

[¶17] 15.7. Another method consists in counter-attacking the accuser; for it would be absurd to believe the words of one who is himself unworthy of belief.

> Greek: 15.7. ἄλλος ἐκ τοῦ ἀντιδιαβάλλειν τὸν διαβάλλοντα· ἄτοπον γὰρ εἰ ὃς αὐτὸς ἄπιστος, οἱ τούτου λόγοι ἔσονται πιστοί.

[¶18] 15.8. Another method is to appeal to a verdict already given, as Euripides did in the case about the exchange of property; when Hygiaenon accused him of impiety as having advised perjury in the verse,
My tongue hath sworn, but my mind is unsworn,
Euripides replied that his accuser did wrong in transferring the decisions of the court of Dionysus to the law courts; for he had already rendered an account of what he had said there, or was still ready to do so, if his adversary desired to accuse him.

> Greek: 15.8. ἄλλος, εἰ γέγονεν κρίσις, ὥσπερ Εὐριπίδης πρὸς Ὑγιαίνοντα ἐν τῇ ἀντιδόσει κατηγοροῦντα ὡς ἀσεβής, ὅς γʼ ἐποίησε κελεύων ἐπιορκεῖν,
ἡ γλῶσσʼ ὀμώμοχʼ, ἡ δὲ φρὴν ἀνώμοτος.
ἔφη γὰρ αὐτὸν ἀδικεῖν τὰς ἐκ τοῦ Διονυσιακοῦ ἀγῶνος κρίσεις εἰς τὰ δικαστήρια ἄγοντα· ἐκεῖ γὰρ αὐτῶν δεδωκέναι λόγον, ἢ δώσειν εἰ βούλεται κατηγορεῖν.

[¶19] 15.9. Another method consists in attacking slander, showing how great an evil it is, and this because it alters the nature of judgements, and that it does not rely on the real facts of the case. Common to both parties is the topic of tokens, as in the Teucer, Odysseus reproaches Teucer with being a relative of Priam, whose sister his mother Hesione was; to which Teucer replied that his father Telamon was the enemy of Priam, and that he himself did not denounce the spies.

> Greek: 15.9. ἄλλος ἐκ τοῦ διαβολῆς κατηγορεῖν, ἡλίκον, καὶ τοῦτο, ὅτι ἄλλας κρίσεις ποιεῖ, καὶ ὅτι οὐ πιστεύει τῷ πράγματι. κοινὸς δʼ ἀμφοῖν [ὁ] τόπος τὸ σύμβολα λέγειν, οἷον ἐν τῷ Τεύκρῳ ὁ Ὀδυσσεὺς ὅτι οἰκεῖος τῷ Πριάμῳ· ἡ γὰρ Ἡσιόνη ἀδελφή· ὁ δὲ ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ ἐχθρὸς τῷ Πριάμῳ, ὁ Τελαμών, καὶ ὅτι οὐ κατεῖπε τῶν κατασκόπων.

[¶20] 15.10. Another method, suitable for the accuser, is to praise something unimportant at great length, and to condemn something important concisely; or, putting forward several things that are praiseworthy in the opponent, to condemn the one thing that has an important bearing upon the case. Such methods are most artful and unfair; for by their use men endeavor to make what is good in a man injurious to him, by mixing it up with what is bad. Another method is common to both accuser and defender. Since the same thing may have been done from several motives, the accuser must disparage it by taking it in the worse sense, while the defender must take it in the better sense. For instance, when Diomedes chose Odysseus for his companion, it may be said on the one hand that he did so because he considered him to be the bravest of men, on the other, that it was because Odysseus was the only man who was no possible rival for him, since he was a poltroon. Let this suffice for the question of prejudice.

> Greek: 15.10. ἄλλος τῷ διαβάλλοντι, τὸ ἐπαινοῦντα μικρὸν μακρῶς ψέξαι μέγα συντόμως, ἢ πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ προθέντα, ὃ εἰς τὸ πρᾶγμα προφέρει ἓν ψέξαι. τοιοῦτοι δὲ οἱ τεχνικώτατοι καὶ ἀδικώτατοι· τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς γὰρ βλάπτειν πειρῶνται, μιγνύντες αὐτὰ τῷ κακῷ. κοινὸν δὲ τῷ διαβάλλοντι καὶ τῷ ἀπολυομένῳ, ἐπειδὴ τὸ αὐτὸ ἐνδέχεται πλειόνων ἕνεκα πραχθῆναι, τῷ μὲν διαβάλλοντι κακοηθιστέον ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον ἐκλαμβάνοντι, τῷ δὲ ἀπολυομένῳ ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον, οἷον ὅτι ὁ Διομήδης τὸν Ὀδυσσέα προείλετο, τῷ μὲν ὅτι διὰ τὸ ἄριστον ὑπολαμβάνειν τὸν Ὀδυσσέα, τῷ δʼ ὅτι οὕ, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ μόνον μὴ ἀνταγωνιστεῖν ὡς φαῦλον.

[¶21] 16.1. In the epideictic style the narrative should not be consecutive, but disjointed; for it is necessary to go through the actions which form the subject of the speech. For a speech is made up of one part that is inartificial (the speaker being in no way the author of the actions which he relates), and of another that does depend upon art. The latter consists in showing that the action did take place, if it be incredible, or that it is of a certain kind, or of a certain importance, or all three together.

> Greek: 16.1. καὶ περὶ μὲν διαβολῆς εἰρήσθω τοσαῦτα, διήγησις δʼ ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἐπιδεικτικοῖς ἐστιν οὐκ ἐφεξῆς ἀλλὰ κατὰ μέρος· δεῖ μὲν γὰρ τὰς πράξεις διελθεῖν ἐξ ὧν ὁ λόγος· σύγκειται γὰρ ἔχων ὁ λόγος τὸ μὲν ἄτεχνον (οὐθὲν γὰρ αἴτιος ὁ λέγων τῶν πράξεων), τὸ δʼ ἐκ τῆς τέχνης· τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶν ἢ ὅτι ἔστι δεῖξαι, ἐὰν ᾖ ἄπιστον, ἢ ὅτι ποιόν, ἢ ὅτι ποσόν, ἢ καὶ ἅπαντα.

[¶22] 16.2. This is why it is sometimes right not to narrate all the facts consecutively, because a demonstration of this kind is difficult to remember. From some facts a man may be shown to be courageous, from others wise or just. Besides, a speech of this kind is simpler, whereas the other is intricate and not plain.

> Greek: 16.2. διὰ δὲ τοῦτʼ ἐνίοτε οὐκ ἐφεξῆς δεῖ διηγεῖσθαι πάντα, ὅτι δυσμνημόνευτον τὸ δεικνύναι οὕτως· ἐκ μὲν οὖν τούτων ἀνδρεῖος, ἐκ δὲ τῶνδε σοφὸς ἢ δίκαιος. καὶ ἁπλούστερος ὁ λόγος οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος δὲ ποικίλος καὶ οὐ λιτός.

[¶23] 16.3. It is only necessary to recall famous actions; wherefore most people have no need of narrative—for instance, if you wish to praise Achilles; for everybody knows what he did, and it is only necessary to make use of it. But if you wish to praise Critias, narrative is necessary, for not many people know what he did...

> Greek: 16.3. δεῖ δὲ τὰς μὲν γνωρίμους ἀναμιμνήσκειν· διὸ οἱ πολλοὶ οὐδὲν δέονται διηγήσεως, οἷον εἰ θέλεις Ἀχιλλέα ἐπαινεῖν (ἴσασι γὰρ πάντες τὰς πράξεις), ἀλλὰ χρῆσθαι αὐταῖς δεῖ. ἐὰν δὲ Κριτίαν, δεῖ· οὐ γὰρ πολλοὶ ἴσασιν … νῦν δὲ γελοίως τὴν διήγησίν φασι δεῖν εἶναι ταχεῖαν.

[¶24] 16.4. But at the present day it is absurdly laid down that the narrative should be rapid. And yet, as the man said to the baker when he asked whether he was to knead bread hard or soft, “What! is it impossible to knead it well?” so it is in this case; for the narrative must not be long, nor the exordium, nor the proofs either. For in this case also propriety does not consist either in rapidity or conciseness, but in a due mean; that is, one must say all that will make the facts clear, or create the belief that they have happened or have done injury or wrong, or that they are as important as you wish to make them. The opposite party must do the opposite.

> Greek: 16.4. καίτοι ὥσπερ [ὁ] τῷ μάττοντι ἐρομένῳ πότερον σκληρὰν ἢ μαλακὴν μάξῃ τί δʼ, ἔφη ⟨τις⟩, εὖ ἀδύνατον;, καὶ ἐνταῦθα ὁμοίως· δεῖ γὰρ μὴ μακρῶς διηγεῖσθαι ὥσπερ οὐδὲ προοιμιάζεσθαι μακρῶς, οὐδὲ τὰς πίστεις λέγειν. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐνταῦθά ἐστι τὸ εὖ [ἢ] τὸ ταχὺ ἢ τὸ συντόμως, ἀλλὰ τὸ μετρίως· τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ τὸ λέγειν ὅσα δηλώσει τὸ πρᾶγμα, ἢ ὅσα ποιήσει ὑπολαβεῖν γεγονέναι ἢ βεβλαφέναι ἢ ἠδικηκέναι, ἢ τηλικαῦτα ἡλίκα βούλει, τῷ δὲ ἐναντίῳ τὰ ἐναντία·

[¶25] 16.5. And you should incidentally narrate anything that tends to show your own virtue, for instance, “I always recommended him to act rightly, not to forsake his children”; or the wickedness of your opponent, for instance, “but he answered that, wherever he might be, he would always find other children,” an answer attributed by Herodotus to the Egyptian rebels; or anything which is likely to please the dicasts.

> Greek: 16.5. παραδιηγεῖσθαι δὲ ὅσα εἰς τὴν σὴν ἀρετὴν φέρει (οἷον ἐγὼ δʼ ἐνουθέτουν, ἀεὶ τὰ δίκαια λέγων, μὴ τὰ τέκνα ἐγκαταλείπειν), ἢ θατέρου κακίαν· ὁ δὲ ἀπεκρίνατό μοι ὅτι, οὗ ἂν ᾖ αὐτός, ἔσται ἄλλα παιδία, ὃ τοὺς ἀφισταμένους Αἰγυπτίους ἀποκρίνασθαί φησιν ὁ Ἡρόδοτος· ἢ ὅσα ἡδέα τοῖς δικασταῖς.

[¶26] 16.6. In defence, the narrative need not be so long; for the points at issue are either that the fact has not happened or that it was neither injurious nor wrong nor so important as asserted, so that one should not waste time over what all are agreed upon, unless anything tends to prove that, admitting the act, it is not wrong.

> Greek: 16.6. ἀπολογουμένῳ δὲ ἐλάττων ἡ διήγησις· αἱ γὰρ ἀμφισβητήσεις ἢ μὴ γεγονέναι ἢ μὴ βλαβερὸν εἶναι ἢ μὴ ἄδικον ἢ μὴ τηλικοῦτον, ὥστε περὶ τὸ ὁμολογούμενον οὐ διατριπτέον, ἐὰν μή τι εἰς ἐκεῖνο συντείνῃ, οἷον εἰ πέπρακται, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἄδικον.

[¶27] 16.7. Again, one should only mention such past things as are likely to excite pity or indignation if described as actually happening; for instance, the story of Alcinous, because in the presence of Penelope it is reduced to sixty lines, and the way in which Phayllus dealt with the epic cycle, and the prologue to the Oeneus.

> Greek: 16.7. ἔτι πεπραγμένα δεῖ λέγειν ὅσα μὴ πραττόμενα ἢ οἶκτον ἢ δείνωσιν φέρει· παράδειγμα ὁ Ἀλκίνου ἀπόλογος, ὃς πρὸς τὴν Πηνελόπην ἐν ἑξήκοντα ἔπεσιν πεποίηται, καὶ ὡς Φάϋλλος τὸν κύκλον, καὶ ὁ ἐν τῷ Οἰνεῖ πρόλογος.

[¶28] 16.8. And the narrative should be of a moral character, and in fact it will be so, if we know what effects this. One thing is to make clear our moral purpose; for as is the moral purpose, so is the character, and as is the end, so is the moral purpose. For this reason mathematical treatises have no moral character, because neither have they moral purpose; for they have no moral end. But the Socratic dialogues have; for they discuss such questions.

> Greek: 16.8. ἠθικὴν δὲ χρὴ τὴν διήγησιν εἶναι· ἔσται δὲ τοῦτο, ἂν εἰδῶμεν τί ἦθος ποιεῖ. ἓν μὲν δὴ τὸ προαίρεσιν δηλοῦν, ποιὸν δὲ τὸ ἦθος τῷ ποιὰν ταύτην, ἡ δὲ προαίρεσις ποιὰ τῷ τέλει· διὰ τοῦτο ⟨δʼ⟩ οὐκ ἔχουσιν οἱ μαθηματικοὶ λόγοι ἤθη, ὅτι οὐδὲ προαίρεσιν (τὸ γὰρ οὗ ἕνεκα οὐκ ἔχουσιν), ἀλλʼ οἱ Σωκρατικοί· περὶ τοιούτων γὰρ λέγουσιν.

[¶29] 16.9. Other ethical indications are the accompanying peculiarities of each individual character; for instance, “He was talking and walking on at the same time,” which indicates effrontery and boorishness. Nor should we speak as if from the intellect, after the manner of present-day orators; but from moral purpose: “But I wished it, and I preferred it; and even if I profited nothing, it is better.” The first statement indicates prudence, the second virtue; for prudence consists in the pursuit of what is useful, virtue in that of what is honorable. If anything of the kind seems incredible, then the reason must be added; of this Sophocles gives an example, where his Antigone says that she cared more for her brother than for her husband or children; for the latter can be replaced after they are gone,
but when father and mother are in the grave, no brother can ever be born.
If you have no reason, you should at least say that you are aware that what you assert is incredible, but that it is your nature; for no one believes that a man ever does anything of his own free will except from motives of self-interest.

> Greek: 16.9. ἄλλα δʼ ἠθικὰ τὰ ἑπόμενα ἑκάστῳ ἤθει, οἷον ὅτι ἅμα λέγων ἐβάδιζεν· δηλοῖ γὰρ θρασύτητα καὶ ἀγροικίαν ἤθους. καὶ μὴ ὡς ἀπὸ διανοίας λέγειν, ὥσπερ οἱ νῦν, ἀλλʼ ὡς ἀπὸ προαιρέσεως· ἐγὼ δὲ ἐβουλόμην· καὶ προειλόμην γὰρ τοῦτο· ἀλλʼ εἰ μὴ ὠνήμην, βέλτιον· τὸ μὲν γὰρ φρονίμου τὸ δὲ ἀγαθοῦ· φρονίμου μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῷ τὸ ὠφέλιμον διώκειν, ἀγαθοῦ δʼ ἐν τῷ τὸ καλόν. ἂν δʼ ἄπιστον ᾖ, τότε τὴν αἰτίαν ἐπιλέγειν, ὥσπερ Σοφοκλῆς ποιεῖ· παράδειγμα τὸ ἐκ τῆς Ἀντιγόνης, ὅτι μᾶλλον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ἐκήδετο ἢ ἀνδρὸς ἢ τέκνων· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἂν γενέσθαι ἀπολομένων,
μητρὸς δʼ ἐν Ἅιδου καὶ πατρὸς βεβηκότων
οὐκ ἔστʼ ἀδελφὸς ὅς τις ἂν βλάστοι ποτέ.
ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς αἰτίαν, ἀλλʼ ὅτι οὐκ ἀγνοεῖς ἄπιστα λέγων, ἀλλὰ φύσει τοιοῦτος εἶ· ἀπιστοῦσι γὰρ ἄλλο τι πράττειν ἑκόντα πλὴν τὸ συμφέρον.

[¶30] 16.10. Further, the narrative should draw upon what is emotional by the introduction of such of its accompaniments as are well known, and of what is specially characteristic of either yourself or of the adversary: “And he went off looking grimly at me”; and as Aeschines says of Cratylus, that he hissed violently and violently shook his fists. Such details produce persuasion because, being known to the hearer, they become tokens of what he does not know. Numerous examples of this may be found in Homer:
Thus she spoke, and the aged nurse covered her face with her hands;
for those who are beginning to weep lay hold on their eyes. And you should at once introduce yourself and your adversary as being of a certain character, that the hearers may regard you or him as such; but do not let it be seen. That this is easy is perfectly clear from the example of messengers; we do not yet know what they are going to say, but nevertheless we have an inkling of it.

> Greek: 16.10. ἔτι ἐκ τῶν παθητικῶν λέγε διηγούμενος καὶ τὰ ἑπόμενα [καὶ] ἃ ἴσασι, καὶ τὰ ἴδια ἢ σεαυτῷ ἢ ἐκείνῳ προσόντα· ὁ δʼ ᾤχετό με ὑποβλέψας. καὶ ὡς περὶ Κρατύλου Αἰσχίνης, ὅτι διασίζων, τοῖν χειροῖν διασείων· πιθανὰ γάρ, διότι σύμβολα γίγνεται ταῦτα ἃ ἴσασιν ἐκείνων ὧν οὐκ ἴσασιν. πλεῖστα δὲ τοιαῦτα λαβεῖν ἐξ Ὁμήρου ἔστιν·
ὧς ἄρʼ ἔφη, γρῆυς δὲ κατέσχετο χερσὶ πρόσωπα·
οἱ γὰρ δακρύειν ἀρχόμενοι ἐπιλαμβάνονται τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν. καὶ εὐθὺς εἴσαγε καὶ σεαυτὸν ποιόν τινα, ἵνα ὡς τοιοῦτον θεωρῶσιν, καὶ τὸν ἀντίδικον· λανθάνων δὲ ποίει. ὅτι δὲ ῥᾴδιον, ὅρα ἐκ τῶν ἀπαγγελλόντων· περὶ ὧν γὰρ μηθὲν ἴσμεν, ὅμως λαμβάνομεν ὑπόληψιν τινά. πολλαχοῦ δὲ δεῖ διηγεῖσθαι, καὶ ἐνίοτε οὐκ ἐν ἀρχῇ.

[¶31] 16.11. Again, the narrative should be introduced in several places, sometimes not at all at the beginning. In deliberative oratory narrative is very rare, because no one can narrate things to come; but if there is narrative, it will be of things past, in order that, being reminded of them, the hearers may take better counsel about the future. This may be done in a spirit either of blame or of praise; but in that case the speaker does not perform the function of the deliberative orator. If there is anything incredible, you should immediately promise both to give a reason for it at once and to submit it to the judgement of any whom the hearers approve; as, for instance, Jocasta in the Oedipus of Carcinus is always promising, when the man who is looking for her son makes inquiries of her; and similarly Haemon in Sophocles.

> Greek: 16.11. ἐν δὲ δημηγορίᾳ ἥκιστα διήγησις ἔστιν, ὅτι περὶ τῶν μελλόντων οὐθεὶς διηγεῖται· ἀλλʼ ἐάν περ διήγησις ᾖ, τῶν γενομένων ἔστω, ἵνα ἀναμνησθέντες ἐκείνων βέλτιον βουλεύσωνται περὶ τῶν ὕστερον, ἢ διαβάλλοντος ἢ ἐπαινοῦντος· ἀλλὰ †τότε οὐ† τὸ τοῦ συμβούλου ποιεῖ ἔργον. ἂν δʼ ᾖ ἄπιστον, ὑπισχνεῖσθαι δεῖ καὶ αἰτίαν λέγειν εὐθὺς καὶ διατάττειν ὡς βούλονται, οἷον ἡ Ἰοκάστη ἡ Καρκίνου ἐν τῷ Οἰδίποδι ἀεὶ ὑπισχνεῖται πυνθανομένου τοῦ ζητοῦντος τὸν υἱόν, καὶ ὁ Αἵμων ὁ Σοφοκλέους.

[¶32] 17.1. Proofs should be demonstrative, and as the disputed points are four, the demonstration should bear upon the particular point disputed; for instance, if the fact is disputed, proof of this must be brought at the trial before anything else; or if it is maintained that no injury has been done; or that the act was not so important as asserted; or was just, then this must be proved, the three last questions being matters of dispute just as the question of fact.

> Greek: 17.1. τὰς δὲ πίστεις δεῖ ἀποδεικτικὰς εἶναι· ἀποδεικνύναι δὲ χρή, ἐπεί περ τεττάρων ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις, περὶ τοῦ ἀμφισβητουμένου φέροντα τὴν ἀπόδειξιν, οἷον, εἰ ὅτι οὐ γέγονεν ἀμφισβητεῖται, ἐν τῇ κρίσει δεῖ τούτου μάλιστα τὴν ἀπόδειξιν φέρειν, εἰ δʼ ὅτι οὐκ ἔβλαψεν, τούτου, καὶ ὅτι οὐ τοσόνδε ἢ ὅτι δικαίως, ὡσαύτως καὶ εἰ περὶ τοῦ γενέσθαι τοῦτο ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις.

[¶33] 17.2. But do not forget that it is only in the case of a dispute as to this question of fact that one of the two parties must necessarily be a rogue; for ignorance is not the cause, as it might be if a question of right or wrong were the issue; so that in this case one should spend time on this topic, but not in the others.

> Greek: 17.2. μὴ λανθανέτω δʼ ὅτι ἀναγκαῖον ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἀμφισβητήσει μόνῃ τὸν ἕτερον εἶναι πονηρόν· οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἄγνοια αἰτία, ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τινες περὶ τοῦ δικαίου ἀμφισβητοῖεν, ὥστʼ ἐν τούτῳ χρονιστέον, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις οὔ.

[¶34] 17.3. In epideictic speeches, amplification is employed, as a rule, to prove that things are honorable or useful; for the facts must be taken on trust, since proofs of these are rarely given, and only if they are incredible or the responsibility is attributed to another.

> Greek: 17.3. ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἐπιδεικτικοῖς τὸ πολὺ ὅτι καλὰ καὶ ὠφέλιμα ἡ αὔξησις ἔστω· τὰ γὰρ πράγματα δεῖ πιστεύεσθαι· ὀλιγάκις γὰρ καὶ τούτων ἀποδείξεις φέρουσιν, ἐὰν ἄπιστα ᾖ ἢ ἐὰν ἄλλος αἰτίαν ἔχῃ.

[¶35] 17.4. In deliberative oratory, it may be maintained either that certain consequences will not happen, or that what the adversary recommends will happen, but that it will be unjust, inexpedient, or not so important as supposed. But one must also look to see whether he makes any false statements as to things outside the issue; for these look like evidence that he makes misstatements about the issue itself as well.

> Greek: 17.4. ἐν δὲ τοῖς δημηγορικοῖς ἢ ὡς οὐκ ἔσται ἀμφισβητήσειεν ἄν τις, ἢ ὡς ἔσται μὲν ⟨ποιοῦσιν⟩ ἃ κελεύει, ἀλλʼ οὐ δίκαια ἢ οὐκ ὠφέλιμα ἢ οὐ τηλικαῦτα. δεῖ δὲ καὶ ὁρᾶν εἴ τι ψεύδεται ἐκτὸς τοῦ πράγματος· τεκμήρια γὰρ ταῦτα φαίνεται καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὅτι ψεύδεται.

[¶36] 17.5. Examples are best suited to deliberative oratory and enthymemes to forensic. The first is concerned with the future, so that its examples must be derived from the past; the second with the question of the existence or non-existence of facts, in which demonstrative and necessary proofs are more in place; for the past involves a kind of necessity.

> Greek: 17.5. ἔστιν δὲ τὰ μὲν παραδείγματα δημηγορικώτερα, τὰ δʼ ἐνθυμήματα δικανικώτερα· ἡ μὲν γὰρ περὶ τὸ μέλλον, ὥστʼ ἐκ τῶν γενομένων ἀνάγκη παραδείγματα λέγειν, ἡ δὲ περὶ ὄντων ἢ μὴ ὄντων, οὗ μᾶλλον ἀπόδειξίς ἐστι καὶ ἀνάγκη· ἔχει γὰρ τὸ γεγονὸς ἀνάγκην.

[¶37] 17.6. One should not introduce a series of enthymemes continuously but mix them up; otherwise they destroy one another. For there is a limit of quantity; thus,
Friend, since thou hast said as much as a wise man would say, where Homer does not say τοιαῦτα (such things as), but τόσα (as many things as).

> Greek: 17.6. οὐ δεῖ δὲ ἐφεξῆς λέγειν τὰ ἐνθυμήματα, ἀλλʼ ἀναμιγνύναι· εἰ δὲ μή, καταβλάπτει ἄλληλα. ἔστιν γὰρ καὶ τοῦ ποσοῦ ὅρος.
ὦ φίλʼ, ἐπεὶ τόσα εἶπες ὅσʼ ἂν πεπνυμένος ἀνήρ,
ἀλλʼ οὐ τοιαῦτα.

[¶38] 17.7. Nor should you try to find enthymemes about everything; otherwise you will be imitating certain philosophers, who draw conclusions that are better known and more plausible than the premises from which they are drawn.

> Greek: 17.7. καὶ μὴ περὶ πάντων ἐνθυμήματα ζητεῖ· εἰ δὲ μή, ποιήσεις ὅπερ ἔνιοι ποιοῦσι τῶν φιλοσοφούντων, οἳ συλλογίζονται τὰ γνωριμώτερα καὶ πιστότερα ἢ ἐξ ὧν λέγουσιν.

[¶39] 17.8. And whenever you wish to arouse emotion, do not use an enthymeme, for it will either drive out the emotion or it will be useless; for simultaneous movements drive each other out, the result being their mutual destruction or weakening. Nor should you look for an enthymeme at the time when you wish to give the speech an ethical character; for demonstration involves neither moral character nor moral purpose.

> Greek: 17.8. καὶ ὅταν πάθος ποιῇς, μὴ λέγε ἐνθύμημα (ἢ γὰρ ἐκκρούσει τὸ πάθος ἢ μάτην εἰρημένον ἔσται τὸ ἐνθύμημα· ἐκκρούουσι γὰρ αἱ κινήσεις ἀλλήλας αἱ ἅμα, καὶ ἢ ἀφανίζουσιν ἢ ἀσθενεῖς ποιοῦοιν), οὐδʼ ὅταν ἠθικὸν τὸν λόγον, οὐ δεῖ ἐνθύμημά τι ζητεῖν ἅμα· οὐ γὰρ ἔχει οὔτε ἦθος οὔτε προαίρεσιν ἡ ἀπόδειξις.

[¶40] 17.9. Moral maxims, on the other hand, should be used in both narrative and proof; for they express moral character; for instance, “I gave him the money and that although I knew that one ought not to trust.” Or, to arouse emotion: “I do not regret it, although I have been wronged; his is the profit, mine the right.”

> Greek: 17.9. γνώμαις δὲ χρηστέον καὶ ἐν διηγήσει καὶ ἐν πίστει· ἠθικὸν γὰρ καὶ ἐγὼ δέδωκα, καὶ ταῦτʼ εἰδὼς ὡς οὐ δεῖ πιστεύειν· ἐὰν δὲ παθητικῶς, καὶ οὐ μεταμέλει μοι καίπερ ἠδικημένῳ· τούτῳ μὲν γὰρ περίεστιν τὸ κέρδος, ἐμοὶ δὲ τὸ δίκαιον.

[¶41] 17.10. Deliberative speaking is more difficult than forensic, and naturally so, because it has to do with the future; whereas forensic speaking has to do with the past, which is already known, even by diviners, as Epimenides the Cretan said; for he used to divine, not the future, but only things that were past but obscure. Further, the law is the subject in forensic speaking; and when one has a starting-point, it is easier to find a demonstrative proof. Deliberative speaking does not allow many opportunities for lingering—for instance, attacks on the adversary, remarks about oneself, or attempts to arouse emotion. In this branch of Rhetoric there is less room for these than in any other, unless the speaker wanders from the subject. Therefore, when at a loss for topics, one must do as the orators at Athens, amongst them Isocrates, for even when deliberating, he brings accusations against the Lacedaemonians, for instance, in the Panegyricus, and against Chares in the Symmachikos (On the Peace).

> Greek: 17.10. τὸ δὲ δημηγορεῖν χαλεπώτερον τοῦ δικάζεσθαι, εἰκότως, διότι περὶ τὸ μέλλον, ἐκεῖ δὲ περὶ τὸ γεγονός, ὃ ἐπιστητὸν ἤδη καὶ τοῖς μάντεσιν, ὡς ἔφη Ἐπιμενίδης ὁ Κρής (ἐκεῖνος γὰρ περὶ τῶν ἐσομένων οὐκ ἐμαντεύετο, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῶν γεγονότων μὲν ἀδήλων δέ), καὶ ὁ νόμος ὑπόθεσις ἐν τοῖς δικανικοῖς· ἔχοντα δὲ ἀρχὴν ῥᾷον εὑρεῖν ἀπόδειξιν. καὶ οὐκ ἔχει πολλὰς διατριβάς, οἷον πρὸς ἀντίδικον ἢ περὶ αὑτοῦ, ἢ παθητικὸν ποιεῖν, ἀλλʼ ἥκιστα πάντων, ἐὰν μὴ ἐξιστῇ. δεῖ οὖν ἀποροῦντα τοῦτο ποιεῖν ὅπερ οἱ Ἀθήνησι ῥήτορες ποιοῦσι καὶ Ἰσοκράτης· καὶ γὰρ συμβουλεύων κατηγορεῖ, οἷον Λακεδαιμονίων μὲν ἐν τῷ πανηγυρικῷ, Χάρητος δʼ ἐν τῷ συμμαχικῷ.

[¶42] 17.11. Epideictic speeches should be varied with laudatory episodes, after the manner of Isocrates, who is always bringing somebody in. This is what Gorgias meant when he said that he was never at a loss for something to say; for, if he is speaking of Peleus, he praises Achilles, then Aeacus, then the god; similarly courage, which does this and that, or is of such a kind.

> Greek: 17.11. ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἐπιδεικτικοῖς δεῖ τὸν λόγον ἐπεισοδιοῦν ἐπαίνοις, οἷον Ἰσοκράτης ποιεῖ· ἀεὶ γάρ τινα εἰσάγει. καὶ ὃ ἔλεγεν Γοργίας, ὅτι οὐχ ὑπολείπει αὐτὸν ὁ λόγος, ταὐτό ἐστιν· εἰ γὰρ Ἀχιλλέα λέγει Πηλέα ἐπαινεῖ, εἶτα Αἰακόν, εἶτα τὸν θεόν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἀνδρείαν, ἣ τὰ καὶ τὰ ποιεῖ ἢ τοιόνδε ἐστίν.

[¶43] 17.12. If you have proofs, then, your language must be both ethical and demonstrative; if you have no enthymemes, ethical only. In fact, it is more fitting that a virtuous man should show himself good than that his speech should be painfully exact.

> Greek: 17.12. ἔχοντα μὲν οὖν ἀποδείξεις καὶ ἠθικῶς λεκτέον καὶ ἀποδεικτικῶς, ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ἐνθυμήματα, ἠθικῶς· καὶ μᾶλλον τῷ ἐπιεικεῖ ἁρμόττει χρηστὸν φαίνεσθαι ἢ τὸν λόγον ἀκριβῆ.

[¶44] 17.13. Refutative enthymemes are more popular than demonstrative, because, in all cases of refutation, it is clearer that a logical conclusion has been reached; for opposites are more noticeable when placed in juxtaposition.

> Greek: 17.13. τῶν δὲ ἐνθυμημάτων τὰ ἐλεγκτικὰ μᾶλλον εὐδοκιμεῖ τῶν δεικτικῶν, ὅτι ὅσα ἔλεγχον ποιεῖ, μᾶλλον δῆλον ὅτι συλλελόγισται· παρʼ ἄλληλα γὰρ μᾶλλον τἀναντία γνωρίζεται.

[¶45] 17.14. The refutation of the opponent is not a particular kind of proof; his arguments should be refuted partly by objection, partly by counter-syllogism. In both deliberative and forensic rhetoric he who speaks first should state his own proofs and afterwards meet the arguments of the opponent, refuting or pulling them to pieces beforehand. But if the opposition is varied, these arguments should be dealt with first, as Callistratus did in the Messenian assembly; in fact, it was only after he had first refuted what his opponents were likely to say that he put forward his own proofs.

> Greek: 17.14. τὰ δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἀντίδικον οὐχ ἕτερόν τι εἶδος, ἀλλὰ τῶν πίστεών ἐστι ⟨τὸ⟩ τὰ μὲν λῦσαι ἐνστάσει τὰ δὲ συλλογισμῷ. δεῖ δὲ καὶ ἐν συμβουλῇ καὶ ἐν δίκῃ ἀρχόμενον μὲν λέγειν τὰς ἑαυτοῦ πίστεις πρότερον, ὕστερον δὲ πρὸς τἀναντία ἀπαντᾶν λύοντα καὶ προδιασύροντα. ἂν δὲ πολύχους ᾖ ἡ ἐναντίωσις, πρότερον τὰ ἐναντία, οἷον ἐποίησε Καλλίστρατος ἐν τῇ Μεσσηνιακῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ· ἃ γὰρ ἐροῦσι προανελὼν οὕτως τότε αὐτὸς εἶπεν.

[¶46] 17.15. He who replies should first state the arguments against the opponent's speech, refuting and answering it by syllogisms, especially if his arguments have met with approval. For as the mind is ill-disposed towards one against whom prejudices have been raised beforehand, it is equally so towards a speech, if the adversary is thought to have spoken well. One must therefore make room in the hearer's mind for the speech one intends to make; and for this purpose you must destroy the impression made by the adversary. Wherefore it is only after having combated all the arguments, or the most important, or those which are plausible, or most easy to refute, that you should substantiate your own case:
I will first defend the goddesses, for I [do not think] that Hera...
in this passage the poet has first seized upon the weakest argument.

> Greek: 17.15. ὕστερον δὲ λέγοντα πρῶτον πρὸς τὸν ἐναντίον λόγον λεκτέον, λύοντα καὶ ἀντισυλλογιζόμενον, καὶ μάλιστα ἂν εὐδοκιμηκότα ᾖ· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἄνθρωπον προδιαβεβλημένον οὐ δέχεται ἡ ψυχή, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον οὐδὲ λόγον, ἐὰν ὁ ἐναντίος εὖ δοκῇ εἰρηκέναι. δεῖ οὖν χώραν ποιεῖν ἐν τῷ ἀκροατῇ τῷ μέλλοντι λόγῳ· ἔσται δὲ ἂν ἀνέλῃς· διὸ ἢ πρὸς πάντα ἢ τὰ μέγιστα ἢ τὰ εὐδοκιμοῦντα ἢ τὰ εὐέλεγκτα μαχεσάμενον οὕτω τὰ αὑτοῦ πιστὰ ποιητέον.
ταῖς θεαῖσι πρῶτα σύμμαχος γενήσομαι·
ἐγὼ γὰρ Ἥραν·
ἐν τούτοις ἥψατο πρῶτον τοῦ εὐηθεστάτου.

[¶47] 17.16. So much concerning proofs. In regard to moral character, since sometimes, in speaking of ourselves, we render ourselves liable to envy, to the charge of prolixity, or contradiction, or, when speaking of another, we may be accused of abuse or boorishness, we must make another speak in our place, as Isocrates does in the Philippus and in the Antidosis. Archilochus uses the same device in censure; for in his iambics he introduces the father speaking as follows of his daughter:
There is nothing beyond expectation, nothing that can be sworn impossible,
and the carpenter Charon in the iambic verse beginning
I [care not for the wealth] of Gyges;
Sophocles, also, introduces Haemon, when defending Antigone against his father, as if quoting the opinion of others.

> Greek: 17.16. περὶ μὲν οὖν πίστεων ταῦτα. εἰς δὲ τὸ ἦθος, ἐπειδὴ ἔνια περὶ αὑτοῦ λέγειν ἢ ἐπίφθονον ἢ μακρολογίαν ἢ ἀντιλογίαν ἔχει, καὶ περὶ ἄλλου ἢ λοιδορίαν ἢ ἀγροικίαν, ἕτερον χρὴ λέγοντα ποιεῖν, ὅπερ Ἰσοκράτης ποιεῖ ἐν τῷ Φιλίππῳ καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἀντιδόσει, καὶ ὡς Ἀρχίλοχος ψέγει· ποιεῖ γὰρ τὸν πατέρα λέγοντα περὶ τῆς θυγατρὸς ἐν τῷ ἰάμβῳ
χρημάτων δʼ ἄελπτον οὐθέν ἐστιν οὐδʼ ἀπώμοτον,
καὶ τὸν Χάρωνα τὸν τέκτονα ἐν τῷ ἰάμβῳ οὗ ἀρχὴ
οὔ μοι τὰ Γύγεω,
καὶ ὡς Σοφοκλῆς τὸν Αἵμονα ὑπὲρ τῆς Ἀντιγόνης πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὡς λεγόντων ἑτέρων.

[¶48] 17.17. One should also sometimes change enthymemes into moral maxims; for instance, “Sensible men should become reconciled when they are prosperous; for in this manner they will obtain the greatest advantages,” which is equivalent to the enthymeme “If men should become reconciled whenever it is most useful and advantageous, they should be reconciled in a time of prosperity.”

> Greek: 17.17. δεῖ δὲ καὶ μεταβάλλειν τὰ ἐνθυμήματα καὶ γνώμας ποιεῖν ἐνίοτε, οἷον χρὴ δὲ τὰς διαλλαγὰς ποιεῖν τοὺς νοῦν ἔχοντας εὐτυχοῦντας· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν μέγιστα πλεονεκτοῖεν, ἐνθυμηματικῶς δὲ εἰ γὰρ δεῖ, ὅταν ὠφελιμώταται ὦσιν καὶ πλεονεκτικώταται αἱ καταλλαγαί, τότε καταλλάττεσθαι, εὐτυχοῦντας δεῖ καταλλάττεσθαι.

[¶49] 18.1. In regard to interrogation, its employment is especially opportune, when the opponent has already stated the opposite, so that the addition of a question makes the result an absurdity; as, for instance, when Pericles interrogated Lampon about initiation into the sacred rites of the savior goddess. On Lampon replying that it was not possible for one who was not initiated to be told about them, Pericles asked him if he himself was acquainted with the rites, and when he said yes, Pericles further asked, “How can that be, seeing that you are uninitiated?”

> Greek: 18.1. περὶ δὲ ἐρωτήσεως, εὔκαιρόν ἐστι ποιεῖσθαι μάλιστα μὲν ὅταν τὸ ἕτερον εἰρηκὼς ᾖ, ὥστε ἑνὸς προσερωτηθέντος συμβαίνει τὸ ἄτοπον, οἷον Περικλῆς Λάμπωνα ἐπήρετο περὶ τῆς τελετῆς τῶν τῆς σωτείρας ἱερῶν, εἰπόντος δὲ ὅτι οὐχ οἷόν τε ἀτέλεστον ἀκούειν, ἤρετο εἰ οἶδεν αὐτός, φάσκοντος δὲ καὶ πῶς, ἀτέλεστος ὤν;

[¶50] 18.2. Again, interrogation should be employed when one of the two propositions is evident, and it is obvious that the opponent will admit the other if you ask him. But the interrogator, having obtained the second premise by putting a question, should not make an additional question of what is evident, but should state the conclusion. For instance, Socrates, when accused by Meletus of not believing in the gods, asked whether he did not say that there was a divine something; and when Meletus said yes, Socrates went on to ask if divine beings were not either children of the gods or something godlike. When Meletus again said yes, Socrates rejoined, “Is there a man, then, who can admit that the children of the gods exist without at the same time admitting that the gods exist?”

> Greek: 18.2. δεύτερον δὲ ὅταν τὸ μὲν φανερὸν ᾖ, τὸ δὲ ἐρωτήσαντι δῆλον ᾖ ὅτι δώσει· πυθόμενον μὲν γὰρ δεῖ τὴν μίαν πρότασιν μὴ προσερωτᾶν τὸ φανερὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ συμπέρασμα εἰπεῖν, οἷον Σωκράτης, Μελήτου οὐ φάσκοντος αὐτὸν θεοὺς νομίζειν, εἰρηκότος δὲ ὡς δαιμόνιόν τι λέγοι, ἤρετο εἰ οὐχ οἱ δαίμονες ἤτοι θεῶν παῖδες εἶεν ἢ θεῖόν τι, φήσαντος δὲ ἔστιν οὖν, ἔφη, ὅστις θεῶν μὲν παῖδας οἴεται εἶναι, θεοὺς δὲ οὔ;

[¶51] 18.3. Thirdly, when it is intended to show that the opponent either contradicts himself or puts forward a paradox.

> Greek: 18.3. ἔτι ὅταν μέλλῃ ἢ ἐναντία λέγοντα δείξειν ἢ παράδοξον.

[¶52] 18.4. Further, when the opponent can do nothing else but answer the question by a sophistical solution; for if he answers, “Partly yes, and partly no,” “Some are, but some are not,” “In one sense it is so, in another not,” the hearers cry out against him as being in a difficulty. In other cases interrogation should not be attempted; for if the adversary raises an objection, the interrogator seems to be defeated; for it is impossible to ask a number of questions, owing to the hearer's weakness. Wherefore also we should compress our enthymemes as much as possible.

> Greek: 18.4. τέταρτον δὲ ὅταν μὴ ἐνῇ ἀλλʼ ἢ σοφιστικῶς ἀποκρινάμενον λῦσαι· ἐὰν γὰρ οὕτως ἀποκρίνηται, ὅτι ἔστι μὲν ἔστι δʼ οὔ, ἢ τὰ μὲν τὰ δʼ οὔ, ἢ πῇ μὲν πῇ δʼ οὔ, θορυβοῦσιν ὡς ἀποροῦντος. ἄλλως δὲ μὴ ἐγχείρει. ἐὰν γὰρ ἐνστῇ, κεκρατῆσθαι δόξεις· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε πολλὰ ἐρωτᾶν, διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τοῦ ἀκροατοῦ· διὸ καὶ τὰ ἐνθυμήματα ὅτι μάλιστα συστρέφειν δεῖ.

[¶53] 18.5. Ambiguous questions should be answered by defining them by a regular explanation, and not too concisely; those that appear likely to make us contradict ourselves should be solved at once in the answer, before the adversary has time to ask the next question or to draw a conclusion; for it is not difficult to see the drift of his argument. Both this, however, and the means of answering will be sufficiently clear from the Topics.

> Greek: 18.5. ἀποκρίνασθαι δὲ δεῖ πρὸς μὲν τὰ ἀμφίβολα διαιροῦντα λόγῳ καὶ μὴ συντόμως, πρὸς δὲ τὰ δοκοῦντα ἐναντία τὴν λύσιν φέροντα εὐθὺς τῇ ἀποκρίσει, πρὶν ἐπερωτῆσαι τὸ ἐπιὸν ἢ συλλογίσασθαι· οὐ γὰρ χαλεπὸν προορᾶν ἐν τίνι ὁ λόγος. φανερὸν δʼ ἡμῖν ἐστιν ἐκ τῶν Τοπικῶν καὶ τοῦτο καὶ αἱ λύσεις.

[¶54] 18.6. If a conclusion is put in the form of a question, we should state the reason for our answer. For instance, Sophocles being asked by Pisander whether he, like the rest of the Committee of Ten, had approved the setting up of the Four Hundred, he admitted it. “What then?” asked Pisander, “did not this appear to you to be a wicked thing?” Sophocles admitted it. “So then you did what was wicked?” “Yes, for there was nothing better to be done.” The Lacedaemonian, who was called to account for his ephoralty, being asked if he did not think that the rest of his colleagues had been justly put to death, answered yes. “But did not you pass the same measures as they did?” “Yes.” “Would not you, then, also be justly put to death?” “No; for my colleagues did this for money; I did not, but acted according to my conscience.” For this reason we should not ask any further questions after drawing the conclusion, nor put the conclusion itself as a question, unless the balance of truth is unmistakably in our favor.

> Greek: 18.6. καὶ συμπεραινομένου, ἐὰν ἐρώτημα ποιῇ τὸ συμπέρασμα, τὴν αἰτίαν εἰπεῖν, οἷον Σοφοκλῆς, ἐρωτώμενος ὑπὸ Πεισάνδρου εἰ ἔδοξεν αὐτῷ, ὥσπερ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις προβούλοις, καταστῆσαι τοὺς τετρακοσίους, ἔφη τί δέ; οὐ πονηρά σοι ταῦτα ἐδόκει εἶναι; ἔφη. οὐκοῦν σὺ ταῦτα ἔπραξας τὰ πονηρά; ναὶ, ἔφη, οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἄλλα βελτίω. καὶ ὡς ὁ Λάκων εὐθυνόμενος τῆς ἐφορίας, ἐρωτώμενος εἰ δοκοῦσιν αὐτῷ δικαίως ἀπολωλέναι ἅτεροι, ἔφη. ὁ δὲ οὐκοῦν σὺ τούτοις ταὐτὰ ἔθου; καὶ ὃς ἔφη. οὐκοῦν δικαίως ἄν, ἔφη, καὶ σὺ ἀπόλοιο; οὐ δῆτα, ἔφη, οἱ μὲν γὰρ χρήματα λαβόντες ταῦτα ἔπραξαν, ἐγὼ δὲ οὔ, ἀλλὰ γνώμῃ. διὸ οὔτε ἐπερωτᾶν δεῖ μετὰ τὸ συμπέρασμα, οὔτε τὸ συμπέρασμα ἐπερωτᾶν, ἐὰν μὴ τὸ πολὺ περιῇ τοῦ ἀληθοῦς.

[¶55] 18.7. As for jests, since they may sometimes be useful in debates, the advice of Gorgias was good—to confound the opponents' earnest with jest and their jest with earnest. We have stated in the Poetics how many kinds of jests there are, some of them becoming a gentleman, others not. You should therefore choose the kind that suits you. Irony is more gentlemanly than buffoonery; for the first is employed on one's own account, the second on that of another.

> Greek: 18.7. περὶ δὲ τῶν γελοίων, ἐπειδή τινα δοκεῖ χρῆσιν ἔχειν ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσι, καὶ δεῖν ἔφη Γοργίας τὴν μὲν σπουδὴν διαφθείρειν τῶν ἐναντίων γέλωτι τὸν δὲ γέλωτα σπουδῇ, ὀρθῶς λέγων, εἴρηται πόσα εἴδη γελοίων ἔστιν ἐν τοῖς περὶ ποιητικῆς, ὧν τὸ μὲν ἁρμόττει ἐλευθέρῳ τὸ δʼ οὔ, ὅπως τὸ ἁρμόττον αὑτῷ λήψεται. ἔστι δʼ ἡ εἰρωνεία τῆς βωμολοχίας ἐλευθεριώτερον· ὁ μὲν γὰρ αὑτοῦ ἕνεκα ποιεῖ τὸ γελοῖον, ὁ δὲ βωμολόχος ἑτέρου.

[¶56] 19.1. The epilogue is composed of four parts: to dispose the hearer favorably towards oneself and unfavorably towards the adversary; to amplify and depreciate; to excite the emotions of the hearer; to recapitulate. For after you have proved that you are truthful and that the adversary is false, the natural order of things is to praise ourselves, blame him, and put the finishing touches. One of two things should be aimed at, to show that you are either relatively or absolutely good and the adversary either relatively or absolutely bad. The topics which serve to represent men as good or bad have already been stated.

> Greek: 19.1. ὁ δʼ ἐπίλογος σύγκειται ἐκ τεττάρων, ἔκ τε τοῦ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν κατασκευάσαι εὖ τὸν ἀκροατὴν καὶ τὸν ἐναντίον φαύλως, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ αὐξῆσαι καὶ ταπεινῶσαι, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ εἰς τὰ πάθη τὸν ἀκροατὴν καταστῆσαι, καὶ ἐξ ἀναμνήσεως. πέφυκε γάρ, μετὰ τὸ ἀποδεῖξαι αὐτὸν μὲν ἀληθῆ τὸν δὲ ἐναντίον ψευδῆ, οὕτω τὸ ἐπαινεῖν καὶ ψέγειν καὶ ἐπιχαλκεύειν. δυοῖν δὲ θατέρου δεῖ στοχάζεσθαι, ἢ ὅτι τούτοις ἀγαθὸς ἢ ὅτι ἁπλῶς, ὁ δʼ ὅτι κακὸς τούτοις ἢ ὅτι ἁπλῶς. ἐξ ὧν δὲ δεῖ τοῦτο κατασκευάζειν [δεῖ], εἴρηνται οἱ τόποι πόθεν σπουδαίους δεῖ κατασκευάζειν καὶ φαύλους.

[¶57] 19.2. After this, when the proof has once been established, the natural thing is to amplify or depreciate; for it is necessary that the facts should be admitted, if it is intended to deal with the question of degree; just as the growth of the body is due to things previously existing. The topics of amplification and depreciation have been previously set forth.

> Greek: 19.2. τὸ δὲ μετὰ τοῦτο, δεδειγμένων ἤδη, αὔξειν ἐστὶν κατὰ φύσιν ἢ ταπεινοῦν· δεῖ γὰρ τὰ πεπραγμένα ὁμολογεῖσθαι, εἰ μέλλει τὸ ποσὸν ἐρεῖν· καὶ γὰρ ἡ τῶν σωμάτων αὔξησις ἐκ προϋπαρχόντων ἐστίν. ὅθεν δὲ δεῖ αὔξειν καὶ ταπεινοῦν ἔκκεινται οἱ τόποι πρότερον.

[¶58] 19.3. Next, when the nature and importance of the facts are clear, one should rouse the hearer to certain emotions—pity, indignation, anger, hate, jealousy, emulation, and quarrelsomeness. The topics of these also have been previously stated, so that all that remains is to recapitulate what has been said.

> Greek: 19.3. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα, δήλων ὄντων καὶ οἷα καὶ ἡλίκα, εἰς τὰ πάθη ἄγειν τὸν ἀκροατήν. ταῦτα δʼ ἐστὶν ἔλεος καὶ δείνωσις καὶ ὀργὴ καὶ μίσος καὶ φθόνος καὶ ζῆλος καὶ ἔρις. εἴρηνται δὲ καὶ τούτων οἱ τόποι πρότερον, ὥστε λοιπὸν ἀναμνῆσαι τὰ προειρημένα.

[¶59] 19.4. This may appropriately be done at this stage in the way certain rhetoricians wrongly recommend for the exordium, when they advise frequent repetition of the points, so that they may be easily learnt. In the exordium we should state the subject, in order that the question to be decided may not escape notice, but in the epilogue we should give a summary statement of the proofs.

> Greek: 19.4. τοῦτο δὲ ἁρμόττει ποιεῖν οὐχ ὥσπερ φασὶν ἐν τοῖς προοιμίοις, οὐκ ὀρθῶς λέγοντες. ἵνα γὰρ εὐμαθὴς ᾖ, κελεύουσι πολλάκις εἰπεῖν. ἐκεῖ μὲν οὖν δεῖ τὸ πρᾶγμα εἰπεῖν, ἵνα μὴ λανθάνῃ περὶ οὗ ἡ κρίσις, ἐνταῦθα δὲ διʼ ὧν δέδεικται, κεφαλαιωδῶς.

[¶60] 19.5. We should begin by saying that we have kept our promise, and then state what we have said and why. Our case may also be closely compared with our opponent's; and we may either compare what both of us have said on the same point, or without direct comparison: “My opponent said so-and-so, and I said so-and-so on this point and for these reasons.” Or ironically, as for instance, “He said this and I answered that; what would he have done, if he had proved this, and not simply that?” Or by interrogation: “What is there that has not been proved?” or, “What has my opponent proved?” We may, therefore, either sum up by comparison, or in the natural order of the statements, just as they were made, our own first, and then again, separately, if we so desire, what has been said by our opponent.

> Greek: 19.5. ἀρχὴ δὲ διότι ἃ ὑπέσχετο ἀποδέδωκεν, ὥστε ἅ τε καὶ διʼ ὃ λεκτέον. λέγεται δὲ ἐξ ἀντιπαραβολῆς τοῦ ἐναντίου. παραβάλλειν δὲ [ἢ] ὅσα περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἄμφω εἶπον, ἢ [μὴ] καταντικρύ (ἀλλʼ οὗτος μὲν τάδε περὶ τούτου, ἐγὼ δὲ ταδί, καὶ διὰ ταῦτα), ἢ ἐξ εἰρωνείας (οἷον οὗτος γὰρ τάδʼ εἶπεν, ἐγὼ δὲ ταδί, καὶ τὶ ἂν ἐποίει, εἰ τάδε ἔδειξεν, ἀλλὰ μὴ ταδί), ἢ ἐξ ἐρωτήσεως (τί οὖν δέδεικται; ἢ οὗτος τί ἔδειξεν;). ἢ δὴ οὕτως [ἢ] ἐκ παραβολῆς ἢ κατὰ φύσιν ὡς ἐλέχθη, οὕτως τὰ αὐτοῦ, καὶ πάλιν, ἐὰν βούλῃ, χωρὶς τὰ τοῦ ἐναντίου λόγου.

[¶61] 19.6. To the conclusion of the speech the most appropriate style is that which has no connecting particles, in order that it may be a peroration, but not an oration: “I have spoken; you have heard; you know the facts; now give your decision.”

> Greek: 19.6. τελευτὴ δὲ τῆς λέξεως ἁρμόττει ἡ ἀσύνδετος, ὅπως ἐπίλογος ἀλλὰ μὴ λόγος ᾖ· εἴρηκα, ἀκηκόατε, ἔχετε, κρίνατε.