Abstract
Spurious rhetorical manual (perhaps by Anaximenes of Lampsacus) organized around three genres of oratory and their direct and supplementary means of proof; a practical guide to speech composition rather than a speculative work.
Traduzione di E. S. Forster · Delphi Classics, 2013 · pubblico dominio
THE text used for this translation is that of L. Spengel as revised by C. Hammer. Though the division of the chapters corresponds with that of Bekker, the numbering begins only after the Introductory Letter, which is Bekker’s first chapter.
Since the date of the Teubner Text fragments of a papyrus found at Hibeh were published in 1906 by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt (Hibeh Papyrus, Pt. I, No. 26, pp. 114-38). The papyrus is dated by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt in the first half of the third century B. c and is thus seventeen centuries older than any of our MSS., which belong to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. As might be expected, therefore, it exhibits a large number of divergences, but very few of these are such as to make any important differences of meaning; the readings of the papyrus have, therefore, only been noted where they materially affect the translation.
The authorship of the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum has been the subject of considerable discussion. The suggestion that it is to be attributed to Anaximenes of Lampsacus, a slightly older contemporary of Aristotle, was first made by Petrus Victorius on the strength of a statement of Quintilian (Inst. Or at., iii. 4. 9). This view was adopted by Spengel, who, in an extremely arbitrary manner, altered the text at 1421b 7 and 1432b 8 in defiance of all the MSS., in order to reduce the number of genera of oratory from three to two, so as to harmonize with Quintilian’s account of Anaximenes. These emendations are not only unlikely in themselves, but are contradicted by the whole arrangement of Chapters 1-5 and 3-7, where the author clearly deals with three genera, each with two species, and ‘inquiry’ as an extra species. In view of these facts the MS. reading has been retained in these passages.
Now Aristotle in the Rhetorica (1358a36 ff.) recognizes the three genera and is stated by Quintilian (Inst. Orat., iii. 4. 1) to have been the first to do so; the question therefore arises whether the Rhet ad Alex, can be the work of Aristotle himself. Mr. T. Case (article on ‘Aristotle’ in Encycl. Brit., nth ed.) argues that it is a genuine work of Aristotle of a somewhat earlier date than the Rhetorica. Against this it may be urged that the doctrine of the Rhet ad Alex, shows a development as compared with the Rhetorica in the addition of a species which the latter does not recognize.1 Further, it is difficult to conceive that any one who reads the two treatises side by side can come to the conclusion that the writer of the Rhet ad Alex, is identical with the author of the vastly superior Rhetorica.
Amongst others who have discussed the question of the authorship of the Rhet ad Alex., Mr. E. M. Cope (Introduction to the Rhetoric of Aristotle, pp. 413 ff.) is on the whole inclined to think that the treatise may possibly be the work of Anaximenes, but he thinks that the name of Anaximenes on the title-page of Spengel’s edition ‘should be replaced by the more modest “Anonymus “‘. Heitz (O. Miiller-Heitz, Gesch dergriech. Lit., ii, p. 287) and Susemihl (Gesch der griech. Lit in der Alexandrinerzeit, ii, p. 451) agree in the opinion that the Rhet ad Alex, is the work of a writer of the early third century B. C. Hammer (Rhet. Graec., vol i, pp iv-v) considers the question undecided, but, while he implies that there is much to be said for the view of Heitz and Susemihl, states that he has retained the name of Anaximenes out of deference to Spengel. The editors of the Hibeh Papyrus are of opinion that ‘the new discovery goes far to overthrow Susemihl’s position and weaken his objections to the previously accepted conclusions of Spengel’. They do not, however, offer any proofs in favour of the Anaximenean authorship or make any allusion to Spengel’s changes in the text, and unfortunately neither of the passages in which these occur is included in the fragments of the papyrus. They are of opinion that a fourth-century date for the treatise maybe regarded as established, though this, they say, does not prove that its author preceded Aristotle. It is to be noted that an exactly contemporary papyrus found at Hibeh (No. 16) is probably a fragment of Theophrastus ‘peri udatos’.
We shall probably not be far wrong if, accepting a date slightly anterior to 300 B. c., we attribute the work to a Peripatetic writer contemporaneous with Theophrastus. The treatise has certainly many points of contact with the Rhetorica and assumes and supplements Aristotle’s classification; it is written from a more practical and less philosophic standpoint and in the spirit of Socrates rather than of Aristotle.
My best thanks are due to the Editor of the series, Professor W. D. Ross, who has read through the translation both in MS. and in proof, to my colleague Professor W. C. Summers, who has read it in MS., and to Professor W. Rhys Roberts, who has read it in proof; all of whom have made valuable suggestions and corrections.
E. S. F.
THE UNIVERSITY, SHEFFIELD.
Nov. 14, 1923.
[Introductory Letter to Alexander.]
CHAP.
- The genera of oratory deliberative, epideictic, forensic. The species of oratory persuasive, dissuasive, eulogistic, vituperative, accusatory, defensive, inquisitive, (i) Deliberative oratory: persuasion and dissuasion.
(1) Appeals to the just, the lawful, the expedient, the noble, the pleasant, &c.
(2) Amplification and minimization.
(3) Proofs.
(4) Anticipations, postulates, iterations, elegances of speech, length of speech, explanation.
(1) Direct:
(a) Probabilities.
13- (g) Refutations.
(2) Supplementary:
(a) Opinion of the speaker.
Aristotle to Alexander. Salutation.
1 You write that you have often sent persons to me to urge upon me the project of noting down for you the principles of public speaking. It is not through indifference that I have put off doing so all this time, but because I was seeking how to write on this subject with more exactitude than any one else who has concerned himself therewith. It was only natural that I should have such an intention; for just as you are desirous to have more splendid raiment than other men, so you ought to strive to attain to a more glorious skill in speech than other men possess. For it is far more honourable and kingly to have the mind well ordered than to see the bodily form well arrayed. For verily it is absurd that one who in deeds excels all men should in words manifestly fall short of ordinary mortals, especially when he knows full well that, whereas among those whose political constitution is democracy the final appeal on all matters is to the law, among those who are under kingly rule the appeal is to reason. Just as their public law always directs self-governing communities along the best path, so might reason, as embodied in you, guide along the path of their advantage those who are subject to your rule. For law can be simply described as reason defined by the common consent of the community, regulating action of every kind. Furthermore, I think that you are well aware that we praise as good men and true those who employ reason and prefer always to act under its guidance, while we abhor as savage and brutish those who act in any matter without reason. It is for this cause too that we punish wicked men when they show their wickedness and admire the good when they display their virtue. Thus we have discovered a means of preventing possible wickedness, while we enjoy the benefits of existing goodness. In this way we escape annoyances which threaten us and secure advantages which we did not previously possess. Just as a life free from pain is an object of desire, so is wise reason an object of contentment.
Again, you must realize that the model set before most men is either the law or else your life and the expression of your reason. In order therefore that you may excel all Greeks and barbarians, you must exert yourself to the utmost, so that those who spend their lives in these pursuits, using the elements of virtue in them to produce a beauteous copy of the model thus set before them, may not direct themselves towards ignoble ends but make it their desire to partake in the same virtue.
Moreover, deliberation is the most divine of human activities. Therefore you must not waste your energies on subordinate and worthless pursuits, but desire to drink at the very fountain-head of good counsel. For what man of sense could ever doubt that, while it is a sign of foolishness to act without deliberation, it is the mark of true culture to accomplish under the guidance of reason anything that reason commands? It is plain to see that all the greatest politicians of Greece resort to reason first and then to deeds, and further that those who have won the highest repute among the barbarians have employed reason before action, knowing full well that the consideration of expediency by the light of reason is a very citadel of salvation. Yea, it is reason which we must regard as an impregnable citadel, and not look on any fortress built by man as a sure safeguard.
But I hesitate to say another word, lest I should seem to be writing for effect, bringing forward proofs of facts which are fully known as though they were not generally admitted.
I will therefore say no more, after mentioning only one topic, in enlarging on which one might spend one’s whole life, namely, that reason is the one thing wherein we are superior to all other animals, we who have received the highest honour which heaven can bestow. For all animals display the appetites and desire and the like, but none save man possess reason. Now it would be most strange if, when it is by virtue of reason alone that we live happier lives than all other animals, we should through indifference despise and renounce that which is the cause of our well-being. Though you have long been exhorted thereto, I urge you to embrace with the utmost zeal the study of reasoned speech. For just as health preserves the body, so is education the recognized preserver of the mind. Under its guidance you will never take a false step in anything that you do, but you will keep safe practically all the advantages which you already possess. Moreover, if physical sight is a pleasure, to see clearly with the eyes of the soul is a thing to be admired. Again, as the general is the saviour of his army, so is reason, allied with education, the guide of life. These, then, and like sentiments I think I may well dismiss at the present moment.
In your letter you urge me not to let this book fall into other hands than yours, and this knowing full well that, just as parents love their own offspring more than supposititious children, so those who have invented something have more affection for it than those to whom the discovery is merely imparted. For men have died in defence of their words, as they would die for their offspring. For the so-called Parian Sophists, because what they teach is not of their own production, in their gross indifference feel no affection and barter it away for money. Wherefore I exhort you to watch over these precepts, the children of my brain, that while they are yet young they may be corrupted by no man, and, sharing in your well-ordered life, when they come to man’s estate, may win unsullied glory.
Following the lesson taught by Nicanor, we have adopted from other authors anything on the same subjects which was particularly well expressed in their treatises. You will find two such books, one of which is my own, viz the Oratorical Art which I wrote for Theodectes, while the other is the treatise of Corax. The other points connected with public and forensic exhortations have all been dealt with specially in these treatises. So in these commentaries written expressly for you you will find material for amplifying these two treatises. Farewell.]
Public speeches fall into three classes, deliberative, epideictic, and forensic. They are of seven kinds, being employed in persuasion, dissuasion, eulogy, vituperation, accusation, defence, and inquiry either by itself or in relation to something else. Such are the different kinds of discourses and their number. We shall employ them in public harangues, in lawsuits about contracts, and in private conversation. We shall treat of them most conveniently if we take them each separately and enumerate their qualities, their uses, and their arrangement. And first let us discuss persuasion and dissuasion, since they are used most of all in private conversations and in public harangues. To speak generally, persuasion is an exhortation to some purpose or speech or action, while dissuasion is the prevention of some purpose or speech or action. Such being the definition of these words, he who persuades must show that those things to which he exhorts are just, lawful, expedient, honourable, pleasant, and easy of accomplishment. Failing that, when he is exhorting to that which is difficult, he must show that it is practicable and that its execution is necessary. He who dissuades, by pursuing the opposite course, must exert a hindering influence, showing that the proposed action is neither just nor lawful nor expedient nor honourable nor pleasant nor practicable; if he cannot do that, he must urge that it is toilsome and unnecessary. All actions can have both these sets of attributes applied to them, so that a man who can urge neither of these two sets of fundamental qualities is at a loss for anything to say. It is for these qualities therefore that those who seek to persuade or dissuade must look. I will now attempt to define them one by one and show whence we shall supply them for our discourses.
That which is just is the unwritten custom of all or the majority of men which draws a distinction between what is honourable and what is base. We may take as examples the honouring of parents, doing good to one’s friends, and returning good to one’s benefactors. These and similar duties are not enjoined upon mankind by written laws, but they are observed by unwritten custom and universal practice. So much for just actions.
Law is a common agreement made by the community, which ordains in writing how the citizens ought to act under every kind of circumstance.
Expediency is the safeguarding of existing advantages, or the acquisition of those not already possessed, or the riddance of existing disadvantages, or the prevention of harm which threatens to occur. For individuals you can divide up expediency according as it applies to the body or the mind or external possessions. For the body, strength, beauty, and health are expedient; for the mind, courage, wisdom, and justice. External possessions are friends, wealth, and property. The contraries of these are inexpedient. For a community such things as concord, strength for war, wealth, a plentiful supply of revenue, and excellence and abundance of allies are expedient. In a word we look upon anything of this kind as expedient and the contrary as inexpedient. Honourable things are those from which good repute and creditable distinction will accrue to the doers. Pleasant things are those which cause joy. Easy things are those which are accomplished with the least expenditure of time, trouble, and money. Practicable things are all those which admit of performance. Necessary things are those the execution of which does not depend upon us but takes place as it were by some necessity divine or human. Such, then, is the nature of things just, lawful, expedient, honourable, easy, practicable, and necessary.
It will be easy to speak about such subjects by the use of the arguments mentioned above and by arguments analogous to them and by arguments opposed to them and by employing judgements pronounced by the gods or by men by judges of repute or by our opponents.
We have already described the nature of that which is just. The following are cases where there is an analogy to that which is just: ‘As we consider it just to obey parents, on the same principle it behoves sons to imitate the actions of their fathers’; or again, ‘As it is just to do good in return to those who do good to us, so it is just to abstain from harming those who have done us no ill’. It is by this method that we must get analogies to justice. Then we ought to make the example itself clear by taking the contrary case: ‘As it is just to punish those who do us a wrong, so it behoves us to do good in return to our benefactors’.
You will discover what is just in the judgement of men of repute by a consideration such as the following: ‘Not only do we hate and do harm to our enemies, but the Athenians also and the Lacedaemonians judge that it is just to punish their enemies.’ By following this system you will often discover what is just.
We have already defined the nature of that which is lawful. When it serves our purpose we must introduce the legislator himself and his law and any case of analogy to the written law. For example, ‘As the lawgiver punishes thieves with very serious penalties, so we ought to inflict heavy chastisement on those who deceive, for they steal away the understanding’; or again, ‘Just as the lawgiver has made the nearest relatives the heirs of those who die childless, so I ought in the present case to have authority over the possessions of a freed man; for since those who set him free are dead and I am the nearest relative of the deceased persons, I am justified in assuming control over their freedmen. This is an example of the way in which an analogy to that which is ordained by law is obtained.
The following is an illustration of what is contrary to that which is lawful: ‘If the law prohibits the distribution of public property, it was clearly the judgement of the lawgiver that all who divide up such property are doing wrong; for if the laws ordain that those who govern the state well and justly should be honoured, they clearly regard those who make away with public property as deserving of punishment.’ The nature of the lawful is thus clearly shown by taking cases of the contrary. It can be demonstrated from previous judgements by a consideration such as this: ‘Not only do I — hold that the lawgiver made this law to cover such cases as these, but on a former occasion, when Lysithidas gave an explanation similar to that which I am now putting forward, the jury voted in favour of this interpretation of the law.’ By this method we shall often be able to demonstrate what is lawful.
The nature of the expedient itself has already been defined. We must, in addition to the subjects already mentioned, introduce the expedient, wherever it is available, into our arguments and often bring it to light, pursuing the same method which we employed for the lawful and the just. The following would be instances of analogies to the expedient: ‘As in war it is expedient to station the bravest men in the front rank, so in the state it is advantageous that the wisest and justest men should be the leaders of the people’; or again, ‘As it is expedient for the healthy to be on their guard against disease, so too in communities which live in harmony it is expedient to provide against possibilities of faction.’ By following this method you will be able to make many analogies to the expedient. The expedient will also be clear if you take contrary cases such as the following: ‘If it is advantageous to honour good citizens, it would be expedient also to punish the wicked’; or again, ‘If you think it inexpedient that we should make war unaided on the Thebans, it would be expedient to make the Lacedaemonians our allies and then make war on the Thebans.’ This is the method by which you will demonstrate the expedient by arguing from the contrary. You can discover what has been judged to be expedient by judges of repute by considerations such as the following:
‘The Lacedaemonians, when they had conquered the Athenians, thought it expedient not to enslave their city, and on another occasion the Athenians and Thebans, when it was within their power to depopulate Sparta, thought it expedient to allow the Lacedaemonians to survive.’
By pursuing this method you will have plenty to say about the just, the lawful, and the expedient. You must employ the same methods in the case of the honourable, the easy, the pleasant, the practicable, and the necessary. We shall thus have abundant material on these topics also.
Next let us determine the number, the character, and the names of the subjects which we discuss in the council-chamber and in the popular assembly. If we have a clear knowledge of these, the actual circumstances will provide us with something appropriate to say on each occasion when we are giving advice. If we have long been familiar with the characteristics common to each class of subject, we shall always be able to apply them readily in practice. We must therefore distinguish the various subjects about which all men hold public deliberation.
To sum the matter up, there are seven subjects on which we shall speak in public. For whether we are addressing the council or the people, we must necessarily deliberate and speak about either sacred rites or laws or the political constitution or alliances and contracts with other states or war or peace or the provision of resources. These, then, are the subjects about which we shall deliberate and address the people. Let us take each of them separately and see how they can be treated in a speech.
There are three ways in which we must deal with the subject of sacred rites; for we shall urge either that they ought to be retained in their existing form, or that they ought to be changed so as to be more magnificent or else less sumptuous. When we are maintaining that the existing form should be retained, we should derive material from the argument of justice, urging that it is regarded by all men as unjust to transgress the customs of our forefathers, and that all the oracles command men to make their sacrifices according to the usages of their forefathers, and that it is of the utmost importance that the religious observances should be continued which were prescribed by those who originally founded cities and set up temples to the gods. On the ground of expediency we shall urge that, if the sacrifices are offered according to ancestral usage, it will be expedient either for individuals or the community at large in view of the payments of money which will be involved, and that it will benefit the citizens by creating a feeling of self-confidence; for if heavy-armed troops, horsemen, and light-armed soldiers join in a religious procession, the citizens, priding themselves on such things, would feel greater confidence in themselves. It can be urged on the ground of what is honourable, if it results in the spectacle of splendid festivals; on the ground of pleasure, because a variety in the sacrifices to the gods is introduced into the spectacle; and on the ground of practicability, if neither defect nor excess has characterized the celebration. Thus when we are speaking in support of the existing state of affairs, we must pursue our inquiry by the above or similar methods and treat the question under discussion as the nature of the subject permits.
When we are advising a change to greater magnificence in the celebration of sacred rites, we shall have a plausible pretext for altering ancestral usages, if we urge that an addition to existing rites involves not their destruction but their extension; again, that it is reasonable to suppose that the gods are more favourably disposed to those who honour them more; again, that even our fathers used not to perform their sacrifices always in the same way, but regulated their service to the gods, both as a community and as private individuals, according to the occasion and their own prosperity; again, that this is a principle which we follow in all other matters in the government of our cities and our private establishments. You must also mention any advantage in brilliance or enjoyment which is likely to result to the city from the alteration, following the methods which we have described above.
When we are urging a reduction of the scale of our sacred rites, we must in the first place direct our remarks to the circumstances of the moment and show in what respect the citizens are less prosperous now than formerly. Next we must show that it is reasonable to suppose that the gods rejoice, not in the costliness of the sacrifices, but in the piety of those who offer them; again, that both gods and men deem those who do anything beyond their means to be guilty of great folly; next, that public expenditure is not merely a personal question but depends on prosperity and adversity. These and others of the same kind are the arguments which we shall offer on the subject of sacrifices.
But in order that we may know how to give some indications and offer rules as to the conditions of the ideal sacrifice, let us define it thus: the best sacrifice of all is one which is pious towards the gods, moderate in costliness, likely to bring advantage in war, and splendid from a spectacular point of view. It will be pious towards the gods, if ancestral usage is not violated; it will be moderate in costliness, if the accompaniments of the ceremony are not all wasted; it will be splendid from a spectacular point of view, if gold and such things as are not actually consumed arc used lavishly; and it will be advantageous for war, if horsemen and infantry in full panoply accompany the procession. By following these rules we shall best provide for the service of the gods. From what has been said above we shall know how to speak in public about the performance of sacred rites of every kind.
Let us next deal similarly with laws and the political constitution. Laws may be briefly described as common agreements made by the community which define and ordain in writing how the citizens should act under various circumstances.
In democratic states legislation ought to provide for appointment by lot to the less important and the majority of the offices (for thus faction will be avoided), while the most important magistrates should be elected by the votes of the multitude. In this way the people, having the power to bestow honours on whomsoever they like, will not be jealous of those who obtain them, while the more prominent men will be encouraged to practice virtue, knowing that it will be to their advantage to have a good repute among their fellow-citizens. Such are the laws which ought to be laid down regarding elections in a democratic state. It would be a lengthy task to go into detail about the rest of the administration. But, to put the matter briefly, care must be taken that the laws may prevent the multitude from entertaining designs against the possessors of property and may instil into the wealthy citizens an eagerness to spend money in undertaking public burdens. The laws will ensure this if certain distinctions are set aside by law for the owners of property in return for their expenditure in the service of the state, and if the laws show more consideration for the tillers of the soil and the sailors among the poorer classes than for the rabble of the city; so that the rich may willingly serve the state, and the people may prefer work to dishonest means of gain. In addition stringent laws must be laid down forbidding the distribution of public lands and the confiscation of the property of deceased persons, and heavy penalties must be imposed on those who commit these transgressions. Also public land in a good position in front of the city must be set apart for the burial of those who are killed in war, and their children must be supported at the public expense until they grow up. Such must be the character of legislation in a democratic state.
In oligarchical states the laws ought to distribute the magistracies impartially to all who possess the rights of citizenship; most of them should be bestowed by lot, but the most important should be assigned by secret vote under oath and with the strictest precautions. Under an oligarchy the penalties inflicted on those who offer affronts to any of the citizens ought to be very heavy, for the people are not so much annoyed at being debarred from holding office as they are angered at being affronted. Differences between citizens ought to be settled as quickly as possible and not be allowed to continue. Nor ought the lower classes to be allowed to collect from the country into the city; for the result of such assemblages is that the populace unites and overthrows the oligarchy. Speaking generally, in democratic states the laws ought to hinder the populace from entertaining designs on the property of the rich; in oligarchical states they ought to check the possessors of political rights from insulting those who are weaker than themselves and from imposing upon the citizens. From what I have said you will not fail to perceive what aims the laws and political constitution ought to keep in view.
Any one who wishes to speak in favour of a law must show that it affects all equally, that it harmonizes with the rest of the laws, and that it is bénéficiai to the city, particularly in promoting concord; failing this, he must show that it will conduce to virtue among the citizens, or that it will benefit the public revenue or the good repute of the city as a whole, or that it will strengthen the power of the state, or that it will confer some similar advantage. If you are speaking against a law, you must consider whether it does not apply equally to all the citizens; and next, whether, so far from agreeing with the other laws, it is actually opposed to them; and further, whether it will conduce to none of the benefits which we have mentioned, being on the contrary harmful. These considerations will provide us with abundant arguments for making proposals and speaking about laws and the political constitution.
We will now proceed to deal with alliances and contracts with other states. Contracts must necessarily be regulated by public arrangements and agreements. Alliances must be formed on occasions when one party is too weak by itself, or when a war is expected to break out; or else men must enter into an alliance with another state because they think they will thus prevent certain people from making war. These and a number of similar circumstances are the reasons which induce states to make allies.
When you wish to support the formation of an alliance, you must make it clear that the occasion for doing so exists, and show if possible, that the proposed allies are just men, and that they have previously conferred some benefit upon the state, and that they are possessed of considerable power, and that they are situated near at hand. If all these advantages are not present, you must collect in your speech any of them which do exist. When you are trying to prevent an alliance, it is open to you to show in the first place that it is unnecessary at the moment; or again, that the proposed allies are not just men, or that they have wronged us on a previous occasion. Failing that, you can object to them on the ground that they live too far away and are not in a position to help us at the proper moment. With these and similar arguments we shall have abundant material for speaking against and in support of the formation of alliances.
Again, on the subject of peace and war let us use a similar method to obtain our chief kinds of argument. The pretexts for making war on another state are as follows: when we have been the victims of aggression, we must take vengeance on those who have wronged us, now that a suitable opportunity has presented itself; or else, when we are actually being wronged, we must go to war on our own behalf or on behalf of our kindred or benefactors; or else we must help our allies when they are wronged; or else we must go to war to gain some advantage for the city, in respect either of glory, or of resources, or of strength, or of something similar.
When we are exhorting any one to go to war we must collect as many of these pretexts as possible, and afterwards show that those whom we are exhorting possess most of the advantages which bring success in warfare. Now men are always successful either by the favour of the gods, which we call good fortune, or through the number and strength of their troops, or through the abundance of their resources or the wisdom of their general or the excellence of their allies, or through their superiority of position. From these, then, and similar advantages we shall select and demonstrate those which are most applicable to the circumstances, when our advice is in favour of war, belittling the points of superiority possessed by the enemy and exaggerating those which we ourselves enjoy. If we are trying to prevent a war which is likely to take place, we must first of all find pretexts to show that the alleged grievances either do not exist at all or else are small and insignificant; next we must show that it is not expedient to go to war, dwelling on the disasters that befall men in warfare; and further, that the advantages which conduce to victory (which have just been enumerated) are possessed by the enemy rather than by us.
These are the means which we must employ to avert a war which is likely to occur. When we are trying to stop a war which has actually started, if those to whom our advice is offered are stronger than their foes, the first point on which we must insist is that sensible men ought not to wait until they have a fall, but should make peace while they are strong; also, that it is characteristic of war to ruin many even of those who are successful in it, but of peace to save the vanquished and to allow the victorious to enjoy the possessions which they have gained in warfare. We must also dwell upon the numerous and incalculable vicissitudes of warfare. Such are the methods by which we must exhort to peace those who are victorious in war.
Those who have already met with failure we must urge to make peace on the ground of actual events, and because they ought to learn from their misfortunes and not be exasperated by those who have already injured them, and because of the dangers which have already resulted from not making peace, and because it is better to sacrifice a part of their possessions to an enemy stronger than themselves than to be conquered and lose their lives as well as their property. And, to put the matter briefly, we must realize that it is the universal custom of mankind to abandon mutual warfare, either when they think that the demands of the enemy are just, or when they are at variance with their allies, or weary of war, or afraid of their enemy, or suffering from internal strife. If, therefore, you collect from amongst all these and similar arguments those which are most applicable to the circumstances, you will have no lack of material for speaking about peace and war.
Lastly, it remains for us to treat of the provision of resources. First, then, we must inquire whether any property belonging to the city is neglected, neither bringing in any revenue nor being dedicated to the gods: I mean, for example, any public lands which are neglected and might bring in revenue to the city if they were sold or leased to private persons; for this is a very common source of income.
If this expedient is lacking, we must impose taxes on rateable property, or order the poor to give their personal service in time of danger, the rich to pay money, and the craftsmen to provide arms. In a word, when we are treating of ways and means, we must say that they affect all the citizens equally and are permanent and ample, while the exact opposite is true of our adversaries’ proposals.
From what has now been said we are acquainted with the subjects on which we shall speak in public, when we are seeking to persuade or dissuade, and their component parts, which will supply us with the material of our orations.
Next in order let us set forth and treat of the eulogistic and vituperative kinds of oratory.
To speak generally, the eulogistic kind is the amplification of creditable purposes, deeds, and words, and the attribution of qualities which do not exist; while the vituperative kind is the opposite of this and consists in the minimizing of creditable qualities and the amplification of those which are discreditable. Deeds worthy of praise are those which are just, lawful, expedient, honourable, pleasant, and easy of execution. The nature of these qualities and the sources from which we can obtain abundant material about them have already been stated. He who is eulogizing must show in his speech that one of these praiseworthy deeds is connected with a certain person or his acts, because it has either been brought about by his personal exertions, or has been produced through his agency, or has resulted from a certain action of his, or has been done for some object, or could not have come to pass except under certain circumstances which are due to him. Similarly he who is censuring must show that the contrary of this is true of the person whom he is censuring. The following are examples of the results of action; bodily health is the result of a fondness for gymnastics; a man falls into ill-health as the result of not caring for exercise, or becomes wiser as the result of studying philosophy, or lacks the necessities of life as the result of his own carelessness. The following are actions done with an object: men endure many toils and dangers with the object of being crowned by their fellow-citizens, or neglect everything else with the object of pleasing those whom they love. Instances of things which can only take place under certain circumstances are the following: victories at sea can only take place when there are sailors to win them, and drunkenness can only occur as the result of drinking. By pursuing this method on the lines already laid down you will have abundant material for eulogy and vituperation.
Generally speaking you will be able to amplify and minimize under all such circumstances by the following method: first, by showing, as I explained just now, that many good or bad results have been caused by a certain person’s actions. This is one kind of amplification. A second method is to introduce a judgement already passed — a favourable one, if you are eulogizing, and an unfavourable one, if you are censuring — and then set side by side with it what you have to say and compare the two together, making as much as possible of your own opinion and as little as possible of the other judgement; the result will be that your own opinion is magnified. A third plan is to compare that about which you are speaking with the least thing which falls under the same category; for the former will then appear magnified, just as persons of moderate height appear taller than they really are when they stand side by side with persons of unusually small stature. The following is another safe method of amplification: if a certain thing has been considered a great good, then its contrary, if you mention it, will appear to be a great evil, and similarly, if a thing is considered to be a great evil, its contrary, if you mention it, will appear to be a great good. You can also magnify good and bad actions by showing that the doer of them acted intentionally, proving that he had long premeditated doing them, that he purposed to do them often, that he did them over a long period, that no one else ever tried to do them, that he acted in company with others with whom no one else ever acted, or following those whom no one else ever followed, or that he acted wittingly or designedly, and that we should be fortunate, or unfortunate, if we all did as he did. You must also prove your point by drawing parallels and amplifying as follows, building them as it were, one on the top of another : ‘If a man cares for his friends, it is natural to suppose that he honours his parents, and he who honours his parents will also desire to benefit his fatherland.’ Generally speaking, if you can prove that a man is the cause of many good or bad things, these things will appear to be important. You must also examine the topic on which you are speaking and see whether it appears to have more weight when divided into parts or when treated as a whole, and you must treat it in the manner in which it appears to have more weight. By pursuing these methods you will be able to make the most frequent and effective amplifications.
You will minimize good and bad actions in your speeches by following the opposite method to that which we have prescribed for amplification. The best thing is to show that a man’s action has produced no ‘result at all, or, if that is impossible, only the smallest and most insignificant results. From these instructions we know how to amplify or minimize any point which we are bringing forward, when we are eulogizing or censuring. These materials for amplification are useful in other kinds of oratory, but they are most effective in eulogy and vituperation. We shall thus be provided with ample material on these topics.
— Let us next similarly define the kinds of oratory employed in accusation and defence, [which are concerned with forensic business, ] and the elements of which they are composed and the uses to which they are to be put. The oratory of accusation is, to put the matter briefly, the exposition of errors and crimes; defensive oratory is the disproving of errors and crimes of which a man is accused or suspected.
Both styles, then, having these qualities, he who is accusing, when he charges his opponents with deliberate wickedness, must declare that their acts are unjust and illegal and detrimental to the interests of the mass of citizens; when he is accusing an adversary of folly, he must declare his acts to be both inexpedient for the actual doer of them and disgraceful and odious and impracticable. These and similar arguments are those which should be directed against the wicked and foolish. Accusers should also observe against what kinds of offences the punishments ordained by the laws are directed and for what offences juries impose penalties. Where the law has laid down a definite punishment, the accuser must make it his sole object to prove that the offence has been committed. When the jury has to assess the penalty, first the charges must be proved; then the errors committed by one’s opponents must be amplified, and, if possible it must be shown that the offence was committed wittingly, and not with ordinary intent but after every possible preparation. If you cannot do this, and think that your opponent intends to show that he has somehow made a mistake or that he intended to act honourably in the matter but met with misfortune, you must deprive him of any claim to pardon by telling your hearers that evil-doers, instead of declaring that they have made a mistake after they have acted, ought to be careful before they act; and further that, even if he has made mistakes or met with misfortune, he is more deserving of punishment for his misfortunes and mistakes than one who has done neither of these things. Moreover the legislator has not let those who make mistakes go free, but has made them liable to punishment, in order to prevent any one else from making mistakes. You must also point out that if they listen to one who makes this kind of defence, they will have many persons doing wrong deliberately; for if they are successful, they will simply do what they like, while, if they are unsuccessful, they will declare that they have met with ill-fortune, and they then will be excused from punishment. By such arguments must accusers deprive their adversaries of any claim to pardon, and by means of the amplifications already described their acts must be shown to have caused many evils. These are the component parts of which the oratory of accusation is made up.
Defensive oratory consists of three methods. A man who is defending himself must either prove that he committed none of the acts of which he is accused; or if he is forced to admit them, he must try to show that what he has done is lawful and just and honourable and expedient for the state; if he cannot prove this, he must attribute his acts to an error or to misfortune and show that the harm which has resulted from them is small, and so try to gain pardon. You can define a crime, an error, and a misfortune thus: you must regard as a crime a wicked deed done deliberately, and you must urge that the heaviest penalty be exacted for such deeds; a harmful act done in ignorance must be called an error; while the failure to accomplish some good intention, not through one’s own fault but owing to some one else or to luck, is to be accounted a misfortune. The commission of crime you must declare to be confined to wicked men, while error and misfortune in action are not peculiar to oneself but are common to all men, including those who are sitting in judgement upon you. You must ask for pardon if you are forced to admit that you have committed faults of this kind, pointing out that your hearers are as liable to error and misfortune as you are. A man who is making his defence must observe all the offences for which the laws have laid down punishment and juries assess penalties. When the law fixes a definite punishment, he must show that he has not committed the offence at all, or that he has acted legally and justly. But when the jury is empowered to assess the penalty, he must not follow the same course and deny that he has committed the offence, but rather he must try to prove that his action has caused little harm to his adversary and that it was done involuntarily.
If we follow these and similar methods, we shall have abundant material in cases of accusation and defence. It remains for us still to deal with the style of oratory employed in an inquiry.
Inquiry may be summarily described as the elucidation of intentions, acts, and words which are contradictory to one another or to the rest of a man’s mode of life. He who is making an inquiry must try to discover whether either the statement which he is examining or the acts or intentions of the subject of his inquiry are in any respect contradictory to one another. The method to be pursued is as follows: he must consider whether in the past the person in question, after having been originally the friend of another man, next became his enemy and then again the friend of the same person, or whether he has done anything contradictory or of a discreditable tendency, or is likely in the future, if opportunities should occur, to act in a manner which contradicts his former acts. Similarly, you must observe whether, in making some statement now, he is speaking in contradiction of his former words, and likewise whether he has formed any intention which contradicts his former words, or would do so if opportunities should arise. By a similar process you must deal with the contradictions which occur in the mode of life of the person whom you are examining in respect of his other and highly esteemed habits of life. If you thus pursue this branch of oratory, there is no method of examination which you will leave untried.
All the various branches of oratory having now been distinguished, we must employ them, when it is fitting, either each separately or in common with one another by mingling their different qualities. For there are very great differences between them, but in actual practice they have much in common. In this respect they resemble the various classes of human beings, who are partly similar and partly dissimilar in their appearance and in their perceptions. Having thus distinguished the various kinds of oratory, let us next enumerate the requisites which are common to all kinds and explain how they must be used.
First, then, the just, the lawful, the expedient, the honourable, the pleasant, and similar topics are, as I stated at the beginning, common to all the various kinds of oratory, but are chiefly used in persuasive oratory. Secondly, amplification and minimization are necessarily useful in all kinds of oratory, but most use is made of them in eulogy and vituperation. Thirdly, there are the proofs, which must necessarily be employed in every department of oratory, but are particularly useful in accusation and defence, since these need most refutation. Further we must deal with anticipations of arguments, postulates, reiterations, prolixity of speech, and moderate length of speech, brevity, and method of statement. For these and similar expedients are useful in all the various branches of oratory.
The just, the lawful, and the like I have already defined and explained their application; I have also dealt with amplification and minimization. I will now explain the other terms, beginning with the proofs.
Proofs are of two kinds; some are derived directly from actual words, acts, and persons, others are supplementary to words and actions. Probabilities, examples, infallible signs, enthymemes, maxims, fallible signs, and refutations are proofs derived from actual words, persons, and actions.
Testimonies, oaths, and evidence given under torture are supplementary proofs. We must understand the nature of each of these kinds of proof, and whence we are to derive material for them, and how they differ from one another.
It is a Probability when one’s hearers have examples in their own minds of what is being said. For instance, if any one were to say that he desires the glorification of his country, the prosperity of his friends, and the misfortunes of his foes, and the like, his statements taken together would appear probable; for each one of his hearers is himself conscious that he entertains such wishes on these and similar subjects. We must, therefore, always carefully notice, when we are speaking, whether we are likely to find our audience in sympathy with us on the subject on which we are speaking; for in that case they are most likely to believe what we say. Such, then, is the nature of a probability.
We can divide probabilities into three kinds. One kind consists in the inclusion in one’s speech, when accusing or defending, of the feelings which are naturally found in mankind — if, for example, certain persons happen to despise or fear a certain other person, or have often done this very action, or, further, if they feel pleasure or pain or desire, or have ceased from desire, or if they act under the influence of wine, or have experienced in mind or body or one of the senses any of the feelings whereby we are all affected.
These and similar feelings, being common to all human nature, are well known to our hearers. Such, then, are the natural feelings which are wont to affect mankind, and for these we say that a place ought to be found in our speeches. Another division of probabilities falls under the heading of habit (which is what we do from custom), a third under that of love of gain. For we often for the sake of gain choose to act in a way which does violence to our nature and character.
With these definitions before us, when we are seeking to persuade or dissuade, we must show in regard to the subject in question that the action to which we are exhorting our hearers, or which we are opposing, has the effect which we declare that it has. Failing that, we must show that actions similar to that of which we are speaking either generally or invariably turn out as we say they do. Such must be our application of probabilities in relation to actions. As regards persons you must show, if you can, when you are accusing any one, that he has often committed the act in question on previous occasions; or, if that is impossible, that he has done similar acts. You must also try to prove that it was to his advantage to commit these acts; for most men, themselves preferring what is to their advantage, think that others too always act from this motive. If, therefore, you can derive an argument of probability directly from your adversaries, this is the method by which you must infer it. Failing that, you must take similar persons and adduce their customary procedure; for example, when the man whom you are accusing is young, argue that he has committed acts such as persons of that age are in the habit of committing; for your accusations against him will be believed on the ground of this resemblance. Similarly you will gain credence if you can show that his companions have the character which you declare him to have; for owing to his association with them it will appear likely that he has the same pursuits as his friends. Such must be the employment of the argument from probabilities by those who are accusing.
Those who are speaking in their own defence must make it their chief object to show that none of the acts of which they are accused has ever been committed either by themselves or by any of their friends or by any person who resembles them, and that it was of no advantage to them to commit such acts. But if you have manifestly done the same deed on a previous occasion, the fault must be attributed to your youth, or some other excuse must be introduced to provide a reasonable pretext for your having done wrong on that occasion. You must declare also that it was of no benefit to you to have acted thus at the time and that it would not have been of any advantage to you now. If no act of the kind alleged has ever been committed by you, but some of your friends happen to have done such deeds, you must plead that it is not just that you should be slandered because of them, and you must show that others of your associates are honest men; you will thus throw doubt on the crime of which you are accused. If they point out that other persons, who resemble you, have committed the same crimes as they allege against you you must declare that it is absurd if the fact that other people can be shown to have done wrong is to be regarded as a proof that you have committed any of the deeds of which you are accused. If, then, you deny that you have done the deed with which you are charged, you must thus make your defence by arguing from probabilities; for you will then make the charge appear improbable. If, however, you are obliged to admit the charge, you must point out the resemblance of your acts to the usual practice of mankind, by stating as emphatically as possible that the majority of men, nay all men, act under these and similar circumstances exactly as you have done.
If you cannot do this, you must take refuge in pleas of misfortune or error, and try to obtain pardon by citing the passions which are common to all mankind and make us lose our reason — love, anger, drunkenness, ambition, and the like. Such is the method by which we shall make the most skilful use of the argument from probability.
Examples are actions which have taken place in the past and are similar to, or the contrary of, those about which we are speaking. They must be used when your statement is not credible and you wish to establish its truth when it does not gain credence from the argument of probability; the object being that your hearers, learning that another action similar to that of which you are speaking has been carried out in the way in which you declare it to have been done, may be more ready to believe what you say.
Examples are of two kinds; for some things turn out according to our expectations, others contrary to them. The former cause credit, the latter discredit. For instance, if some one declares that the rich are juster than the poor and instances certain just actions on the part of rich men, such examples are in accordance with our expectation, for one can see that most men think that rich people are juster than poor people. If, on the other hand, some one shows that certain rich individuals have acted unjustly in order to get money, thus employing an example which is contrary to expectation, he would cause the rich to be distrusted. Similarly, if any one brings forward an example of what seems to be in accordance with our expectation — for instance, that on some occasion the Lacedaemonians or Athenians employing a large number of allies utterly defeated their enemies — he then disposes his hearers to take to themselves many allies.
Such examples are in accordance with our expectation, for every one is of opinion that large numbers are of no small importance for winning a victory. If, on the other hand, a speaker wishes to prove that numbers do not bring victory, he must give as examples occasions when the unexpected has happened, pointing out, for instance, that the Athenian exiles first seized Phyle with fifty men and then fought a battle against the far more numerous party in the city, who had the Lacedaemonians as their allies, and were thus restored to their own city; or again, that the Thebans, when the Lacedaemonians and practically all the Peloponnesians invaded Boeotia, confronted them alone at Leuctra and conquered the might of the Lacedaemonians: or again, that Dio the Syracusan sailed to Syracuse with three thousand hoplites and defeated Dionysius, whose forces were many times as great; and likewise the Corinthians, when they went to the assistance of the Syracusans with nine triremes, defeated the Carthaginians, although they were blockading the harbours of Syracuse with a hundred and fifty ships and held all the city except the acropolis. To sum the matter up, these and similar instances of unexpected successes often serve to discredit counsels which are based on ordinary probability. Such, then, is the nature of examples. Examples of both kinds must be employed, when we are urging what may be reasonably expected to happen, in order to show that the suggested course of action usually turns out in a particular way; and, when we are predicting some unexpected result, in order to give instances in which satisfactory results have accrued where they seemed to be least expected. If your adversaries use this device, you must show that their instances were the results of good luck, and declare that such things happen rarely, whereas your examples are of common occurrence. This, then, is the method of employing examples. If, on the other hand, we wish to cite instances where the unexpected has happened, we must collect as many of them as possible and show by enumeration that the unexpected happens quite as often as the expected. We must use not only examples derived in this way but also those based on contraries. For instance, you can show that a certain state has acted selfishly towards its allies and that their friendship has thus been dissolved, and then say, ‘We on the other hand, if we behave fairly and impartially towards our allies, shall keep their alliance for a long time’; or again, you can show that certain others have gone to war without due preparation and have consequently been defeated, and then say, ‘If we were to go to war properly prepared, we should have better hopes of success.’ You will be able to derive a number of examples from past and from present events; for actions are generally partly like and partly unlike one another. For this reason therefore we shall have no lack of examples and no difficulty in contradicting those brought forward by the other side. We now know the different kinds of examples and how we are to employ them and whence we are to derive them in abundance.
Infallible Signs exist where the direct contrary of that with which the speech is concerned has occurred, and where the speech is self-contradictory. For most listeners conclude from the contraries which occur in connexion with a speech or action that there is nothing sound in what is being said or done. You will often discover infallible signs by considering whether your adversary’s speech is self-contradictory or whether his action itself contradicts his words. Such is the nature of infallible signs and the method by which you will obtain the greatest number of them.
Enthymemes arise where contraries occur not only of the speech and action in question but of anything else as well. You will often discover them by pursuing the method prescribed for the oratory of inquiry and by considering whether the speech is self-contradictory in any respect, or whether what has been done is contrary to justice or law or expediency, or to what is honourable, practicable, easy, or probable, or to the character of the speaker or the nature of the circumstances. Such are the enthymemes which must be chosen for use against our adversaries. The contraries of these must be employed on our own behalf, and we must prove that our actions and words are the contrary of those which are unjust, unlawful, inexpedient, and of the habits of wicked men — in a word, of those things which are considered evil. We must speak in support of each of these pleas as briefly as possible and express ourselves in the fewest possible words. This then is the way in which we shall obtain a large number of enthymemes and the best method of employing them.
A Maxim is, briefly, the expression of an individual opinion on general matters. There are two kinds of maxims, those which agree with current opinion and those which are paradoxical. When you are using the former, there is no need to bring forward any reasons for your statement, for what you say is well known and does not excite incredulity. But when you are uttering a paradox, you must state your reasons briefly, so as to avoid prolixity and not arouse incredulity. The maxims which you quote must be applicable to the circumstances, in order that your words may not seem inept and far-fetched. We shall form a large number of maxims either from the peculiar nature of the circumstances or by means of hyperbole or by drawing parallels. The following are examples of maxims derived from the peculiar circumstances of a case: ‘ do not regard it as possible for a man to become a clever general if he is without experience in affairs’; or again, ‘It is characteristic of sensible men to profit by the examples of their predecessors and so try to avoid the errors of evil counsel.’ Such then are the maxims which we shall form from the peculiar circumstances of a case. Maxims such as the following are formed by hyperbole: ‘Thieves are in my opinion worse than plunderers; for the former carry off property secretly, the latter openly.’ By this method we shall form a number of maxims by hyperbole. The following are maxims based on parallels: ‘Those who appropriate money seem to me to act very like those who betray cities; for both are trusted and wrong those who have trusted them’; or again, ‘My opponents seem to me to act very like tyrants; for tyrants claim not to be punished for the wrongs which they have themselves inflicted, while they demand the fullest punishment for the wrongs of which they accuse others; and my adversaries, if they have themselves something which belongs to me, do not restore it, while, if I have received something which belongs to them, they think that they ought to have it restored to them and the interest on it as well.’ By following this method then we shall form a number of maxims.
One thing is a Sign of another thing, but one thing taken at random is not a sign of something else taken at random, nor is everything a sign of everything else; but the sign of a thing is that which usually occurs before, or simultaneously with, or after it. That which has happened is a sign not only of what has happened but also of what has not happened; and similarly what has not happened is a sign not only of what does not exist but also of what does exist. One sign causes belief, another knowledge; the latter is the best kind of sign, while that which produces the most plausible opinion is second best. To put the matter briefly, we shall obtain an abundance of signs from anything which has been done or is said or seen, taking each separately, and also from the greatness or smallness of the resultant disadvantages or advantages. We shall also derive them from testimonies and evidence and from our own supporters or those of our enemies, or from our enemies themselves; also from the challenges issued by the parties and from times and seasons and from many other things. From these sources then we shall have an abundance of signs.
A Refutation is that which cannot be otherwise than as we say it is. It is based on what is by nature necessary, or necessary as urged by us, and on what is impossible by nature or impossible as urged by our adversaries. An example of something which is naturally necessary is the statement that ‘living creatures require food’, and the like. What is necessary as urged by us is such a statement as that ‘those who are scourged confess what their tormentors tell them to confess’. Again, an instance of what is naturally impossible is the statement that ‘a small child stole a sum of money, which he could not possibly carry, and went off with it. It will be an impossibility as urged by an adversary, if, for example, he declares that on a certain date we made a contract at Athens, whereas we can prove to our hearers that at that time we were absent in some other city. It is from these and similar materials that we shall form our refutations. We have now briefly described all the proofs which are derived from actual words and from acts and from persons. Let us now consider how they differ from one another.
A probability differs from an example in this, that the hearers have themselves some notion of the probability, while examples (are supplied from our own experience. Examples differ from infallible signs because they) can be derived from contraries and from similars, while infallible signs can only be constructed from contrarieties of word and deed. Again, an enthymeme always has this distinction from an infallible sign, that an infallible sign is a contrariety which is concerned with a word or an action, while an enthymeme selects also contrarieties connected with other kinds of things; in other words, it is impossible for us to obtain an infallible sign unless there is some contrariety in respect of actions or words, whereas speakers can provide themselves with enthymemes from a variety of sources. Maxims differ from enthymemes in that enthymemes can be constructed only from contrarieties, whereas maxims can be enunciated both in connexion with contrarieties and also by themselves. Signs differ from maxims and all the other proofs already mentioned, because, while all the others engender an opinion in the minds of those who hear them, certain of the signs cause those who judge to have a clear knowledge; also because it is impossible for us ourselves to provide most of the other proofs, while it is easy to obtain a large number of signs. Further, a refutation differs from a sign, because some signs cause those who hear them merely to entertain an opinion, whereas every refutation teaches the truth to the judges. Thus from what has been said we know the nature of the proofs which concern words and actions, and the sources from which we are to derive them, and how they differ from one another.
Let us next deal with each of the supplementary proofs.
The opinion of a speaker is the declaration of his own belief about things. He ought to show himself to be experienced in the matters about which he is speaking, and point out that it is to his advantage to tell the truth concerning them.
One who is contradicting ought first and foremost to show that his adversary has no experience of the matters on which he is nevertheless giving his opinion; if however that is impossible, he ought to show that even persons of experience often make mistakes; and if this is inadmissible, he must say that it is contrary to the advantage of his opponents to tell the truth about these matters. Such is the use which we shall make of opinions expressed by speakers, both when we are ourselves expressing them and when we are contradicting others.
Testimony is a confession made voluntarily by one who knows. That which is testified must be either likely or unlikely or of doubtful credit: similarly the witness must be trustworthy or untrustworthy or of doubtful good faith. When therefore the evidence is likely and the witness truthful, the testimony needs no further support, unless you wish briefly to introduce a maxim or enthymeme for adornment’s sake. But when the witness is under suspicion, you must prove that such a person would not give false evidence to show gratitude or from motives of revenge or gain. You must also make it clear that it is not to his advantage to bear false witness; for the benefits which he gains, you will urge, are small, while detection is a serious matter, and, if he is found out, the laws punish him not only by fining him but also by damaging his reputation and destroying his credit. By these methods then we shall cause witnesses to be believed.
When we are contradicting evidence, we must cast prejudice on the character of the witness, if he is a bad man, or inquire into the evidence, if it is improbable, or else contradict both the witness and the evidence by bringing together all that is most discreditable to our adversaries. We must also consider whether the witness is a friend to him for whom he is giving evidence, or whether he can in any way be associated with his deed, or whether he is an enemy of the man against whom he is bearing witness, or whether he is poor. For such men are under suspicion of bearing false witness either to show favour or from motives of revenge or for gain. We shall also say that the legislator laid down the law about false testimony to apply to persons of this kind and that it is absurd that, whereas the legislator did not trust witnesses, those should believe them who are sitting in judgement after having sworn to judge according to the laws. By these methods then we shall cause witnesses to be discredited.
It is possible also to disguise evidence by a proceeding such as the following: ‘Bear witness’, you say, ‘in my favour, Callicles’—’ By the gods, I will not,’ he replies, ‘for the accused committed these crimes, though I tried to prevent him. In this way, though he has given false evidence in his refusal, he will not be liable to punishment as a false witness. This then is the way in which we shall treat evidence, when it is to our advantage to disguise it.
If our opponents try to do anything of this kind, we shall expose their wickedness and order them to give their evidence in writing. With these instructions then before us we know how to deal with witnesses and evidence.
— Evidence given under torture is a confession on the part of one who knows but is unwilling to state what he knows. When therefore it is to our interest to strengthen such evidence, we must say that individuals take their proofs from evidence under torture in their most serious affairs, and cities in their most important business, and that evidence under torture is more trustworthy than ordinary testimony. For it is often to the interest of witnesses to lie; but those who are under torture gain by telling the truth, for doing so will bring them the speediest relief from their sufferings.
When you wish to discredit evidence given under torture, you must say in the first place that slaves who are being tortured become hostile to those who have delivered them up to be tortured and for this reason tell many lies against their masters. Secondly, you must say that they often make confessions to their torturers which are not the truth, in order to end their torments as quickly as possible. You must also point out that even free men have often before now lied against themselves under torture to escape the suffering of the moment; it is therefore much more likely that slaves should wish to avoid punishment by lying against their masters, rather than, when they are enduring great bodily and mental pain, deliberately refuse to utter a falsehood in order to save other people from suffering. By these and similar arguments we shall cause evidence given under torture to be believed or disbelieved.
An Oath is an affirmation without proof accompanied by an invocation of the gods. When we wish to amplify the power of an oath we must say that no one would desire to commit perjury, because he would fear punishment from heaven and disgrace in the eyes of men; we must also point out that, while it is possible to escape the notice of men, it is impossible to elude the gods. When our opponents take refuge in an oath and we wish to belittle it, we must point out that those who do evil deeds are the very men who do not scruple to commit perjury; for a man who thinks that the gods take no notice of him when he does wrong, also thinks that he will not be punished even if he forswears himself. By pursuing a method such as the above in the matter of oaths we shall have no lack of material about them.
— We have now briefly carried out our purpose of dealing with all the various kinds of proof and have shown not only the force of each of them, but also how they differ from one another and how they ought to be employed. We will now proceed to explain the other expedients which belong to all three kinds of oratory and are useful in speeches of every kind.
Anticipation is the method by which we shall counteract the ill-feeling which is felt against us by anticipating the adverse criticisms of our audience and the arguments of those who are going to speak against us. We shall anticipate the criticisms of our audience by such a statement as, ‘Perhaps some of you are astonished that, young as I am, I attempt thus to speak in public on important matters’; or again, ‘Let no one oppose me through resentment, because I am going to offer you advice on subjects about which certain other people hesitate to speak openly before you.’ In matters then which are likely to annoy your hearers you must by anticipations of this kind bring forward reasons, which will show that you are justified in offering advice, pointing out the dearth of public speakers or the greatness of the dangers or the public expediency, or giving some other such reason whereby you will remove the ill-feeling which threatens you. If your audience still cries out just as much against you, you must address them briefly in the form of a maxim or enthymeme, saying, for example, that it is absolutely absurd that they should have come together to take the best counsel about the political situation and then think that they can take good counsel without deigning to hear what the speakers have to say; or again, you may say that it is only fair that they should either themselves get up and offer some advice, or else listen to those who have advice to offer, and then vote in favour of any course that recommends itself to them. Such must be the method of employing anticipation in public speaking, and this is how outcries must be faced.
In forensic speeches we shall use similar methods of anticipation to the above. If an outcry is raised against us at an early stage of the proceedings, we shall meet it in this manner: ‘Is it not absurd that, while the legislator ordained that each party should be allowed to speak twice, you who are sitting in judgement upon us should have sworn to pass sentence according to the law, and then refuse even to listen to a single speech? And that, while he took such measures to secure that you should give your vote in accordance with your oath after hearing all that was to be said, you should be so indifferent to his injunctions that, without even listening to the beginnings of the speeches, you already think that you know all the facts perfectly?’ Or you can put the matter differently and say, ‘How absurd it is that the lawgiver should have ordained that, if the votes were equal, the defendant should win the case, whereas you hold so strongly to the contrary opinion that you do not even listen to the defence offered by those who have been slandered; and that, whereas he granted this advantage in the voting to defendants because they run greater risks, you, while you show no hostility towards the accusers who run no risks, alarm by these outcries those who in terror and danger are defending themselves from the charges brought against them.’ Such must be your method of meeting those who raise an outcry against you at the beginning of your speech. If they interrupt you when your speech is well advanced, then, if those who do so are few in number, you must rebuke them and tell them that it is only just that they should listen to you at the moment, in order that they may not prevent the rest from forming a correct judgement, and that, when they have heard you, then they can do what they please. If the majority raises an outcry against you, you should blame yourself and not your judges; for, if you find fault with them, you only make them angry, whereas, if you blame yourself and say that you are in the wrong, you will gain their pardon. You must also beg your judges to give a favourable ear to your speech and not at this early stage to show what view they take about the facts on which they are to give their secret vote. In general, we shall meet interruptions in a summary manner with maxims and enthymemes, pointing out that our interrupters are setting themselves in opposition to justice or the laws or the interests of the city or what is honourable; for such methods as these are best calculated to make one’s hearers stop interrupting. We now know from what has been said above how to employ anticipations in dealing with an audience and how to meet interruptions.
I will next show you how to anticipate what is likely to be said by one’s opponents. You can say: ‘Perhaps he will bewail his poverty, which is not my fault but has been caused by his own way of life’; or again, ‘I hear that he intends to say such and such a thing.’ If we are speaking first, we must thus anticipate what our opponents are likely to say and so destroy and invalidate their pleas. For even though the arguments which you forestall and discredit are quite forcible, they will appear much less weighty to those who have already heard them.
If we are speaking after our opponents and they have anticipated what we intend to say, it is necessary to counteract their anticipations and destroy them by speaking as follows, ‘My opponent has not only told you many lies to my discredit, but further, well knowing that I shall refute his charges, he has anticipated my plea and discredited it beforehand, in order that you may not give it the attention which you otherwise would, or else that I may not employ it at all, because it has already been torn to pieces by him.
I hold, however, that you ought to hear my arguments from my own lips, not from his, even if he has tried to tear my arguments to pieces by saying things which I declare to be a strong sign that he has no sound plea to offer.’ Euripides has made a clever use of this device in the following lines of his Philoctetes:
E’en though he thinks to have destroyed my pleas
Escaping charge of wrong, yet will I speak;
From mine own lips mine arguments shall come,
Let his words show what kind of man he is.
We know then from the above how to make use of anticipations in relation both to our judges and to our opponents.
— Postulates in oratory are the demands which speakers make from their hearers. Some of them are just, others unjust. It is just to ask that they should listen to what you are saying and lend a favourable ear. It is also a just demand that they should give one the assistance which the laws allow and never vote against the laws and that they should make allowances for misfortunes. Any demand which is contrary to the law is unjust, otherwise it is just. Such are the postulates. We have distinguished their different kinds in order that, knowing the just from the unjust, we may use them on the light occasion, and that it may not escape our notice if our adversaries make any unjust demand from the judges. From what has been said we shall have an adequate knowledge on this subject.
— Iteration is a means of briefly reminding one’s hearers.
It must be employed both at the conclusion of a division of a speech and at the final conclusion. In recapitulating we use iteration in the form either of a division or of the recommendation of a certain course or of asking questions or of an enumeration. I will show you of what nature each of these is. The following is an example of its use in the form of a division: ‘I cannot say what these men would have done, if they had not manifestly deserted us long ago and were not convicted of having served against our city and of having never fulfilled any of their promises.’ Such is the use of iteration in an argument. It can be used as follows in the form of an enumeration: I have shown that they were the first to break the treaty of alliance and the first to attack us when we were at war with the Lacedaemonians, and that they displayed the utmost eagerness to enslave our city.’ Such is the use of iteration in an enumeration. The following is an example of its use in reminding your audience under the form of recommending a certain course of action: ‘You must remember that ever since we entered into friendship with these men we have never suffered any reverse at the hands of our enemies. For they have often helped us and prevented the Lacedaemonians from devastating our territory, and they have continued to this day to contribute large sums of money.’ Thus shall we remind our hearers by recommending a certain course of action. The following is an instance of iteration in the form of a question: ‘I should like to hear from them, why it is that they do not pay us the tribute which they owe. For they cannot have the face to say that they are in need of money, when they can be shown to be receiving such large sums of money annually from their land, nor yet can they say that they spend much on the administration of their city; for they clearly spend less than all the other islanders.’ Such will be our use of iteration in the form of a question.
Irony is to say something and pretend that you are not saying it, or else to call things by the names of their contraries. It may take the following form in a brief reminder of what has already been said: ‘I think that I need hardly say that these men, who pretend that they have done the state many services, are shown to have done it much harm, whereas we, whom they declare to be ungrateful, are shown to have often helped them and never to have done any one any injury.’ Such is the way briefly to remind your hearers of something under the pretence of omitting it. Secondly, the following is an instance of calling things by contrary names: ‘These noble citizens have clearly done great harm to their allies, while we worthless mortals have obviously been the cause of many benefits to them.’ In this way we shall briefly remind our hearers and employ iteration at the end of the divisions of our speeches and at their final conclusion.
We will next explain how one can speak pleasingly and prolong a speech to the length which one desires.
We can speak pleasingly in the following manner, by introducing, for example, whole enthymemes or half of one in such a way that our audience can guess the other half; we must also include maxims. To some of these we must give a place in every division of the speech, but the actual words must be varied and a similar phrase must never be applied repeatedly in the same connexion. In this way your speech will have a pleasing effect.
When you wish to lengthen your speech, you must divide up your subject and in each division explain the nature of its contents and their particular and general application and state the grounds of your pleas. If we wish to make our discourse still longer, we must employ a number of words in dealing with each topic. In each division of the speech you must iterate and make your iteration brief; while at the conclusion of your speech you ought to recapitulate as a whole all that you have dealt with in detail, and treat the subject generally. In this way your speech will be of a sufficient length.
If you wish to speak briefly, you should include your whole subject in a single word and that word the shortest which is applicable to the subject. You must also employ few conjunctive particles and connect as many things as possible together. Such must be your choice of words; you must make your language serve a double purpose, and you must do away with the brief iterations in the separate divisions of the speech and only employ iteration in your final conclusion. This is the way in which we shall make our speeches brief.
If you wish to speak at moderate length, you must pick out the most important divisions of your speech and make them your subject. You must also use words of medium length and not the longest or the shortest, and not employ a large number on a single topic but observe moderation. You must neither on the one hand do away entirely with conclusions in the intermediate parts of your speech, nor on the other hand introduce them in every division; but you must make special iterations at the end of those parts to which you wish your audience to pay particular attention. On these principles, then, we shall regulate the length of our speeches, whenever we wish to do so.
If you wish to compose a speech which will be pleasing, you must take care as far as possible to adapt the character of your speech to that of your audience. You will achieve this, if you observe their character, whether noble or petty or ordinary.
On these points, then, you will have adequate knowledge from what has been said above. We will now treat of the putting together of words; for this too is essential.
In the first place, then, words are of three kinds, simple, composite, and metaphorical.
Similarly there are three ways in which words can be put together: firstly, you can end one syllable with a vowel and begin the next with a vowel; secondly, you can begin a word with a consonant and end the previous word with a consonant; thirdly, you can put consonants and vowels in juxtaposition.
There are four orders in which words can be arranged.
First, you can either put similar words side by side or else disperse them; or again, you can use the same words or else change them into others; thirdly, you can describe a thing in one or many words; fourthly, you can name in their proper order the subjects of which you have undertaken to treat, or else transpose them.
I will next show what is the best method of statement which you can employ.
— First of all, you must make your statement by means of a twofold division, and, secondly, you must discourse lucidly. The following are the various forms of this two-fold division. First, one can say that one can oneself do one thing and another; secondly, that this man cannot do a certain thing, but that man can; thirdly, that this man can do a certain thing and something else; fourthly, that neither can one do a certain thing oneself nor can any one else do it; fifthly, that one cannot do a certain thing oneself, but that some one else can; sixthly, that one can do one thing oneself, but the other person cannot do something else. You can see each of these cases in the following examples. An illustration of the case where one can oneself do one thing and another is: ‘I have not only achieved this for you, but also, when Timotheus intended to make an expedition against you, I prevented him.’ The following is an example of the case where one man cannot do a thing but another man can: ‘This man then is unable to go himself on an embassy for you, but here is a man who is a friend of the Spartan state and would be better able than any one else to carry out the negotiations which you wish carried out.’ The case where a man can do a certain thing and something else as well can be thus illustrated: ‘Not only has he proved himself a strong man in war, but he can also give as good advice as any other citizen.’ The following is a case where one cannot oneself do a thing and nobody else can: ‘Having but a small force I cannot myself conquer our adversaries, nor could any other citizen do so.’ The following is an instance in which another man can do a thing, but one — cannot do it oneself: ‘Yes, he is physically strong, but I am weak.’ The following is an illustration of the case where one can oneself do one thing, but some other person cannot do something else: ‘I can steer, but this man cannot even pull an oar.’ This then is how you will employ forms of twofold statement, following the same course in every subject. We must next consider how you are to treat your subject lucidly.
First, then, call anything of which you speak by its proper name, avoiding ambiguity. Take care not to put vowels next to one another. Be careful to put the so-called ‘articles’ in the proper place. Consider how you put words together, so that there may be neither confusion nor transposition; for if your discourse has these qualities it is obscure. When you use an introductory particle, employ the corresponding particle afterwards. The following is an example of the use of a corresponding particle: ‘I indeed (men) came to the place to which I said I would come, but (de) you, though you promised to come, did not do so’ ; or again, when the same particle follows: ‘You were both (kai) the cause of that and (kai) the cause of this.’ So much for particles; from these examples you must infer the use of others.
Words must be put together so as to avoid confusion or transposition. The following is an example of such confusion: ‘It is a terrible thing that this man should strike this man.’ Here it is not clear which man struck the other; but you will make it clear if you say:
‘It is a terrible thing that this man should be struck by this man.’ This is an example where there is a confusion in the arrangement of words. The following is an instance of care taken to put the article in the right place: ‘This man is wronging this man.’ In this case the insertion of the articles makes the diction clear, while their omission will make it obscure; the reverse is sometimes true. So much then for the articles.
Never put vowels in juxtaposition, unless it is impossible to make your meaning clear otherwise, or unless a breathing-space or some other division occurs.
The following is a case where ambiguity must be avoided: the same words are sometimes used in several senses, for example we speak of a threshold (odos) of a door and of a way (udos) along which people walk; in such cases we must always add that which gives the word its distinctive meaning.
If we follow these rules we shall be clear in our use of words, and we shall make statements by means of the twofold method of division already described.
— Let us new deal with ‘antitheses’, ‘parisoses and ‘similarities’; for we shall need these also.
An ‘antithesis’ occurs when both the wording and the sense, or one or other of them, are opposed in a contrast. The following would be an antithesis both of wording and sense: ‘It is not fair that my opponent should become rich by possessing what belongs to me, while I sacrifice my property and become a mere beggar.’ In the following sentence we have a merely verbal antithesis: ‘Let the rich and prosperous give to the poor and needy;’ and an antithesis of sense only in the following: ‘I tended him when he was sick, but he has been the cause of very great misfortunes to me.’ Here there is no verbal antithesis, but the two actions are contrasted. The double antithesis (that is, both of sense and of wording) would be the best to use: but the other two kinds are also true antitheses.
‘Parisosis’ (parallelism of structure) occurs when a sentence has two equal ‘members’. The equality can be that of many small to few great things, and an equality of magnitude can be united with an equality of number.
‘Parisosis’ takes a form such as the following, ‘either through lack of resources or through the magnitude of the war’. These things are neither like nor opposed to one another, but merely equal to one another.
‘Paromoeosis’ (parallelism of sound) goes further than ‘parisosis’; for it makes the ‘members’ not only equal but also similar, being composed of similar words, in the following, for example: ‘If you must imitate the wording, you should simulate the feeling.’ Above all you should make the last words similar; for this gives the closest similarity. Words are similar which have similar syllables, in which most of the letters are the same; for example, ‘in numbers deficient, in might sufficient’. For whatever lies outside the scope of art, the inspiration of the moment will be your guide.
Enough then of these topics. For we are acquainted with the nature of the just, the lawful, the honourable, the expedient and the other qualities, and the sources from which we can derive them in abundance. Similarly we know the nature of amplifications and minimizations, and how we can provide them for our discourses. In like manner we are acquainted with the methods of anticipation, the postulates which we demand from our hearers, iterations, methods of pleasing, the means of regulating the length of our speeches, and all the ways of putting words together for purposes of statement. And so knowing from what has been said the qualities which are common to every kind of oratory and their uses, if we accustom and practise ourselves according to the prescribed preparatory exercises, we shall attain to great facility both in writing and speaking.
It is by taking the component parts separately that you can most accurately distinguish the methods of speaking.
I will next treat of the manner in which the words must be organically arranged in the various kinds of oratory, and which parts must be put first and how they must be treated.
I deal therefore first with proems; for the proem is common to all seven kinds of oratory and it can be fittingly applied to all subjects.
— The Proem can be described in a general way as a preparation of one’s audience and a declaration of the subject in a summary manner for the benefit of the ignorant, in order that they may know with what the speech is concerned and may follow the argument. It also exhorts them to pay attention and tries, as far as is possible in a speech, to influence their minds in our favour. Such is the preparation at which the proem must aim.
I will first show how the proem must be employed in public speaking and persuasive oratory. The following are examples of the way in which to lay your subject before your hearers and make it clear to them: ‘I stand before you to advise that we should go to war on behalf of the Syracusans,’ or, ‘I stand before you to demonstrate the inadvisability of our helping the Syracusans.’ This, then, is the way to summarize your subject.
We shall know how to exhort our hearers to pay attention, if we ourselves call to mind to what arguments and facts we pay most attention when deliberating. Do we not pay the closest attention when the subjects of deliberation are important or alarming or else nearly concern us; or when those who address us claim that they will show us that the measures which they are urging us to adopt are just and honourable and expedient and easy and honest; or when they beg us to listen with attention? Just as, therefore, we ourselves attend to others, so if we take those of the points above mentioned which are most applicable to the subjects of which we are treating and lay them before our hearers, we shall make them attend to what we are saying. These, then, are the ways in which we exhort our hearers to pay attention.
We shall secure their goodwill if we first consider what is in fact their attitude towards us, whether they are well or ill disposed or whether they are indifferent. If they are actually well disposed towards us, it is superfluous to talk about goodwill; if, however, we wish to talk about it at all, we must do so briefly, using ‘irony’ in the following way: ‘That I am well disposed towards the state, and that you have often acted expediently by following my advice, and that I observe a just attitude towards public affairs, preferring a personal sacrifice to reaping any advantage at the expense of the state, — these are, I think, statements which it is unnecessary for me to make to you who know well the truth of them. My efforts shall be directed rather to showing you that you will be well advised, if on this occasion too you follow my counsels.’ This then is the method by which in a public speech you must remind those who are well disposed towards you of their goodwill.
When your hearers are neither prejudiced against you nor well disposed, you must say that it is right and expedient that they should give a favourable ear to those citizens who have not yet given a proof of their quality as speakers. You must then flatter your audience by praising them, saying that it is their custom to judge the speeches which they hear with fairness and discrimination. Further, you must employ minimization and say, ‘I stand before you not through any confidence in my own cleverness, but because I think that the advice which I am about to offer is beneficial to the state.’ By such methods you must secure the goodwill of those who are neither well nor ill disposed towards you.
If you are the object of misrepresentation, the misrepresentation must be connected with yourself or the subject on which you are speaking or your actual words. Misrepresentations of this kind can date either from the present or from the past. If then one is under suspicion of wrongdoing in the past, one must employ anticipation in addressing one’s audience and say: ‘I am well aware that a prejudice exists against me, but I will prove that it is groundless.’
You must then make a brief defence in your proem, if you have anything to say on your own behalf, or raise objections to the judgements which have been passed upon you. For whether you have been publicly or privately misrepresented, judgement must either have been passed upon you or be impending in the immediate future, or else those who have laid the charge against you are unwilling to submit the matter to judgement; and you must say that the judgement passed upon you was unfair and that you have been the victim of party plots. If this is impossible, you must say that your previous misfortunes were sufficient, and that it is only fair, now that the matter has been judged and done with, that no further prejudice should be raised against you on the same grounds. If you are expecting to have judgement passed upon you, you must say that you are ready to submit the misrepresentations now to the judgement of your present audience; adding that, if you are proved to have wronged the state, you consider yourself worthy of death.
If your accusers do not press their charges against you, you must use this very fact as an indication that their misrepresentations of you are groundless; for it will seem hardly likely that those who are bringing true accusations against you can be unwilling to submit the matter to judgement. You must always denounce misrepresentation and declare it to be outrageous and universal and the cause of endless evil. You must also point out that many have before now been ruined through unjust misrepresentation. You must show moreover that it is foolish that men, when they are consulting about matters of public interest, should allow themselves to be disturbed by the misrepresentations of individuals instead of listening to the advice of all and then considering what true policy requires. You must also promise to prove that the advice which you have undertaken to give is just and expedient. Such then is the method which those who have been misrepresented in the past must adopt in public speaking in order to refute misrepresentation.
In reference to the present time the first thing which creates a prejudice against speakers is their age. If a man who is quite young or quite old is speaking in public, his hearers feel annoyance; for they think that the former ought not yet to have begun to speak, while the latter ought before now to have ceased speaking. Secondly, a prejudice is created against a man, if he is a frequent speaker, for it looks as if he were a busybody; or again, against a man who has never spoken before, for it looks as if he had some private motive in thus speaking in public contrary to his usual custom. Such, then, are the ways in which prejudices in reference to the present are likely to be created against a public speaker.
Excuses must be made by a young man by urging the dearth of advisers and the special suitability of the speaker; for instance, if the question concerns the superintendence of the torch-races or the gymnasium or arms or horses or war — in such matters a young man has no small interest. He must also urge that, if he has not yet the wisdom of years, he has at any rate that wisdom which comes from natural endowments and diligent application. He should also point out that, whereas unsuccessful advice reflects only upon its unhappy proposer, the benefit conferred when the policy succeeds is shared by the whole community. Such then are the excuses which must be urged by a young man. Excuses must be made when an old man is speaking by pointing out the dearth of advisers and his extensive knowledge of the subject. Furthermore he may urge the magnitude and unusual character of the crisis and the like. When a man is in the habit of speaking too frequently, he may point to his wide experience and urge that it would be wrong that one who was formerly in the habit of speaking should not express his opinion on this occasion. One who is not in the habit of speaking must urge the magnitude of the crisis and that it is essential that every one who has a stake in the community should express his opinion on the present situation. Such then are the means by which we shall attempt to break down the prejudices raised against the persons of public speakers.
Prejudice is created against the subject matter of a speech when the speaker advises the rupture of peaceful relations with those from whom we have received no injury or who are stronger than we, or when he advises a discreditable peace or urges a reduction of the expenditure on sacrifices or makes some other such proposal. On such subjects, first, one should employ anticipation in addressing one’s hearers; secondly, one ought to lay the blame upon necessity and fortune and the times and expediency, and say that it is not those who are giving advice but the circumstances which are to be blamed for such proposals.
Such are the methods by which we shall free political speakers from prejudices which are due to their subject matter.
The actual speech in a public harangue creates a prejudice when it is too lengthy or old-fashioned, or lacks probability. If it be long, this must be attributed to the abundance of material; if it be old-fashioned, it must be pointed out that such a style is opportune at the moment; if it is improbable, you must promise that you will prove it to be true in the course of your oration. These then are the considerations which will have a place in our public speeches.
Next, what arrangement shall we employ? If there be no prejudice against either ourselves personally or our speech or our subject, we shall lay down our proposition at the very beginning, and we shall afterwards exhort our hearers to pay attention and give our words a favourable hearing.
If any prejudice has been created against us in previous speeches, we shall anticipate the judgement of our audience and, after briefly defending and excusing ourselves from the prejudices thus caused, shall then state our proposition and exhort our hearers to give us their attention. This, then, is the way in which public speeches should be constituted.
Next we must either narrate events which have happened in the past or recall them to the minds of our hearers, or arrange under divisions and explain events which are occurring at the moment, or else predict what is likely to occur in the future. When therefore we are reporting the details of an embassy, we must make a lucid statement of everything that was said, in order that our speech may carry weight (for it will be a report and nothing else, and no other style will find its way in); next, if we have been unsuccessful, our object will be to make our hearers think that the failure of the negotiations was due to some other cause and not to our negligence; whereas, if we have met with success, they must be made to suppose that the result has been due not to chance but to our zealous efforts. This they are ready to believe, if, not having been present at the negotiations, they observe the zeal displayed in our speech in omitting nothing but accurately reporting every detail. So when we are describing the results of an embassy, we must for the reasons which I have stated report everything just as it happened.
When we are ourselves describing in a public speech some past event or explaining the events of the moment or predicting what will happen in the future, we must do each of these things briefly, clearly, and convincingly. We must be clear, in order that our hearers may grasp the events which we are describing, and concise, in order that they may remember what we have said; and we must speak convincingly, in order that they may not reject our statements before we have supported them with proofs and justifications.
The clearness of our explanations will be due to the words which we use or to our facts; to the latter, if we do not present them in an inverted order, but mention first those which have occurred or are occurring or are going to occur first, and arrange the subsequent events in their proper order, and do not desert the subject about which we have undertaken to speak, and deal with some other subject. Thus, then, we shall speak clearly as far as our facts are concerned. Our actual words will be clear, if we describe actions as far as possible in words which are appropriate to them, and if we employ usual words and do not put them in an inverted order but always arrange together those which naturally follow one another. If we observe these rules, our narrative will be clear.
We shall be concise if we omit all facts and words the mention of which is not essential, keeping only those the omission of which will render our speech obscure. Our narrative will then be concise.
We shall speak convincingly if, in support of facts which are improbable, we bring forward reasons which will make the events which we describe seem likely to have taken place. We must omit anything the occurrence of which seems too improbable. If you are obliged to mention such things, you must make it clear that you have definite knowledge of them, and you must pass lightly over them, weaving them into your speech by the figure of ‘pretended omission’, and promise to show their truth as your speech progresses, making the excuse that you wish first to demonstrate the truth or justice (or the like) of your previous statements. This is the way in which we shall remedy incredulity in our hearers.
In a word, by employing all the above-mentioned devices we shall make our reports, expositions, and predictions clear, brief, and convincing.
There are three different methods in which we shall arrange them. If the actions about which we are speaking are few in number and well known to our audience, we shall include the narration of them in our proem, in order that this part of our speech may not in itself be too short. If the actions which we are recounting are too numerous and not familiar to our audience, we shall present them in every case in a connected form and show that they are just, expedient, and honourable, in order that we may not only make our tale plain and unembellished by simply relating facts but may also win the attention of our hearers. If the facts which we are recounting are unimportant and unfamiliar, we ought to insert the report or exposition or prediction of them bodily in the proem. This we shall do by recounting them from beginning to end and including nothing extraneous but merely relating the bare facts. We shall thus know how to arrange narratives of facts in our proem.
Next comes confirmation, whereby we confirm that the facts which we have already mentioned are of the nature of which we have undertaken to prove them to be, by adducing proofs and by considerations of justice and expediency. When therefore you include them in your speech, the proofs which are best suited to public orations are those based on the customary course of events and examples and supplementary enthymemes and the opinion of the orator; but any other proofs which present themselves may also be employed. They must be arranged in the following way: first, the opinion of the orator must be mentioned, or, if that is not done, the customary course of events must be indicated, showing that what we are asserting, or something similar, is what usually occurs. Following on this we must cite examples, and any point of similarity must be introduced to support what we are saying. The examples which we take must be closely akin to our subject and the nearest in time or place to our hearers. In the absence of such examples we must employ the most striking and best known that we can find. Next we must cite maxims.
Also, in the parts where we introduce probabilities and examples we must end with enthymemes and maxims. This is the manner then in which we must introduce proofs where facts are concerned.
If our statements of facts are believed as soon as they are made, we must omit all proofs and confirm the facts which we have already stated by appeals to justice and lawfulness and expediency and considerations of what is honourable, pleasant, easy, possible, or necessary. Where an appeal to justice is possible, it must be given the first place, and we must explain our statements in relation to justice or a resemblance to justice or its contrary or what has been judged to be just. You must also cite examples similar to the cases of justice which you are instancing. You will also be able to produce numerous examples of what is regarded as just under special circumstances and in the actual city in which your speech is made, and in other states. When, following this method, we have Said what we have to say adding at the end maxims and brief enthymemes of different kinds, if this division of our speech is long and we wish it to be remembered by our hearers, we shall give a concise iteration; if, however, it is short and still fresh in their memory, we shall bring the division itself to a close and begin another one. The following is an example of what I mean: ‘In what I have already said I think that the justice of our helping the Syracusans has been sufficiently demonstrated; I will now attempt to show the expediency of our doing so.’ You will next treat the question of expediency by a similar method to that which we employed above in the case of justice, and at the end of that division add an iteration or definite conclusion, and then bring forward some other considerations with which you have to deal. This is the way in which you must connect one division with another and keep up the thread of your speech. When you have employed every possible means to enforce your advice, you must in addition to all this show in a summary manner with the help of enthymemes and maxims or figures that it is unjust and inexpedient and dishonourable and unpleasant not to adopt your suggestion, and in a summary way you must contrast with this the justice, expediency, honourableness, and pleasure of doing what you are recommending. When you have made a sufficient use of maxims, you must end your exhortations with a definite conclusion. This then is the way in which we shall confirm the proposals which we make. The next division of our treatise will be concerned with the anticipation of contrary arguments.
Anticipation is the method by which you anticipate and demolish the objections which can be brought against your speech. You must minimize the arguments of your opponents and amplify your own, as you have already learnt to do from the instructions about amplification. You must set a single argument against another when yours is the stronger, and several against several and one against many and many against one, using every possible kind of contrast, and magnify your own arguments and weaken and minimize those of your adversaries. This is the manner in which we shall employ anticipations. Having done this we shall conclude with an iteration using the forms of argument or enumeration or recommendation of a certain course or questioning or irony which we have already mentioned.
If we are urging that help should be given to some one, whether to private individuals or to states, it will be fitting briefly to mention any friendship cause for gratitude or pity which already exists between them and the assembly which you are addressing. For they are most willing to help those who stand in such relations to them. All men feel an affection for those from whom, or from whose friends, they think they themselves, or those for whom they care, have received or are receiving or are going to receive some deserved kindness. They feel gratitude towards those from whom, of from whose friends, they think they themselves or those for whom they care have received, are receiving, or will receive some undeserved benefit. If any feelings of this kind are present in their minds, we must briefly dwell upon them and so move our hearers to pity. We shall have no difficulty in arousing as much pity as we wish, if we realize that all men pity those whom they suppose to be closely connected with themselves or think to be unworthy to suffer misfortune. You must prove that this is the condition of those for whom you wish to excite pity, and show that they either have been or are in an evil plight, or will be so unless your hearers assist them. If this is not possible, you must show that those on whose behalf you are speaking have been deprived of advantages which all or most other people enjoy, or else have been or are without some advantage, or never will obtain it unless those whom you are addressing take pity on them now. These are the ways in which we shall incline our audience to pity.
In dissuasion we shall employ the contrary method, using the same kind of proem and narrating the facts and giving the proofs and showing our hearers that what they are attempting to do is unlawful, unjust, inexpedient, disgraceful, unpleasant, impracticable, burdensome, and unnecessary.
The arrangement of our speech will be similar to that used in persuasion. Such, then, is the way in which those who are employing dissuasion on their own account must arrange their speech.
Those who are opposing the advice given by others must in the first place state in their proem the views which they intend to oppose and then add one by one the other parts of the proem. After the proem the speaker must first bring forward separately each of the points in the previous speech and show that the recommendations of his adversary are not just or lawful or expedient or the like. This you will do by proving that what he says is unjust or inexpedient or bears a resemblance to injustice or inexpediency, or is the opposite of the just or expedient or what has been judged to be so. You must treat the other points in a similar manner. This, then, is the most effective method of dissuasion. If this course is impossible, you must try to dissuade your audience by taking some point which your adversary has omitted: for example, if he has shown that a certain course is just, you must attempt to prove that it is discreditable or inexpedient or toilsome or impracticable or whatever else you can; or if he has expediency on his side, you must show that his suggestion is unjust and whatever else you can as well. You must amplify your own contentions and minimize those of your adversary, employing the method already prescribed for persuasive oratory.
You must also introduce maxims and enthymemes, as in persuasion, and refute anticipations, and in conclusion employ iteration.
In addition to this we must show, when we are seeking to persuade our hearers, that friendship exists between them and those whom we are urging them to help, and that they owe a debt of gratitude to those who are asking for their assistance; but when we are trying to prevent help from being given, we must show that they are worthy objects of indignation or envy or hostility. We shall implant a sentiment of hostility in those whom we are seeking to dissuade by showing that either they themselves, or those for whom they care, have received undeserved ill-treatment at the hands of the other party or their friends. We shall arouse indignation, if we show that they, or those for whom they themselves care, have been wrongfully treated with contempt or injustice by the other party or their friends. We shall create a feeling of envy, to put the matter briefly, against those whom we show to have enjoyed unmerited prosperity, or to be now doing so, or to be likely to do so in the future; or never to have been without some advantage, or not to be so now, or to be never likely to be so; or never to have suffered some misfortune in the past, or not to be doing so now, or to be never likely to do so in future. This, then, is the method by which we shall implant envy or hostility or indignation; while we shall create feelings of friendship, gratitude, and pity by the methods which we indicated in treating of persuasion. We shall give these sentiments their place and arrangement according to the various methods already mentioned. We now know the nature of persuasive oratory and its component parts and how it must be employed.
Let us next set before ourselves the consideration of eulogistic and vituperative oratory. Here too we must first of all state our propositions in the proem, and refute misrepresentation by the same method as in persuasive oratory. We must also exhort our hearers to give us their attention by the methods already described under public speeches and in particular by saying things which will cause astonishment and attract remark, and showing that the subjects of our speech and those who usually incur praise or blame have acted in the same manner. Speeches of this kind are usually made not in order to fight a case but for display.
First, we shall arrange the proem on the same principle as in persuasive and dissuasive speeches. After the proem, we must distinguish those good qualities of our subject which are outside the sphere of virtue and those which fall within it, as follows: those which fall outside the sphere of virtue we shall divide into good birth, physical strength, personal beauty, and wealth, while we shall divide virtue into wisdom, justice, courage, and noteworthy habits of life. The qualities which pertain to virtue are proper subjects of eulogy; those which fall outside virtue must be disguised, for we ought to congratulate rather than praise those who are strong and handsome and well-born and wealthy. Having made these distinctions we shall give the genealogy of the subject of our speech the first place after the proem: for this is the first thing which brings credit or discredit upon men and also upon animals. We shall therefore be justified in giving the genealogy of a man or any other animal; and when we are praising any one’s feeling or action or speech or possession, we shall be justified in beginning our eulogy by mentioning the distinguished qualities which he possesses.
The following is the way to treat a man’s genealogy: if his ancestors were good men and true, you ought to mention them all from the earliest times down to the subject of your eulogy and give a brief account of some glorious achievement performed by each of his forefathers. If it is only his earliest ancestors that were good men while the rest failed to do anything remarkable, you must mention the former in the manner already described and omit the undistinguished members of the family, excusing yourself by saying that, his ancestors being so numerous, you do not wish to weary your audience by speaking of them, and that every one knows that men who are born of a good stock usually resemble their forefathers. If his early ancestors were undistinguished but those who come nearer his own time were men of repute, you must dwell upon his descent from the latter and say that it would be tedious to speak at length about his early forefathers, and you must show that the immediate ancestors of those whom you arc eulogizing were good men; adding that it is quite clear that their ancestors must have been good men and true, for it is hardly likely that such excellent and worthy persons can have been born of bad parents. If there is nothing distinguished in the ancestry of the subject of your eulogy, you must insist on his personal nobility and suggest that all those who have a natural predisposition for virtue are ‘well born’, and you must censure those other orators who dwell upon ancestral glories, pointing out that many men of distinguished ancestry have proved themselves unworthy of their forefathers. You must also insist that your task on the present occasion is to praise the man himself, not his ancestors. A similar use must be made of genealogies to discredit one whose ancestors were men of evil repute. Such then is the place which genealogy must occupy in eulogy and vituperation.
If the subject of your eulogy owes some distinction to good luck, (you must attribute his success rather to his own efforts than to fortune.
You must next describe his habits and way of life beginning from his earliest years), observing this one principle that you say what befits his various ages; and do not speak at too great length. For example, in children it is generally considered that orderliness and self-control are due not to themselves but to those who have charge of them, and so they must be dealt with briefly. When you have thus described his early years, after concluding with an enthymeme or maxim at the end of this division of your speech, you will, when you come to the early manhood of the subject of your eulogy, state your subject, viz his achievements or character or habits, and you must amplify them on the principle which we laid down at the beginning in treating of eulogistic oratory, explaining that it was at this age that such and such a glorious deed was done by him whom you are eulogizing, or through his agency or owing to some habit of his, or that he inspired it or supplied the motive. You must also compare the notable achievements of other young men and show that his actions far surpass theirs, relating the least important of their deeds and the most important of the achievements of the subject of your eulogy. You must set deeds of others which are notable but less important side by side with those which you are relating, and so exaggerate the importance of the latter. You must also always amplify his achievements by conjectures of the following kind: ‘Yet one who at this early age became so great a philosopher, if he had been older would have advanced yet further’; or again, ‘A man who so stoutly endures the toils of the gymnasium, will gladly welcome the love of toil which philosophy demands.’ By conjectures of this kind we shall amplify his good qualities.
When we have dealt with the events of his early manhood and put maxims and enthymemes at the end of this section, after either briefly iterating what we have said, or bringing it to a final conclusion, we shall next treat of the achievements of the subject of our eulogy after reaching full manhood, and after setting forth his justice first and amplifying this topic by the method already described we shall proceed to deal with his wisdom, if he possesses this quality; having similarly dealt with this we shall set forth his courage, if he possesses any, and after going through the process of amplifying this also, when we have reached the end of this section and described all his various qualities, we shall repeat and summarize what we have said and bring the whole speech to a conclusion with a maxim or an enthymeme. It will be suitable in eulogies to treat the various points at considerable length and to employ a dignified diction.
We shall use the same method to compose our accusations when we are dealing with wicked men. But we must not scoff at the man with whom we are finding fault, but we must describe his life; for statements have more effect than scoffs, bringing conviction to our hearers and causing annoyance to those with whom we are finding fault; for scoffing is directed against outward appearance and circumstance, while statements about a man are the picture, as it were, of his habits and character. Be on your guard against calling disgraceful actions by disgraceful names, so as not to violate conventional feeling, but express such things by indirect hints and explain the facts in words which are really applicable to different actions. In finding fault you must employ irony and laugh at the points on which your adversary prides himself; in private, and in the presence of a few listeners, you should seek to discredit him, but before the multitude you should abuse him by levelling only ordinary accusations against him. You must employ the same methods of amplification and minimization in finding fault as in eulogy. From what has been said we shall know how to practise these kinds of oratory.
It remains for us to deal with the oratory of accusation and inquiry. Let us next discuss how we shall compose and arrange these in the forensic type of oratory. We shall therefore first set forth in the proem, as in the other kinds, the action which is to be the subject of our accusation or defence. We shall exhort our hearers to attention by the same means in the defensive style as we employed in the persuasive style.
Again, as regards the goodwill of the audience, when they are well-disposed towards the subject of our speech and he is not the object of prejudice because they are irritated against him or his action or his speech, we must secure their goodwill by the method described in dealing with the other kinds of oratory. When they are neither well nor ill-disposed towards him in connexion with either the past or the present, or when his personality or his action or his words are the object of prejudice, we must bring forward reasons for goodwill towards him, sometimes blending them together and sometimes taking them separately. Such, then, is the method by which we must conciliate goodwill.
Those who are the objects neither of goodwill nor ill-will we must briefly eulogize, while we must dispraise their adversaries. We must praise them in connexion with the qualities which most nearly concern our hearers, calling them, for example, patriotic, true to their friends, grateful, compassionate; while we shall dispraise an adversary by applying to him epithets which will arouse the indignation of our audience, such as unpatriotic, untrue to his friends, thankless, pitiless, and the like. We must also conciliate the jury by praising their justice and the intelligence which they bring to their task. We must also mention any point in which our client is at a disadvantage compared with his opponents, whether in word or deed or anything else which concerns his suit; and we must further introduce the considerations of justice, legality, expediency, and the like. It is by these means that we must win goodwill in the minds of the jury for one who is the object of neither kindly nor unkindly feeling.
When our client is an object of prejudice, if the prejudice dates from the past and is concerned with what he has said, we know from what has already been remarked how to remove it. If it dates from the present time, it must necessarily be concerned with the man’s personality if he is represented as unfit to bring the case in question, or his character as contradicting the charges he brings or consistent with the accusation brought against him. It would be a case of unsuitability if too young or too old a man pleaded on behalf of another; of contradiction, if a strong man accused a weak man of assault, or if a violent man brought a charge of violence against a self-controlled man, or if a very poor man went to law against a very rich man, accusing him of defrauding him of money. These are cases where there is a contradiction between the accusations and those who bring them. There will be consistency with the charge where a strong man is prosecuted for assault by a weak man or one who has the reputation of being a thief is put on his trial for theft. In a word, there will seem to be consistency with the charge in the case of persons who cause an opinion to be formed about them which corresponds with their character. Such, then, will be the misrepresentations which arise at the moment against a man’s personality. Prejudice will be raised against a man’s action if he goes to law with his own friends or guests or relatives, or on petty or discreditable pleas; for these things bring disrepute upon the parties in a suit.
I will now show how we are to get rid of the above mentioned prejudices. I maintain that there are two principles which hold good in all cases. First, when you think your opponents are likely to impress the jury, anticipate them and make the impression yourself. Secondly, when it is a question of acts, you should, if possible, turn the blame upon your adversaries, or, failing that, upon some one else, urging as an excuse that you have been dragged into the suit against your will and under compulsion from your opponents. Against each particular prejudice you must urge such excuses as these: a young man, for example, should allege a lack of older friends to fight the case on his behalf, or the enormity or number of his opponent’s misdeeds, or the short limit of time allowed, or some other such excuse. If you are speaking on some one else’s behalf, you must say that you are pleading his cause from motives of friendship for him or hatred of his opponent, or because you were present at the events in question, or for the public good, or because your client stands in need of friends and is a victim of injustice. If his character agrees with the charge brought against him or is in contradiction to the accusation which he brings, you must make use of anticipation and say that it is not just or lawful or expedient to judge from an opinion or suspicion before listening to the facts. Such, then, is the way in which we shall get rid of prejudices against a man’s personality; those which concern his action we shall repudiate by transferring the blame to his adversary, or by accusing the latter of libel or injustice or greed or contentiousness, or by alleging as an excuse the indignation of our client and showing that he could not possibly obtain justice in any other way. This is how we shall get rid of personal prejudices in the law courts; those which concern a man’s public life we shall refute by the various methods prescribed for the kinds of oratory already dealt with.
We shall arrange the proems of forensic speeches in the same manner as those of public orations, and on the same principle we shall include the narration of facts in the proem and either show them to be trustworthy and just in detail or else insert them bodily by themselves.
Next will follow confirmation, by means of proofs if the facts are disputed by our opponents, or, if they are admitted, by considerations of justice, expediency, and the like. Of proofs we must put testimony first and admissions made under torture, if there are any. Next we must confirm our statements, if they are credible, by maxims and enthymemes, but, if they are not entirely credible, by considerations of probability, and afterwards by examples, signs, infallible and fallible, and refutations, and lastly by enthymemes and maxims. If the facts are admitted, we must leave proofs alone and make use of justification as already described. Such, then, is the method of confirmation which we shall employ.
After such confirmation we shall next state the arguments which we can urge against our opponents, and anticipate what they are likely to say. If they deny the facts, we must amplify the proofs which we have already stated and criticize and minimize those which they are likely to bring forward. If they admit the actions but intend to show that they are legal and just according to written laws, we must attempt to show that the laws which we bring forward, and laws similar to them, are just and right and to the common advantage of the state, and that this is the opinion generally held about them, while the contrary is true of the laws which our opponents are bringing forward. If it is impossible to say this, you must remind the jury that they have to give their verdict not on a point of law but on a point of fact, and that they have sworn to vote according to the established law, and you must tell them that they must not pass laws now but upon the proper days fixed for that purpose. If it so happens that what has been done contravenes laws which appear to be bad, we must say that here we have not law but the negation of law; for law is laid down for the public benefit, but this law is harmful to the state. We must say that they will not be acting illegally if they vote in contravention of this law, but will be legislating to prevent the use of bad and illegal ordinances. You can also point out that no law forbids the conferring of a public benefit and that it is a benefaction to the state to annul bad laws. Regarding laws, then, of which the meaning is clear, we shall easily be able, by such methods of anticipation, to speak against any of them with which we are concerned. When there is ambiguity, if the jury understand a law in a sense which favours you, you must give it that interpretation; but if they give it the construction which your opponent puts upon it, you must tell them that this is not what the lawgiver meant but that he interpreted it as you do, and that it is to the advantage of the jury to put the construction which you do upon it. If you cannot twist the law round, point out that it cannot mean anything but what you say it means. If you follow this method you will have no difficulty as to the way in which to deal with laws.
Generally speaking, if they admit the facts and intend to base their defence on pleas of justice and legality, you must employ these methods to anticipate what they are likely to say. But if they admit the facts but claim to be pardoned, you must deprive your opponents of such arguments in the following manner. First, you must say that their conduct is all the more reprehensible and that it is only when they have been found out that they admit their mistake in so acting, adding, ‘If, therefore, you pardon the defendant, you will absolve every one else from punishment.’ You can say, ‘If you acquit those who admit their mistakes, how will you be able to condemn those who do not do so?’
You must urge that ‘even if he has made a mistake, there is no reason why I should suffer through his mistake’. Furthermore, you must say that the lawgiver shows no pity for those who make mistakes, and so the jury in giving their verdict according to the laws should not do so either. Such theft, as we have stated at the beginning, are the means by which we shall refute their appeals for pardon, and, speaking generally, we shall anticipate by the method already mentioned anything which our opponents intend to say with a view either to proof or justification or pardon.
Next we must recount the charge, the whole story of the case being summarized, and, if possible, in a few words instil into the minds of the jury a feeling of hostility or indignation or envy towards our opponents and of goodwill or gratitude or pity for ourselves. How this is done we have already stated in dealing with public speaking and persuasion and dissuasion, and we shall again allude to it finally in treating of the defensive style of oratory. This, then, is the way in which we shall compose and arrange our speech when we are the first to speak and are the accusers in a forensic case.
When we are defending a case, we shall frame our proem in the same way as when accusing, and we shall make no mention of the accusations, of which our opponent has informed our hearers, but after the proem we shall set forth and refute the opinions which he has put into their minds and throw discredit on his witnesses and the testimony given under torture and the oaths, in the manner already described to you. If the facts are credible, we must put our defence against them into the form of a pretended omission, and, if the witnesses who have been examined under torture are trustworthy, we must have recourse to argument or statement of fact or any other strong point which we can bring against them. If your adversary accuses you by bringing a charge which accords with your advantage or habitual practice, you must defend yourself, if you can, by showing that the crime with which you are charged does not accord with your advantage; or, failing that, you must urge that it has not been the custom either of yourself or of persons like you to do such things, or to do them in such a manner. This is how you will refute the argument of probability. When he employs an example, you must first show, if you can, that it does not resemble the crime with which you are charged, or, failing that, yourself bring forward another example to the contrary which has occurred against probability. If he employs a sign, you must refute it by giving reasons why it implies the exact opposite, while you must show that his maxims and enthymemes are either paradoxical or ambiguous. His fallible signs you must prove to be signs of a number of other things and not only of the charge which he is bringing against you. This, then, is the way in which we shall cause our adversary’s contentions to be discredited by either interpreting them in a contrary sense or reducing them to ambiguity.
If, on the other hand, we admit that we have done the acts with which we are charged, we shall base our plea on justice and legality and try to prove that our acts are juster and more legal. If this is impossible, we must resort to pleas of error or misfortune, and try to win pardon by showing that the harm which has resulted is small, pointing out that error is common to all men, while wrongdoing is peculiar to the wicked. You must urge that it is right and just and expedient to pardon errors; for no man knows whether it may not fall to his lot to commit such an error. You must also point out that your opponent claimed pardon when he committed an error.
Next will come the anticipations which your adversaries have made in their speeches. Anticipations of other kinds we shall easily be able to refute by an appeal to the facts; but if they misrepresent us by saying that we read our speeches or practise them beforehand, or that we are pleading for the sake of some reward, we must meet such accusations with irony and say with regard to the writing of speeches that the law does not forbid a man to read out a written speech any more than it forbids his opponent to speak without notes; for, while it prohibits the doing of certain actions, it allows a man to make a speech in any way he likes. You must also say: ‘My opponent considers that the wrongs which he has committed are so serious that he does not think I am doing justice to the accusation which I am bringing against him, unless I write out and take a long time to think over my speech.’ Such then is the way in which we must meet the misrepresentation of having written out our speech. If our opponents declare that we learn and rehearse our speeches, we shall admit it and say: ‘We who, according to you, learn what we are going to say, are not litigious, whereas you, who declare that you do not know how to speak, have been convicted of bringing vexatious suits in the past and are doing so now against us’; and we shall draw the conclusion that it would apparently therefore be better for the citizens, if our opponent also learned to be an orator, for then he would not be such a scoundrel and pettifogger. We shall meet the accusation that we are paid to plead in court by a similar argument — admitting it and speaking ironically and pointing out that our accuser and every one else does so. You must distinguish between the different kinds of pay and say that some men plead in court for money, others as a favour, others for vengeance, others for honours. You must show that you are yourself pleading as a favour, and say that your opponent pleads for no small payment; for he is going to law that he may make money by unrighteous means, not in order to avoid having to pay it. We must follow the same method if any one accuses us of teaching others how to plead and of composing speeches to be delivered in court. You must point out that every one else, as far as lies within his power, helps his friends by instruction and advice. Thus you will have an answer in such cases in accordance with the rules of rhetoric.
You must not be slow in any questions and answers which occur in cases of this kind; but you must make a clear distinction in your answers between admissions and denials. The following are examples of admissions: ‘Did you kill my son?’—’ Yes, I did kill him, when he, unprovoked, raised a sword against me; or again, ‘Did you thrash my son?’—’ Yes, but he first assaulted me’; or again, ‘Did you break my head?’—’Yes, when you were forcing your way into my house at night.’ Such admissions are made in reliance on the legality of your action. Denials, on the other hand, aim at diverting the course of law, for example: ‘Did you kill my son?’—’No, it was not I, but the law that killed him.’ This is the kind of answer which you must always make when one law enjoins, while another forbids, a certain course of action. Out of all these various methods you will gather the means to meet your adversaries.
Next will follow an iteration by way of brief reminder of what you have said. It is useful on all occasions and should therefore be employed in every part and in every kind of speech. It is very suitable in accusation and defence and also in persuasion and dissuasion. In my opinion we ought here not only to remind our audience, as in eulogistic and vituperative speeches, of what has been said, but we ought also to dispose our judges to be favourable towards ourselves and unfavourable to our opponents; we shall make this the last part of our speech. It is possible to refresh your hearer’s memory in a summary manner either by enumerating the points which you have mentioned, or by making a division, or by asking additional questions which will bring the most credit on yourself and the most discredit on your opponents, or, if you like, you can use the form of a simple question. The nature of these methods we know from what has already been said.
We shall win a favourable hearing for ourselves and an unfavourable one for our opponents if, as in persuasion and dissuasion, we show briefly how we ourselves (or our friends) have benefited or are benefiting or intend to benefit those who are now seeking to wrong us (or those for whom they care), or else our judges (or those for whom they care); and point out to them that now is the opportunity to show us gratitude for our good services; and also, when it is possible, induce them to pity us. This we shall do by showing that a close tie binds us to our hearers and that we are suffering undeserved misfortune, having been unfairly treated in the past, or being so now, or being likely to be so in the future, unless they help us now. If such arguments are inapplicable, we must describe the advantages of which we have been, or are being, or are likely to be deprived, if our prayers are rejected by our judges; or show that we never have been, or are not now, or are never likely to be in enjoyment of some benefit, unless they help us. For it is by these means that we shall win pity and gain the goodwill of our audience.
We shall cause a prejudice and feelings of envy against our opponents by employing the opposite method and pointing out that our hearers, or those for whom they care, have received undeserved ill-treatment, or are receiving it, or are likely to receive it at the hands of our opponents or their friends; for by such arguments they will be induced to entertain feelings of hatred and indignation against them. Where this is impossible, we shall collect together all the arguments by which we can create in our hearers a feeling of envy against our opponents; for envy is very near to hatred. They will be objects of envy, to put the matter briefly, if we can show that they have met with undeserved prosperity and that no close ties bind them to our hearers, and point out that they have unjustly received, or are receiving, or are about to receive many benefits; or that they have never in the past been without some advantage, or are not without it now, or likely to be so in the future; or that they have never met with some misfortune, or are not now meeting with it, or likely to do so, unless the judges punish them now. By these means then we shall in the peroration of our speech win favour for ourselves and disfavour for our opponents, and by following all the instructions given above we shall be able to arrange speeches for accusation and defence according to the rules of rhetoric.
The inquisitive kind of oratory generally occurs, not separately, but in connexion with the other styles; it is especially useful in dealing with contradictions. However, in order that we may know the arrangement of this kind of speech also, when we have to inquire into the words or manner of life or deeds of men or the administration of a city, I will describe it also in a summary manner. When conducting an inquiry of this kind we must begin in the same way as when refuting a prejudice; and so, after first adducing plausible pretexts so as to make our action appear reasonable, we shall then proceed to conduct our inquiry. The following are suitable pretexts: in political assembles, that we are adopting such a course not from party-spirit but in order that it may not escape the attention of our hearers, or again, that our adversaries molested us first. In private suits our excuse will be a feeling of hatred or the bad character of the subjects of our inquiry or our friendship towards them or the object of making them realize what they are doing and not do it again. In public trials our pretexts will be legality, justice, and the general interest. After first treating of these and similar subjects we shall next in order set forth and inquire into each utterance or deed or intention of our opponents, showing that these are opposed to justice and legality and private and public expediency, and examining them all to see whether in any respect they contradict one another or the practice of good citizens or probability. But, not to be tedious by going into details, the more we can prove to our hearers that the conduct of the subjects of our inquiry is opposed to honourable pursuits, acts, words, or habits, the greater will be the discredit which attaches to them. We ought to conduct our inquiry not in a bitter but in a gentle spirit; for words if thus spoken will appear more persuasive to our hearers, and those who utter them will be less likely to bring prejudice upon themselves. When you have carefully inquired into everything and amplified the results, you must conclude with a brief iteration and remind your hearers of what you have said. By arranging them thus we shall be able to employ all the various kinds of oratory according to the rules of rhetoric.
Both in speaking and writing we must try as far as possible to make our words accord with the principles laid down above, and accustom ourselves to practice each principle readily, and we shall have many clever expedients to enable us to make speeches according to the rules of art in private and public suits and in conversation with others; but an orator ought to be careful not only about his words but also about his personal behaviour, regulating it according to the principles already laid down; for the manner of a man’s life contributes to the persuasive influence which he exercises and to the establishment of a good reputation.
In the first place you must divide up your subject-matter according to the general system of division in which you have been instructed, and decide what you must treat of first, secondly, thirdly, and fourthly. Next you must prepare your hearers to receive you, as I have described in dealing with the attitude to be taken towards your audience in proems. You will dispose them well towards you, if you are true to your promises and if you keep the same friends all your life and show yourself unchanging in your other habits and always following the same course. They will listen attentively to you, if you treat of great and noble deeds and such as promote the public good.
Their goodwill having been won, when you come to practical suggestions they will accept as expedient to themselves those which procure the avoidance of evils and the provision of benefits, and reject those which involve the contrary results.
In order that your exposition may be quick and lucid and may command credit, you ought to make your practical suggestions as follows. You will perform your task quickly, if you do not try to do everything at once, but take the first point first and then the next. You will speak lucidly, if you do not suddenly leave your subject and go on to other points before you have finished it. You will command credit, if you do not act contrary to your usual character, and further if you do not pretend that the same persons are your enemies and your friends.
As regards proof, where we have sure knowledge, we shall prefer to follow its guidance in prescribing plans of action, but, where we lack knowledge, we shall take the ordinary course of events as our guide; for it is safest in such cases to act with a view to what usually happens.
When we have adversaries to contend with, if it is a question of words, we shall obtain confirmation in support of our case from the actual words uttered; in suits about contracts we shall do so by dealing with them in accordance with unwritten and written laws with the support of the best possible testimony and within definite limits of time.
As regards our peroration we shall remind our hearers of what has been said by a summary repetition of the facts; while we shall remind them of our past deeds by reference to our present deeds, when we are undertaking actions identical with, or similar to, former actions.
Our hearers will be well disposed to us, if we follow a course of action which will result in their thinking themselves well treated in the past, present, or future. We shall add weight to our actions, if we deal with transactions which are likely to produce great credit for the state.
Such then is the manner in which an orator must regulate his personal behaviour; while he must practice the art of oratory according to the principles already laid down.
[Sacrifices must be conducted on the principles already indicated; they must be reverent towards the gods, moderate in costliness, splendid from a spectacular point of view, and likely to bring advantage to the citizens. They will be reverent towards the gods, if we sacrifice according to ancestral custom; they will be moderate in costliness, if the accompaniments of the ceremony are not used up as well as the money actually expended; they will be splendid from a spectacular point of view, if they are magnificently appointed; they will be beneficial to the citizens, if horsemen and infantry in full panoply accompany the procession. Our dealings with the gods will be devoutly performed if carried out thus.
We shall establish friendly relations with those who are of like character to our own and have the same interests, and with whom we are obliged to co-operate in matters of great importance; for such friendship is most likely to be permanent. We must make those men our allies, who are most righteous and are possessed, of considerable power and live near at hand; those who are the contrary must be our enemies. We must undertake war against those who are trying to injure the state or her friends or her allies. The protection of the state must be secured either by personal service or by the help of allies or by mercenaries; the first method is preferable to the second, and the second to the third.
As regards the supply of resources, we must provide them first and foremost from our own revenues and possessions, secondly by taxes on rateable property, and thirdly by personal service on the part of the poor, and the provision of arms by the craftsmen, and of money by the wealthy.
As for political constitution, the best form of democracy is that under which the laws bestow the posts of dignity on the best citizens, and the people are not deprived of the rights of electing and voting; the worst form is that under which the laws deliver up the wealthy to the insolence of the mob. Oligarchies are of two kinds, being based either on political partisanship or on a property qualification.
Alliances must be formed when the citizens are unable by themselves to protect their own territory and strongholds or hold the enemy in check. An alliance must be dispensed with when it is unnecessary or when the proposed allies are too far distant and unable to arrive at the opportune moment.
A good citizen is one who provides the state with useful friends and few and feeble foes, and who procures for her the greatest revenue without confiscating the property of a single private citizen, and who, while conducting himself righteously, exposes those who attempt any injury to the state.
Men always bestow presents either in the hope of benefiting themselves or in grateful return for previous services. Service is always given either for gain or honour or pleasure or fear. All dealings are carried out either by choice or unwillingly: for all acts are done either under compulsion or through persuasion or fraud or on some pretext.
In war one side gains the upper hand either through luck, or superiority of numbers or strength or resources, or advantage of position, or excellence of allies, or skill on the part of a general. It is generally held that men should abandon their allies either because it is expedient to do so or because they have brought the war to a close.
To act justly is to follow the common customs of the state, to obey the laws, and to abide by one’s personal promises.
Physical advantages are good condition, beauty, strength, and health; mental advantages are wisdom, prudence, courage, self-control, and justice. Wealth and friends are advantages alike to mind and body. The opposites of these qualities and the lack of wealth and friends are disadvantageous. To a state a multitude of good citizens is an advantage.]