What do you think?
Rate this book
Problems 32-38. Rhetorica ad Alexandrum
Aristotle, great Greek philosopher, researcher, reasoner, and writer, born at Stagirus in 384 BCE, was the son of Nicomachus, a physician, and Phaestis. He studied under Plato at Athens and taught there (367–347); subsequently he spent three years at the court of a former pupil, Hermeias, in Asia Minor and at this time married Pythias, one of Hermeias's relations. After some time at Mitylene, in 343–2 he was appointed by King Philip of Macedon to be tutor of his teen-aged son Alexander. After Philip's death in 336, Aristotle became head of his own school (of 'Peripatetics'), the Lyceum at Athens. Because of anti-Macedonian feeling there after Alexander's death in 323, he withdrew to Chalcis in Euboea, where he died in 322. Nearly all the works Aristotle prepared for publication are lost; the priceless ones extant are lecture-materials, notes, and memoranda (some are spurious). They can be categorized as I Practical : Nicomachean Ethics; Great Ethics (Magna Moralia); Eudemian Ethics; Politics; Economics (on the good of the family); On Virtues and Vices. II Logical : Categories; Analytics (Prior and Posterior); Interpretation; Refutations used by Sophists; Topica. III Physical : Twenty-six works (some suspect) including astronomy, generation and destruction, the senses, memory, sleep, dreams, life, facts about animals, etc. IV Metaphysics : on being as being. V Art : Rhetoric and Poetics. VI Other works including the Constitution of Athens; more works also of doubtful authorship. VII Fragments of various works such as dialogues on philosophy and literature; and of treatises on rhetoric, politics and metaphysics. The Loeb Classical Library edition of Aristotle is in twenty-three volumes.
- GenresPhilosophy
464 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1970
26 people want to read
About the author
Aristotle
4,281 books5,522 followersAristotle (Greek: Αριστοτέλης; 384–322 BC) was an Ancient Greek philosopher and polymath. His writings cover a broad range of subjects spanning the natural sciences, philosophy, linguistics, economics, politics, psychology, and the arts. As the founder of the Peripatetic school of philosophy in the Lyceum in Athens, he began the wider Aristotelian tradition that followed, which set the groundwork for the development of modern science.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 27, 2012
No one seems absolutely sure who wrote the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, but there is wide agreement that it wasn’t Aristotle. And this book certainly doesn’t read like something Aristotle wrote. Kennedy, Spengel, Spalding and Rackham are slightly in favor of attributing the work to Anaximenes, a contemporary of Aristotle’s and a tutor of Alexander the Great (1). It should be noted here that Anaximenes was a student of Isocrates, and that some of the material in this text appears to be etiologically related to fragments of Isocrates’ works.
The date of Rhetorica ad Alexandrum is also uncertain. Kennedy and Forster claim it was written after Aristotle’s Rhetoric (circa 330 BCE), but Cope and Spengel claim that it may have preceded Aristotle’s work by a few years. The latest reference in the RaA is dated to 341 BCE (regarding Corinth’s support of Syracuse in its war against Carthage) while the latest reference in the Rhetoric is 336 BCE (the Battle of Corinth), so it is perhaps safest to assume that these two works are rough contemporaries. There are some who claim that this piece was an early work of Aristotle’s, but I have not found any proof of this. We note here that the Hibeh Papyrus (see Grenfell and Hunt, 1906) contains 180 lines of the RaA, and this fragment reportedly dates form the first half of the third century BCE (Rackham, p.262), so the work is undoubtedly ancient.
The Rhetorica ad Alexandrum is far more reader friendly than anything that I’ve read that was written by Aristotle. This is certainly not a deeply analytical piece, but rather a prescriptively-oriented handbook of rhetoric. The advice the RaA provides is wonderfully concise, and numerous examples are provided are every turn. Some issues are treated in a very superficial fashion, perhaps too superficially, but we must remember that this work is a practical 89 page handbook… probably much like those that were sold in the Athenian marketplace.
One can’t help but notice the many similarities this piece has with Aristotle’s work. We see the same three genres of oratory, artistic and nonartistic proofs (although they are not so named), enthymemes, topics, appeals to ethos and pathos and probability. There are signs, maxims, examples, and a lot of other techniques that were employed by the Greek rhetors of the time. But there are some notable differences too. The RaA promotes “investigations” as a “species” of oratory (see chapters I, V and XXXVII), and its general focus is much more audience oriented.
What we have in the RaA is an eminently practical description of how to employ rhetoric, and it is far more ethically ruthless than Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Indeed, I really enjoyed the RaA‘s “vicious moral tone”. Here is a piece that doesn’t pretend to be high-minded, although there is some lip-service paid in the end to being a credible person. But we are told to omit or ignore facts, introduce false evidence, bribe the judges, attribute qualities that do not exist and ridicule opponents! It is wonderful reading! Consider the passages below.
ETHICS ???
“The eulogistic species of oratory consists, to put it briefly, in the amplification of creditable purposes and actions and speeches and the attribution of qualities that do not exist…” (1425b36)
“It is also possible to get evidence by a trick, in such a way as this: ‘Callicles, bear me witness’ — ‘No, by heaven I will not, because the man did commit the crime in spite of my endeavour to prevent him.’ By these means of a refusal to give evidence he will be able to give false evidence without being liable to prosecution for that offence.” (1432a4)
“Any occurrences that would be too improbable had better be omitted; but if you are compelled to introduce them, you must show that you know them as facts, and must pass over them lightly.” (1438b4)
“In vituperation you should employ irony, and ridicule your opponent for the things on which he prides himself; and in private when few people are present you should try to discredit him, but in crowded assemblies your abuse should consist chiefly of ordinary charges…” (1441b24)
On currying favor from the judges: “… everybody, therefore… are grateful to those from whom personally or from whose friends they think that they themselves or those they happen to care for have received or are going to receive some unmerited benefit.” (1439b19) Also see 1444b36 for some dubious means of garnering favor from the judges.
“You must magnify his deeds by conjecture, thus:… ‘One who has endured the toils of the gymnasium so sturdily will be an ardent devotee of the toilsome labor of philosophy.” (1441a33)
On getting rid of prejudice: “The second way is if you shift the responsibility for the acts, if possible, on to your opponents, or failing that, on some other persons…” (1442b6)
On the summary of a forensic speech: “… and if feasible briefly inspire the jury with hatred or anger or jealousy against our opponents and friendship or favor or pity for ourselves.” (1443b15)
“If we are for the defence,…, we shall pass over charges of which he gave his hearers convincing proof… and we shall discredit the witnesses, and statements made under torture and on oath, in the way which you have heard already, – if the facts be convincing, by transposing our defence about them into the form based on omission,…” (1443b25)
On defending rhetoric: “… and say: ‘We who study speaking, as you say, are not litigious, whereas you who do not know how to make a speech are proved to be bringing a malicious prosecution against us now and to have done it before’ — so making it appear that it would be to the advantage of the public if he too studied rhetoric, as he would not be such a rascally blackmailer if he did.” (1444a30)
After reading this book I found myself comparing its approach to rhetoric with the advice Aristotle provides in the Rhetoric. I came to the conclusion that if one were armed to do battle in the Greek courts as the RaA advises, one would have a good chance of success. We must remember that the Greek judicial and deliberative system required a great deal of crowd control and appeasement (Chapter XVIII and XXIX). The juries and legislatures were assemblies with over 500 members, and there was none of the politeness that is associated with modern institutions. The audience wanted a good act, and woe be unto those who didn’t provide what was expected… like Socrates.
Aristotle provides some sound advice about allaying prejudice and using emotions, but his is the advice of a theorist. The author of the RaA gives us the insights of a practicing rhetorician. The treatise makes a fascinating comparison with several aspects of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, and it is an invaluable research tool for those who wish to contrast the Classical era philosophic and sophistic approaches to rhetoric. This is a must read for any rhetorician, and especially for those of you who are doing projects that relate to sophistic rhetoric.
To this end, I have written a rough outline of what each chapter of the book addresses. I hope this can help some of you with your projects.
GENERAL OUTLINE
BOOK: SUBJECT
LETTER – A probably spurious letter to Alexander the Great.
I – Classification of the three types of oratory (parliamentary, ceremonial, and forensic) and the seven species of oratory that are part of these three types (exhortation, dissuasion, eulogy, vituperation, accusation, defense and investigation). Please note that these seven species can be used in all types of oratory. The author extends rhetoric to “private intercourse” (1421b14). He then addresses parliamentary oratory and its common topics (just, honorable, expedient, etc.) in depth.
II – The subjects of parliamentary oratory (exhortations and dissuation and the others). There are 10 pages in this section, and many of the topics (eg religion, war and peace, etc.) can be used with ceremonial oratory. There are numerous examples.
III – Ceremonial oratory and its subjects (eulogy and vituperation and the others) and methods. How to make one loved or hated. This chapter is a veritable treatise on relativism, and it is lavishly illustrated with examples.
IV – Forensic oratory and its subjects (accusation and defense and the others).
V – Investigational oratory. This is used to find or alley contradictions and inconsistencies. The seven species of oratory can be used separately or together because “their practical purposes overlap” (1427b31).
VI – On how some topics (just, lawful, expedient, etc.) are best employed in exhortation, while others (amplification and minimization) are specially employed in eulogy and vituperation. Very briefly addresses proofs and their use in accusation and defense, as well as some other tactics that can be used in all forms of speech (anticipation, recapitulation, prolixity, etc.)
VII – On the two modes of proof. Those drawn from the “person” are probabilities, examples, tokens, enthymemes, maxims, signs and refutations. Those drawn from outside are the opinion of the speaker, evidence of witnesses, tortures and oaths. There is an interesting discussion on the use of probabilities that includes numerous examples. This discussion is very practical and far less theoretical that Aristotle’s approach to the subject.
VIII – An examination of the two types of examples, those that happen on an expected basis and those that prove that there are exceptions to the rule. Many excellent examples are provided here.
IX – On tokens. These are contradictions, “previous facts that run counter to the fact asserted in the speech”.
X – Considerations. These are counter-enthymemes, but this is a superficial treatment of them. Chapter VII’s discussion on probabilities is far more expansive. Also see investigations (1421b10 and 1427b12).
XI – The two types of maxims, those that agree with popular opinion, and those that run counter to it.
XII – Signs, necessary correlates. “One thing is a sign of another” (1430b30).
XIII – Refutations. This is “something that cannot be otherwise than we say it is” (1431a7).
XIV – A very interesting discussion on the differences between the above types of direct proofs (eg. how a probability and example differ, how a maxim and a consideration differ, etc.). There is a transition to supplementary proofs at the end of this chapter, the first of these being the speaker’s opinion. This is very similar to Aristotle’s ethos.
XV – A discussion on the voluntary evidence of witnesses. How to discredit or support such evidence.
XVI – On evidence obtained through torture. How to give it weight or lessen its effects.
XVII – On oaths. A very brief chapter on how to support or debunk oaths. Then a transition to the “remaining expedients” of the three branches of oratory.
XVIII – Anticipation. These are the ways of removing ill-feeling “by anticipating the criticism of our audience and the arguments of those who are going to speak on the other side” (1432b11). Numerous examples in this long and detailed chapter, especially concerning what can best be described as crowd control. One gets the sense here that the Greek courts were much like our late-night political talk shows, complete with hoots and howls.
XIX – Postulation. These are justifiable or unjustifiable demands that are made on the audience. A justifiable demand is that the audience “redress in accordance with the law”… “but it is unjust to demand anything that is against the law” (1433b20).
XX – Recapitulation. The author advises us to give brief reminders whenever appropriate in a speech. This can be between divisions of a speech and, more elaborately, at the end of the speech. These should be made in the form of a calculation, a policy proposal, a question, or an enumeration. There are several good examples of each that are provided.
XXI – Irony. “Irony is saying something while pretending not to say it, or calling things by the opposite of their real name” (1434a17).
XXII – On STYLE! This is a far briefer (2.5 pages) section than one would expect. There is abundant advice, such as only “state half of a consideration so that the audience may understand the second half themselves” (1434a35) or “never put several similar phrases in the same passage” (1434b39). Oddly enough, the bulk of this chapter is devoted to the length of speeches.
XXIII – Diction. There are three kinds of words: simple, compound, and metaphorical. There follows a very short description on how to use each type.
XXIV – Methods of making a twofold statement. There are six types, such as “this man cannot do the thing in question and also something else” (1435a7). This appears to be ways to use the topics, and the author gives examples of how to use each of the six possible twofold statements.
XXV - Clarity. “First, call everything you speak of by its proper name, avoiding ambiguity” (1435a33). There is advice here on correct grammar, such as the proper use of particles, articles, and word placement.
XXVI – Antithesis. How to use opposing-claused sentences.
XXVII – Parisosis. Employing parallelism in the length of sentence clauses. As always, examples are included.
XXVIII – Paromoeosis. Using parallelism in words and sounds in the clauses of sentences. There is a brief recapitulation of all that has been learned at the end of this short chapter.
XXIX – On the STRUCTURE of speeches. The author leads with a lengthy (6 pages) description on how to make introductions. There is abundant advice on how to allay the prejudices of the jury. Some of this advice seems like a treatise on crowd control, but given the Greek judicial system this is very appropriate.
XXX – The narrative, or exposition of the case. We have some rather interesting advice on style on 1438a19 that stresses brevity and clarity in the narration.
XXXI – There are three ways to arrange the narrative to make it clear, brief and convincing: when the facts are few include them in the introduction, when facts are numerous detail and connect each one, when there are a moderate amount of facts make them an addendum to the introduction.
XXXII – The confirmation by proof or by general considerations. This is where the narrative receives its support from the speaker’s opinion, probabilities, maxims, examples, figures, etc..
XXXIII – Anticipation. “… you anticipate the objections that can be advanced against your arguments and sweep them aside” (1439b3).
XXXIV – Appeal to the emotions. A three page section on how to garner good feelings toward yourself and bad feelings toward your opponent. This section is ruthless and effective advice, and it insists that one use arguments to generate emotion.
XXXV – The structure of ceremonial oratory. There is a detailed discussion on vituperation and praise. The topics are such things as birth, strength, beauty, wealth, wisdom, justice and courage. This 5.5 page section goes on to detail how to use each of the above, and provides numerous examples.
XXXVI – The structure of forensic speeches. The author starts with the prosecutorial role, and how to introduce the case. After five pages of advice on this matter, a shift is made to the proofs of the charges and the anticipation of the opponent’s case. The general arrangement is similar to the parliamentary speech, and the need for recapitulation is stressed. There are 6.5 pages of advice on prosecution compared to 5.75 pages devoted to defense, an excellent balance. The advice on defense is remarkable in places. In the introduction “we shall pass over charges of which he gave he gave his hearers convincing proofs…” (1443b26). Advice is given on disproving allegations, making justifications, and bringing in mitigating circumstances. We have rhetorical questions, recapitulations, conciliating the audience, discrediting the other side… too much to list here. There is a fascinating discussion on how to dismiss attacks on the use of rhetoric.
XXXVII – Investigations can be used with any kind of speech in this author’s scheme. They are designed to mitigate contradictions, and are thus rationales. Several examples are provided with a brief focus on style.
XXXVIII- A miscellaneous appendix. A brief recapitulation of the advice rendered. We see an emphasis on being a good man here (1445b35-40), for only by being good will you be credible. This section touches upon style and proof and arrangement. There follows an amazing, and probably spurious, addendum that covers everything from the best way to offer sacrifices to being a good citizen, with little things like wars, allies and constitutions thrown in for good measure.
The date of Rhetorica ad Alexandrum is also uncertain. Kennedy and Forster claim it was written after Aristotle’s Rhetoric (circa 330 BCE), but Cope and Spengel claim that it may have preceded Aristotle’s work by a few years. The latest reference in the RaA is dated to 341 BCE (regarding Corinth’s support of Syracuse in its war against Carthage) while the latest reference in the Rhetoric is 336 BCE (the Battle of Corinth), so it is perhaps safest to assume that these two works are rough contemporaries. There are some who claim that this piece was an early work of Aristotle’s, but I have not found any proof of this. We note here that the Hibeh Papyrus (see Grenfell and Hunt, 1906) contains 180 lines of the RaA, and this fragment reportedly dates form the first half of the third century BCE (Rackham, p.262), so the work is undoubtedly ancient.
The Rhetorica ad Alexandrum is far more reader friendly than anything that I’ve read that was written by Aristotle. This is certainly not a deeply analytical piece, but rather a prescriptively-oriented handbook of rhetoric. The advice the RaA provides is wonderfully concise, and numerous examples are provided are every turn. Some issues are treated in a very superficial fashion, perhaps too superficially, but we must remember that this work is a practical 89 page handbook… probably much like those that were sold in the Athenian marketplace.
One can’t help but notice the many similarities this piece has with Aristotle’s work. We see the same three genres of oratory, artistic and nonartistic proofs (although they are not so named), enthymemes, topics, appeals to ethos and pathos and probability. There are signs, maxims, examples, and a lot of other techniques that were employed by the Greek rhetors of the time. But there are some notable differences too. The RaA promotes “investigations” as a “species” of oratory (see chapters I, V and XXXVII), and its general focus is much more audience oriented.
What we have in the RaA is an eminently practical description of how to employ rhetoric, and it is far more ethically ruthless than Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Indeed, I really enjoyed the RaA‘s “vicious moral tone”. Here is a piece that doesn’t pretend to be high-minded, although there is some lip-service paid in the end to being a credible person. But we are told to omit or ignore facts, introduce false evidence, bribe the judges, attribute qualities that do not exist and ridicule opponents! It is wonderful reading! Consider the passages below.
ETHICS ???
“The eulogistic species of oratory consists, to put it briefly, in the amplification of creditable purposes and actions and speeches and the attribution of qualities that do not exist…” (1425b36)
“It is also possible to get evidence by a trick, in such a way as this: ‘Callicles, bear me witness’ — ‘No, by heaven I will not, because the man did commit the crime in spite of my endeavour to prevent him.’ By these means of a refusal to give evidence he will be able to give false evidence without being liable to prosecution for that offence.” (1432a4)
“Any occurrences that would be too improbable had better be omitted; but if you are compelled to introduce them, you must show that you know them as facts, and must pass over them lightly.” (1438b4)
“In vituperation you should employ irony, and ridicule your opponent for the things on which he prides himself; and in private when few people are present you should try to discredit him, but in crowded assemblies your abuse should consist chiefly of ordinary charges…” (1441b24)
On currying favor from the judges: “… everybody, therefore… are grateful to those from whom personally or from whose friends they think that they themselves or those they happen to care for have received or are going to receive some unmerited benefit.” (1439b19) Also see 1444b36 for some dubious means of garnering favor from the judges.
“You must magnify his deeds by conjecture, thus:… ‘One who has endured the toils of the gymnasium so sturdily will be an ardent devotee of the toilsome labor of philosophy.” (1441a33)
On getting rid of prejudice: “The second way is if you shift the responsibility for the acts, if possible, on to your opponents, or failing that, on some other persons…” (1442b6)
On the summary of a forensic speech: “… and if feasible briefly inspire the jury with hatred or anger or jealousy against our opponents and friendship or favor or pity for ourselves.” (1443b15)
“If we are for the defence,…, we shall pass over charges of which he gave his hearers convincing proof… and we shall discredit the witnesses, and statements made under torture and on oath, in the way which you have heard already, – if the facts be convincing, by transposing our defence about them into the form based on omission,…” (1443b25)
On defending rhetoric: “… and say: ‘We who study speaking, as you say, are not litigious, whereas you who do not know how to make a speech are proved to be bringing a malicious prosecution against us now and to have done it before’ — so making it appear that it would be to the advantage of the public if he too studied rhetoric, as he would not be such a rascally blackmailer if he did.” (1444a30)
After reading this book I found myself comparing its approach to rhetoric with the advice Aristotle provides in the Rhetoric. I came to the conclusion that if one were armed to do battle in the Greek courts as the RaA advises, one would have a good chance of success. We must remember that the Greek judicial and deliberative system required a great deal of crowd control and appeasement (Chapter XVIII and XXIX). The juries and legislatures were assemblies with over 500 members, and there was none of the politeness that is associated with modern institutions. The audience wanted a good act, and woe be unto those who didn’t provide what was expected… like Socrates.
Aristotle provides some sound advice about allaying prejudice and using emotions, but his is the advice of a theorist. The author of the RaA gives us the insights of a practicing rhetorician. The treatise makes a fascinating comparison with several aspects of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, and it is an invaluable research tool for those who wish to contrast the Classical era philosophic and sophistic approaches to rhetoric. This is a must read for any rhetorician, and especially for those of you who are doing projects that relate to sophistic rhetoric.
To this end, I have written a rough outline of what each chapter of the book addresses. I hope this can help some of you with your projects.
GENERAL OUTLINE
BOOK: SUBJECT
LETTER – A probably spurious letter to Alexander the Great.
I – Classification of the three types of oratory (parliamentary, ceremonial, and forensic) and the seven species of oratory that are part of these three types (exhortation, dissuasion, eulogy, vituperation, accusation, defense and investigation). Please note that these seven species can be used in all types of oratory. The author extends rhetoric to “private intercourse” (1421b14). He then addresses parliamentary oratory and its common topics (just, honorable, expedient, etc.) in depth.
II – The subjects of parliamentary oratory (exhortations and dissuation and the others). There are 10 pages in this section, and many of the topics (eg religion, war and peace, etc.) can be used with ceremonial oratory. There are numerous examples.
III – Ceremonial oratory and its subjects (eulogy and vituperation and the others) and methods. How to make one loved or hated. This chapter is a veritable treatise on relativism, and it is lavishly illustrated with examples.
IV – Forensic oratory and its subjects (accusation and defense and the others).
V – Investigational oratory. This is used to find or alley contradictions and inconsistencies. The seven species of oratory can be used separately or together because “their practical purposes overlap” (1427b31).
VI – On how some topics (just, lawful, expedient, etc.) are best employed in exhortation, while others (amplification and minimization) are specially employed in eulogy and vituperation. Very briefly addresses proofs and their use in accusation and defense, as well as some other tactics that can be used in all forms of speech (anticipation, recapitulation, prolixity, etc.)
VII – On the two modes of proof. Those drawn from the “person” are probabilities, examples, tokens, enthymemes, maxims, signs and refutations. Those drawn from outside are the opinion of the speaker, evidence of witnesses, tortures and oaths. There is an interesting discussion on the use of probabilities that includes numerous examples. This discussion is very practical and far less theoretical that Aristotle’s approach to the subject.
VIII – An examination of the two types of examples, those that happen on an expected basis and those that prove that there are exceptions to the rule. Many excellent examples are provided here.
IX – On tokens. These are contradictions, “previous facts that run counter to the fact asserted in the speech”.
X – Considerations. These are counter-enthymemes, but this is a superficial treatment of them. Chapter VII’s discussion on probabilities is far more expansive. Also see investigations (1421b10 and 1427b12).
XI – The two types of maxims, those that agree with popular opinion, and those that run counter to it.
XII – Signs, necessary correlates. “One thing is a sign of another” (1430b30).
XIII – Refutations. This is “something that cannot be otherwise than we say it is” (1431a7).
XIV – A very interesting discussion on the differences between the above types of direct proofs (eg. how a probability and example differ, how a maxim and a consideration differ, etc.). There is a transition to supplementary proofs at the end of this chapter, the first of these being the speaker’s opinion. This is very similar to Aristotle’s ethos.
XV – A discussion on the voluntary evidence of witnesses. How to discredit or support such evidence.
XVI – On evidence obtained through torture. How to give it weight or lessen its effects.
XVII – On oaths. A very brief chapter on how to support or debunk oaths. Then a transition to the “remaining expedients” of the three branches of oratory.
XVIII – Anticipation. These are the ways of removing ill-feeling “by anticipating the criticism of our audience and the arguments of those who are going to speak on the other side” (1432b11). Numerous examples in this long and detailed chapter, especially concerning what can best be described as crowd control. One gets the sense here that the Greek courts were much like our late-night political talk shows, complete with hoots and howls.
XIX – Postulation. These are justifiable or unjustifiable demands that are made on the audience. A justifiable demand is that the audience “redress in accordance with the law”… “but it is unjust to demand anything that is against the law” (1433b20).
XX – Recapitulation. The author advises us to give brief reminders whenever appropriate in a speech. This can be between divisions of a speech and, more elaborately, at the end of the speech. These should be made in the form of a calculation, a policy proposal, a question, or an enumeration. There are several good examples of each that are provided.
XXI – Irony. “Irony is saying something while pretending not to say it, or calling things by the opposite of their real name” (1434a17).
XXII – On STYLE! This is a far briefer (2.5 pages) section than one would expect. There is abundant advice, such as only “state half of a consideration so that the audience may understand the second half themselves” (1434a35) or “never put several similar phrases in the same passage” (1434b39). Oddly enough, the bulk of this chapter is devoted to the length of speeches.
XXIII – Diction. There are three kinds of words: simple, compound, and metaphorical. There follows a very short description on how to use each type.
XXIV – Methods of making a twofold statement. There are six types, such as “this man cannot do the thing in question and also something else” (1435a7). This appears to be ways to use the topics, and the author gives examples of how to use each of the six possible twofold statements.
XXV - Clarity. “First, call everything you speak of by its proper name, avoiding ambiguity” (1435a33). There is advice here on correct grammar, such as the proper use of particles, articles, and word placement.
XXVI – Antithesis. How to use opposing-claused sentences.
XXVII – Parisosis. Employing parallelism in the length of sentence clauses. As always, examples are included.
XXVIII – Paromoeosis. Using parallelism in words and sounds in the clauses of sentences. There is a brief recapitulation of all that has been learned at the end of this short chapter.
XXIX – On the STRUCTURE of speeches. The author leads with a lengthy (6 pages) description on how to make introductions. There is abundant advice on how to allay the prejudices of the jury. Some of this advice seems like a treatise on crowd control, but given the Greek judicial system this is very appropriate.
XXX – The narrative, or exposition of the case. We have some rather interesting advice on style on 1438a19 that stresses brevity and clarity in the narration.
XXXI – There are three ways to arrange the narrative to make it clear, brief and convincing: when the facts are few include them in the introduction, when facts are numerous detail and connect each one, when there are a moderate amount of facts make them an addendum to the introduction.
XXXII – The confirmation by proof or by general considerations. This is where the narrative receives its support from the speaker’s opinion, probabilities, maxims, examples, figures, etc..
XXXIII – Anticipation. “… you anticipate the objections that can be advanced against your arguments and sweep them aside” (1439b3).
XXXIV – Appeal to the emotions. A three page section on how to garner good feelings toward yourself and bad feelings toward your opponent. This section is ruthless and effective advice, and it insists that one use arguments to generate emotion.
XXXV – The structure of ceremonial oratory. There is a detailed discussion on vituperation and praise. The topics are such things as birth, strength, beauty, wealth, wisdom, justice and courage. This 5.5 page section goes on to detail how to use each of the above, and provides numerous examples.
XXXVI – The structure of forensic speeches. The author starts with the prosecutorial role, and how to introduce the case. After five pages of advice on this matter, a shift is made to the proofs of the charges and the anticipation of the opponent’s case. The general arrangement is similar to the parliamentary speech, and the need for recapitulation is stressed. There are 6.5 pages of advice on prosecution compared to 5.75 pages devoted to defense, an excellent balance. The advice on defense is remarkable in places. In the introduction “we shall pass over charges of which he gave he gave his hearers convincing proofs…” (1443b26). Advice is given on disproving allegations, making justifications, and bringing in mitigating circumstances. We have rhetorical questions, recapitulations, conciliating the audience, discrediting the other side… too much to list here. There is a fascinating discussion on how to dismiss attacks on the use of rhetoric.
XXXVII – Investigations can be used with any kind of speech in this author’s scheme. They are designed to mitigate contradictions, and are thus rationales. Several examples are provided with a brief focus on style.
XXXVIII- A miscellaneous appendix. A brief recapitulation of the advice rendered. We see an emphasis on being a good man here (1445b35-40), for only by being good will you be credible. This section touches upon style and proof and arrangement. There follows an amazing, and probably spurious, addendum that covers everything from the best way to offer sacrifices to being a good citizen, with little things like wars, allies and constitutions thrown in for good measure.
Displaying 1 of 1 review