23 · In the first place, then, words are of three kinds, simple, composite, and metaphorical.
[35] 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 [1435a1] 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.
24 · First of all, you must make your statement by means of a twofold [5] 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 [10] cannot do a certain thing oneself, but that some one else can; sixthly, that one can do something 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, [15] 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 [20] 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, [25] 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 [30] you are to treat your subject lucidly.
25 · 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 [35] 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 corresponding particle: ‘I indeed (μέν) came to the place to which I said I would [1435b1] come, but (δέ) you, though you promised to come, did not do so’; or again, when the same particle follows: ‘You were both (καί) the cause of that and (καί) the cause of this’. So much for the particles; from these examples you must infer the use of others. [5]
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’.16 [10] This is an example where there is a confusion in the arrangement of words. . . .17 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 [15] 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 pause 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 (ὀδός) of a [20] door and of a way (ὀδός) 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.
26 · Let us now deal with the antitheses, parisoses, and similarities; for we [25] 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 [30] 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 [35] 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.
27 · Parisosis occurs when a sentence has two equal ‘members’. The equality [1436a1] 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.
[5] 28 · Paromoeosis 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’.18 Above all you should make the last words similar; for this gives the closest [10] 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’.
Enough then of these topics. For we are acquainted with the nature of the just, [15] 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 [20] amplifications and minimizations, and how we can provide them for our discourses. In like manner we are acquainted with proofs, anticipations, the postulates which we demand from our hearers, iterations, elegances, 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 [25] 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 [30] 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.
29 · The proem can be described in a general way as a preparation of one’s [35] 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 [1436b1] 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 [5] 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 [10] 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 [15] 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; [20] 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 [25] 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 [30] 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, urging them to judge the speeches which they hear with fairness and discrimination as is their custom. Further, you must employ minimization and say, I stand before you not through any confidence in my [35] 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 [1437a1] 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 [5] 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 [10] laid the charge against you are unwilling to submit the matter to judgement; and you must say that the judgement passed upon you was unfair19 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 [15] 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 a sign that their misrepresentations of [20] 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 [25] 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 [30] 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 [35] 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 motive of private gain 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 [1437b1] 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 [5] 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 experience of the subject. Furthermore he may urge the magnitude and unusual character of the [10] 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 constant 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 [15] 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 with20 those from whom we have received no injury or who are stronger than we, or when he advises a discreditable peace or [20] 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 [25] circumstances which are to be blamed for such proposals. Such are the methods by which we shall free advisers 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 credibility. If it be long, this must be attributed to [30] the a
bundance of material; if it be old-fashioned, it must be pointed out that such a style is opportune at the moment; if it is implausible, 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 [35] 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. [1438a1] This, then, is the way in which public speeches should be constituted.
30 · Next we must either narrate events which have happened in the past or recall them to the minds of our hearers, or explain events which are occurring at the [5] 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 [10] 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 [15] 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.
The Complete Works of Aristotle Page 395
