The Complete Aristotle (eng.)

strong one. It is ceremonial oratory that
is most literary, for it is meant to be read; and next to it
forensic oratory.
    To analyse style still further, and add that it must be
agreeable or magnificent, is useless; for why should it have these
traits any more than ‘restraint’, ‘liberality’, or any other moral
excellence? Obviously agreeableness will be produced by the
qualities already mentioned, if our definition of excellence of
style has been correct. For what other reason should style be
‘clear’, and ‘not mean’ but ‘appropriate’? If it is prolix, it is
not clear; nor yet if it is curt. Plainly the middle way suits
best. Again, style will be made agreeable by the elements
mentioned, namely by a good blending of ordinary and unusual words,
by the rhythm, and by-the persuasiveness that springs from
appropriateness.
    This concludes our discussion of style, both in its general
aspects and in its special applications to the various branches of
rhetoric. We have now to deal with Arrangement.
13
    A speech has two parts. You must state your case, and you must
prove it. You cannot either state your case and omit to prove it,
or prove it without having first stated it; since any proof must be
a proof of something, and the only use of a preliminary statement
is the proof that follows it. Of these two parts the first part is
called the Statement of the case, the second part the Argument,
just as we distinguish between Enunciation and Demonstration. The
current division is absurd. For ‘narration’ surely is part of a
forensic speech only: how in a political speech or a speech of
display can there be ‘narration’ in the technical sense? or a reply
to a forensic opponent? or an epilogue in closely-reasoned
speeches? Again, introduction, comparison of conflicting arguments,
and recapitulation are only found in political speeches when there
is a struggle between two policies. They may occur then; so may
even accusation and defence, often enough; but they form no
essential part of a political speech. Even forensic speeches do not
always need epilogues; not, for instance, a short speech, nor one
in which the facts are easy to remember, the effect of an epilogue
being always a reduction in the apparent length. It follows, then,
that the only necessary parts of a speech are the Statement and the
Argument. These are the essential features of a speech; and it
cannot in any case have more than Introduction, Statement,
Argument, and Epilogue. ‘Refutation of the Opponent’ is part of the
arguments: so is ‘Comparison’ of the opponent’s case with your own,
for that process is a magnifying of your own case and therefore a
part of the arguments, since one who does this proves something.
The Introduction does nothing like this; nor does the Epilogue-it
merely reminds us of what has been said already. If we make such
distinctions we shall end, like Theodorus and his followers, by
distinguishing ‘narration’ proper from ‘post-narration’ and
‘pre-narration’, and ‘refutation’ from ‘final refutation’. But we
ought only to bring in a new name if it indicates a real species
with distinct specific qualities; otherwise the practice is
pointless and silly, like the way Licymnius invented names in his
Art of Rhetoric-’Secundation’, ‘Divagation’, ‘Ramification’.
14
    The Introduction is the beginning of a speech, corresponding to
the prologue in poetry and the prelude in flute-music; they are all
beginnings, paving the way, as it were, for what is to follow. The
musical prelude resembles the introduction to speeches of display;
as flute players play first some brilliant passage they know well
and then fit it on to the opening notes of the piece itself, so in
speeches of display the writer should proceed in the same way; he
should begin with what best takes his fancy, and then strike up his
theme and lead into it; which is indeed what is always done. (Take
as an example the introduction to the Helen of Isocrates-there is
nothing in common between the ‘eristics’ and Helen.) And here, even
if you travel far from your subject, it is fitting, rather than
that there should be sameness in the entire speech.
    The usual subject for the introductions to speeches of display
is some piece of praise or censure. Thus Gorgias writes in his
Olympic Speech, ‘You deserve widespread admiration, men of Greece’,
praising thus those who start,ed the festival gatherings.’
Isocrates, on the other hand,