The Complete Aristotle (eng.)

with Euripides’ reply to Hygiaenon, who,
in the action for an exchange of properties, accused him of impiety
in having written a line encouraging perjury—
My tongue hath sworn: no oath is on my soul.
    Euripides said that his opponent himself was guilty in bringing
into the law-courts cases whose decision belonged to the Dionysiac
contests. ‘If I have not already answered for my words there, I am
ready to do so if you choose to prosecute me there.’ Another method
is to denounce calumny, showing what an enormity it is, and in
particular that it raises false issues, and that it means a lack of
confidence in the merits of his case. The argument from evidential
circumstances is available for both parties: thus in the Teucer
Odysseus says that Teucer is closely bound to Priam, since his
mother Hesione was Priam’s sister. Teucer replies that Telamon his
father was Priam’s enemy, and that he himself did not betray the
spies to Priam. Another method, suitable for the calumniator, is to
praise some trifling merit at great length, and then attack some
important failing concisely; or after mentioning a number of good
qualities to attack one bad one that really bears on the question.
This is the method of thoroughly skilful and unscrupulous
prosecutors. By mixing up the man’s merits with what is bad, they
do their best to make use of them to damage him.
    There is another method open to both calumniator and apologist.
Since a given action can be done from many motives, the former must
try to disparage it by selecting the worse motive of two, the
latter to put the better construction on it. Thus one might argue
that Diomedes chose Odysseus as his companion because he supposed
Odysseus to be the best man for the purpose; and you might reply to
this that it was, on the contrary, because he was the only hero so
worthless that Diomedes need not fear his rivalry.
16
    We may now pass from the subject of calumny to that of
Narration.
    Narration in ceremonial oratory is not continuous but
intermittent. There must, of course, be some survey of the actions
that form the subject-matter of the speech. The speech is a
composition containing two parts. One of these is not provided by
the orator’s art, viz. the actions themselves, of which the orator
is in no sense author. The other part is provided by his namely,
the proof (where proof is needed) that the actions were done, the
description of their quality or of their extent, or even all these
three things together. Now the reason why sometimes it is not
desirable to make the whole narrative continuous is that the case
thus expounded is hard to keep in mind. Show, therefore, from one
set of facts that your hero is, e.g. brave, and from other sets of
facts that he is able, just, &c. A speech thus arranged is
comparatively simple, instead of being complicated and elaborate.
You will have to recall well-known deeds among others; and because
they are well-known, the hearer usually needs no narration of them;
none, for instance, if your object is the praise of Achilles; we
all know the facts of his life-what you have to do is to apply
those facts. But if your object is the praise of Critias, you must
narrate his deeds, which not many people know of…
    Nowadays it is said, absurdly enough, that the narration should
be rapid. Remember what the man said to the baker who asked whether
he was to make the cake hard or soft: ‘What, can’t you make it
right?’ Just so here. We are not to make long narrations, just as
we are not to make long introductions or long arguments. Here,
again, rightness does not consist either in rapidity or in
conciseness, but in the happy mean; that is, in saying just so much
as will make the facts plain, or will lead the hearer to believe
that the thing has happened, or that the man has caused injury or
wrong to some one, or that the facts are really as important as you
wish them to be thought: or the opposite facts to establish the
opposite arguments.
    You may also narrate as you go anything that does credit to
yourself, e.g. ‘I kept telling him to do his duty and not abandon
his children’; or discredit to your adversary, e.g. ‘But he
answered me that, wherever he might find himself, there he would
find other children’, the answer Herodotus’ records of the Egyptian
mutineers. Slip in anything else that the judges will enjoy.
    The defendant will make less of the narration. He has to
maintain that the thing has not happened, or did no harm, or