350 BC

                                    RHETORIC

                                  by Aristotle

                         translated by W. Rhys Roberts

                              Book I

                                 1

  RHETORIC the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with
such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men
and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use,
more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to
discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to
attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through
practice and from acquired habit. Both ways being possible, the
subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible to
inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and
others spontaneously; and every one will at once agree that such an
inquiry is the function of an art.

  Now, the framers of the current treatises on rhetoric have
constructed but a small portion of that art. The modes of persuasion
are the only true constituents of the art: everything else is merely
accessory. These writers, however, say nothing about enthymemes, which
are the substance of rhetorical persuasion, but deal mainly with
non-essentials. The arousing of prejudice, pity, anger, and similar
emotions has nothing to do with the essential facts, but is merely a
personal appeal to the man who is judging the case. Consequently if
the rules for trials which are now laid down some states-especially in
well-governed states-were applied everywhere, such people would have
nothing to say. All men, no doubt, think that the laws should
prescribe such rules, but some, as in the court of Areopagus, give
practical effect to their thoughts and forbid talk about
non-essentials. This is sound law and custom. It is not right to
pervert the judge by moving him to anger or envy or pity-one might
as well warp a carpenter's rule before using it. Again, a litigant has
clearly nothing to do but to show that the alleged fact is so or is
not so, that it has or has not happened. As to whether a thing is
important or unimportant, just or unjust, the judge must surely refuse
to take his instructions from the litigants: he must decide for
himself all such points as the law-giver has not already defined for
him.

  Now, it is of great moment that well-drawn laws should themselves
define all the points they possibly can and leave as few as may be
to the decision of the judges; and this for several reasons. First, to
find one man, or a few men, who are sensible persons and capable of
legislating and administering justice is easier than to find a large
number. Next, laws are made after long consideration, whereas
decisions in the courts are given at short notice, which makes it hard
for those who try the case to satisfy the claims of justice and
expediency. The weightiest reason of all is that the decision of the
lawgiver is not particular but prospective and general, whereas
members of the assembly and the jury find it their duty to decide on
definite cases brought before them. They will often have allowed
themselves to be so much influenced by feelings of friendship or
hatred or self-interest that they lose any clear vision of the truth
and have their judgement obscured by considerations of personal
pleasure or pain. In general, then, the judge should, we say, be
allowed to decide as few things as possible. But questions as to
whether something has happened or has not happened, will be or will
not be, is or is not, must of necessity be left to the judge, since
the lawgiver cannot foresee them. If this is so, it is evident that
any one who lays down rules about other matters, such as what must
be the contents of the 'introduction' or the 'narration' or any of the
other divisions of a speech, is theorizing about non-essentials as
if they belonged to the art. The only question with which these
writers here deal is how to put the judge into a given frame of
mind. About the orator's proper modes of persuasion they have
nothing to tell us; nothing, that is, about how to gain skill in
enthymemes.

  Hence it comes that, although the same systematic principles apply
to political as to forensic oratory, and although the former is a
nobler business, and fitter for a citizen, than that which concerns
the relations of private individuals, these authors say nothing
about political oratory, but try, one and all, to write treatises on
the way to plead in court. The reason for this is that in political
oratory there is less inducement to talk about nonessentials.
Political oratory is less given to unscrupulous practices than
forensic, because it treats of wider issues. In a political debate the
man who is forming a judgement is making a decision about his own
vital interests. There is no need, therefore, to prove anything except
that the facts are what the supporter of a measure maintains they are.
In forensic oratory this is not enough; to conciliate the listener
is what pays here. It is other people's affairs that are to be
decided, so that the judges, intent on their own satisfaction and
listening with partiality, surrender themselves to the disputants
instead of judging between them. Hence in many places, as we have said
already, irrelevant speaking is forbidden in the law-courts: in the
public assembly those who have to form a judgement are themselves well
able to guard against that.

  It is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is
concerned with the modes of persuasion. Persuasion is clearly a sort
of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a