Rhetoric

Aristotle’s discussion of lexis, or delivery, continues with an examination of prose rhythm. As was the case above, the finer points of this section rely on the ability to read Ancient Greek; however, the essential argument is accessible to an English-speaker. Aristotle encourages public speakers not to use poetic meter in their prose speeches. The author describes these meters and explains that they are inappropriate because they do not convincingly reflect natural speech. Instead, Aristotle prefers the paeon for a pleasing prose rhythm, which is composed of three short syllables and one long syllable per foot.

Moving to sentence structure, Aristotle prefers a compact style rather than a “loose” or elaborate sentence. The advantage of the compact style is that it carries its own rhythm and is therefore easy to remember. Each period (sentence) can contain “members,” or clauses. Like periods, members should be kept short and simple. They can come in many forms, but Aristotle pays particular attention to antithetical constructions; sentences which contrast opposites with balanced phrasing, such as: “It often happens in such enterprises that the prudent fail, and the fools succeed” (204).

Aristotle advocates inventing lively and pithy sayings, since they give the listener the pleasure of learning something quickly.

The three factors of lively sayings are (proportional) metaphor, antithesis, and actuality. By actuality, Aristotle means creating a vivid image for the listener, for example, through the use of metaphor. Antithesis is the same principle seen above, in the antithetical constructions; the author offers as an example of a lively antithetical phrase: “It is worthy to die when one is not worthy of death” (215). Hyperbole, in the right hands, can lend vividness as well.

Aristotle concludes the discussion of lexis with a summary of his points and a reiteration of the differences between written and spoken style. He contends that it is possible to use poetic devices (such as asyndeton, the omission of conjunctions) in certain circumstances, depending on the style of oratory and size of the audience, among other factors.

Aristotle tells us that there are diverse opinions on the number of parts making up a speech, but that he only identifies two: “Necessarily, you state your case, and you prove it” (220). At most, he concedes, we might recognize four components of a speech: Proem, Statement, Argument, and Epilogue.

Beginning with the Proem, or introduction, Aristotle states that its function is “to make clear the end and object of your work” (223). The proem could touch upon the speaker or his opponent, with the aim of dispelling or encouraging prejudices. It could also target the audience and encourage a particular state of mind, or it could simply lay out the topic of the speech. A proem is not particularly useful in deliberative oratory, since it can be assumed that everyone assembled knows that they are there to debate.

Moving on to the Narration, we learn that the speaker should be selective with the details of his narration and keep the length of this section moderate. An attacking narration requires more detail than a defensive speech, since the latter needs only to refute particular points. The narrative section is where the speaker can establish ethos, or characterization, as well as emotion. Like the proem, the narrative section is not entirely necessary in deliberative oratory, since its purpose is to look to the future.

The third section of a speech, according to Aristotle, is the Argument, or presentation of proofs. This part is of particular use in forensic and deliberative oratory, where the listeners must make a decision. In forensic oratory, enthymeme is the primary tool for establishing the truth of a statement; ethos and emotion are also useful tools. Deliberative oratory, on the other hand, relies on discussion of the matter at hand rather than attacks on opponents or appeals to emotion. Refutation also figures into the argument section, particularly in deliberative and forensic oratory.

A final element of the Argument section is Interrogation (or Refutation of Interrogation). This was not always a part of adversarial speeches in Athens, but Aristotle explains when to use this tool: to expose the absurdity of your opponent’s words; to force the opponent to accept a premise with an obvious (and favorable) conclusion; to expose contradictions in the opponent’s account; and to invite an evasive answer that the audience will find suspicious. When being interrogated, it is best to avoid traps by precisely defining terms and explaining ambiguities before providing an answer to a question.

Aristotle concludes the Rhetoric with a discussion of the Epilogue, or conclusion to the speech. The four functions of the epilogue are: to leave the audience well-disposed to you and ill-disposed to your opponent; to magnify and diminish as needed; to encourage certain emotions in the audience; and to reiterate the main points. Aristotle concludes his work with a suggested conclusion for a speech: “I have done; you all have heard; you have the facts; give your judgment” (241).