The Politics of Aristotle

by Aristotle

  Let us next deal with each of the supplementary proofs. The opinion of a [10] speaker is the declaration of his own belief about things. You ought to show yourself to be experienced in the matters about which you are speaking, and point out that it is to your advantage to tell the truth concerning them. One who is contradicting ought first and foremost to show that his adversary has no experience of the matters [15] on which he is talking: if however that is impossible, he ought to show that even persons of experience often make mistakes; and if this is inadmissible, he must say that it is contrary to the advantage of his opponents to tell the truth about these matters. Such is the use which we shall make of opinions expressed by speakers, both when we are ourselves expressing them and when we are contradicting others.

  [20] 15 · Testimony is a confession made voluntarily by one who knows. That which is testified must be either plausible or implausible or of doubtful credit; similarly the witness must be trustworthy or untrustworthy or of doubtful good faith. When therefore the evidence is plausible and the witness truthful, the [25] testimony needs no further support, unless you wish briefly to introduce a maxim or enthymeme for adornment’s sake. But when the witness is under suspicion, you must prove that such a person would not give false evidence to show gratitude or from motives of revenge or gain. You must also make it clear that it is not to his advantage to bear false witness; for the benefits which he gains are small, while [30] detection is a serious matter, and, if he is found out, the laws punish him not only by fining him but also by damaging his reputation and destroying his credit. By these methods then we shall cause witnesses to be believed.

  When we are contradicting evidence, we must cast prejudice on the character of the witness, if he is a bad man, or inquire into the evidence, if it is implausible, or [35] else contradict both the witness and the evidence by bringing together all that is most discreditable to our adversaries. We must also consider whether the witness is a friend to him for whom he is giving evidence, or whether he can in any way be associated with his deed, or whether he is an enemy of the man against whom he is bearing witness, or whether he is poor. For such men are under suspicion of bearing false witness either to show favour or from motives of revenge or for gain. We shall [40] also say that the legislator laid down the law about false testimony to apply to persons of this kind, so that it is absurd that, whereas the legislator did not trust [1432a1] witnesses, those should believe them who are sitting in judgement after having sworn to judge according to the laws. By these methods then we shall cause witnesses to be discredited.

  It is possible also to disguise evidence by a proceeding such as the following: ‘Bear witness’, you say, ‘in my favour, Callicles’—‘By the gods, I will not’, he [5] replies, ‘for the accused committed these crimes, though I tried to prevent him’. In this way, though he has given false evidence in his refusal, he will not be liable to punishment as a false witness. This then is the way in which we shall treat evidence, when it is to our advantage to disguise it. If our opponents try to do anything of this kind, we shall expose their wickedness and order them to give their evidence in [10] writing. With these instructions then before us we know how to deal with witnesses and evidence.

  16 · Evidence given under torture is a confession on the part of one who knows but is unwilling to state what he knows. When therefore it is to our interest to strengthen such evidence, we must say that individuals take their proofs from [15] evidence under torture in their most serious affairs, and cities in their most important business, and that evidence under torture is more trustworthy than ordinary testimony. For it is often to the interest of witnesses to lie; but those who are under torture gain by telling the truth, for doing so will bring them the speediest relief from their sufferings.

  When you wish to discredit evidence given under torture, you must say in the [20] first place that those who are being tortured become hostile to those who have delivered them up to be tortured and for this reason tell many lies against their masters. Secondly, you must say that they often make confessions to their torturers which are not the truth, in order to end their torments as quickly as possible. You must also point out that even free men have often before now lied against [25] themselves under torture to escape the suffering of the moment; it is therefore much more likely that slaves should wish to avoid punishment by lying against their [30] masters, rather than, when they are enduring great bodily and mental pain, retain from falsehood in order to save other people from suffering. By these and similar arguments we shall cause evidence given under torture to be plausible or implausible.

  17 · An oath is an affirmation without proof accompanied by an invocation [35] of the gods. When we wish to amplify the power of an oath we must say that no one would desire to commit perjury, because he would fear punishment from heaven and disgrace in the eyes of men; we must also point out that, while it is possible to escape the notice of men, it is impossible to elude the gods. When our opponents take refuge in an oath and we wish to belittle it, we must point out that those who do [1432b1] evil deeds are the very men who do not scruple to commit perjury; for a man who thinks that the gods take no notice of him when he does wrong, also thinks that he will not be punished even if he forswears himself. By pursuing a method such as the above in the matter of oaths we shall have no lack of material.

  [5] We have now briefly carried out our purpose of dealing with all the various kinds of proof and have shown not only the force of each of them, but also how they differ from one another and how they ought to be employed. We will now proceed to explain the other expedients which belong to all seven kinds of oratory and are [10] useful in speeches of every kind.

  18 · Anticipation is the method by which we shall counteract the ill-feeling which is felt against us by anticipating the adverse criticisms of our audience and the arguments of those who are going to speak against us. We shall anticipate the [15] criticisms of our audience by such a statement as, ‘Perhaps some of you are astonished that, young as I am, I attempt thus to speak in public on important matters’; or again, ‘Let no one oppose me through resentment, because I am going to offer you advice on subjects about which certain other people hesitate to speak [20] openly before you’. In matters then which are likely to annoy your hearers you must by anticipations of this kind bring forward reasons, which will show that you are justified in offering advice, pointing out the dearth of public speakers or the greatness of the dangers or the public expediency, or giving some other such reason [25] whereby you will remove the ill-feeling which threatens you. If your audience still cries out just as much against you, you must address them briefly in the form of a maxim or enthymeme, saying, for example, that it is absolutely absurd that they should have come together to take the best counsel about the situation and then think that they can take good counsel without deigning to hear what the speakers [30] have to say; or again, you may say that it is only fair that they should either themselves get up and offer some advice, or else listen to those who have advice to offer, and then vote in favour of any course that recommends itself to them. Such must be the method of employing anticipation in public speaking, and this is how outcries must be faced.

  [35] In forensic speeches we shall use similar methods of anticipation to the above. If an outcry is raised against us at an early stage of the proceedings, we shall meet it in this manner: ‘Is it not absurd that, while the legislator ordained that each party should be allowed to speak twice, you who are sitting in judgement upon us should have sworn to pass sentence according to the law, and then refuse even to listen to a single speech? And that, while he took such measures to secure that you should give [1433a1] your vote in accordance with your oath after hearing all that was to be said, you should be so indifferent to his injunctions that, without even listening to the beginnings of the speeches, you already think that you know all the facts perfectly?’ Or you can put the matter differently and say, ‘How absurd it is that the lawgiver [5] should have ordained that, if the votes
are equal, the defendant should win the case, whereas you hold so strongly to the contrary opinion that you do not even listen to the defence offered by those who have been slandered; and that, whereas he granted this advantage in the voting to defendants because they run greater risks, you, while you show no hostility towards the accusers who run no risks, alarm by these outcries [10] those who in terror and danger are defending themselves from the charges brought against them’. Such must be your method of meeting those who raise an outcry against you at the beginning of your speech. If they interrupt you when your speech is well advanced, then, if those who do so are few in number, you must rebuke them [15] and tell them that it is only just that they should listen to you at the moment, in order that they may not prevent the rest from forming a correct judgement, and that, when they have heard you, then they can do what they please. If the majority raises an outcry against you, you should blame yourself and not your judges; for, if you find fault with them, you only make them angry, whereas, if you blame yourself [20] and say that you have made a mistake in your manner of speaking, you will gain their pardon. You must also beg your judges to give a favourable ear to your speech and not at this early stage to show what view they take about the facts on which they are to give their secret vote. In general, we shall meet interruptions in a summary [25] manner with maxims and enthymemes, pointing out that our interrupters are setting themselves in opposition to justice or the laws or the interests of the city or what is honourable; for such methods as these are best calculated to make one’s hearers stop interrupting. We now know from what has been said above how to employ anticipations in dealing with an audience and how to meet interruptions. [30]

  I will next show you how to anticipate what is likely to be said by one’s opponents. You can say: ‘Perhaps he will bewail his poverty, which is not my fault but has been caused by his own way of life’; or again, ‘I hear that he intends to say [35] such and such a thing’. If we are speaking first, we must thus anticipate what our opponents are likely to say and so destroy and invalidate their pleas. For even though the arguments which you forestall are quite forcible, they will appear much less weighty to those who have already heard them.

  If we are speaking after our opponents and they have anticipated what we [1433b1] intend to say, it is necessary to counteract their anticipations and destroy them by speaking as follows, ‘My opponent has not only told you many lies to my discredit, but further, well knowing that I shall refute his charges, he has anticipated my plea and discredited it beforehand, in order that you may not give it the attention which [5] you otherwise would, or else that I may not employ it at all, because it has already been torn to pieces by him. I hold, however, that you ought to hear my arguments from my own lips, not from his, even if12 he has tried to tear my arguments to pieces [10] by saying things which I declare to be a strong sign that he has no sound plea to offer’. Euripides has made a clever use of this device in the following lines of his Philoctetes:

  E’en though he thinks to have destroyed my pleas

  Escaping charge of wrong, yet will I speak;

  From mine own lips mine arguments shall come,

  Let his words show what kind of man he is.13

  [15] We know then from the above how to make use of anticipations in relation both to our judges and to our opponents.

  19 · Postulates in oratory are the demands which speakers make from their hearers. Some of them are just, others unjust. It is just to ask that they should listen [20] to what you are saying and lead a favourable ear. It is also a just demand that they should give one the assistance which the laws allow and never vote against the laws and that they should make allowances for misfortunes. Any demand which is contrary to the law is unjust, otherwise it is just.14 Such are the postulates. We have [25] distinguished their different kinds in order that, knowing the just from the unjust, we may use them on the right occasion, and that it may not escape our notice if our adversaries make any unjust demand from the judges. From what has been said we shall have an adequate knowledge on this subject.

  20 · Iteration is a means of briefly reminding one’s hearers. It must be [30] employed both at the conclusion of a division of a speech and at the final conclusion. In recapitulating we use iteration when arguing or narrating or recommending or questioning using irony. I will show you of what nature each of these is. The [35] following is an example of its use in arguing: ‘I cannot say what these men would have done, if they had not manifestly deserted us long ago and were not convicted of having served against our city and of having never fulfilled any of their promises’. Such is the use of iteration in an argument. It can be used as follows in narrating: ‘I have shown that they were the first to break the treaty of alliance and the first to [1434a1] attack us when we were at war with the Lacedaemonians, and that they displayed the utmost eagerness to enslave our city’. Such is the use of iteration in narrative. The following is an example of its use in reminding your audience under the form of recommending a certain course of action: ‘You must remember that ever since we [5] entered into friendship with these men we have never suffered any reverse at the hands of our enemies. For they have often helped us and prevented the Lacedaemonians from devastating our territory, and they have continued to this day to contribute large sums of money’. Thus shall we remind our hearers by recommending [10] a certain course of action. The following is an instance of iteration in the form of a question: ‘I should like to hear from them, why it is that they do not pay us the tribute which they owe. For they cannot have the face to say that they are in need of money, when they can be shown to be receiving such large sums of money annually from their land, nor yet can they say that they spend much on the administration of [15] their city; for they clearly spend less than all the other islanders’. Such will be our use of iteration in the form of a question.

  21 · Irony is to say something and pretend that you are not saying it, or else to call things by the names of their contraries. It may take the following form in a brief reminder of what has already been said: ‘I think that I need hardly say that [20] these men, who pretend that they have done the state many services, are shown to have done it much harm, whereas we, whom they declare to be ungrateful, are shown to have often helped them and never to have done any one any injury’. Such is the way briefly to remind your hearers of something under the pretence of omitting [25] it. Secondly, the following is an instance of calling things by contrary names: ‘These noble citizens have clearly done great harm to their allies, while we worthless mortals have obviously been the cause of many benefits to them’. In this way we [30] shall briefly remind our hearers and employ iteration at the end of the divisions of our speeches and at their final conclusion.

  22 · We will next explain how one can speak elegantly and prolong a speech to the length which one desires.

  We can speak elegantly in the following manner, by introducing, for example, [35] half enthymemes in such a way that our audience can guess the other half; we must also include maxims. To some of these we must give a place in every division of the speech15 but the actual words must be varied and a similar phrase must never be applied repeatedly in the same connexion. In this way your speech will be elegant.

  When you wish to lengthen your speech, you must divide up your subject and [1434b1] in each division explain the nature of its contents and their particular and general application and state the grounds of your pleas. If we wish to make our discourse still longer, we must employ a number of words in dealing with each topic. In each [5] division of the speech you must iterate and make your iteration brief; while at the conclusion of your speech you ought to recapitulate as a whole all that you have dealt with in detail, and treat the subject generally. In this way your speech will be [10] of a sufficient length.

  If you wish to speak briefly, you should include your whole subject in a single word and that word the shortest which is applicable to the subject. You must also employ few conjunctive particles and connect as many thin
gs as possible together. Such must be your choice of words; you must make your language serve a double [15] purpose, and you must do away with the brief iterations in the separate divisions of the speech and only employ iteration in your final conclusion. This is the way in which we shall make our speeches brief.

  If you wish to speak at moderate length, you must pick out the most important divisions of your speech and make them your subject. You must also use the words of medium length and not the longest or the shortest, and not employ a large [20] number on a single topic but observe moderation. You must neither on the one hand do away entirely with conclusions in the intermediate parts of your speech, nor on the other hand introduce them in every division; but you must make special [25] iterations at the end of those parts to which you wish your audience to pay particular attention. On these principles, then, we shall regulate the length of our speeches, whenever we wish to do so.

  If you wish to compose a speech which will be elegant, you must take care as far as possible to adapt the character of your speech to that of your audience. You [30] will achieve this, if you observe their character, whether noble or petty or ordinary.

  On these points, then, you will have adequate knowledge from what has been said above. We will now treat of the putting together of words; for this too is essential.

  23 · In the first place, then, words are of three kinds, simple, composite, and metaphorical.