This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
View text chunked by:
[14]
The refutation of the opponent is not a
particular kind of proof; his arguments should be refuted partly by objection,
partly by counter-syllogism.1 In both deliberative and forensic
rhetoric he who speaks first should state his own proofs and afterwards meet the
arguments of the opponent, refuting or pulling them to pieces beforehand. But if
the opposition is varied,2 these arguments should be dealt with first, as
Callistratus did in the Messenian assembly; in fact, it was only after he had
first refuted what his opponents were likely to say that he put forward his own
proofs.
1 In the translation τῶν πίστεων is taken with ἔστι: it is the business of, the proper function of, proofs. Others take it with τὰ μὲν . . . τὰ δέ: some . . . other （of the opponent's arguments）.
2 If the opponent's arguments are numerous and strong, by reason of the varied nature of the points dealt with.
Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 22, translated by J. H. Freese. Aristotle. Cambridge and London. Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd. 1926.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
Purchase a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.