This text is part of:
‘Examples must be used, in the absence of enthymemes, as direct logical proofs—for this is the road to persuasion (or conviction)— if we have them, as (confirmatory) evidence, and they are to be employed as a supplement to our enthymemes: for when put first they resemble an induction (the several examples are the particulars, or facts, from which the general rule is collected), but induction is not appropriate to Rhetoric, except in rare cases; but when they are appended to the others they are like evidence, and evidence is always acceptable (the witness always carries weight, is always listened to; people are inclined to believe him)’. The enthymeme is the σῶμα τῆς πίστεως, I 1. 3, ἀπόδειξις ῥητορικὴ ἐνθύμημα...κυριώτατον τῶν πίστεων, Ib. § 11. On the application of the term ἀπόδειξις to rhetorical proof, see note on I 1. 11. ἐπίλογος is here simply equivalent to τὸ ἐπιλεγόμενον, something added, appended, as a supplement, and not to be understood as the technical ἐπίλογος, the concluding member of the speech, the peroration. ἐπιλόγῳ χρώμενον τοῖς ἐνθυμήμασιν] This cannot mean ‘using the enthymemes as a supplement’, which is directly contrary to what the author intends to say. The construction is, χρώμενον (αὐτοῖς ὡς) ἐπιλόγῳ τοῖς ἐνθυμήμασιν, that is ὡς λόγῳ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐνθυμήμασιν as a λόγος—‘argument’ or ‘sentence’—after, following, supplementary to, the enthymemes. And this is confirmed by ἐπιλεγόμενα μαρτυρίοις in the next clause. This construction, the substantive taking the case of its verb, is fully justified by the examples given in the note on II 4. 31, supra p. 56, note 1. ‘And therefore also, if you put your examples first you must necessarily employ a considerable number; if you introduce them afterwards even one is enough; for even a single witness that can be relied on is of service’. This is a second objection to putting the examples first. If you do so, they will resemble an induction: but an induction derived from only one or two particulars is of little or no force. Therefore the particular cases must be numerous; and so, not only the induction itself is inappropriate in Rhetoric, but you will also be obliged to make it long. ‘So the subject of the number of kinds of examples, and how and when they are to be employed, has been dispatched (disposed of)’.
Commentary on the Rhetoric of Aristotle. Edward Meredith Cope. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 1877.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
This text was converted to electronic form by professional data entry and has been proofread to a medium level of accuracy.
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.