E. M. Cope, Commentary on the Rhetoric of Aristotle

---

---

‘The present’ (current, Isocrates') ‘division is absurd; for surely narrative (διήγησις narratio, the detailed description of the circumstances of the case) belongs only to the forensic speech, but in a demonstrative or public speech how can there be a narrative such as they describe, or a reply to the opponent; or an epilogue (peroration) in argumentative or demonstrative speeches?’ On this Quint. says, III 9. 5, Tamen nec iis assentior qui detrahunt refutationem (sc. τὰ προς τὸν ἀντίδικον) tanquam probationi subiectam, ut Aristoteles; haec enim est quae constituat, illa quae destruat. Hoc quoque idem aliquatenus novat, quod prooemio non narrationem subiungit, sed propositionem. (This is one of Quintilian's ordinary misrepresentations of writers whom he quotes. Ar. says nothing here of the prooemium, theoretically disallowing it: though in compliance with the received custom he afterwards gives an account of it and its contents). Verum id facit quia propositio genus, narratio species videtur: et hac non semper, illa semper et ubique credit opus esse. The last clause very well explains Ar.'s substitution of πρόθεσις for (προοίμιον and) διήγησις.

In Introd. p. 333, I have given at length from Cic. de Inv. I 19. 27, the distinction of διήγησις in its ordinary sense and πρόθεσις. It is here said that the narrative or statement of the case, strictly speaking, belongs (he means necessarily belongs) only to the forensic branch of Rhetoric: there there is always a case to state: in the declamatory, panegyrical branch, not a regular systematic narrative or detailed statement as of a case; in this the διήγησις is dispersed over the whole speech, infra 16. 1: and, in δημηγορία equally, there is not universally or necessarily, as in the law-speech, a διήγησις, because its time is the future, and a narrative of things future is impossible: when it is used, it is to recall the memory of past facts for the purpose of comparison—which is a very different thing from the forensic διήγησις. Comp. c. 16. 11. The author of the Rhet. ad Alex. c. 30 (31) includes διήγησις in the deliberative branch, δημηγορικὸν γένος; no doubt following Isocrates. On διήγησις see Dionysius Hal., Ars Rhet. c. x § 14.

The same argument applies to the refutatio, τὰ πρὸς τὸν ἀντίδικον, and with more force than to the preceding, for in the epideictic branch there is no adversary, and therefore can be no refutation of his arguments, at least such as those who lay down this division intend: though it is true that a panegyrist may have to meet adverse statements or imputations on the object of his panegyric, real or supposed. In fact, it is only in the forensic branch that there is necessarily an opponent. On this division, see III 17. 14, 15.

ἢ ἐπίλογον τῶν ἀποδεικτικῶν] This is understood by Victorius, Majoragius, and Schrader of the demonstrativum genus, ἀποδ. being supposed to be put here for ἐπιδεικτικῶν. This in Aristotle I hold to be impossible. Nor have I found any example of it elsewhere, though Victorius says that Isocrates uses ἀποδεικνύναι for ἐπιδεικνύναι more than once in the Panath. speech. I have supposed (in note on p. 335 Introd.) that his text of Isocrates may have exhibited this interchange from the uncorrected carelessness of transcribers. What is true is, that Isocrates, twice in the Paneg. §§ 18 and 65, does use ἐπιδεικνύναι in a sense nearly approaching, if not absolutely identical with, that of ἀποδεικνύναι. The words can only mean, as I have translated them, that there may be some speeches which consist entirely of proof or arguments, and that a summary of these would not correspond to the ἐπίλογος in its ordinary sense—described c. 19. 1—of which only a small part is a recapitulation.

‘And again προοίμιον (preface, opening or introduction), and comparison (setting over against one another side by side) of opposing (views, statements, arguments), and review, are found in public speeches then only when there is a dispute (between two opponents）’: as in Demosthenes' Speech for the Crown, of which the προοίμιον has been before referred to. ἐπάνοδος, ‘a going over again’=ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, summary recapitulation of the foregoing topics of the speech, appears also in Plato Phaedr. 267 D, τὸ δὲ δὴ τέλος τῶν λόγων κοινῇ πᾶσιν ἔοικε συνδεδογμένον εἶναι, ᾧ τινὲς μὲν ἐπάνοδον, ἄλλοι δὲ ἄλλο τίθενται ὄνομα. The ἄλλο ὄνομα may be ἐπίλογος or ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, or παλιλλογία (Rhet. ad Alex. c. 20 (21). 1). It is properly a subdivision of the ἐπίλογος, and as such is here condemned as superfluous.

ὅταν ἀντιλογία ᾖ] “The object of the prooemium is to conciliate the audience, and invite their attention, and briefly intimate the subject of the ensuing speech. In recommending this or that measure to the assembly, unless there is an adversary who has poisoned the hearers' minds against it and its author, or some other special reason, there is no occasion for this: and also, the audience is usually well acquainted with the subject. See further on this, c. 14. 11. Comparison of argument, and review, can only be required when there is an opposition.” Introd. pp. 335, 6. The Rhet. ad Alex. expressly tells us, c. 28 (29) ult., that the προοίμιον is “common to all the seven species, and will be appropriate to every kind of (rhetorical) business.”

The following argument καὶ γὰρ—πολλάκις is a reductio ad absurdum of the preceding. You say that προοίμιον, ἀντιπαραβολή and ἐπάνοδος are essential parts of the public speech—‘Why at that rate (is the reply) so are accusation and defence, for they are frequently there’—this involves the absurdity of introducing the whole contents of the forensic genus into the δημηγορικὸν γένος as a mere part of the latter—‘but not qua deliberation’: not in the sense or character of deliberation, which is essential to the deliberative branch, but as mere accidents.

There can be no question that we should read ᾗ for ἡ συμβουλή. So Victorius, Schrader, Buhle, Spengel. Bekker alone retains ἡ. The following clause requires an alteration of punctuation to make it intelligible; suggested long ago by Victorius, Majoragius, Vater, and adopted by Spengel; not so by Bekker. Spengel also rejects ἔτι [delendum aut in ἐστὶν mutandum]. With the altered reading, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐπίλογος ἔτι οὐδὲ δικανικοῦ κ.τ.λ. it is certainly out of place. I am by no means persuaded of the certainty of this alteration—perhaps Bekker had the same reason for withholding his consent to the two alterations—I think it quite as likely that a word or two has dropt out after ἐπίλογος.

‘But further’ (if ἔτι be retained) ‘neither does the peroration belong to every forensic speech; as for instance if it be short, or the matter of it easy to recollect; for what happens (in an ordinary epilogue) is a subtraction from the length’—not the brevity, of a speech: i.e. an epilogue is appropriate to a long speech, not a short one. This is Victorius' explanation, and no doubt right (that which I gave in the Introd. is wrong, and also not Victorius', as stated in the note).

‘Consequently the (only) necessary parts are the statement of the case, and the proof’.