Rhetoric ................................................................................................................................................................1

Aristotle...................................................................................................................................................1

RHETORIC the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less,

within the general ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use, more or

less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend

themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from

acquired habit. Both ways being possible, the subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible

to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and others spontaneously; and every one

Now, the framers of the current treatises on rhetoric have constructed but a small portion of that art. The

modes of persuasion are the only true constituents of the art: everything else is merely accessory. These

writers, however, say nothing about enthymemes, which are the substance of rhetorical persuasion, but deal

mainly with nonessentials. The arousing of prejudice, pity, anger, and similar emotions has nothing to do

with the essential facts, but is merely a personal appeal to the man who is judging the case. Consequently if

the rules for trials which are now laid down some statesespecially in wellgoverned stateswere applied

everywhere, such people would have nothing to say. All men, no doubt, think that the laws should prescribe

such rules, but some, as in the court of Areopagus, give practical effect to their thoughts and forbid talk about

nonessentials. This is sound law and custom. It is not right to pervert the judge by moving him to anger or

envy or pityone might as well warp a carpenter's rule before using it. Again, a litigant has clearly nothing to

do but to show that the alleged fact is so or is not so, that it has or has not happened. As to whether a thing is

important or unimportant, just or unjust, the judge must surely refuse to take his instructions from the

litigants: he must decide for himself all such points as the lawgiver has not already defined for him.

Now, it is of great moment that welldrawn laws should themselves define all the points they possibly can

and leave as few as may be to the decision of the judges; and this for several reasons. First, to find one man,

or a few men, who are sensible persons and capable of legislating and administering justice is easier than to

find a large number. Next, laws are made after long consideration, whereas decisions in the courts are given

at short notice, which makes it hard for those who try the case to satisfy the claims of justice and expediency.

The weightiest reason of all is that the decision of the lawgiver is not particular but prospective and general,

whereas members of the assembly and the jury find it their duty to decide on definite cases brought before

them. They will often have allowed themselves to be so much influenced by feelings of friendship or hatred

or selfinterest that they lose any clear vision of the truth and have their judgement obscured by

considerations of personal pleasure or pain. In general, then, the judge should, we say, be allowed to decide

as few things as possible. But questions as to whether something has happened or has not happened, will be

or will not be, is or is not, must of necessity be left to the judge, since the lawgiver cannot foresee them. If

this is so, it is evident that any one who lays down rules about other matters, such as what must be the

contents of the 'introduction' or the 'narration' or any of the other divisions of a speech, is theorizing about

nonessentials as if they belonged to the art. The only question with which these writers here deal is how to

put the judge into a given frame of mind. About the orator's proper modes of persuasion they have nothing to

Hence it comes that, although the same systematic principles apply to political as to forensic oratory, and

although the former is a nobler business, and fitter for a citizen, than that which concerns the relations of

private individuals, these authors say nothing about political oratory, but try, one and all, to write treatises on

the way to plead in court. The reason for this is that in political oratory there is less inducement to talk about

nonessentials. Political oratory is less given to unscrupulous practices than forensic, because it treats of wider

issues. In a political debate the man who is forming a judgement is making a decision about his own vital

interests. There is no need, therefore, to prove anything except that the facts are what the supporter of a

measure maintains they are. In forensic oratory this is not enough; to conciliate the listener is what pays here.

It is other people's affairs that are to be decided, so that the judges, intent on their own satisfaction and

listening with partiality, surrender themselves to the disputants instead of judging between them. Hence in

many places, as we have said already, irrelevant speaking is forbidden in the lawcourts: in the public

assembly those who have to form a judgement are themselves well able to guard against that.

It is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion. Persuasion

is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been

demonstrated. The orator's demonstration is an enthymeme, and this is, in general, the most effective of the

modes of persuasion. The enthymeme is a sort of syllogism, and the consideration of syllogisms of all kinds,

without distinction, is the business of dialectic, either of dialectic as a whole or of one of its branches. It

follows plainly, therefore, that he who is best able to see how and from what elements a syllogism is

produced will also be best skilled in the enthymeme, when he has further learnt what its subjectmatter is and

in what respects it differs from the syllogism of strict logic. The true and the approximately true are

apprehended by the same faculty; it may also be noted that men have a sufficient natural instinct for what is

true, and usually do arrive at the truth. Hence the man who makes a good guess at truth is likely to make a

It has now been shown that the ordinary writers on rhetoric treat of nonessentials; it has also been shown

Rhetoric is useful (1) because things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail

over their opposites, so that if the decisions of judges are not what they ought to be, the defeat must be due to

the speakers themselves, and they must be blamed accordingly. Moreover, (2) before some audiences not

even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For

argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct. Here, then,

we must use, as our modes of persuasion and argument, notions possessed by everybody, as we observed in

the Topics when dealing with the way to handle a popular audience. Further, (3) we must be able to employ

persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be employed, on opposite sides of a question, not in order that we may

in practice employ it in both ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but in order that we

may see clearly what the facts are, and that, if another man argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to

confute him. No other of the arts draws opposite conclusions: dialectic and rhetoric alone do this. Both these

arts draw opposite conclusions impartially. Nevertheless, the underlying facts do not lend themselves equally

well to the contrary views. No; things that are true and things that are better are, by their nature, practically

always easier to prove and easier to believe in. Again, (4) it is absurd to hold that a man ought to be ashamed

of being unable to defend himself with his limbs, but not of being unable to defend himself with speech and

reason, when the use of rational speech is more distinctive of a human being than the use of his limbs. And if

it be objected that one who uses such power of speech unjustly might do great harm, that is a charge which

may be made in common against all good things except virtue, and above all against the things that are most

useful, as strength, health, wealth, generalship. A man can confer the greatest of benefits by a right use of

It is clear, then, that rhetoric is not bound up with a single definite class of subjects, but is as universal as

dialectic; it is clear, also, that it is useful. It is clear, further, that its function is not simply to succeed in

persuading, but rather to discover the means of coming as near such success as the circumstances of each

particular case allow. In this it resembles all other arts. For example, it is not the function of medicine simply

to make a man quite healthy, but to put him as far as may be on the road to health; it is possible to give

excellent treatment even to those who can never enjoy sound health. Furthermore, it is plain that it is the

function of one and the same art to discern the real and the apparent means of persuasion, just as it is the

function of dialectic to discern the real and the apparent syllogism. What makes a man a 'sophist' is not his

faculty, but his moral purpose. In rhetoric, however, the term 'rhetorician' may describe either the speaker's

knowledge of the art, or his moral purpose. In dialectic it is different: a man is a 'sophist' because he has a

certain kind of moral purpose, a 'dialectician' in respect, not of his moral purpose, but of his faculty.

Let us now try to give some account of the systematic principles of Rhetoric itselfof the right method and

means of succeeding in the object we set before us. We must make as it were a fresh start, and before going

Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. This

is not a function of any other art. Every other art can instruct or persuade about its own particular

subjectmatter; for instance, medicine about what is healthy and unhealthy, geometry about the properties of

magnitudes, arithmetic about numbers, and the same is true of the other arts and sciences. But rhetoric we

look upon as the power of observing the means of persuasion on almost any subject presented to us; and that

is why we say that, in its technical character, it is not concerned with any special or definite class of subjects.

Of the modes of persuasion some belong strictly to the art of rhetoric and some do not. By the latter I mean

such things as are not supplied by the speaker but are there at the outsetwitnesses, evidence given under

torture, written contracts, and so on. By the former I mean such as we can ourselves construct by means of

the principles of rhetoric. The one kind has merely to be used, the other has to be invented.

Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the

personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third

on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. Persuasion is achieved by the

speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good

men more fully and more readily than others: this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely

true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided. This kind of persuasion, like the others,

should be achieved by what the speaker says, not by what people think of his character before he begins to

speak. It is not true, as some writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric, that the personal goodness revealed

by the speaker contributes nothing to his power of persuasion; on the contrary, his character may almost be

called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses. Secondly, persuasion may come through the

hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the

same as when we are pained and hostile. It is towards producing these effects, as we maintain, that

presentday writers on rhetoric direct the whole of their efforts. This subject shall be treated in detail when

we come to speak of the emotions. Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have

proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question.

There are, then, these three means of effecting persuasion. The man who is to be in command of them must, it

is clear, be able (1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various

forms, and (3) to understand the emotionsthat is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and

the way in which they are excited. It thus appears that rhetoric is an offshoot of dialectic and also of ethical

studies. Ethical studies may fairly be called political; and for this reason rhetoric masquerades as political

science, and the professors of it as political expertssometimes from want of education, sometimes from

ostentation, sometimes owing to other human failings. As a matter of fact, it is a branch of dialectic and

similar to it, as we said at the outset. Neither rhetoric nor dialectic is the scientific study of any one separate

subject: both are faculties for providing arguments. This is perhaps a sufficient account of their scope and of

With regard to the persuasion achieved by proof or apparent proof: just as in dialectic there is induction on

the one hand and syllogism or apparent syllogism on the other, so it is in rhetoric. The example is an

induction, the enthymeme is a syllogism, and the apparent enthymeme is an apparent syllogism. I call the

enthymeme a rhetorical syllogism, and the example a rhetorical induction. Every one who effects persuasion

through proof does in fact use either enthymemes or examples: there is no other way. And since every one

who proves anything at all is bound to use either syllogisms or inductions (and this is clear to us from the

Analytics), it must follow that enthymemes are syllogisms and examples are inductions. The difference

between example and enthymeme is made plain by the passages in the Topics where induction and syllogism

have already been discussed. When we base the proof of a proposition on a number of similar cases, this is

induction in dialectic, example in rhetoric; when it is shown that, certain propositions being true, a further

and quite distinct proposition must also be true in consequence, whether invariably or usually, this is called

syllogism in dialectic, enthymeme in rhetoric. It is plain also that each of these types of oratory has its

advantages. Types of oratory, I say: for what has been said in the Methodics applies equally well here; in

some oratorical styles examples prevail, in others enthymemes; and in like manner, some orators are better at

the former and some at the latter. Speeches that rely on examples are as persuasive as the other kind, but

those which rely on enthymemes excite the louder applause. The sources of examples and enthymemes, and

their proper uses, we will discuss later. Our next step is to define the processes themselves more clearly.

A statement is persuasive and credible either because it is directly selfevident or because it appears to be

proved from other statements that are so. In either case it is persuasive because there is somebody whom it

persuades. But none of the arts theorize about individual cases. Medicine, for instance, does not theorize

about what will help to cure Socrates or Callias, but only about what will help to cure any or all of a given

class of patients: this alone is business: individual cases are so infinitely various that no systematic

knowledge of them is possible. In the same way the theory of rhetoric is concerned not with what seems

probable to a given individual like Socrates or Hippias, but with what seems probable to men of a given type;

and this is true of dialectic also. Dialectic does not construct its syllogisms out of any haphazard materials,

such as the fancies of crazy people, but out of materials that call for discussion; and rhetoric, too, draws upon

the regular subjects of debate. The duty of rhetoric is to deal with such matters as we deliberate upon without

arts or systems to guide us, in the hearing of persons who cannot take in at a glance a complicated argument,

or follow a long chain of reasoning. The subjects of our deliberation are such as seem to present us with

alternative possibilities: about things that could not have been, and cannot now or in the future be, other than

they are, nobody who takes them to be of this nature wastes his time in deliberation.

It is possible to form syllogisms and draw conclusions from the results of previous syllogisms; or, on the

other hand, from premisses which have not been thus proved, and at the same time are so little accepted that

they call for proof. Reasonings of the former kind will necessarily be hard to follow owing to their length, for

we assume an audience of untrained thinkers; those of the latter kind will fail to win assent, because they are

The enthymeme and the example must, then, deal with what is in the main contingent, the example being an

induction, and the enthymeme a syllogism, about such matters. The enthymeme must consist of few

propositions, fewer often than those which make up the normal syllogism. For if any of these propositions is

a familiar fact, there is no need even to mention it; the hearer adds it himself. Thus, to show that Dorieus has

been victor in a contest for which the prize is a crown, it is enough to say 'For he has been victor in the

Olympic games', without adding 'And in the Olympic games the prize is a crown', a fact which everybody

There are few facts of the 'necessary' type that can form the basis of rhetorical syllogisms. Most of the things

about which we make decisions, and into which therefore we inquire, present us with alternative possibilities.

For it is about our actions that we deliberate and inquire, and all our actions have a contingent character;

hardly any of them are determined by necessity. Again, conclusions that state what is merely usual or

possible must be drawn from premisses that do the same, just as 'necessary' conclusions must be drawn from

'necessary' premisses; this too is clear to us from the Analytics. It is evident, therefore, that the propositions

forming the basis of enthymemes, though some of them may be 'necessary', will most of them be only usually

true. Now the materials of enthymemes are Probabilities and Signs, which we can see must correspond

respectively with the propositions that are generally and those that are necessarily true. A Probability is a

thing that usually happens; not, however, as some definitions would suggest, anything whatever that usually

happens, but only if it belongs to the class of the 'contingent' or 'variable'. It bears the same relation to that in

respect of which it is probable as the universal bears to the particular. Of Signs, one kind bears the same

relation to the statement it supports as the particular bears to the universal, the other the same as the universal

bears to the particular. The infallible kind is a 'complete proof' (tekmerhiou); the fallible kind has no specific

name. By infallible signs I mean those on which syllogisms proper may be based: and this shows us why this

kind of Sign is called 'complete proof': when people think that what they have said cannot be refuted, they

then think that they are bringing forward a 'complete proof', meaning that the matter has now been

demonstrated and completed (peperhasmeuou); for the word 'perhas' has the same meaning (of 'end' or

'boundary') as the word 'tekmarh' in the ancient tongue. Now the one kind of Sign (that which bears to the

proposition it supports the relation of particular to universal) may be illustrated thus. Suppose it were said,

'The fact that Socrates was wise and just is a sign that the wise are just'. Here we certainly have a Sign; but

even though the proposition be true, the argument is refutable, since it does not form a syllogism. Suppose,

on the other hand, it were said, 'The fact that he has a fever is a sign that he is ill', or, 'The fact that she is

giving milk is a sign that she has lately borne a child'. Here we have the infallible kind of Sign, the only kind

that constitutes a complete proof, since it is the only kind that, if the particular statement is true, is irrefutable.

The other kind of Sign, that which bears to the proposition it supports the relation of universal to particular,

might be illustrated by saying, 'The fact that he breathes fast is a sign that he has a fever'. This argument also

is refutable, even if the statement about the fast breathing be true, since a man may breathe hard without

It has, then, been stated above what is the nature of a Probability, of a Sign, and of a complete proof, and

what are the differences between them. In the Analytics a more explicit description has been given of these

points; it is there shown why some of these reasonings can be put into syllogisms and some cannot.

The 'example' has already been described as one kind of induction; and the special nature of the

subjectmatter that distinguishes it from the other kinds has also been stated above. Its relation to the

proposition it supports is not that of part to whole, nor whole to part, nor whole to whole, but of part to part,

or like to like. When two statements are of the same order, but one is more familiar than the other, the former

is an 'example'. The argument may, for instance, be that Dionysius, in asking as he does for a bodyguard, is

scheming to make himself a despot. For in the past Peisistratus kept asking for a bodyguard in order to carry

out such a scheme, and did make himself a despot as soon as he got it; and so did Theagenes at Megara; and

in the same way all other instances known to the speaker are made into examples, in order to show what is

not yet known, that Dionysius has the same purpose in making the same request: all these being instances of

the one general principle, that a man who asks for a bodyguard is scheming to make himself a despot. We

have now described the sources of those means of persuasion which are popularly supposed to be

There is an important distinction between two sorts of enthymemes that has been wholly overlooked by

almost everybodyone that also subsists between the syllogisms treated of in dialectic. One sort of

enthymeme really belongs to rhetoric, as one sort of syllogism really belongs to dialectic; but the other sort

really belongs to other arts and faculties, whether to those we already exercise or to those we have not yet

acquired. Missing this distinction, people fail to notice that the more correctly they handle their particular

subject the further they are getting away from pure rhetoric or dialectic. This statement will be clearer if

expressed more fully. I mean that the proper subjects of dialectical and rhetorical syllogisms are the things

with which we say the regular or universal Lines of Argument are concerned, that is to say those lines of

argument that apply equally to questions of right conduct, natural science, politics, and many other things that

have nothing to do with one another. Take, for instance, the line of argument concerned with 'the more or

less'. On this line of argument it is equally easy to base a syllogism or enthymeme about any of what

nevertheless are essentially disconnected subjectsright conduct, natural science, or anything else whatever.

But there are also those special Lines of Argument which are based on such propositions as apply only to

particular groups or classes of things. Thus there are propositions about natural science on which it is

impossible to base any enthymeme or syllogism about ethics, and other propositions about ethics on which

nothing can be based about natural science. The same principle applies throughout. The general Lines of

Argument have no special subjectmatter, and therefore will not increase our understanding of any particular

class of things. On the other hand, the better the selection one makes of propositions suitable for special Lines

of Argument, the nearer one comes, unconsciously, to setting up a science that is distinct from dialectic and

rhetoric. One may succeed in stating the required principles, but one's science will be no longer dialectic or

rhetoric, but the science to which the principles thus discovered belong. Most enthymemes are in fact based

upon these particular or special Lines of Argument; comparatively few on the common or general kind. As in

the therefore, so in this work, we must distinguish, in dealing with enthymemes, the special and the general

Lines of Argument on which they are to be founded. By special Lines of Argument I mean the propositions

peculiar to each several class of things, by general those common to all classes alike. We may begin with the

special Lines of Argument. But, first of all, let us classify rhetoric into its varieties. Having distinguished

these we may deal with them one by one, and try to discover the elements of which each is composed, and the

Rhetoric falls into three divisions, determined by the three classes of listeners to speeches. For of the three

elements in speechmakingspeaker, subject, and person addressedit is the last one, the hearer, that

determines the speech's end and object. The hearer must be either a judge, with a decision to make about

things past or future, or an observer. A member of the assembly decides about future events, a juryman about

past events: while those who merely decide on the orator's skill are observers. From this it follows that there

are three divisions of oratory(1) political, (2) forensic, and (3) the ceremonial oratory of display.

Political speaking urges us either to do or not to do something: one of these two courses is always taken by

private counsellors, as well as by men who address public assemblies. Forensic speaking either attacks or

defends somebody: one or other of these two things must always be done by the parties in a case. The

ceremonial oratory of display either praises or censures somebody. These three kinds of rhetoric refer to three

different kinds of time. The political orator is concerned with the future: it is about things to be done hereafter

that he advises, for or against. The party in a case at law is concerned with the past; one man accuses the

other, and the other defends himself, with reference to things already done. The ceremonial orator is, properly

speaking, concerned with the present, since all men praise or blame in view of the state of things existing at

the time, though they often find it useful also to recall the past and to make guesses at the future.

Rhetoric has three distinct ends in view, one for each of its three kinds. The political orator aims at

establishing the expediency or the harmfulness of a proposed course of action; if he urges its acceptance, he

does so on the ground that it will do good; if he urges its rejection, he does so on the ground that it will do

harm; and all other points, such as whether the proposal is just or unjust, honourable or dishonourable, he

brings in as subsidiary and relative to this main consideration. Parties in a lawcase aim at establishing the

justice or injustice of some action, and they too bring in all other points as subsidiary and relative to this one.

Those who praise or attack a man aim at proving him worthy of honour or the reverse, and they too treat all

That the three kinds of rhetoric do aim respectively at the three ends we have mentioned is shown by the fact

that speakers will sometimes not try to establish anything else. Thus, the litigant will sometimes not deny that

a thing has happened or that he has done harm. But that he is guilty of injustice he will never admit;

otherwise there would be no need of a trial. So too, political orators often make any concession short of

admitting that they are recommending their hearers to take an inexpedient course or not to take an expedient

one. The question whether it is not unjust for a city to enslave its innocent neighbours often does not trouble

them at all. In like manner those who praise or censure a man do not consider whether his acts have been

expedient or not, but often make it a ground of actual praise that he has neglected his own interest to do what

was honourable. Thus, they praise Achilles because he championed his fallen friend Patroclus, though he

knew that this meant death, and that otherwise he need not die: yet while to die thus was the nobler thing for

It is evident from what has been said that it is these three subjects, more than any others, about which the

orator must be able to have propositions at his command. Now the propositions of Rhetoric are Complete

Proofs, Probabilities, and Signs. Every kind of syllogism is composed of propositions, and the enthymeme is

Since only possible actions, and not impossible ones, can ever have been done in the past or the present, and

since things which have not occurred, or will not occur, also cannot have been done or be going to be done, it

is necessary for the political, the forensic, and the ceremonial speaker alike to be able to have at their

command propositions about the possible and the impossible, and about whether a thing has or has not

occurred, will or will not occur. Further, all men, in giving praise or blame, in urging us to accept or reject

proposals for action, in accusing others or defending themselves, attempt not only to prove the points

mentioned but also to show that the good or the harm, the honour or disgrace, the justice or injustice, is great

or small, either absolutely or relatively; and therefore it is plain that we must also have at our command

propositions about greatness or smallness and the greater or the lesserpropositions both universal and

particular. Thus, we must be able to say which is the greater or lesser good, the greater or lesser act of justice

Such, then, are the subjects regarding which we are inevitably bound to master the propositions relevant to

them. We must now discuss each particular class of these subjects in turn, namely those dealt with in

First, then, we must ascertain what are the kinds of things, good or bad, about which the political orator offers

counsel. For he does not deal with all things, but only with such as may or may not take place. Concerning

things which exist or will exist inevitably, or which cannot possibly exist or take place, no counsel can be

given. Nor, again, can counsel be given about the whole class of things which may or may not take place; for

this class includes some good things that occur naturally, and some that occur by accident; and about these it

is useless to offer counsel. Clearly counsel can only be given on matters about which people deliberate;

matters, namely, that ultimately depend on ourselves, and which we have it in our power to set going. For we

turn a thing over in our mind until we have reached the point of seeing whether we can do it or not.

Now to enumerate and classify accurately the usual subjects of public business, and further to frame, as far as

possible, true definitions of them is a task which we must not attempt on the present occasion. For it does not

belong to the art of rhetoric, but to a more instructive art and a more real branch of knowledge; and as it is,

rhetoric has been given a far wider subjectmatter than strictly belongs to it. The truth is, as indeed we have

said already, that rhetoric is a combination of the science of logic and of the ethical branch of politics; and it

is partly like dialectic, partly like sophistical reasoning. But the more we try to make either dialectic rhetoric

not, what they really are, practical faculties, but sciences, the more we shall inadvertently be destroying their

true nature; for we shall be refashioning them and shall be passing into the region of sciences dealing with

definite subjects rather than simply with words and forms of reasoning. Even here, however, we will mention

those points which it is of practical importance to distinguish, their fuller treatment falling naturally to

The main matters on which all men deliberate and on which political speakers make speeches are some five

in number: ways and means, war and peace, national defence, imports and exports, and legislation.

As to Ways and Means, then, the intending speaker will need to know the number and extent of the country's

sources of revenue, so that, if any is being overlooked, it may be added, and, if any is defective, it may be

increased. Further, he should know all the expenditure of the country, in order that, if any part of it is

superfluous, it may be abolished, or, if any is too large, it may be reduced. For men become richer not only

by increasing their existing wealth but also by reducing their expenditure. A comprehensive view of these

questions cannot be gained solely from experience in home affairs; in order to advise on such matters a man

As to Peace and War, he must know the extent of the military strength of his country, both actual and

potential, and also the mature of that actual and potential strength; and further, what wars his country has

waged, and how it has waged them. He must know these facts not only about his own country, but also about

neighbouring countries; and also about countries with which war is likely, in order that peace may be

maintained with those stronger than his own, and that his own may have power to make war or not against

those that are weaker. He should know, too, whether the military power of another country is like or unlike

that of his own; for this is a matter that may affect their relative strength. With the same end in view he must,

besides, have studied the wars of other countries as well as those of his own, and the way they ended; similar

With regard to National Defence: he ought to know all about the methods of defence in actual use, such as the

strength and character of the defensive force and the positions of the fortsthis last means that he must be

well acquainted with the lie of the countryin order that a garrison may be increased if it is too small or

removed if it is not wanted, and that the strategic points may be guarded with special care.

With regard to the Food Supply: he must know what outlay will meet the needs of his country; what kinds of

food are produced at home and what imported; and what articles must be exported or imported. This last he

must know in order that agreements and commercial treaties may be made with the countries concerned.

There are, indeed, two sorts of state to which he must see that his countrymen give no cause for offence,

states stronger than his own, and states with which it is advantageous to trade.

But while he must, for security's sake, be able to take all this into account, he must before all things

understand the subject of legislation; for it is on a country's laws that its whole welfare depends. He must,

therefore, know how many different forms of constitution there are; under what conditions each of these will

prosper and by what internal developments or external attacks each of them tends to be destroyed. When I

speak of destruction through internal developments I refer to the fact that all constitutions, except the best one

of all, are destroyed both by not being pushed far enough and by being pushed too far. Thus, democracy loses

its vigour, and finally passes into oligarchy, not only when it is not pushed far enough, but also when it is

pushed a great deal too far; just as the aquiline and the snub nose not only turn into normal noses by not being

aquiline or snub enough, but also by being too violently aquiline or snub arrive at a condition in which they

no longer look like noses at all. It is useful, in framing laws, not only to study the past history of one's own

country, in order to understand which constitution is desirable for it now, but also to have a knowledge of the

constitutions of other nations, and so to learn for what kinds of nation the various kinds of constitution are

suited. From this we can see that books of travel are useful aids to legislation, since from these we may learn

the laws and customs of different races. The political speaker will also find the researches of historians

These, then, are the most important kinds of information which the political speaker must possess. Let us now

go back and state the premisses from which he will have to argue in favour of adopting or rejecting measures

It may be said that every individual man and all men in common aim at a certain end which determines what

they choose and what they avoid. This end, to sum it up briefly, is happiness and its constituents. Let us, then,

by way of illustration only, ascertain what is in general the nature of happiness, and what are the elements of

its constituent parts. For all advice to do things or not to do them is concerned with happiness and with the

things that make for or against it; whatever creates or increases happiness or some part of happiness, we

ought to do; whatever destroys or hampers happiness, or gives rise to its opposite, we ought not to do.

We may define happiness as prosperity combined with virtue; or as independence of life; or as the secure

enjoyment of the maximum of pleasure; or as a good condition of property and body, together with the power

of guarding one's property and body and making use of them. That happiness is one or more of these things,

From this definition of happiness it follows that its constituent parts are:good birth, plenty of friends, good

friends, wealth, good children, plenty of children, a happy old age, also such bodily excellences as health,

beauty, strength, large stature, athletic powers, together with fame, honour, good luck, and virtue. A man

cannot fail to be completely independent if he possesses these internal and these external goods; for besides

these there are no others to have. (Goods of the soul and of the body are internal. Good birth, friends, money,

and honour are external.) Further, we think that he should possess resources and luck, in order to make his

life really secure. As we have already ascertained what happiness in general is, so now let us try to ascertain

Now good birth in a race or a state means that its members are indigenous or ancient: that its earliest leaders

were distinguished men, and that from them have sprung many who were distinguished for qualities that we

The good birth of an individual, which may come either from the male or the female side, implies that both

parents are free citizens, and that, as in the case of the state, the founders of the line have been notable for

virtue or wealth or something else which is highly prized, and that many distinguished persons belong to the

The phrases 'possession of good children' and 'of many children' bear a quite clear meaning. Applied to a

community, they mean that its young men are numerous and of good a quality: good in regard to bodily

excellences, such as stature, beauty, strength, athletic powers; and also in regard to the excellences of the

soul, which in a young man are temperance and courage. Applied to an individual, they mean that his own

children are numerous and have the good qualities we have described. Both male and female are here

included; the excellences of the latter are, in body, beauty and stature; in soul, selfcommand and an industry

that is not sordid. Communities as well as individuals should lack none of these perfections, in their women

as well as in their men. Where, as among the Lacedaemonians, the state of women is bad, almost half of

The constituents of wealth are: plenty of coined money and territory; the ownership of numerous, large, and

beautiful estates; also the ownership of numerous and beautiful implements, live stock, and slaves. All these

kinds of property are our own, are secure, gentlemanly, and useful. The useful kinds are those that are

productive, the gentlemanly kinds are those that provide enjoyment. By 'productive' I mean those from which

we get our income; by 'enjoyable', those from which we get nothing worth mentioning except the use of them.

The criterion of 'security' is the ownership of property in such places and under such Conditions that the use

of it is in our power; and it is 'our own' if it is in our own power to dispose of it or keep it. By 'disposing of it'

I mean giving it away or selling it. Wealth as a whole consists in using things rather than in owning them; it

Fame means being respected by everybody, or having some quality that is desired by all men, or by most, or

Honour is the token of a man's being famous for doing good. it is chiefly and most properly paid to those who

have already done good; but also to the man who can do good in future. Doing good refers either to the

preservation of life and the means of life, or to wealth, or to some other of the good things which it is hard to

get either always or at that particular place or timefor many gain honour for things which seem small, but

the place and the occasion account for it. The constituents of honour are: sacrifices; commemoration, in verse

or prose; privileges; grants of land; front seats at civic celebrations; state burial; statues; public maintenance;

among foreigners, obeisances and giving place; and such presents as are among various bodies of men

regarded as marks of honour. For a present is not only the bestowal of a piece of property, but also a token of

honour; which explains why honourloving as well as moneyloving persons desire it. The present brings to

both what they want; it is a piece of property, which is what the lovers of money desire; and it brings honour,

The excellence of the body is health; that is, a condition which allows us, while keeping free from disease, to

have the use of our bodies; for many people are 'healthy' as we are told Herodicus was; and these no one can

congratulate on their 'health', for they have to abstain from everything or nearly everything that men

do.Beauty varies with the time of life. In a young man beauty is the possession of a body fit to endure the

exertion of running and of contests of strength; which means that he is pleasant to look at; and therefore

allround athletes are the most beautiful, being naturally adapted both for contests of strength and for speed

also. For a man in his prime, beauty is fitness for the exertion of warfare, together with a pleasant but at the

same time formidable appearance. For an old man, it is to be strong enough for such exertion as is necessary,

and to be free from all those deformities of old age which cause pain to others. Strength is the power of

moving some one else at will; to do this, you must either pull, push, lift, pin, or grip him; thus you must be

strong in all of those ways or at least in some. Excellence in size is to surpass ordinary people in height,

thickness, and breadth by just as much as will not make one's movements slower in consequence. Athletic

excellence of the body consists in size, strength, and swiftness; swiftness implying strength. He who can fling

forward his legs in a certain way, and move them fast and far, is good at running; he who can grip and hold

down is good at wrestling; he who can drive an adversary from his ground with the right blow is a good

boxer: he who can do both the last is a good pancratiast, while he who can do all is an 'allround' athlete.

Happiness in old age is the coming of old age slowly and painlessly; for a man has not this happiness if he

grows old either quickly, or tardily but painfully. It arises both from the excellences of the body and from

good luck. If a man is not free from disease, or if he is strong, he will not be free from suffering; nor can he

continue to live a long and painless life unless he has good luck. There is, indeed, a capacity for long life that

is quite independent of health or strength; for many people live long who lack the excellences of the body;

The terms 'possession of many friends' and 'possession of good friends' need no explanation; for we define a

'friend' as one who will always try, for your sake, to do what he takes to be good for you. The man towards

whom many feel thus has many friends; if these are worthy men, he has good friends.

'Good luck' means the acquisition or possession of all or most, or the most important, of those good things

which are due to luck. Some of the things that are due to luck may also be due to artificial contrivance; but

many are independent of art, as for example those which are due to naturethough, to be sure, things due to

luck may actually be contrary to nature. Thus health may be due to artificial contrivance, but beauty and

stature are due to nature. All such good things as excite envy are, as a class, the outcome of good luck. Luck

is also the cause of good things that happen contrary to reasonable expectation: as when, for instance, all your

brothers are ugly, but you are handsome yourself; or when you find a treasure that everybody else has

overlooked; or when a missile hits the next man and misses you; or when you are the only man not to go to a

place you have gone to regularly, while the others go there for the first time and are killed. All such things are

As to virtue, it is most closely connected with the subject of Eulogy, and therefore we will wait to define it

It is now plain what our aims, future or actual, should be in urging, and what in depreciating, a proposal; the

latter being the opposite of the former. Now the political or deliberative orator's aim is utility: deliberation

seeks to determine not ends but the means to ends, i.e. what it is most useful to do. Further, utility is a good

thing. We ought therefore to assure ourselves of the main facts about Goodness and Utility in general.

We may define a good thing as that which ought to be chosen for its own sake; or as that for the sake of

which we choose something else; or as that which is sought after by all things, or by all things that have

sensation or reason, or which will be sought after by any things that acquire reason; or as that which must be

prescribed for a given individual by reason generally, or is prescribed for him by his individual reason, this

being his individual good; or as that whose presence brings anything into a satisfactory and selfsufficing

condition; or as selfsufficiency; or as what produces, maintains, or entails characteristics of this kind, while

preventing and destroying their opposites. One thing may entail another in either of two ways(1)

simultaneously, (2) subsequently. Thus learning entails knowledge subsequently, health entails life

simultaneously. Things are productive of other things in three senses: first as being healthy produces health;

secondly, as food produces health; and thirdly, as exercise doesi.e. it does so usually. All this being settled,

we now see that both the acquisition of good things and the removal of bad things must be good; the latter

entails freedom from the evil things simultaneously, while the former entails possession of the good things

subsequently. The acquisition of a greater in place of a lesser good, or of a lesser in place of a greater evil, is

also good, for in proportion as the greater exceeds the lesser there is acquisition of good or removal of evil.

The virtues, too, must be something good; for it is by possessing these that we are in a good condition, and

they tend to produce good works and good actions. They must be severally named and described elsewhere.

Pleasure, again, must be a good thing, since it is the nature of all animals to aim at it. Consequently both

pleasant and beautiful things must be good things, since the former are productive of pleasure, while of the

The following is a more detailed list of things that must be good. Happiness, as being desirable in itself and

sufficient by itself, and as being that for whose sake we choose many other things. Also justice, courage,

temperance, magnanimity, magnificence, and all such qualities, as being excellences of the soul. Further,

health, beauty, and the like, as being bodily excellences and productive of many other good things: for

instance, health is productive both of pleasure and of life, and therefore is thought the greatest of goods, since

these two things which it causes, pleasure and life, are two of the things most highly prized by ordinary

people. Wealth, again: for it is the excellence of possession, and also productive of many other good things.

Friends and friendship: for a friend is desirable in himself and also productive of many other good things. So,

too, honour and reputation, as being pleasant, and productive of many other good things, and usually

accompanied by the presence of the good things that cause them to be bestowed. The faculty of speech and

action; since all such qualities are productive of what is good. Furthergood parts, strong memory,

receptiveness, quickness of intuition, and the like, for all such faculties are productive of what is good.

Similarly, all the sciences and arts. And life: since, even if no other good were the result of life, it is desirable

The above are pretty well all the things admittedly good. In dealing with things whose goodness is disputed,

we may argue in the following ways:That is good of which the contrary is bad. That is good the contrary of

which is to the advantage of our enemies; for example, if it is to the particular advantage of our enemies that

we should be cowards, clearly courage is of particular value to our countrymen. And generally, the contrary

of that which our enemies desire, or of that at which they rejoice, is evidently valuable. Hence the passage

This principle usually holds good, but not always, since it may well be that our interest is sometimes the same

as that of our enemies. Hence it is said that 'evils draw men together'; that is, when the same thing is hurtful to

Further: that which is not in excess is good, and that which is greater than it should be is bad. That also is

good on which much labour or money has been spent; the mere fact of this makes it seem good, and such a

good is assumed to be an endan end reached through a long chain of means; and any end is a good. Hence

That which most people seek after, and which is obviously an object of contention, is also a good; for, as has

been shown, that is good which is sought after by everybody, and 'most people' is taken to be equivalent to

'everybody'. That which is praised is good, since no one praises what is not good. So, again, that which is

praised by our enemies [or by the worthless] for when even those who have a grievance think a thing good, it

is at once felt that every one must agree with them; our enemies can admit the fact only because it is evident,

just as those must be worthless whom their friends censure and their enemies do not. (For this reason the

Again, that is good which has been distinguished by the favour of a discerning or virtuous man or woman, as

Odysseus was distinguished by Athena, Helen by Theseus, Paris by the goddesses, and Achilles by Homer.

And, generally speaking, all things are good which men deliberately choose to do; this will include the things

already mentioned, and also whatever may be bad for their enemies or good for their friends, and at the same

time practicable. Things are 'practicable' in two senses: (1) it is possible to do them, (2) it is easy to do them.

Things are done 'easily' when they are done either without pain or quickly: the 'difficulty' of an act lies either

in its painfulness or in the long time it takes. Again, a thing is good if it is as men wish; and they wish to have

either no evil at an or at least a balance of good over evil. This last will happen where the penalty is either

imperceptible or slight. Good, too, are things that are a man's very own, possessed by no one else,

exceptional; for this increases the credit of having them. So are things which befit the possessors, such as

whatever is appropriate to their birth or capacity, and whatever they feel they ought to have but lacksuch

things may indeed be trifling, but none the less men deliberately make them the goal of their action. And

things easily effected; for these are practicable (in the sense of being easy); such things are those in which

every one, or most people, or one's equals, or one's inferiors have succeeded. Good also are the things by

which we shall gratify our friends or annoy our enemies; and the things chosen by those whom we admire:

and the things for which we are fitted by nature or experience, since we think we shall succeed more easily in

these: and those in which no worthless man can succeed, for such things bring greater praise: and those which

we do in fact desire, for what we desire is taken to be not only pleasant but also better. Further, a man of a

given disposition makes chiefly for the corresponding things: lovers of victory make for victory, lovers of

honour for honour, moneyloving men for money, and so with the rest. These, then, are the sources from

Since, however, it often happens that people agree that two things are both useful but do not agree about

which is the more so, the next step will be to treat of relative goodness and relative utility.

A thing which surpasses another may be regarded as being that other thing plus something more, and that

other thing which is surpassed as being what is contained in the first thing. Now to call a thing 'greater' or

'more' always implies a comparison of it with one that is 'smaller' or 'less', while 'great' and 'small', 'much' and

'little', are terms used in comparison with normal magnitude. The 'great' is that which surpasses the normal,

the 'small' is that which is surpassed by the normal; and so with 'many' and 'few'.

Now we are applying the term 'good' to what is desirable for its own sake and not for the sake of something

else; to that at which all things aim; to what they would choose if they could acquire understanding and

practical wisdom; and to that which tends to produce or preserve such goods, or is always accompanied by

them. Moreover, that for the sake of which things are done is the end (an end being that for the sake of which

all else is done), and for each individual that thing is a good which fulfils these conditions in regard to

himself. It follows, then, that a greater number of goods is a greater good than one or than a smaller number,

if that one or that smaller number is included in the count; for then the larger number surpasses the smaller,

Again, if the largest member of one class surpasses the largest member of another, then the one class

surpasses the other; and if one class surpasses another, then the largest member of the one surpasses the

largest member of the other. Thus, if the tallest man is taller than the tallest woman, then men in general are

taller than women. Conversely, if men in general are taller than women, then the tallest man is taller than the

tallest woman. For the superiority of class over class is proportionate to the superiority possessed by their

largest specimens. Again, where one good is always accompanied by another, but does not always

accompany it, it is greater than the other, for the use of the second thing is implied in the use of the first. A

thing may be accompanied by another in three ways, either simultaneously, subsequently, or potentially. Life

accompanies health simultaneously (but not health life), knowledge accompanies the act of learning

subsequently, cheating accompanies sacrilege potentially, since a man who has committed sacrilege is always

capable of cheating. Again, when two things each surpass a third, that which does so by the greater amount is

the greater of the two; for it must surpass the greater as well as the less of the other two. A thing productive

of a greater good than another is productive of is itself a greater good than that other. For this conception of

'productive of a greater' has been implied in our argument. Likewise, that which is produced by a greater

good is itself a greater good; thus, if what is wholesome is more desirable and a greater good than what gives

pleasure, health too must be a greater good than pleasure. Again, a thing which is desirable in itself is a

greater good than a thing which is not desirable in itself, as for example bodily strength than what is

wholesome, since the latter is not pursued for its own sake, whereas the former is; and this was our definition

of the good. Again, if one of two things is an end, and the other is not, the former is the greater good, as being

chosen for its own sake and not for the sake of something else; as, for example, exercise is chosen for the

sake of physical wellbeing. And of two things that which stands less in need of the other, or of other things,

is the greater good, since it is more selfsufficing. (That which stands 'less' in need of others is that which

needs either fewer or easier things.) So when one thing does not exist or cannot come into existence without a

second, while the second can exist without the first, the second is the better. That which does not need

something else is more selfsufficing than that which does, and presents itself as a greater good for that

reason. Again, that which is a beginning of other things is a greater good than that which is not, and that

which is a cause is a greater good than that which is not; the reason being the same in each case, namely that

without a cause and a beginning nothing can exist or come into existence. Again, where there are two sets of

consequences arising from two different beginnings or causes, the consequences of the more important

beginning or cause are themselves the more important; and conversely, that beginning or cause is itself the

more important which has the more important consequences. Now it is plain, from all that has been said, that

one thing may be shown to be more important than another from two opposite points of view: it may appear

the more important (1) because it is a beginning and the other thing is not, and also (2) because it is not a

beginning and the other thing ison the ground that the end is more important and is not a beginning. So

Leodamas, when accusing Callistratus, said that the man who prompted the deed was more guilty than the

doer, since it would not have been done if he had not planned it. On the other hand, when accusing Chabrias

he said that the doer was worse than the prompter, since there would have been no deed without some one to

Further, what is rare is a greater good than what is plentiful. Thus, gold is a better thing than iron, though less

useful: it is harder to get, and therefore better worth getting. Reversely, it may be argued that the plentiful is a

better thing than the rare, because we can make more use of it. For what is often useful surpasses what is

More generally: the hard thing is better than the easy, because it is rarer: and reversely, the easy thing is

better than the hard, for it is as we wish it to be. That is the greater good whose contrary is the greater evil,

and whose loss affects us more. Positive goodness and badness are more important than the mere absence of

goodness and badness: for positive goodness and badness are ends, which the mere absence of them cannot

be. Further, in proportion as the functions of things are noble or base, the things themselves are good or bad:

conversely, in proportion as the things themselves are good or bad, their functions also are good or bad; for

the nature of results corresponds with that of their causes and beginnings, and conversely the nature of causes

and beginnings corresponds with that of their results. Moreover, those things are greater goods, superiority in

which is more desirable or more honourable. Thus, keenness of sight is more desirable than keenness of

smell, sight generally being more desirable than smell generally; and similarly, unusually great love of

friends being more honourable than unusually great love of money, ordinary love of friends is more

honourable than ordinary love of money. Conversely, if one of two normal things is better or nobler than the

other, an unusual degree of that thing is better or nobler than an unusual degree of the other. Again, one thing

is more honourable or better than another if it is more honourable or better to desire it; the importance of the

object of a given instinct corresponds to the importance of the instinct itself; and for the same reason, if one

thing is more honourable or better than another, it is more honourable and better to desire it. Again, if one

science is more honourable and valuable than another, the activity with which it deals is also more

honourable and valuable; as is the science, so is the reality that is its object, each science being authoritative

in its own sphere. So, also, the more valuable and honourable the object of a science, the more valuable and

honourable the science itself isin consequence. Again, that which would be judged, or which has been

judged, a good thing, or a better thing than something else, by all or most people of understanding, or by the

majority of men, or by the ablest, must be so; either without qualification, or in so far as they use their

understanding to form their judgement. This is indeed a general principle, applicable to all other judgements

also; not only the goodness of things, but their essence, magnitude, and general nature are in fact just what

knowledge and understanding will declare them to be. Here the principle is applied to judgements of

goodness, since one definition of 'good' was 'what beings that acquire understanding will choose in any given

case': from which it clearly follows that that thing is hetter which understanding declares to be so. That,

again, is a better thing which attaches to better men, either absolutely, or in virtue of their being better; as

courage is better than strength. And that is a greater good which would be chosen by a better man, either

absolutely, or in virtue of his being better: for instance, to suffer wrong rather than to do wrong, for that

would be the choice of the juster man. Again, the pleasanter of two things is the better, since all things pursue

pleasure, and things instinctively desire pleasurable sensation for its own sake; and these are two of the

characteristics by which the 'good' and the 'end' have been defined. One pleasure is greater than another if it is

more unmixed with pain, or more lasting. Again, the nobler thing is better than the less noble, since the noble

is either what is pleasant or what is desirable in itself. And those things also are greater goods which men

desire more earnestly to bring about for themselves or for their friends, whereas those things which they least

desire to bring about are greater evils. And those things which are more lasting are better than those which

are more fleeting, and the more secure than the less; the enjoyment of the lasting has the advantage of being

longer, and that of the secure has the advantage of suiting our wishes, being there for us whenever we like.

Further, in accordance with the rule of coordinate terms and inflexions of the same stem, what is true of one

such related word is true of all. Thus if the action qualified by the term 'brave' is more noble and desirable

than the action qualified by the term 'temperate', then 'bravery' is more desirable than 'temperance' and 'being

brave' than 'being temperate'. That, again, which is chosen by all is a greater good than that which is not, and

that chosen by the majority than that chosen by the minority. For that which all desire is good, as we have

said;' and so, the more a thing is desired, the better it is. Further, that is the better thing which is considered so

by competitors or enemies, or, again, by authorized judges or those whom they select to represent them. In

the first two cases the decision is virtually that of every one, in the last two that of authorities and experts.

And sometimes it may be argued that what all share is the better thing, since it is a dishonour not to share in

it; at other times, that what none or few share is better, since it is rarer. The more praiseworthy things are, the

nobler and therefore the better they are. So with the things that earn greater honours than othershonour is, as

it were, a measure of value; and the things whose absence involves comparatively heavy penalties; and the

things that are better than others admitted or believed to be good. Moreover, things look better merely by

being divided into their parts, since they then seem to surpass a greater number of things than before. Hence

The same effect is produced by piling up facts in a climax after the manner of Epicharmus. The reason is

partly the same as in the case of division (for combination too makes the impression of great superiority), and

partly that the original thing appears to be the cause and origin of important results. And since a thing is

better when it is harder or rarer than other things, its superiority may be due to seasons, ages, places, times, or

one's natural powers. When a man accomplishes something beyond his natural power, or beyond his years, or

beyond the measure of people like him, or in a special way, or at a special place or time, his deed will have a

high degree of nobleness, goodness, and justice, or of their opposites. Hence the epigram on the victor at the

So Iphicrates used to extol himself by describing the low estate from which he had risen. Again, what is

natural is better than what is acquired, since it is harder to come by. Hence the words of Homer:

And the best part of a good thing is particularly good; as when Pericles in his funeral oration said that the

country's loss of its young men in battle was 'as if the spring were taken out of the year'. So with those things

which are of service when the need is pressing; for example, in old age and times of sickness. And of two

things that which leads more directly to the end in view is the better. So too is that which is better for people

generally as well as for a particular individual. Again, what can be got is better than what cannot, for it is

good in a given case and the other thing is not. And what is at the end of life is better than what is not, since

those things are ends in a greater degree which are nearer the end. What aims at reality is better than what

aims at appearance. We may define what aims at appearance as what a man will not choose if nobody is to

know of his having it. This would seem to show that to receive benefits is more desirable than to confer them,

since a man will choose the former even if nobody is to know of it, but it is not the general view that he will

choose the latter if nobody knows of it. What a man wants to be is better than what a man wants to seem, for

in aiming at that he is aiming more at reality. Hence men say that justice is of small value, since it is more

desirable to seem just than to be just, whereas with health it is not so. That is better than other things which is

more useful than they are for a number of different purposes; for example, that which promotes life, good

life, pleasure, and noble conduct. For this reason wealth and health are commonly thought to be of the highest

value, as possessing all these advantages. Again, that is better than other things which is accompanied both

with less pain and with actual pleasure; for here there is more than one advantage; and so here we have the

good of feeling pleasure and also the good of not feeling pain. And of two good things that is the better

whose addition to a third thing makes a better whole than the addition of the other to the same thing will

make. Again, those things which we are seen to possess are better than those which we are not seen to

possess, since the former have the air of reality. Hence wealth may be regarded as a greater good if its

existence is known to others. That which is dearly prized is better than what is notthe sort of thing that some

people have only one of, though others have more like it. Accordingly, blinding a oneeyed man inflicts

worse injury than halfblinding a man with two eyes; for the oneeyed man has been robbed of what he

The grounds on which we must base our arguments, when we are speaking for or against a proposal, have

The most important and effective qualification for success in persuading audiences and speaking well on

public affairs is to understand all the forms of government and to discriminate their respective customs,

institutions, and interests. For all men are persuaded by considerations of their interest, and their interest lies

in the maintenance of the established order. Further, it rests with the supreme authority to give authoritative

decisions, and this varies with each form of government; there are as many different supreme authorities as

there are different forms of government. The forms of government are fourdemocracy, oligarchy,

aristocracy, monarchy. The supreme right to judge and decide always rests, therefore, with either a part or the

A Democracy is a form of government under which the citizens distribute the offices of state among

themselves by lot, whereas under oligarchy there is a property qualification, under aristocracy one of

education. By education I mean that education which is laid down by the law; for it is those who have been

loyal to the national institutions that hold office under an aristocracy. These are bound to be looked upon as

'the best men', and it is from this fact that this form of government has derived its name ('the rule of the best').

Monarchy, as the word implies, is the constitution a in which one man has authority over all. There are two

forms of monarchy: kingship, which is limited by prescribed conditions, and 'tyranny', which is not limited by

We must also notice the ends which the various forms of government pursue, since people choose in practice

such actions as will lead to the realization of their ends. The end of democracy is freedom; of oligarchy,

wealth; of aristocracy, the maintenance of education and national institutions; of tyranny, the protection of the

tyrant. It is clear, then, that we must distinguish those particular customs, institutions, and interests which

tend to realize the ideal of each constitution, since men choose their means with reference to their ends. But

rhetorical persuasion is effected not only by demonstrative but by ethical argument; it helps a speaker to

convince us, if we believe that he has certain qualities himself, namely, goodness, or goodwill towards us, or

both together. Similarly, we should know the moral qualities characteristic of each form of government, for

the special moral character of each is bound to provide us with our most effective means of persuasion in

dealing with it. We shall learn the qualities of governments in the same way as we learn the qualities of

individuals, since they are revealed in their deliberate acts of choice; and these are determined by the end that

We have now considered the objects, immediate or distant, at which we are to aim when urging any proposal,

and the grounds on which we are to base our arguments in favour of its utility. We have also briefly

considered the means and methods by which we shall gain a good knowledge of the moral qualities and

institutions peculiar to the various forms of governmentonly, however, to the extent demanded by the

present occasion; a detailed account of the subject has been given in the Politics.

We have now to consider Virtue and Vice, the Noble and the Base, since these are the objects of praise and

blame. In doing so, we shall at the same time be finding out how to make our hearers take the required view

of our own charactersour second method of persuasion. The ways in which to make them trust the goodness

of other people are also the ways in which to make them trust our own. Praise, again, may be serious or

frivolous; nor is it always of a human or divine being but often of inanimate things, or of the humblest of the

lower animals. Here too we must know on what grounds to argue, and must, therefore, now discuss the

The Noble is that which is both desirable for its own sake and also worthy of praise; or that which is both

good and also pleasant because good. If this is a true definition of the Noble, it follows that virtue must be

noble, since it is both a good thing and also praiseworthy. Virtue is, according to the usual view, a faculty of

providing and preserving good things; or a faculty of conferring many great benefits, and benefits of all kinds

on all occasions. The forms of Virtue are justice, courage, temperance, magnificence, magnanimity,

liberality, gentleness, prudence, wisdom. If virtue is a faculty of beneficence, the highest kinds of it must be

those which are most useful to others, and for this reason men honour most the just and the courageous, since

courage is useful to others in war, justice both in war and in peace. Next comes liberality; liberal people let

their money go instead of fighting for it, whereas other people care more for money than for anything else.

Justice is the virtue through which everybody enjoys his own possessions in accordance with the law; its

opposite is injustice, through which men enjoy the possessions of others in defiance of the law. Courage is

the virtue that disposes men to do noble deeds in situations of danger, in accordance with the law and in

obedience to its commands; cowardice is the opposite. Temperance is the virtue that disposes us to obey the

law where physical pleasures are concerned; incontinence is the opposite. Liberality disposes us to spend

money for others' good; illiberality is the opposite. Magnanimity is the virtue that disposes us to do good to

others on a large scale; [its opposite is meanness of spirit]. Magnificence is a virtue productive of greatness in

matters involving the spending of money. The opposites of these two are smallness of spirit and meanness

respectively. Prudence is that virtue of the understanding which enables men to come to wise decisions about

the relation to happiness of the goods and evils that have been previously mentioned.

The above is a sufficient account, for our present purpose, of virtue and vice in general, and of their various

forms. As to further aspects of the subject, it is not difficult to discern the facts; it is evident that things

productive of virtue are noble, as tending towards virtue; and also the effects of virtue, that is, the signs of its

presence and the acts to which it leads. And since the signs of virtue, and such acts as it is the mark of a

virtuous man to do or have done to him, are noble, it follows that all deeds or signs of courage, and

everything done courageously, must be noble things; and so with what is just and actions done justly. (Not,

however, actions justly done to us; here justice is unlike the other virtues; 'justly' does not always mean

'nobly'; when a man is punished, it is more shameful that this should be justly than unjustly done to him). The

same is true of the other virtues. Again, those actions are noble for which the reward is simply honour, or

honour more than money. So are those in which a man aims at something desirable for some one else's sake;

actions good absolutely, such as those a man does for his country without thinking of himself; actions good in

their own nature; actions that are not good simply for the individual, since individual interests are selfish.

Noble also are those actions whose advantage may be enjoyed after death, as opposed to those whose

advantage is enjoyed during one's lifetime: for the latter are more likely to be for one's own sake only. Also,

all actions done for the sake of others, since less than other actions are done for one's own sake; and all

successes which benefit others and not oneself; and services done to one's benefactors, for this is just; and

good deeds generally, since they are not directed to one's own profit. And the opposites of those things of

which men feel ashamed, for men are ashamed of saying, doing, or intending to do shameful things. So when

Those things, also, are noble for which men strive anxiously, without feeling fear; for they feel thus about the

good things which lead to fair fame. Again, one quality or action is nobler than another if it is that of a

naturally finer being: thus a man's will be nobler than a woman's. And those qualities are noble which give

more pleasure to other people than to their possessors; hence the nobleness of justice and just actions. It is

noble to avenge oneself on one's enemies and not to come to terms with them; for requital is just, and the just

is noble; and not to surrender is a sign of courage. Victory, too, and honour belong to the class of noble

things, since they are desirable even when they yield no fruits, and they prove our superiority in good

qualities. Things that deserve to be remembered are noble, and the more they deserve this, the nobler they

are. So are the things that continue even after death; those which are always attended by honour; those which

are exceptional; and those which are possessed by one person alonethese last are more readily remembered

than others. So again are possessions that bring no profit, since they are more fitting than others for a

gentleman. So are the distinctive qualities of a particular people, and the symbols of what it specially

admires, like long hair in Sparta, where this is a mark of a free man, as it is not easy to perform any menial

task when one's hair is long. Again, it is noble not to practise any sordid craft, since it is the mark of a free

man not to live at another's beck and call. We are also to assume when we wish either to praise a man or

blame him that qualities closely allied to those which he actually has are identical with them; for instance,

that the cautious man is coldblooded and treacherous, and that the stupid man is an honest fellow or the

thickskinned man a goodtempered one. We can always idealize any given man by drawing on the virtues

akin to his actual qualities; thus we may say that the passionate and excitable man is 'outspoken'; or that the

arrogant man is 'superb' or 'impressive'. Those who run to extremes will be said to possess the corresponding

good qualities; rashness will be called courage, and extravagance generosity. That will be what most people

think; and at the same time this method enables an advocate to draw a misleading inference from the motive,

arguing that if a man runs into danger needlessly, much more will he do so in a noble cause; and if a man is

openhanded to any one and every one, he will be so to his friends also, since it is the extreme form of

We must also take into account the nature of our particular audience when making a speech of praise; for, as

Socrates used to say, 'it is not difficult to praise the Athenians to an Athenian audience.' If the audience

esteems a given quality, we must say that our hero has that quality, no matter whether we are addressing

Scythians or Spartans or philosophers. Everything, in fact, that is esteemed we are to represent as noble. After

All actions are noble that are appropriate to the man who does them: if, for instance, they are worthy of his

ancestors or of his own past career. For it makes for happiness, and is a noble thing, that he should add to the

honour he already has. Even inappropriate actions are noble if they are better and nobler than the appropriate

ones would be; for instance, if one who was just an average person when all went well becomes a hero in

adversity, or if he becomes better and easier to get on with the higher he rises. Compare the saying of

lphicrates, 'Think what I was and what I am'; and the epigram on the victor at the Olympic games,

Since we praise a man for what he has actually done, and fine actions are distinguished from others by being

intentionally good, we must try to prove that our hero's noble acts are intentional. This is all the easier if we

can make out that he has often acted so before, and therefore we must assert coincidences and accidents to

have been intended. Produce a number of good actions, all of the same kind, and people will think that they

must have been intended, and that they prove the good qualities of the man who did them.

Praise is the expression in words of the eminence of a man's good qualities, and therefore we must display his

actions as the product of such qualities. Encomium refers to what he has actually done; the mention of

accessories, such as good birth and education, merely helps to make our story crediblegood fathers are

likely to have good sons, and good training is likely to produce good character. Hence it is only when a man

has already done something that we bestow encomiums upon him. Yet the actual deeds are evidence of the

doer's character: even if a man has not actually done a given good thing, we shall bestow praise on him, if we

are sure that he is the sort of man who would do it. To call any one blest is, it may be added, the same thing

as to call him happy; but these are not the same thing as to bestow praise and encomium upon him; the two

To praise a man is in one respect akin to urging a course of action. The suggestions which would be made in

the latter case become encomiums when differently expressed. When we know what action or character is

required, then, in order to express these facts as suggestions for action, we have to change and reverse our

form of words. Thus the statement 'A man should be proud not of what he owes to fortune but of what he

owes to himself', if put like this, amounts to a suggestion; to make it into praise we must put it thus, 'Since he

is proud not of what he owes to fortune but of what he owes to himself.' Consequently, whenever you want to

praise any one, think what you would urge people to do; and when you want to urge the doing of anything,

think what you would praise a man for having done. Since suggestion may or may not forbid an action, the

praise into which we convert it must have one or other of two opposite forms of expression accordingly.

There are, also, many useful ways of heightening the effect of praise. We must, for instance, point out that a

man is the only one, or the first, or almost the only one who has done something, or that he has done it better

than any one else; all these distinctions are honourable. And we must, further, make much of the particular

season and occasion of an action, arguing that we could hardly have looked for it just then. If a man has often

achieved the same success, we must mention this; that is a strong point; he himself, and not luck, will then be

given the credit. So, too, if it is on his account that observances have been devised and instituted to encourage

or honour such achievements as his own: thus we may praise Hippolochus because the first encomium ever

made was for him, or Harmodius and Aristogeiton because their statues were the first to be put up in the

Again, if you cannot find enough to say of a man himself, you may pit him against others, which is what

Isocrates used to do owing to his want of familiarity with forensic pleading. The comparison should be with

famous men; that will strengthen your case; it is a noble thing to surpass men who are themselves great. It is

only natural that methods of 'heightening the effect' should be attached particularly to speeches of praise; they

aim at proving superiority over others, and any such superiority is a form of nobleness. Hence if you cannot

compare your hero with famous men, you should at least compare him with other people generally, since any

superiority is held to reveal excellence. And, in general, of the lines of argument which are common to all

speeches, this 'heightening of effect' is most suitable for declamations, where we take our hero's actions as

admitted facts, and our business is simply to invest these with dignity and nobility. 'Examples' are most

suitable to deliberative speeches; for we judge of future events by divination from past events. Enthymemes

are most suitable to forensic speeches; it is our doubts about past events that most admit of arguments

The above are the general lines on which all, or nearly all, speeches of praise or blame are constructed. We

have seen the sort of thing we must bear in mind in making such speeches, and the materials out of which

encomiums and censures are made. No special treatment of censure and vituperation is needed. Knowing the

above facts, we know their contraries; and it is out of these that speeches of censure are made.

We have next to treat of Accusation and Defence, and to enumerate and describe the ingredients of the

syllogisms used therein. There are three things we must ascertain first, the nature and number of the

incentives to wrongdoing; second, the state of mind of wrongdoers; third, the kind of persons who are

wronged, and their condition. We will deal with these questions in order. But before that let us define the act

We may describe 'wrongdoing' as injury voluntarily inflicted contrary to law. 'Law' is either special or

general. By special law I mean that written law which regulates the life of a particular community; by general

law, all those unwritten principles which are supposed to be acknowledged everywhere. We do things

'voluntarily' when we do them consciously and without constraint. (Not all voluntary acts are deliberate, but

all deliberate acts are consciousno one is ignorant of what he deliberately intends.) The causes of our

deliberately intending harmful and wicked acts contrary to law are (1) vice, (2) lack of selfcontrol. For the

wrongs a man does to others will correspond to the bad quality or qualities that he himself possesses. Thus it

is the mean man who will wrong others about money, the profligate in matters of physical pleasure, the

effeminate in matters of comfort, and the coward where danger is concernedhis terror makes him abandon

those who are involved in the same danger. The ambitious man does wrong for sake of honour, the

quicktempered from anger, the lover of victory for the sake of victory, the embittered man for the sake of

revenge, the stupid man because he has misguided notions of right and wrong, the shameless man because he

does not mind what people think of him; and so with the restany wrong that any one does to others

However, this subject has already been cleared up in part in our discussion of the virtues and will be further

explained later when we treat of the emotions. We have now to consider the motives and states of mind of

Let us first decide what sort of things people are trying to get or avoid when they set about doing wrong to

others. For it is plain that the prosecutor must consider, out of all the aims that can ever induce us to do

wrong to our neighbours, how many, and which, affect his adversary; while the defendant must consider how

many, and which, do not affect him. Now every action of every person either is or is not due to that person

himself. Of those not due to himself some are due to chance, the others to necessity; of these latter, again,

some are due to compulsion, the others to nature. Consequently all actions that are not due to a man himself

are due either to chance or to nature or to compulsion. All actions that are due to a man himself and caused by

himself are due either to habit or to rational or irrational craving. Rational craving is a craving for good, i.e. a

wishnobody wishes for anything unless he thinks it good. Irrational craving is twofold, viz. anger and

Thus every action must be due to one or other of seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reasoning,

anger, or appetite. It is superfluous further to distinguish actions according to the doers' ages, moral states, or

the like; it is of course true that, for instance, young men do have hot tempers and strong appetites; still, it is

not through youth that they act accordingly, but through anger or appetite. Nor, again, is action due to wealth

or poverty; it is of course true that poor men, being short of money, do have an appetite for it, and that rich

men, being able to command needless pleasures, do have an appetite for such pleasures: but here, again, their

actions will be due not to wealth or poverty but to appetite. Similarly, with just men, and unjust men, and all

others who are said to act in accordance with their moral qualities, their actions will really be due to one of

the causes mentionedeither reasoning or emotion: due, indeed, sometimes to good dispositions and good

emotions, and sometimes to bad; but that good qualities should be followed by good emotions, and bad by

bad, is merely an accessory factit is no doubt true that the temperate man, for instance, because he is

temperate, is always and at once attended by healthy opinions and appetites in regard to pleasant things, and

the intemperate man by unhealthy ones. So we must ignore such distinctions. Still we must consider what

kinds of actions and of people usually go together; for while there are no definite kinds of action associated

with the fact that a man is fair or dark, tall or short, it does make a difference if he is young or old, just or

unjust. And, generally speaking, all those accessory qualities that cause distinctions of human character are

important: e.g. the sense of wealth or poverty, of being lucky or unlucky. This shall be dealt with laterlet us

The things that happen by chance are all those whose cause cannot be determined, that have no purpose, and

that happen neither always nor usually nor in any fixed way. The definition of chance shows just what they

are. Those things happen by nature which have a fixed and internal cause; they take place uniformly, either

always or usually. There is no need to discuss in exact detail the things that happen contrary to nature, nor to

ask whether they happen in some sense naturally or from some other cause; it would seem that chance is at

least partly the cause of such events. Those things happen through compulsion which take place contrary to

the desire or reason of the doer, yet through his own agency. Acts are done from habit which men do because

they have often done them before. Actions are due to reasoning when, in view of any of the goods already

mentioned, they appear useful either as ends or as means to an end, and are performed for that reason: 'for

that reason,' since even licentious persons perform a certain number of useful actions, but because they are

pleasant and not because they are useful. To passion and anger are due all acts of revenge. Revenge and

punishment are different things. Punishment is inflicted for the sake of the person punished; revenge for that

of the punisher, to satisfy his feelings. (What anger is will be made clear when we come to discuss the

emotions.) Appetite is the cause of all actions that appear pleasant. Habit, whether acquired by mere

familiarity or by effort, belongs to the class of pleasant things, for there are many actions not naturally

pleasant which men perform with pleasure, once they have become used to them. To sum up then, all actions

due to ourselves either are or seem to be either good or pleasant. Moreover, as all actions due to ourselves are

done voluntarily and actions not due to ourselves are done involuntarily, it follows that all voluntary actions

must either be or seem to be either good or pleasant; for I reckon among goods escape from evils or apparent

evils and the exchange of a greater evil for a less (since these things are in a sense positively desirable), and

likewise I count among pleasures escape from painful or apparently painful things and the exchange of a

greater pain for a less. We must ascertain, then, the number and nature of the things that are useful and

pleasant. The useful has been previously examined in connexion with political oratory; let us now proceed to

examine the pleasant. Our various definitions must be regarded as adequate, even if they are not exact,

We may lay it down that Pleasure is a movement, a movement by which the soul as a whole is consciously

brought into its normal state of being; and that Pain is the opposite. If this is what pleasure is, it is clear that

the pleasant is what tends to produce this condition, while that which tends to destroy it, or to cause the soul

to be brought into the opposite state, is painful. It must therefore be pleasant as a rule to move towards a

natural state of being, particularly when a natural process has achieved the complete recovery of that natural

state. Habits also are pleasant; for as soon as a thing has become habitual, it is virtually natural; habit is a

thing not unlike nature; what happens often is akin to what happens always, natural events happening always,

habitual events often. Again, that is pleasant which is not forced on us; for force is unnatural, and that is why

So all acts of concentration, strong effort, and strain are necessarily painful; they all involve compulsion and

force, unless we are accustomed to them, in which case it is custom that makes them pleasant. The opposites

to these are pleasant; and hence ease, freedom from toil, relaxation, amusement, rest, and sleep belong to the

class of pleasant things; for these are all free from any element of compulsion. Everything, too, is pleasant for

which we have the desire within us, since desire is the craving for pleasure. Of the desires some are irrational,

some associated with reason. By irrational I mean those which do not arise from any opinion held by the

mind. Of this kind are those known as 'natural'; for instance, those originating in the body, such as the desire

for nourishment, namely hunger and thirst, and a separate kind of desire answering to each kind of

nourishment; and the desires connected with taste and sex and sensations of touch in general; and those of

smell, hearing, and vision. Rational desires are those which we are induced to have; there are many things we

desire to see or get because we have been told of them and induced to believe them good. Further, pleasure is

the consciousness through the senses of a certain kind of emotion; but imagination is a feeble sort of

sensation, and there will always be in the mind of a man who remembers or expects something an image or

picture of what he remembers or expects. If this is so, it is clear that memory and expectation also, being

accompanied by sensation, may be accompanied by pleasure. It follows that anything pleasant is either

present and perceived, past and remembered, or future and expected, since we perceive present pleasures,

remember past ones, and expect future ones. Now the things that are pleasant to remember are not only those

that, when actually perceived as present, were pleasant, but also some things that were not, provided that their

The reason of this is that it is pleasant even to be merely free from evil. The things it is pleasant to expect are

those that when present are felt to afford us either great delight or great but not painful benefit. And in

general, all the things that delight us when they are present also do so, as a rule, when we merely remember

Sweeter it is by far than the honeycomb dripping with sweetness for no one grows angry with a person on

whom there is no prospect of taking vengeance, and we feel comparatively little anger, or none at all, with

those who are much our superiors in power. Some pleasant feeling is associated with most of our appetites we

are enjoying either the memory of a past pleasure or the expectation of a future one, just as persons down

with fever, during their attacks of thirst, enjoy remembering the drinks they have had and looking forward to

having more. So also a lover enjoys talking or writing about his loved one, or doing any little thing connected

with him; all these things recall him to memory and make him actually present to the eye of imagination.

Indeed, it is always the first sign of love, that besides enjoying some one's presence, we remember him when

he is gone, and feel pain as well as pleasure, because he is there no longer. Similarly there is an element of

pleasure even in mourning and lamentation for the departed. There is grief, indeed, at his loss, but pleasure in

remembering him and as it were seeing him before us in his deeds and in his life. We can well believe the

Revenge, too, is pleasant; it is pleasant to get anything that it is painful to fail to get, and angry people suffer

extreme pain when they fail to get their revenge; but they enjoy the prospect of getting it. Victory also is

pleasant, and not merely to 'bad losers', but to every one; the winner sees himself in the light of a champion,

and everybody has a more or less keen appetite for being that. The pleasantness of victory implies of course

that combative sports and intellectual contests are pleasant (since in these it often happens that some one

wins) and also games like knucklebones, ball, dice, and draughts. And similarly with the serious sports;

some of these become pleasant when one is accustomed to them; while others are pleasant from the first, like

hunting with hounds, or indeed any kind of hunting. For where there is competition, there is victory. That is

why forensic pleading and debating contests are pleasant to those who are accustomed to them and have the

capacity for them. Honour and good repute are among the most pleasant things of all; they make a man see

himself in the character of a fine fellow, especially when he is credited with it by people whom he thinks

good judges. His neighbours are better judges than people at a distance; his associates and

fellowcountrymen better than strangers; his contemporaries better than posterity; sensible persons better

than foolish ones; a large number of people better than a small number: those of the former class, in each

case, are the more likely to be good judges of him. Honour and credit bestowed by those whom you think

much inferior to yourselfe.g. children or animalsyou do not value: not for its own sake, anyhow: if you do

value it, it is for some other reason. Friends belong to the class of pleasant things; it is pleasant to loveif you

love wine, you certainly find it delightful: and it is pleasant to be loved, for this too makes a man see himself

as the possessor of goodness, a thing that every being that has a feeling for it desires to possess: to be loved

means to be valued for one's own personal qualities. To be admired is also pleasant, simply because of the

honour implied. Flattery and flatterers are pleasant: the flatterer is a man who, you believe, admires and likes

To do the same thing often is pleasant, since, as we saw, anything habitual is pleasant. And to change is also

pleasant: change means an approach to nature, whereas invariable repetition of anything causes the excessive

That is why what comes to us only at long intervals is pleasant, whether it be a person or a thing; for it is a

change from what we had before, and, besides, what comes only at long intervals has the value of rarity.

Learning things and wondering at things are also pleasant as a rule; wondering implies the desire of learning,

so that the object of wonder is an object of desire; while in learning one is brought into one's natural

condition. Conferring and receiving benefits belong to the class of pleasant things; to receive a benefit is to

get what one desires; to confer a benefit implies both posses sion and superiority, both of which are things we

try to attain. It is because beneficent acts are pleasant that people find it pleasant to put their neighbours

straight again and to supply what they lack. Again, since learning and wondering are pleasant, it follows that

such things as acts of imitation must be pleasantfor instance, painting, sculpture, poetry and every product

of skilful imitation; this latter, even if the object imitated is not itself pleasant; for it is not the object itself

which here gives delight; the spectator draws inferences ('That is a soandso') and thus learns something

fresh. Dramatic turns of fortune and hairbreadth escapes from perils are pleasant, because we feel all such

And since what is natural is pleasant, and things akin to each other seem natural to each other, therefore all

kindred and similar things are usually pleasant to each other; for instance, one man, horse, or young person is

pleasant to another man, horse, or young person. Hence the proverbs 'mate delights mate', 'like to like', 'beast

knows beast', 'jackdaw to jackdaw', and the rest of them. But since everything like and akin to oneself is

pleasant, and since every man is himself more like and akin to himself than any one else is, it follows that all

of us must be more or less fond of ourselves. For all this resemblance and kinship is present particularly in

the relation of an individual to himself. And because we are all fond of ourselves, it follows that what is our

own is pleasant to all of us, as for instance our own deeds and words. That is why we are usually fond of our

flatterers, [our lovers,] and honour; also of our children, for our children are our own work. It is also pleasant

to complete what is defective, for the whole thing thereupon becomes our own work. And since power over

others is very pleasant, it is pleasant to be thought wise, for practical wisdom secures us power over others.

(Scientific wisdom is also pleasant, because it is the knowledge of many wonderful things.) Again, since

most of us are ambitious, it must be pleasant to disparage our neighbours as well as to have power over them.

It is pleasant for a man to spend his time over what he feels he can do best; just as the poet says,

Similarly, since amusement and every kind of relaxation and laughter too belong to the class of pleasant

things, it follows that ludicrous things are pleasant, whether men, words, or deeds. We have discussed the

So much for the subject of pleasant things: by considering their opposites we can easily see what things are

The above are the motives that make men do wrong to others; we are next to consider the states of mind in

They must themselves suppose that the thing can be done, and done by them: either that they can do it

without being found out, or that if they are found out they can escape being punished, or that if they are

punished the disadvantage will be less than the gain for themselves or those they care for. The general subject

of apparent possibility and impossibility will be handled later on, since it is relevant not only to forensic but

to all kinds of speaking. But it may here be said that people think that they can themselves most easily do

wrong to others without being punished for it if they possess eloquence, or practical ability, or much legal

experience, or a large body of friends, or a great deal of money. Their confidence is greatest if they

personally possess the advantages mentioned: but even without them they are satisfied if they have friends or

supporters or partners who do possess them: they can thus both commit their crimes and escape being found

out and punished for committing them. They are also safe, they think, if they are on good terms with their

victims or with the judges who try them. Their victims will in that case not be on their guard against being

wronged, and will make some arrangement with them instead of prosecuting; while their judges will favour

them because they like them, either letting them off altogether or imposing light sentences. They are not

likely to be found out if their appearance contradicts the charges that might be brought against them: for

instance, a weakling is unlikely to be charged with violent assault, or a poor and ugly man with adultery.

Public and open injuries are the easiest to do, because nobody could at all suppose them possible, and

therefore no precautions are taken. The same is true of crimes so great and terrible that no man living could

be suspected of them: here too no precautions are taken. For all men guard against ordinary offences, just as

they guard against ordinary diseases; but no one takes precautions against a disease that nobody has ever had.

You feel safe, too, if you have either no enemies or a great many; if you have none, you expect not to be

watched and therefore not to be detected; if you have a great many, you will be watched, and therefore people

will think you can never risk an attempt on them, and you can defend your innocence by pointing out that you

could never have taken such a risk. You may also trust to hide your crime by the way you do it or the place

You may feel that even if you are found out you can stave off a trial, or have it postponed, or corrupt your

judges: or that even if you are sentenced you can avoid paying damages, or can at least postpone doing so for

a long time: or that you are so badly off that you will have nothing to lose. You may feel that the gain to be

got by wrongdoing is great or certain or immediate, and that the penalty is small or uncertain or distant. It

may be that the advantage to be gained is greater than any possible retribution: as in the case of despotic

power, according to the popular view. You may consider your crimes as bringing you solid profit, while their

punishment is nothing more than being called bad names. Or the opposite argument may appeal to you: your

crimes may bring you some credit (thus you may, incidentally, be avenging your father or mother, like Zeno),

whereas the punishment may amount to a fine, or banishment, or something of that sort. People may be led

on to wrong others by either of these motives or feelings; but no man by boththey will affect people of quite

opposite characters. You may be encouraged by having often escaped detection or punishment already; or by

having often tried and failed; for in crime, as in war, there are men who will always refuse to give up the

struggle. You may get your pleasure on the spot and the pain later, or the gain on the spot and the loss later.

That is what appeals to weakwilled personsand weakness of will may be shown with regard to all the

objects of desire. It may on the contrary appeal to you as it does appeal to selfcontrolled and sensible

peoplethat the pain and loss are immediate, while the pleasure and profit come later and last longer. You

may feel able to make it appear that your crime was due to chance, or to necessity, or to natural causes, or to

habit: in fact, to put it generally, as if you had failed to do right rather than actually done wrong. You may be

able to trust other people to judge you equitably. You may be stimulated by being in want: which may mean

that you want necessaries, as poor people do, or that you want luxuries, as rich people do. You may be

encouraged by having a particularly good reputation, because that will save you from being suspected: or by

having a particularly bad one, because nothing you are likely to do will make it worse.

The above, then, are the various states of mind in which a man sets about doing wrong to others. The kind of

people to whom he does wrong, and the ways in which he does it, must be considered next. The people to

whom he does it are those who have what he wants himself, whether this means necessities or luxuries and

materials for enjoyment. His victims may be far off or near at hand. If they are near, he gets his profit

quickly; if they are far off, vengeance is slow, as those think who plunder the Carthaginians. They may be

those who are trustful instead of being cautious and watchful, since all such people are easy to elude. Or those

who are too easygoing to have enough energy to prosecute an offender. Or sensitive people, who are not apt

to show fight over questions of money. Or those who have been wronged already by many people, and yet

have not prosecuted; such men must surely be the proverbial 'Mysian prey'. Or those who have either never or

often been wronged before; in neither case will they take precautions; if they have never been wronged they

think they never will, and if they have often been wronged they feel that surely it cannot happen again. Or

those whose character has been attacked in the past, or is exposed to attack in the future: they will be too

much frightened of the judges to make up their minds to prosecute, nor can they win their case if they do: this

is true of those who are hated or unpopular. Another likely class of victim is those who their injurer can

pretend have, themselves or through their ancestors or friends, treated badly, or intended to treat badly, the

man himself, or his ancestors, or those he cares for; as the proverb says, 'wickedness needs but a pretext'. A

man may wrong his enemies, because that is pleasant: he may equally wrong his friends, because that is easy.

Then there are those who have no friends, and those who lack eloquence and practical capacity; these will

either not attempt to prosecute, or they will come to terms, or failing that they will lose their case. There are

those whom it does not pay to waste time in waiting for trial or damages, such as foreigners and small

farmers; they will settle for a trifle, and always be ready to leave off. Also those who have themselves

wronged others, either often, or in the same way as they are now being wronged themselvesfor it is felt that

next to no wrong is done to people when it is the same wrong as they have often themselves done to others:

if, for instance, you assault a man who has been accustomed to behave with violence to others. So too with

those who have done wrong to others, or have meant to, or mean to, or are likely to do so; there is something

fine and pleasant in wronging such persons, it seems as though almost no wrong were done. Also those by

doing wrong to whom we shall be gratifying our friends, or those we admire or love, or our masters, or in

general the people by reference to whom we mould our lives. Also those whom we may wrong and yet be

sure of equitable treatment. Also those against whom we have had any grievance, or any previous differences

with them, as Callippus had when he behaved as he did to Dion: here too it seems as if almost no wrong were

being done. Also those who are on the point of being wronged by others if we fail to wrong them ourselves,

since here we feel we have no time left for thinking the matter over. So Aenesidemus is said to have sent the

'cottabus' prize to Gelon, who had just reduced a town to slavery, because Gelon had got there first and

forestalled his own attempt. Also those by wronging whom we shall be able to do many righteous acts; for we

feel that we can then easily cure the harm done. Thus Jason the Thessalian said that it is a duty to do some

Among the kinds of wrong done to others are those that are done universally, or at least commonly: one

expects to be forgiven for doing these. Also those that can easily be kept dark, as where things that can

rapidly be consumed like eatables are concerned, or things that can easily be changed in shape, colour, or

combination, or things that can easily be stowed away almost anywhereportable objects that you can stow

away in small corners, or things so like others of which you have plenty already that nobody can tell the

difference. There are also wrongs of a kind that shame prevents the victim speaking about, such as outrages

done to the women in his household or to himself or to his sons. Also those for which you would be thought

very litigious to prosecute any onetrifling wrongs, or wrongs for which people are usually excused.

The above is a fairly complete account of the circumstances under which men do wrong to others, of the sort

of wrongs they do, of the sort of persons to whom they do them, and of their reasons for doing them.

It will now be well to make a complete classification of just and unjust actions. We may begin by observing

that they have been defined relatively to two kinds of law, and also relatively to two classes of persons. By

the two kinds of law I mean particular law and universal law. Particular law is that which each community

lays down and applies to its own members: this is partly written and partly unwritten. Universal law is the

law of Nature. For there really is, as every one to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is

binding on all men, even on those who have no association or covenant with each other. It is this that

Sophocles' Antigone clearly means when she says that the burial of Polyneices was a just act in spite of the

And so Empedocles, when he bids us kill no living creature, says that doing this is not just for some people

The actions that we ought to do or not to do have also been divided into two classes as affecting either the

whole community or some one of its members. From this point of view we can perform just or unjust acts in

either of two waystowards one definite person, or towards the community. The man who is guilty of

adultery or assault is doing wrong to some definite person; the man who avoids service in the army is doing

Thus the whole class of unjust actions may be divided into two classes, those affecting the community, and

those affecting one or more other persons. We will next, before going further, remind ourselves of what

'being wronged' means. Since it has already been settled that 'doing a wrong' must be intentional, 'being

wronged' must consist in having an injury done to you by some one who intends to do it. In order to be

wronged, a man must (1) suffer actual harm, (2) suffer it against his will. The various possible forms of harm

are clearly explained by our previous, separate discussion of goods and evils. We have also seen that a

voluntary action is one where the doer knows what he is doing. We now see that every accusation must be of

an action affecting either the community or some individual. The doer of the action must either understand

and intend the action, or not understand and intend it. In the former case, he must be acting either from

deliberate choice or from passion. (Anger will be discussed when we speak of the passions the motives for

crime and the state of mind of the criminal have already been discussed.) Now it often happens that a man

will admit an act, but will not admit the prosecutor's label for the act nor the facts which that label implies.

He will admit that he took a thing but not that he 'stole' it; that he struck some one first, but not that he

committed 'outrage'; that he had intercourse with a woman, but not that he committed 'adultery'; that he is

guilty of theft, but not that he is guilty of 'sacrilege', the object stolen not being consecrated; that he has

encroached, but not that he has 'encroached on State lands'; that he has been in communication with the

enemy, but not that he has been guilty of 'treason'. Here therefore we must be able to distinguish what is theft,

outrage, or adultery, from what is not, if we are to be able to make the justice of our case clear, no matter

whether our aim is to establish a man's guilt or to establish his innocence. Wherever such charges are brought

against a man, the question is whether he is or is not guilty of a criminal offence. It is deliberate purpose that

constitutes wickedness and criminal guilt, and such names as 'outrage' or 'theft' imply deliberate purpose as

well as the mere action. A blow does not always amount to 'outrage', but only if it is struck with some such

purpose as to insult the man struck or gratify the striker himself. Nor does taking a thing without the owner's

knowledge always amount to 'theft', but only if it is taken with the intention of keeping it and injuring the

We saw that there are two kinds of right and wrong conduct towards others, one provided for by written

ordinances, the other by unwritten. We have now discussed the kind about which the laws have something to

say. The other kind has itself two varieties. First, there is the conduct that springs from exceptional goodness

or badness, and is visited accordingly with censure and loss of honour, or with praise and increase of honour

and decorations: for instance, gratitude to, or requital of, our benefactors, readiness to help our friends, and

the like. The second kind makes up for the defects of a community's written code of law. This is what we call

equity; people regard it as just; it is, in fact, the sort of justice which goes beyond the written law. Its

existence partly is and partly is not intended by legislators; not intended, where they have noticed no defect in

the law; intended, where find themselves unable to define things exactly, and are obliged to legislate as if that

held good always which in fact only holds good usually; or where it is not easy to be complete owing to the

endless possible cases presented, such as the kinds and sizes of weapons that may be used to inflict woundsa

lifetime would be too short to make out a complete list of these. If, then, a precise statement is impossible and

yet legislation is necessary, the law must be expressed in wide terms; and so, if a man has no more than a

fingerring on his hand when he lifts it to strike or actually strikes another man, he is guilty of a criminal act

according to the unwritten words of the law; but he is innocent really, and it is equity that declares him to be

so. From this definition of equity it is plain what sort of actions, and what sort of persons, are equitable or the

reverse. Equity must be applied to forgivable actions; and it must make us distinguish between criminal acts

on the one hand, and errors of judgement, or misfortunes, on the other. (A 'misfortune' is an act, not due to

moral badness, that has unexpected results: an 'error of judgement' is an act, also not due to moral badness,

that has results that might have been expected: a 'criminal act' has results that might have been expected, but

is due to moral badness, for that is the source of all actions inspired by our appetites.) Equity bids us be

merciful to the weakness of human nature; to think less about the laws than about the man who framed them,

and less about what he said than about what he meant; not to consider the actions of the accused so much as

his intentions, nor this or that detail so much as the whole story; to ask not what a man is now but what he has

always or usually been. It bids us remember benefits rather than injuries, and benefits received rather than

benefits conferred; to be patient when we are wronged; to settle a dispute by negotiation and not by force; to

prefer arbitration to motionfor an arbitrator goes by the equity of a case, a judge by the strict law, and

arbitration was invented with the express purpose of securing full power for equity.

The worse of two acts of wrong done to others is that which is prompted by the worse disposition. Hence the

most trifling acts may be the worst ones; as when Callistratus charged Melanopus with having cheated the

templebuilders of three consecrated halfobols. The converse is true of just acts. This is because the greater

is here potentially contained in the less: there is no crime that a man who has stolen three consecrated

halfobols would shrink from committing. Sometimes, however, the worse act is reckoned not in this way

but by the greater harm that it does. Or it may be because no punishment for it is severe enough to be

adequate; or the harm done may be incurablea difficult and even hopeless crime to defend; or the sufferer

may not be able to get his injurer legally punished, a fact that makes the harm incurable, since legal

punishment and chastisement are the proper cure. Or again, the man who has suffered wrong may have

inflicted some fearful punishment on himself; then the doer of the wrong ought in justice to receive a still

more fearful punishment. Thus Sophocles, when pleading for retribution to Euctemon, who had cut his own

throat because of the outrage done to him, said he would not fix a penalty less than the victim had fixed for

himself. Again, a man's crime is worse if he has been the first man, or the only man, or almost the only man,

to commit it: or if it is by no means the first time he has gone seriously wrong in the same way: or if his

crime has led to the thinkingout and invention of measures to prevent and punish similar crimesthus in

Argos a penalty is inflicted on a man on whose account a law is passed, and also on those on whose account

the prison was built: or if a crime is specially brutal, or specially deliberate: or if the report of it awakes more

terror than pity. There are also such rhetorically effective ways of putting it as the following: That the

accused has disregarded and broken not one but many solemn obligations like oaths, promises, pledges, or

rights of intermarriage between stateshere the crime is worse because it consists of many crimes; and that

the crime was committed in the very place where criminals are punished, as for example perjurers doit is

argued that a man who will commit a crime in a lawcourt would commit it anywhere. Further, the worse

deed is that which involves the doer in special shame; that whereby a man wrongs his benefactorsfor he

does more than one wrong, by not merely doing them harm but failing to do them good; that which breaks the

unwritten laws of justicethe better sort of man will be just without being forced to be so, and the written

laws depend on force while the unwritten ones do not. It may however be argued otherwise, that the crime is

worse which breaks the written laws: for the man who commits crimes for which terrible penalties are

provided will not hesitate over crimes for which no penalty is provided at all.So much, then, for the

There are also the socalled 'nontechnical' means of persuasion; and we must now take a cursory view of

these, since they are specially characteristic of forensic oratory. They are five in number: laws, witnesses,

First, then, let us take laws and see how they are to be used in persuasion and dissuasion, in accusation and

defence. If the written law tells against our case, clearly we must appeal to the universal law, and insist on its

greater equity and justice. We must argue that the juror's oath 'I will give my verdict according to honest

opinion' means that one will not simply follow the letter of the written law. We must urge that the principles

of equity are permanent and changeless, and that the universal law does not change either, for it is the law of

nature, whereas written laws often do change. This is the bearing the lines in Sophocles' Antigone, where

Antigone pleads that in burying her brother she had broken Creon's law, but not the unwritten law:

We shall argue that justice indeed is true and profitable, but that sham justice is not, and that consequently the

written law is not, because it does not fulfil the true purpose of law. Or that justice is like silver, and must be

assayed by the judges, if the genuine is to be distinguished from the counterfeit. Or that the better a man is,

the more he will follow and abide by the unwritten law in preference to the written. Or perhaps that the law in

question contradicts some other highlyesteemed law, or even contradicts itself. Thus it may be that one law

will enact that all contracts must be held binding, while another forbids us ever to make illegal contracts. Or

if a law is ambiguous, we shall turn it about and consider which construction best fits the interests of justice

or utility, and then follow that way of looking at it. Or if, though the law still exists, the situation to meet

which it was passed exists no longer, we must do our best to prove this and to combat the law thereby. If

however the written law supports our case, we must urge that the oath 'to give my verdict according to my

honest opinion' not meant to make the judges give a verdict that is contrary to the law, but to save them from

the guilt of perjury if they misunderstand what the law really means. Or that no one chooses what is

absolutely good, but every one what is good for himself. Or that not to use the laws is as ahas to have no laws

at all. Or that, as in the other arts, it does not pay to try to be cleverer than the doctor: for less harm comes

from the doctor's mistakes than from the growing habit of disobeying authority. Or that trying to be cleverer

than the laws is just what is forbidden by those codes of law that are accounted best.So far as the laws are

As to witnesses, they are of two kinds, the ancient and the recent; and these latter, again, either do or do not

share in the risks of the trial. By 'ancient' witnesses I mean the poets and all other notable persons whose

judgements are known to all. Thus the Athenians appealed to Homer as a witness about Salamis; and the men

of Tenedos not long ago appealed to Periander of Corinth in their dispute with the people of Sigeum; and

Cleophon supported his accusation of Critias by quoting the elegiac verse of Solon, maintaining that

discipline had long been slack in the family of Critias, or Solon would never have written,

These witnesses are concerned with past events. As to future events we shall also appeal to soothsayers: thus

Themistocles quoted the oracle about 'the wooden wall' as a reason for engaging the enemy's fleet. Further,

proverbs are, as has been said, one form of evidence. Thus if you are urging somebody not to make a friend

Or if you are urging that he who has made away with fathers should also make away with their sons, quote,

Fool, who slayeth the father and leaveth his sons to avenge him. 'Recent' witnesses are wellknown people

who have expressed their opinions about some disputed matter: such opinions will be useful support for

subsequent disputants on the same oints: thus Eubulus used in the lawcourts against the reply Plato had

made to Archibius, 'It has become the regular custom in this country to admit that one is a scoundrel'. There

are also those witnesses who share the risk of punishment if their evidence is pronounced false. These are

valid witnesses to the fact that an action was or was not done, that something is or is not the case; they are not

valid witnesses to the quality of an action, to its being just or unjust, useful or harmful. On such questions of

quality the opinion of detached persons is highly trustworthy. Most trustworthy of all are the 'ancient'

In dealing with the evidence of witnesses, the following are useful arguments. If you have no witnesses on

your side, you will argue that the judges must decide from what is probable; that this is meant by 'giving a

verdict in accordance with one's honest opinion'; that probabilities cannot be bribed to mislead the court; and

that probabilities are never convicted of perjury. If you have witnesses, and the other man has not, you will

argue that probabilities cannot be put on their trial, and that we could do without the evidence of witnesses

altogether if we need do no more than balance the pleas advanced on either side.

The evidence of witnesses may refer either to ourselves or to our opponent; and either to questions of fact or

to questions of personal character: so, clearly, we need never be at a loss for useful evidence. For if we have

no evidence of fact supporting our own case or telling against that of our opponent, at least we can always

find evidence to prove our own worth or our opponent's worthlessness. Other arguments about a witnessthat

he is a friend or an enemy or neutral, or has a good, bad, or indifferent reputation, and any other such

distinctionswe must construct upon the same general lines as we use for the regular rhetorical proofs.

Concerning contracts argument can be so far employed as to increase or diminish their importance and their

credibility; we shall try to increase both if they tell in our favour, and to diminish both if they tell in favour of

our opponent. Now for confirming or upsetting the credibility of contracts the procedure is just the same as

for dealing with witnesses, for the credit to be attached to contracts depends upon the character of those who

have signed them or have the custody of them. The contract being once admitted genuine, we must insist on

its importance, if it supports our case. We may argue that a contract is a law, though of a special and limited

kind; and that, while contracts do not of course make the law binding, the law does make any lawful contract

binding, and that the law itself as a whole is a of contract, so that any one who disregards or repudiates any

contract is repudiating the law itself. Further, most business relationsthose, namely, that are voluntaryare

regulated by contracts, and if these lose their binding force, human intercourse ceases to exist. We need not

go very deep to discover the other appropriate arguments of this kind. If, however, the contract tells against

us and for our opponents, in the first place those arguments are suitable which we can use to fight a law that

tells against us. We do not regard ourselves as bound to observe a bad law which it was a mistake ever to

pass: and it is ridiculous to suppose that we are bound to observe a bad and mistaken contract. Again, we may

argue that the duty of the judge as umpire is to decide what is just, and therefore he must ask where justice

lies, and not what this or that document means. And that it is impossible to pervert justice by fraud or by

force, since it is founded on nature, but a party to a contract may be the victim of either fraud or force.

Moreover, we must see if the contract contravenes either universal law or any written law of our own or

another country; and also if it contradicts any other previous or subsequent contract; arguing that the

subsequent is the binding contract, or else that the previous one was right and the subsequent one

fraudulentwhichever way suits us. Further, we must consider the question of utility, noting whether the

contract is against the interest of the judges or not; and so onthese arguments are as obvious as the others.

Examination by torture is one form of evidence, to which great weight is often attached because it is in a

sense compulsory. Here again it is not hard to point out the available grounds for magnifying its value, if it

happens to tell in our favour, and arguing that it is the only form of evidence that is infallible; or, on the other

hand, for refuting it if it tells against us and for our opponent, when we may say what is true of torture of

every kind alike, that people under its compulsion tell lies quite as often as they tell the truth, sometimes

persistently refusing to tell the truth, sometimes recklessly making a false charge in order to be let off sooner.

We ought to be able to quote cases, familiar to the judges, in which this sort of thing has actually happened.

[We must say that evidence under torture is not trustworthy, the fact being that many men whether

thickwitted, toughskinned, or stout of heart endure their ordeal nobly, while cowards and timid men are

full of boldness till they see the ordeal of these others: so that no trust can be placed in evidence under

In regard to oaths, a fourfold division can be made. A man may either both offer and accept an oath, or

neither, or one without the otherthat is, he may offer an oath but not accept one, or accept an oath but not

offer one. There is also the situation that arises when an oath has already been sworn either by himself or by

If you refuse to offer an oath, you may argue that men do not hesitate to perjure themselves; and that if your

opponent does swear, you lose your money, whereas, if he does not, you think the judges will decide against

him; and that the risk of an unfavourable verdict is prefer, able, since you trust the judges and do not trust

If you refuse to accept an oath, you may argue that an oath is always paid for; that you would of course have

taken it if you had been a rascal, since if you are a rascal you had better make something by it, and you would

in that case have to swear in order to succeed. Thus your refusal, you argue, must be due to high principle,

It is as if a strong man were to challenge a weakling to strike, or be struck by, him.

If you agree to accept an oath, you may argue that you trust yourself but not your opponent; and that (to

invert the remark of Xenophanes) the fair thing is for the impious man to offer the oath and for the pious man

to accept it; and that it would be monstrous if you yourself were unwilling to accept an oath in a case where

you demand that the judges should do so before giving their verdict. If you wish to offer an oath, you may

argue that piety disposes you to commit the issue to the gods; and that your opponent ought not to want other

judges than himself, since you leave the decision with him; and that it is outrageous for your opponents to

Now that we see how we are to argue in each case separately, we see also how we are to argue when they

occur in pairs, namely, when you are willing to accept the oath but not to offer it; to offer it but not to accept

it; both to accept and to offer it; or to do neither. These are of course combinations of the cases already

mentioned, and so your arguments also must be combinations of the arguments already mentioned.

If you have already sworn an oath that contradicts your present one, you must argue that it is not perjury,

since perjury is a crime, and a crime must be a voluntary action, whereas actions due to the force or fraud of

others are involuntary. You must further reason from this that perjury depends on the intention and not on the

spoken words. But if it is your opponent who has already sworn an oath that contradicts his present one, you

must say that if he does not abide by his oaths he is the enemy of society, and that this is the reason why men

take an oath before administering the laws. 'My opponents insist that you, the judges, must abide by the oath

you have sworn, and yet they are not abiding by their own oaths.' And there are other arguments which may

be used to magnify the importance of the oath. [So much, then, for the 'nontechnical' modes of persuasion.]

WE have now considered the materials to be used in supporting or opposing a political measure, in

pronouncing eulogies or censures, and for prosecution and defence in the law courts. We have considered the

received opinions on which we may best base our arguments so as to convince our hearersthose opinions

with which our enthymemes deal, and out of which they are built, in each of the three kinds of oratory,

But since rhetoric exists to affect the giving of decisionsthe hearers decide between one political speaker

and another, and a legal verdict is a decisionthe orator must not only try to make the argument of his speech

demonstrative and worthy of belief; he must also make his own character look right and put his hearers, who

are to decide, into the right frame of mind. Particularly in political oratory, but also in lawsuits, it adds much

to an orator's influence that his own character should look right and that he should be thought to entertain the

right feelings towards his hearers; and also that his hearers themselves should be in just the right frame of

mind. That the orator's own character should look right is particularly important in political speaking: that the

audience should be in the right frame of mind, in lawsuits. When people are feeling friendly and placable,

they think one sort of thing; when they are feeling angry or hostile, they think either something totally

different or the same thing with a different intensity: when they feel friendly to the man who comes before

them for judgement, they regard him as having done little wrong, if any; when they feel hostile, they take the

opposite view. Again, if they are eager for, and have good hopes of, a thing that will be pleasant if it happens,

they think that it certainly will happen and be good for them: whereas if they are indifferent or annoyed, they

There are three things which inspire confidence in the orator's own characterthe three, namely, that induce

us to believe a thing apart from any proof of it: good sense, good moral character, and goodwill. False

statements and bad advice are due to one or more of the following three causes. Men either form a false

opinion through want of good sense; or they form a true opinion, but because of their moral badness do not

say what they really think; or finally, they are both sensible and upright, but not well disposed to their

hearers, and may fail in consequence to recommend what they know to be the best course. These are the only

possible cases. It follows that any one who is thought to have all three of these good qualities will inspire

trust in his audience. The way to make ourselves thought to be sensible and morally good must be gathered

from the analysis of goodness already given: the way to establish your own goodness is the same as the way

to establish that of others. Good will and friendliness of disposition will form part of our discussion of the

The Emotions are all those feelings that so change men as to affect their judgements, and that are also

attended by pain or pleasure. Such are anger, pity, fear and the like, with their opposites. We must arrange

what we have to say about each of them under three heads. Take, for instance, the emotion of anger: here we

must discover (1) what the state of mind of angry people is, (2) who the people are with whom they usually

get angry, and (3) on what grounds they get angry with them. It is not enough to know one or even two of

these points; unless we know all three, we shall be unable to arouse anger in any one. The same is true of the

other emotions. So just as earlier in this work we drew up a list of useful propositions for the orator, let us

Anger may be defined as an impulse, accompanied by pain, to a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight

directed without justification towards what concerns oneself or towards what concerns one's friends. If this is

a proper definition of anger, it must always be felt towards some particular individual, e.g. Cleon, and not

'man' in general. It must be felt because the other has done or intended to do something to him or one of his

friends. It must always be attended by a certain pleasurethat which arises from the expectation of revenge.

For since nobody aims at what he thinks he cannot attain, the angry man is aiming at what he can attain, and

the belief that you will attain your aim is pleasant. Hence it has been well said about wrath,

It is also attended by a certain pleasure because the thoughts dwell upon the act of vengeance, and the images

Now slighting is the actively entertained opinion of something as obviously of no importance. We think bad

things, as well as good ones, have serious importance; and we think the same of anything that tends to

produce such things, while those which have little or no such tendency we consider unimportant. There are

three kinds of slightingcontempt, spite, and insolence. (1) Contempt is one kind of slighting: you feel

contempt for what you consider unimportant, and it is just such things that you slight. (2) Spite is another

kind; it is a thwarting another man's wishes, not to get something yourself but to prevent his getting it. The

slight arises just from the fact that you do not aim at something for yourself: clearly you do not think that he

can do you harm, for then you would be afraid of him instead of slighting him, nor yet that he can do you any

good worth mentioning, for then you would be anxious to make friends with him. (3) Insolence is also a form

of slighting, since it consists in doing and saying things that cause shame to the victim, not in order that

anything may happen to yourself, or because anything has happened to yourself, but simply for the pleasure

involved. (Retaliation is not 'insolence', but vengeance.) The cause of the pleasure thus enjoyed by the

insolent man is that he thinks himself greatly superior to others when illtreating them. That is why youths

and rich men are insolent; they think themselves superior when they show insolence. One sort of insolence is

to rob people of the honour due to them; you certainly slight them thus; for it is the unimportant, for good or

meaning that this is why he is angry. A man expects to be specially respected by his inferiors in birth, in

capacity, in goodness, and generally in anything in which he is much their superior: as where money is

concerned a wealthy man looks for respect from a poor man; where speaking is concerned, the man with a

turn for oratory looks for respect from one who cannot speak; the ruler demands the respect of the ruled, and

the man who thinks he ought to be a ruler demands the respect of the man whom he thinks he ought to be

their great resentment being due to their great superiority. Then again a man looks for respect from those who

he thinks owe him good treatment, and these are the people whom he has treated or is treating well, or means

or has meant to treat well, either himself, or through his friends, or through others at his request.

It will be plain by now, from what has been said, (1) in what frame of mind, (2) with what persons, and (3) on

what grounds people grow angry. (1) The frame of mind is that of one in which any pain is being felt. In that

condition, a man is always aiming at something. Whether, then, another man opposes him either directly in

any way, as by preventing him from drinking when he is thirsty, or indirectly, the act appears to him just the

same; whether some one works against him, or fails to work with him, or otherwise vexes him while he is in

this mood, he is equally angry in all these cases. Hence people who are afflicted by sickness or poverty or

love or thirst or any other unsatisfied desires are prone to anger and easily roused: especially against those

who slight their present distress. Thus a sick man is angered by disregard of his illness, a poor man by

disregard of his poverty, a man aging war by disregard of the war he is waging, a lover by disregard of his

love, and so throughout, any other sort of slight being enough if special slights are wanting. Each man is

predisposed, by the emotion now controlling him, to his own particular anger. Further, we are angered if we

happen to be expecting a contrary result: for a quite unexpected evil is specially painful, just as the quite

unexpected fulfilment of our wishes is specially pleasant. Hence it is plain what seasons, times, conditions,

and periods of life tend to stir men easily to anger, and where and when this will happen; and it is plain that

These, then, are the frames of mind in which men are easily stirred to anger. The persons with whom we get

angry are those who laugh, mock, or jeer at us, for such conduct is insolent. Also those who inflict injuries

upon us that are marks of insolence. These injuries must be such as are neither retaliatory nor profitable to the

doers: for only then will they be felt to be due to insolence. Also those who speak ill of us, and show

contempt for us, in connexion with the things we ourselves most care about: thus those who are eager to win

fame as philosophers get angry with those who show contempt for their philosophy; those who pride

themselves upon their appearance get angry with those who show contempt for their appearance and so on in

other cases. We feel particularly angry on this account if we suspect that we are in fact, or that people think

we are, lacking completely or to any effective extent in the qualities in question. For when we are convinced

that we excel in the qualities for which we are jeered at, we can ignore the jeering. Again, we are angrier with

our friends than with other people, since we feel that our friends ought to treat us well and not badly. We are

angry with those who have usually treated us with honour or regard, if a change comes and they behave to us

otherwise: for we think that they feel contempt for us, or they would still be behaving as they did before. And

with those who do not return our kindnesses or fail to return them adequately, and with those who oppose us

though they are our inferiors: for all such persons seem to feel contempt for us; those who oppose us seem to

think us inferior to themselves, and those who do not return our kindnesses seem to think that those

kindnesses were conferred by inferiors. And we feel particularly angry with men of no account at all, if they

slight us. For, by our hypothesis, the anger caused by the slight is felt towards people who are not justified in

slighting us, and our inferiors are not thus justified. Again, we feel angry with friends if they do not speak

well of us or treat us well; and still more, if they do the contrary; or if they do not perceive our needs, which

is why Plexippus is angry with Meleager in Antiphon's play; for this want of perception shows that they are

slighting uswe do not fail to perceive the needs of those for whom we care. Again we are angry with those

who rejoice at our misfortunes or simply keep cheerful in the midst of our misfortunes, since this shows that

they either hate us or are slighting us. Also with those who are indifferent to the pain they give us: this is why

we get angry with bringers of bad news. And with those who listen to stories about us or keep on looking at

our weaknesses; this seems like either slighting us or hating us; for those who love us share in all our

distresses and it must distress any one to keep on looking at his own weaknesses. Further, with those who

slight us before five classes of people: namely, (1) our rivals, (2) those whom we admire, (3) those whom we

wish to admire us, (4) those for whom we feel reverence, (5) those who feel reverence for us: if any one

slights us before such persons, we feel particularly angry. Again, we feel angry with those who slight us in

connexion with what we are as honourable men bound to championour parents, children, wives, or subjects.

And with those who do not return a favour, since such a slight is unjustifiable. Also with those who reply

with humorous levity when we are speaking seriously, for such behaviour indicates contempt. And with those

who treat us less well than they treat everybody else; it is another mark of contempt that they should think we

do not deserve what every one else deserves. Forgetfulness, too, causes anger, as when our own names are

forgotten, trifling as this may be; since forgetfulness is felt to be another sign that we are being slighted; it is

The persons with whom we feel anger, the frame of mind in which we feel it, and the reasons why we feel it,

have now all been set forth. Clearly the orator will have to speak so as to bring his hearers into a frame of

mind that will dispose them to anger, and to represent his adversaries as open to such charges and possessed

Since growing calm is the opposite of growing angry, and calmness the opposite of anger, we must ascertain

in what frames of mind men are calm, towards whom they feel calm, and by what means they are made so.

Growing calm may be defined as a settling down or quieting of anger. Now we get angry with those who

slight us; and since slighting is a voluntary act, it is plain that we feel calm towards those who do nothing of

the kind, or who do or seem to do it involuntarily. Also towards those who intended to do the opposite of

what they did do. Also towards those who treat themselves as they have treated us: since no one can be

supposed to slight himself. Also towards those who admit their fault and are sorry: since we accept their grief

at what they have done as satisfaction, and cease to be angry. The punishment of servants shows this: those

who contradict us and deny their offence we punish all the more, but we cease to be incensed against those

who agree that they deserved their punishment. The reason is that it is shameless to deny what is obvious, and

those who are shameless towards us slight us and show contempt for us: anyhow, we do not feel shame

before those of whom we are thoroughly contemptuous. Also we feel calm towards those who humble

themselves before us and do not gainsay us; we feel that they thus admit themselves our inferiors, and

inferiors feel fear, and nobody can slight any one so long as he feels afraid of him. That our anger ceases

towards those who humble themselves before us is shown even by dogs, who do not bite people when they sit

down. We also feel calm towards those who are serious when we are serious, because then we feel that we

are treated seriously and not contemptuously. Also towards those who have done us more kindnesses than we

have done them. Also towards those who pray to us and beg for mercy, since they humble themselves by

doing so. Also towards those who do not insult or mock at or slight any one at all, or not any worthy person

or any one like ourselves. In general, the things that make us calm may be inferred by seeing what the

opposites are of those that make us angry. We are not angry with people we fear or respect, as long as we fear

or respect them; you cannot be afraid of a person and also at the same time angry with him. Again, we feel no

anger, or comparatively little, with those who have done what they did through anger: we do not feel that they

have done it from a wish to slight us, for no one slights people when angry with them, since slighting is

painless, and anger is painful. Nor do we grow angry with those who reverence us.

As to the frame of mind that makes people calm, it is plainly the opposite to that which makes them angry, as

when they are amusing themselves or laughing or feasting; when they are feeling prosperous or successful or

satisfied; when, in fine, they are enjoying freedom from pain, or inoffensive pleasure, or justifiable hope.

Also when time has passed and their anger is no longer fresh, for time puts an end to anger. And vengeance

previously taken on one person puts an end to even greater anger felt against another person. Hence

Philocrates, being asked by some one, at a time when the public was angry with him, 'Why don't you defend

yourself?' did right to reply, 'The time is not yet.' 'Why, when is the time?' 'When I see someone else

calumniated.' For men become calm when they have spent their anger on somebody else. This happened in

the case of Ergophilus: though the people were more irritated against him than against Callisthenes, they

acquitted him because they had condemned Callisthenes to death the day before. Again, men become calm if

they have convicted the offender; or if he has already suffered worse things than they in their anger would

have themselves inflicted upon him; for they feel as if they were already avenged. Or if they feel that they

themselves are in the wrong and are suffering justly (for anger is not excited by what is just), since men no

longer think then that they are suffering without justification; and anger, as we have seen, means this. Hence

we ought always to inflict a preliminary punishment in words: if that is done, even slaves are less aggrieved

by the actual punishment. We also feel calm if we think that the offender will not see that he is punished on

our account and because of the way he has treated us. For anger has to do with individuals. This is plain from

implying that Odysseus would not have considered himself avenged unless the Cyclops perceived both by

whom and for what he had been blinded. Consequently we do not get angry with any one who cannot be

aware of our anger, and in particular we cease to be angry with people once they are dead, for we feel that the

worst has been done to them, and that they will neither feel pain nor anything else that we in our anger aim at

making them feel. And therefore the poet has well made Apollo say, in order to put a stop to the anger of

It is now plain that when you wish to calm others you must draw upon these lines of argument; you must put

your hearers into the corresponding frame of mind, and represent those with whom they are angry as

formidable, or as worthy of reverence, or as benefactors, or as involuntary agents, or as much distressed at

Let us now turn to Friendship and Enmity, and ask towards whom these feelings are entertained, and why.

We will begin by defining and friendly feeling. We may describe friendly feeling towards any one as wishing

for him what you believe to be good things, not for your own sake but for his, and being inclined, so far as

you can, to bring these things about. A friend is one who feels thus and excites these feelings in return: those

who think they feel thus towards each other think themselves friends. This being assumed, it follows that

your friend is the sort of man who shares your pleasure in what is good and your pain in what is unpleasant,

for your sake and for no other reason. This pleasure and pain of his will be the token of his good wishes for

you, since we all feel glad at getting what we wish for, and pained at getting what we do not. Those, then, are

friends to whom the same things are good and evil; and those who are, moreover, friendly or unfriendly to the

same people; for in that case they must have the same wishes, and thus by wishing for each other what they

wish for themselves, they show themselves each other's friends. Again, we feel friendly to those who have

treated us well, either ourselves or those we care for, whether on a large scale, or readily, or at some

particular crisis; provided it was for our own sake. And also to those who we think wish to treat us well. And

also to our friends' friends, and to those who like, or are liked by, those whom we like ourselves. And also to

those who are enemies to those whose enemies we are, and dislike, or are disliked by, those whom we dislike.

For all such persons think the things good which we think good, so that they wish what is good for us; and

this, as we saw, is what friends must do. And also to those who are willing to treat us well where money or

our personal safety is concerned: and therefore we value those who are liberal, brave, or just. The just we

consider to be those who do not live on others; which means those who work for their living, especially

farmers and others who work with their own hands. We also like temperate men, because they are not unjust

to others; and, for the same reason, those who mind their own business. And also those whose friends we

wish to be, if it is plain that they wish to be our friends: such are the morally good, and those well thought of

by every one, by the best men, or by those whom we admire or who admire us. And also those with whom it

is pleasant to live and spend our days: such are the goodtempered, and those who are not too ready to show

us our mistakes, and those who are not cantankerous or quarrelsomesuch people are always wanting to fight

us, and those who fight us we feel wish for the opposite of what we wish for ourselvesand those who have

the tact to make and take a joke; here both parties have the same object in view, when they can stand being

made fun of as well as do it prettily themselves. And we also feel friendly towards those who praise such

good qualities as we possess, and especially if they praise the good qualities that we are not too sure we do

possess. And towards those who are cleanly in their person, their dress, and all their way of life. And towards

those who do not reproach us with what we have done amiss to them or they have done to help us, for both

actions show a tendency to criticize us. And towards those who do not nurse grudges or store up grievances,

but are always ready to make friends again; for we take it that they will behave to us just as we find them

behaving to every one else. And towards those who are not evil speakers and who are aware of neither their

neighbours' bad points nor our own, but of our good ones only, as a good man always will be. And towards

those who do not try to thwart us when we are angry or in earnest, which would mean being ready to fight us.

And towards those who have some serious feeling towards us, such as admiration for us, or belief in our

goodness, or pleasure in our company; especially if they feel like this about qualities in us for which we

especially wish to be admired, esteemed, or liked. And towards those who are like ourselves in character and

occupation, provided they do not get in our way or gain their living from the same source as we dofor then it

And those who desire the same things as we desire, if it is possible for us both to share them together;

otherwise the same trouble arises here too. And towards those with whom we are on such terms that, while

we respect their opinions, we need not blush before them for doing what is conventionally wrong: as well as

towards those before whom we should be ashamed to do anything really wrong. Again, our rivals, and those

whom we should like to envy usthough without illfeelingeither we like these people or at least we

wish them to like us. And we feel friendly towards those whom we help to secure good for themselves,

provided we are not likely to suffer heavily by it ourselves. And those who feel as friendly to us when we are

not with them as when we arewhich is why all men feel friendly towards those who are faithful to their dead

friends. And, speaking generally, towards those who are really fond of their friends and do not desert them in

trouble; of all good men, we feel most friendly to those who show their goodness as friends. Also towards

those who are honest with us, including those who will tell us of their own weak points: it has just said that

with our friends we are not ashamed of what is conventionally wrong, and if we do have this feeling, we do

not love them; if therefore we do not have it, it looks as if we did love them. We also like those with whom

we do not feel frightened or uncomfortablenobody can like a man of whom he feels frightened. Friendship

Things that cause friendship are: doing kindnesses; doing them unasked; and not proclaiming the fact when

they are done, which shows that they were done for our own sake and not for some other reason.

Enmity and Hatred should clearly be studied by reference to their opposites. Enmity may be produced by

anger or spite or calumny. Now whereas anger arises from offences against oneself, enmity may arise even

without that; we may hate people merely because of what we take to be their character. Anger is always

concerned with individualsa Callias or a Socrateswhereas hatred is directed also against classes: we all

hate any thief and any informer. Moreover, anger can be cured by time; but hatred cannot. The one aims at

giving pain to its object, the other at doing him harm; the angry man wants his victims to feel; the hater does

not mind whether they feel or not. All painful things are felt; but the greatest evils, injustice and folly, are the

least felt, since their presence causes no pain. And anger is accompanied by pain, hatred is not; the angry man

feels pain, but the hater does not. Much may happen to make the angry man pity those who offend him, but

the hater under no circumstances wishes to pity a man whom he has once hated: for the one would have the

offenders suffer for what they have done; the other would have them cease to exist.

It is plain from all this that we can prove people to be friends or enemies; if they are not, we can make them

out to be so; if they claim to be so, we can refute their claim; and if it is disputed whether an action was due

To turn next to Fear, what follows will show things and persons of which, and the states of mind in which, we

feel afraid. Fear may be defined as a pain or disturbance due to a mental picture of some destructive or

painful evil in the future. Of destructive or painful evils only; for there are some evils, e.g. wickedness or

stupidity, the prospect of which does not frighten us: I mean only such as amount to great pains or losses.

And even these only if they appear not remote but so near as to be imminent: we do not fear things that are a

very long way off: for instance, we all know we shall die, but we are not troubled thereby, because death is

not close at hand. From this definition it will follow that fear is caused by whatever we feel has great power

of destroying or of harming us in ways that tend to cause us great pain. Hence the very indications of such

things are terrible, making us feel that the terrible thing itself is close at hand; the approach of what is terrible

is just what we mean by 'danger'. Such indications are the enmity and anger of people who have power to do

something to us; for it is plain that they have the will to do it, and so they are on the point of doing it. Also

injustice in possession of power; for it is the unjust man's will to do evil that makes him unjust. Also outraged

virtue in possession of power; for it is plain that, when outraged, it always has the will to retaliate, and now it

has the power to do so. Also fear felt by those who have the power to do something to us, since such persons

are sure to be ready to do it. And since most men tend to be badslaves to greed, and cowards in dangerit is,

as a rule, a terrible thing to be at another man's mercy; and therefore, if we have done anything horrible, those

in the secret terrify us with the thought that they may betray or desert us. And those who can do us wrong are

terrible to us when we are liable to be wronged; for as a rule men do wrong to others whenever they have the

power to do it. And those who have been wronged, or believe themselves to be wronged, are terrible; for they

are always looking out for their opportunity. Also those who have done people wrong, if they possess power,

since they stand in fear of retaliation: we have already said that wickedness possessing power is terrible.

Again, our rivals for a thing cause us fear when we cannot both have it at once; for we are always at war with

such men. We also fear those who are to be feared by stronger people than ourselves: if they can hurt those

stronger people, still more can they hurt us; and, for the same reason, we fear those whom those stronger

people are actually afraid of. Also those who have destroyed people stronger than we are. Also those who are

attacking people weaker than we are: either they are already formidable, or they will be so when they have

thus grown stronger. Of those we have wronged, and of our enemies or rivals, it is not the passionate and

outspoken whom we have to fear, but the quiet, dissembling, unscrupulous; since we never know when they

are upon us, we can never be sure they are at a safe distance. All terrible things are more terrible if they give

us no chance of retrieving a blunder either no chance at all, or only one that depends on our enemies and not

ourselves. Those things are also worse which we cannot, or cannot easily, help. Speaking generally, anything

causes us to feel fear that when it happens to, or threatens, others cause us to feel pity.

The above are, roughly, the chief things that are terrible and are feared. Let us now describe the conditions

under which we ourselves feel fear. If fear is associated with the expectation that something destructive will

happen to us, plainly nobody will be afraid who believes nothing can happen to him; we shall not fear things

that we believe cannot happen to us, nor people who we believe cannot inflict them upon us; nor shall we be

afraid at times when we think ourselves safe from them. It follows therefore that fear is felt by those who

believe something to be likely to happen to them, at the hands of particular persons, in a particular form, and

at a particular time. People do not believe this when they are, or think they a are, in the midst of great

prosperity, and are in consequence insolent, contemptuous, and recklessthe kind of character produced by

wealth, physical strength, abundance of friends, power: nor yet when they feel they have experienced every

kind of horror already and have grown callous about the future, like men who are being flogged and are

already nearly deadif they are to feel the anguish of uncertainty, there must be some faint expectation of

escape. This appears from the fact that fear sets us thinking what can be done, which of course nobody does

when things are hopeless. Consequently, when it is advisable that the audience should be frightened, the

orator must make them feel that they really are in danger of something, pointing out that it has happened to

others who were stronger than they are, and is happening, or has happened, to people like themselves, at the

Having now seen the nature of fear, and of the things that cause it, and the various states of mind in which it

is felt, we can also see what Confidence is, about what things we feel it, and under what conditions. It is the

opposite of fear, and what causes it is the opposite of what causes fear; it is, therefore, the expectation

associated with a mental picture of the nearness of what keeps us safe and the absence or remoteness of what

is terrible: it may be due either to the near presence of what inspires confidence or to the absence of what

causes alarm. We feel it if we can take stepsmany, or important, or bothto cure or prevent trouble; if we

have neither wronged others nor been wronged by them; if we have either no rivals at all or no strong ones; if

our rivals who are strong are our friends or have treated us well or been treated well by us; or if those whose

interest is the same as ours are the more numerous party, or the stronger, or both.

As for our own state of mind, we feel confidence if we believe we have often succeeded and never suffered

reverses, or have often met danger and escaped it safely. For there are two reasons why human beings face

danger calmly: they may have no experience of it, or they may have means to deal with it: thus when in

danger at sea people may feel confident about what will happen either because they have no experience of

bad weather, or because their experience gives them the means of dealing with it. We also feel confident

whenever there is nothing to terrify other people like ourselves, or people weaker than ourselves, or people

than whom we believe ourselves to be strongerand we believe this if we have conquered them, or conquered

others who are as strong as they are, or stronger. Also if we believe ourselves superior to our rivals in the

number and importance of the advantages that make men formidablewealth, physical strength, strong bodies

of supporters, extensive territory, and the possession of all, or the most important, appliances of war. Also if

we have wronged no one, or not many, or not those of whom we are afraid; and generally, if our relations

with the gods are satisfactory, as will be shown especially by signs and oracles. The fact is that anger makes

us confidentthat anger is excited by our knowledge that we are not the wrongers but the wronged, and that

the divine power is always supposed to be on the side of the wronged. Also when, at the outset of an

enterprise, we believe that we cannot and shall not fail, or that we shall succeed completely.So much for the

We now turn to Shame and Shamelessness; what follows will explain the things that cause these feelings, and

the persons before whom, and the states of mind under which, they are felt. Shame may be defined as pain or

disturbance in regard to bad things, whether present, past, or future, which seem likely to involve us in

discredit; and shamelessness as contempt or indifference in regard to these same bad things. If this definition

be granted, it follows that we feel shame at such bad things as we think are disgraceful to ourselves or to

those we care for. These evils are, in the first place, those due to moral badness. Such are throwing away

one's shield or taking to flight; for these bad things are due to cowardice. Also, withholding a deposit or

otherwise wronging people about money; for these acts are due to injustice. Also, having carnal intercourse

with forbidden persons, at wrong times, or in wrong places; for these things are due to licentiousness. Also,

making profit in petty or disgraceful ways, or out of helpless persons, e.g. the poor, or the deadwhence the

proverb 'He would pick a corpse's pocket'; for all this is due to low greed and meanness. Also, in money

matters, giving less help than you might, or none at all, or accepting help from those worse off than yourself;

so also borrowing when it will seem like begging; begging when it will seem like asking the return of a

favour; asking such a return when it will seem like begging; praising a man in order that it may seem like

begging; and going on begging in spite of failure: all such actions are tokens of meanness. Also, praising

people to their face, and praising extravagantly a man's good points and glozing over his weaknesses, and

showing extravagant sympathy with his grief when you are in his presence, and all that sort of thing; all this

shows the disposition of a flatterer. Also, refusing to endure hardships that are endured by people who are

older, more delicately brought up, of higher rank, or generally less capable of endurance than ourselves: for

all this shows effeminacy. Also, accepting benefits, especially accepting them often, from another man, and

then abusing him for conferring them: all this shows a mean, ignoble disposition. Also, talking incessantly

about yourself, making loud professions, and appropriating the merits of others; for this is due to

boastfulness. The same is true of the actions due to any of the other forms of badness of moral character, of

the tokens of such badness, they are all disgraceful and shameless. Another sort of bad thing at which we feel

shame is, lacking a share in the honourable things shared by every one else, or by all or nearly all who are

like ourselves. By 'those like ourselves' I mean those of our own race or country or age or family, and

generally those who are on our own level. Once we are on a level with others, it is a disgrace to be, say, less

well educated than they are; and so with other advantages: all the more so, in each case, if it is seen to be our

own fault: wherever we are ourselves to blame for our present, past, or future circumstances, it follows at

once that this is to a greater extent due to our moral badness. We are moreover ashamed of having done to us,

having had done, or being about to have done to us acts that involve us in dishonour and reproach; as when

we surrender our persons, or lend ourselves to vile deeds, e.g. when we submit to outrage. And acts of

yielding to the lust of others are shameful whether willing or unwilling (yielding to force being an instance of

unwillingness), since unresisting submission to them is due to unmanliness or cowardice.

These things, and others like them, are what cause the feeling of shame. Now since shame is a mental picture

of disgrace, in which we shrink from the disgrace itself and not from its consequences, and we only care what

opinion is held of us because of the people who form that opinion, it follows that the people before whom we

feel shame are those whose opinion of us matters to us. Such persons are: those who admire us, those whom

we admire, those by whom we wish to be admired, those with whom we are competing, and those whose

opinion of us we respect. We admire those, and wish those to admire us, who possess any good thing that is

highly esteemed; or from whom we are very anxious to get something that they are able to give usas a lover

feels. We compete with our equals. We respect, as true, the views of sensible people, such as our elders and

those who have been well educated. And we feel more shame about a thing if it is done openly, before all

men's eyes. Hence the proverb, 'shame dwells in the eyes'. For this reason we feel most shame before those

who will always be with us and those who notice what we do, since in both cases eyes are upon us. We also

feel it before those not open to the same imputation as ourselves: for it is plain that their opinions about it are

the opposite of ours. Also before those who are hard on any one whose conduct they think wrong; for what a

man does himself, he is said not to resent when his neighbours do it: so that of course he does resent their

doing what he does not do himself. And before those who are likely to tell everybody about you; not telling

others is as good as not be lieving you wrong. People are likely to tell others about you if you have wronged

them, since they are on the look out to harm you; or if they speak evil of everybody, for those who attack the

innocent will be still more ready to attack the guilty. And before those whose main occupation is with their

neighbours' failingspeople like satirists and writers of comedy; these are really a kind of evilspeakers and

telltales. And before those who have never yet known us come to grief, since their attitude to us has

amounted to admiration so far: that is why we feel ashamed to refuse those a favour who ask one for the first

timewe have not as yet lost credit with them. Such are those who are just beginning to wish to be our

friends; for they have seen our best side only (hence the appropriateness of Euripides' reply to the

Syracusans): and such also are those among our old acquaintances who know nothing to our discredit. And

we are ashamed not merely of the actual shameful conduct mentioned, but also of the evidences of it: not

merely, for example, of actual sexual intercourse, but also of its evidences; and not merely of disgraceful acts

but also of disgraceful talk. Similarly we feel shame not merely in presence of the persons mentioned but also

of those who will tell them what we have done, such as their servants or friends. And, generally, we feel no

shame before those upon whose opinions we quite look down as untrustworthy (no one feels shame before

small children or animals); nor are we ashamed of the same things before intimates as before strangers, but

before the former of what seem genuine faults, before the latter of what seem conventional ones.

The conditions under which we shall feel shame are these: first, having people related to us like those before

whom, as has been said, we feel shame. These are, as was stated, persons whom we admire, or who admire

us, or by whom we wish to be admired, or from whom we desire some service that we shall not obtain if we

forfeit their good opinion. These persons may be actually looking on (as Cydias represented them in his

speech on land assignments in Samos, when he told the Athenians to imagine the Greeks to be standing all

around them, actually seeing the way they voted and not merely going to hear about it afterwards): or again

they may be near at hand, or may be likely to find out about what we do. This is why in misfortune we do not

wish to be seen by those who once wished themselves like us; for such a feeling implies admiration. And men

feel shame when they have acts or exploits to their credit on which they are bringing dishonour, whether

these are their own, or those of their ancestors, or those of other persons with whom they have some close

connexion. Generally, we feel shame before those for whose own misconduct we should also feel itthose

already mentioned; those who take us as their models; those whose teachers or advisers we have been; or

other people, it may be, like ourselves, whose rivals we are. For there are many things that shame before such

people makes us do or leave undone. And we feel more shame when we are likely to be continually seen by,

and go about under the eyes of, those who know of our disgrace. Hence, when Antiphon the poet was to be

cudgelled to death by order of Dionysius, and saw those who were to perish with him covering their faces as

they went through the gates, he said, 'Why do you cover your faces? Is it lest some of these spectators should

So much for Shame; to understand Shamelessness, we need only consider the converse cases, and plainly we

To take Kindness next: the definition of it will show us towards whom it is felt, why, and in what frames of

mind. Kindnessunder the influence of which a man is said to 'be kind' may be defined as helpfulness

towards some one in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that

of the person helped. Kindness is great if shown to one who is in great need, or who needs what is important

and hard to get, or who needs it at an important and difficult crisis; or if the helper is the only, the first, or the

chief person to give the help. Natural cravings constitute such needs; and in particular cravings, accompanied

by pain, for what is not being attained. The appetites are cravings for this kind: sexual desire, for instance,

and those which arise during bodily injuries and in dangers; for appetite is active both in danger and in pain.

Hence those who stand by us in poverty or in banishment, even if they do not help us much, are yet really

kind to us, because our need is great and the occasion pressing; for instance, the man who gave the mat in the

Lyceum. The helpfulness must therefore meet, preferably, just this kind of need; and failing just this kind,

some other kind as great or greater. We now see to whom, why, and under what conditions kindness is

shown; and these facts must form the basis of our arguments. We must show that the persons helped are, or

have been, in such pain and need as has been described, and that their helpers gave, or are giving, the kind of

help described, in the kind of need described. We can also see how to eliminate the idea of kindness and

make our opponents appear unkind: we may maintain that they are being or have been helpful simply to

promote their own interestthis, as has been stated, is not kindness; or that their action was accidental, or was

forced upon them; or that they were not doing a favour, but merely returning one, whether they know this or

notin either case the action is a mere return, and is therefore not a kindness even if the doer does not know

how the case stands. In considering this subject we must look at all the categories: an act may be an act of

kindness because (1) it is a particular thing, (2) it has a particular magnitude or (3) quality, or (4) is done at a

particular time or (5) place. As evidence of the want of kindness, we may point out that a smaller service had

been refused to the man in need; or that the same service, or an equal or greater one, has been given to his

enemies; these facts show that the service in question was not done for the sake of the person helped. Or we

may point out that the thing desired was worthless and that the helper knew it: no one will admit that he is in

So much for Kindness and Unkindness. Let us now consider Pity, asking ourselves what things excite pity,

and for what persons, and in what states of our mind pity is felt. Pity may be defined as a feeling of pain

caused by the sight of some evil, destructive or painful, which befalls one who does not deserve it, and which

we might expect to befall ourselves or some friend of ours, and moreover to befall us soon. In order to feel

pity, we must obviously be capable of supposing that some evil may happen to us or some friend of ours, and

moreover some such evil as is stated in our definition or is more or less of that kind. It is therefore not felt by

those completely ruined, who suppose that no further evil can befall them, since the worst has befallen them

already; nor by those who imagine themselves immensely fortunatetheir feeling is rather presumptuous

insolence, for when they think they possess all the good things of life, it is clear that the impossibility of evil

befalling them will be included, this being one of the good things in question. Those who think evil may

befall them are such as have already had it befall them and have safely escaped from it; elderly men, owing to

their good sense and their experience; weak men, especially men inclined to cowardice; and also educated

people, since these can take long views. Also those who have parents living, or children, or wives; for these

are our own, and the evils mentioned above may easily befall them. And those who neither moved by any

courageous emotion such as anger or confidence (these emotions take no account of the future), nor by a

disposition to presumptuous insolence (insolent men, too, take no account of the possibility that something

evil will happen to them), nor yet by great fear (panicstricken people do not feel pity, because they are taken

up with what is happening to themselves); only those feel pity who are between these two extremes. In order

to feel pity we must also believe in the goodness of at least some people; if you think nobody good, you will

believe that everybody deserves evil fortune. And, generally, we feel pity whenever we are in the condition of

remembering that similar misfortunes have happened to us or ours, or expecting them to happen in the future.

So much for the mental conditions under which we feel pity. What we pity is stated clearly in the definition.

All unpleasant and painful things excite pity if they tend to destroy pain and annihilate; and all such evils as

are due to chance, if they are serious. The painful and destructive evils are: death in its various forms, bodily

injuries and afflictions, old age, diseases, lack of food. The evils due to chance are: friendlessness, scarcity of

friends (it is a pitiful thing to be torn away from friends and companions), deformity, weakness, mutilation;

evil coming from a source from which good ought to have come; and the frequent repetition of such

misfortunes. Also the coming of good when the worst has happened: e.g. the arrival of the Great King's gifts

for Diopeithes after his death. Also that either no good should have befallen a man at all, or that he should not

The grounds, then, on which we feel pity are these or like these. The people we pity are: those whom we

know, if only they are not very closely related to usin that case we feel about them as if we were in danger

ourselves. For this reason Amasis did not weep, they say, at the sight of his son being led to death, but did

weep when he saw his friend begging: the latter sight was pitiful, the former terrible, and the terrible is

different from the pitiful; it tends to cast out pity, and often helps to produce the opposite of pity. Again, we

feel pity when the danger is near ourselves. Also we pity those who are like us in age, character, disposition,

social standing, or birth; for in all these cases it appears more likely that the same misfortune may befall us

also. Here too we have to remember the general principle that what we fear for ourselves excites our pity

when it happens to others. Further, since it is when the sufferings of others are close to us that they excite our

pity (we cannot remember what disasters happened a hundred centuries ago, nor look forward to what will

happen a hundred centuries hereafter, and therefore feel little pity, if any, for such things): it follows that

those who heighten the effect of their words with suitable gestures, tones, dress, and dramatic action

generally, are especially successful in exciting pity: they thus put the disasters before our eyes, and make

them seem close to us, just coming or just past. Anything that has just happened, or is going to happen soon,

is particularly piteous: so too therefore are the tokens and the actions of sufferersthe garments and the like

of those who have already suffered; the words and the like of those actually sufferingof those, for instance,

who are on the point of death. Most piteous of all is it when, in such times of trial, the victims are persons of

noble character: whenever they are so, our pity is especially excited, because their innocence, as well as the

setting of their misfortunes before our eyes, makes their misfortunes seem close to ourselves.

Most directly opposed to pity is the feeling called Indignation. Pain at unmerited good fortune is, in one

sense, opposite to pain at unmerited bad fortune, and is due to the same moral qualities. Both feelings are

associated with good moral character; it is our duty both to feel sympathy and pity for unmerited distress, and

to feel indignation at unmerited prosperity; for whatever is undeserved is unjust, and that is why we ascribe

indignation even to the gods. It might indeed be thought that envy is similarly opposed to pity, on the ground

that envy it closely akin to indignation, or even the same thing. But it is not the same. It is true that it also is a

disturbing pain excited by the prosperity of others. But it is excited not by the prosperity of the undeserving

but by that of people who are like us or equal with us. The two feelings have this in common, that they must

be due not to some untoward thing being likely to befall ourselves, but only to what is happening to our

neighbour. The feeling ceases to be envy in the one case and indignation in the other, and becomes fear, if the

pain and disturbance are due to the prospect of something bad for ourselves as the result of the other man's

good fortune. The feelings of pity and indignation will obviously be attended by the converse feelings of

satisfaction. If you are pained by the unmerited distress of others, you will be pleased, or at least not pained,

by their merited distress. Thus no good man can be pained by the punishment of parricides or murderers.

These are things we are bound to rejoice at, as we must at the prosperity of the deserving; both these things

are just, and both give pleasure to any honest man, since he cannot help expecting that what has happened to

a man like him will happen to him too. All these feelings are associated with the same type of moral

character. And their contraries are associated with the contrary type; the man who is delighted by others'

misfortunes is identical with the man who envies others' prosperity. For any one who is pained by the

occurrence or existence of a given thing must be pleased by that thing's nonexistence or destruction. We can

now see that all these feelings tend to prevent pity (though they differ among themselves, for the reasons

We will first consider Indignationreserving the other emotions for subsequent discussionand ask with

whom, on what grounds, and in what states of mind we may be indignant. These questions are really

answered by what has been said already. Indignation is pain caused by the sight of undeserved good fortune.

It is, then, plain to begin with that there are some forms of good the sight of which cannot cause it. Thus a

man may be just or brave, or acquire moral goodness: but we shall not be indignant with him for that reason,

any more than we shall pity him for the contrary reason. Indignation is roused by the sight of wealth, power,

and the likeby all those things, roughly speaking, which are deserved by good men and by those who

possess the goods of naturenoble birth, beauty, and so on. Again, what is long established seems akin to

what exists by nature; and therefore we feel more indignation at those possessing a given good if they have as

a matter of fact only just got it and the prosperity it brings with it. The newly rich give more offence than

those whose wealth is of long standing and inherited. The same is true of those who have office or power,

plenty of friends, a fine family, We feel the same when these advantages of theirs secure them others. For

here again, the newly rich give us more offence by obtaining office through their riches than do those whose

wealth is of long standing; and so in all other cases. The reason is that what the latter have is felt to be really

their own, but what the others have is not; what appears to have been always what it is is regarded as real, and

so the possessions of the newly rich do not seem to be really their own. Further, it is not any and every man

that deserves any given kind of good; there is a certain correspondence and appropriateness in such things;

thus it is appropriate for brave men, not for just men, to have fine weapons, and for men of family, not for

parvenus, to make distinguished marriages. Indignation may therefore properly be felt when any one gets

what is not appropriate for him, though he may be a good man enough. It may also be felt when any one sets

himself up against his superior, especially against his superior in some particular respectwhence the lines

but also, even apart from that, when the inferior in any sense contends with his superior; a musician, for

Enough has been said to make clear the grounds on which, and the persons against whom, Indignation is

feltthey are those mentioned, and others like him. As for the people who feel it; we feel it if we do ourselves

deserve the greatest possible goods and moreover have them, for it is an injustice that those who are not our

equals should have been held to deserve as much as we have. Or, secondly, we feel it if we are really good

and honest people; our judgement is then sound, and we loathe any kind of injustice. Also if we are ambitious

and eager to gain particular ends, especially if we are ambitious for what others are getting without deserving

to get it. And, generally, if we think that we ourselves deserve a thing and that others do not, we are disposed

to be indignant with those others so far as that thing is concerned. Hence servile, worthless, unambitious

persons are not inclined to Indignation, since there is nothing they can believe themselves to deserve.

From all this it is plain what sort of men those are at whose misfortunes, distresses, or failures we ought to

feel pleased, or at least not pained: by considering the facts described we see at once what their contraries are.

If therefore our speech puts the judges in such a frame of mind as that indicated and shows that those who

claim pity on certain definite grounds do not deserve to secure pity but do deserve not to secure it, it will be

To take Envy next: we can see on what grounds, against what persons, and in what states of mind we feel it.

Envy is pain at the sight of such good fortune as consists of the good things already mentioned; we feel it

towards our equals; not with the idea of getting something for ourselves, but because the other people have it.

We shall feel it if we have, or think we have, equals; and by 'equals' I mean equals in birth, relationship, age,

disposition, distinction, or wealth. We feel envy also if we fall but a little short of having everything; which is

why people in high place and prosperity feel itthey think every one else is taking what belongs to

themselves. Also if we are exceptionally distinguished for some particular thing, and especially if that thing is

wisdom or good fortune. Ambitious men are more envious than those who are not. So also those who profess

wisdom; they are ambitious to be thought wise. Indeed, generally, those who aim at a reputation for anything

are envious on this particular point. And smallminded men are envious, for everything seems great to them.

The good things which excite envy have already been mentioned. The deeds or possessions which arouse the

love of reputation and honour and the desire for fame, and the various gifts of fortune, are almost all subject

to envy; and particularly if we desire the thing ourselves, or think we are entitled to it, or if having it puts us a

little above others, or not having it a little below them. It is clear also what kind of people we envy; that was

included in what has been said already: we envy those who are near us in time, place, age, or reputation.

Also our fellowcompetitors, who are indeed the people just mentionedwe do not compete with men who

lived a hundred centuries ago, or those not yet born, or the dead, or those who dwell near the Pillars of

Hercules, or those whom, in our opinion or that of others, we take to be far below us or far above us. So too

we compete with those who follow the same ends as ourselves: we compete with our rivals in sport or in love,

and generally with those who are after the same things; and it is therefore these whom we are bound to envy

We also envy those whose possession of or success in a thing is a reproach to us: these are our neighbours

and equals; for it is clear that it is our own fault we have missed the good thing in question; this annoys us,

and excites envy in us. We also envy those who have what we ought to have, or have got what we did have

once. Hence old men envy younger men, and those who have spent much envy those who have spent little on

the same thing. And men who have not got a thing, or not got it yet, envy those who have got it quickly. We

can also see what things and what persons give pleasure to envious people, and in what states of mind they

feel it: the states of mind in which they feel pain are those under which they will feel pleasure in the contrary

things. If therefore we ourselves with whom the decision rests are put into an envious state of mind, and those

for whom our pity, or the award of something desirable, is claimed are such as have been described, it is

We will next consider Emulation, showing in what follows its causes and objects, and the state of mind in

which it is felt. Emulation is pain caused by seeing the presence, in persons whose nature is like our own, of

good things that are highly valued and are possible for ourselves to acquire; but it is felt not because others

have these goods, but because we have not got them ourselves. It is therefore a good feeling felt by good

persons, whereas envy is a bad feeling felt by bad persons. Emulation makes us take steps to secure the good

things in question, envy makes us take steps to stop our neighbour having them. Emulation must therefore

tend to be felt by persons who believe themselves to deserve certain good things that they have not got, it

being understood that no one aspires to things which appear impossible. It is accordingly felt by the young

and by persons of lofty disposition. Also by those who possess such good things as are deserved by men held

in honourthese are wealth, abundance of friends, public office, and the like; on the assumption that they

ought to be good men, they are emulous to gain such goods because they ought, in their belief, to belong to

men whose state of mind is good. Also by those whom all others think deserving. We also feel it about

anything for which our ancestors, relatives, personal friends, race, or country are specially honoured, looking

upon that thing as really our own, and therefore feeling that we deserve to have it. Further, since all good

things that are highly honoured are objects of emulation, moral goodness in its various forms must be such an

object, and also all those good things that are useful and serviceable to others: for men honour those who are

morally good, and also those who do them service. So with those good things our possession of which can

give enjoyment to our neighbourswealth and beauty rather than health. We can see, too, what persons are

the objects of the feeling. They are those who have these and similar thingsthose already mentioned, as

courage, wisdom, public office. Holders of public officegenerals, orators, and all who possess such

powerscan do many people a good turn. Also those whom many people wish to be like; those who have

many acquaintances or friends; those whom admire, or whom we ourselves admire; and those who have been

praised and eulogized by poets or prosewriters. Persons of the contrary sort are objects of contempt: for the

feeling and notion of contempt are opposite to those of emulation. Those who are such as to emulate or be

emulated by others are inevitably disposed to be contemptuous of all such persons as are subject to those bad

things which are contrary to the good things that are the objects of emulation: despising them for just that

reason. Hence we often despise the fortunate, when luck comes to them without their having those good

This completes our discussion of the means by which the several emotions may be produced or dissipated,

Let us now consider the various types of human character, in relation to the emotions and moral qualities,

showing how they correspond to our various ages and fortunes. By emotions I mean anger, desire, and the

like; these we have discussed already. By moral qualities I mean virtues and vices; these also have been

discussed already, as well as the various things that various types of men tend to will and to do. By ages I

mean youth, the prime of life, and old age. By fortune I mean birth, wealth, power, and their oppositesin

To begin with the Youthful type of character. Young men have strong passions, and tend to gratify them

indiscriminately. Of the bodily desires, it is the sexual by which they are most swayed and in which they

show absence of selfcontrol. They are changeable and fickle in their desires, which are violent while they

last, but quickly over: their impulses are keen but not deeprooted, and are like sick people's attacks of

hunger and thirst. They are hottempered, and quicktempered, and apt to give way to their anger; bad

temper often gets the better of them, for owing to their love of honour they cannot bear being slighted, and

are indignant if they imagine themselves unfairly treated. While they love honour, they love victory still

more; for youth is eager for superiority over others, and victory is one form of this. They love both more than

they love money, which indeed they love very little, not having yet learnt what it means to be without itthis

is the point of Pittacus' remark about Amphiaraus. They look at the good side rather than the bad, not having

yet witnessed many instances of wickedness. They trust others readily, because they have not yet often been

cheated. They are sanguine; nature warms their blood as though with excess of wine; and besides that, they

have as yet met with few disappointments. Their lives are mainly spent not in memory but in expectation; for

expectation refers to the future, memory to the past, and youth has a long future before it and a short past

behind it: on the first day of one's life one has nothing at all to remember, and can only look forward. They

are easily cheated, owing to the sanguine disposition just mentioned. Their hot tempers and hopeful

dispositions make them more courageous than older men are; the hot temper prevents fear, and the hopeful

disposition creates confidence; we cannot feel fear so long as we are feeling angry, and any expectation of

good makes us confident. They are shy, accepting the rules of society in which they have been trained, and

not yet believing in any other standard of honour. They have exalted notions, because they have not yet been

humbled by life or learnt its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think

themselves equal to great thingsand that means having exalted notions. They would always rather do noble

deeds than useful ones: their lives are regulated more by moral feeling than by reasoning; and whereas

reasoning leads us to choose what is useful, moral goodness leads us to choose what is noble. They are fonder

of their friends, intimates, and companions than older men are, because they like spending their days in the

company of others, and have not yet come to value either their friends or anything else by their usefulness to

themselves. All their mistakes are in the direction of doing things excessively and vehemently. They disobey

Chilon's precept by overdoing everything, they love too much and hate too much, and the same thing with

everything else. They think they know everything, and are always quite sure about it; this, in fact, is why they

overdo everything. If they do wrong to others, it is because they mean to insult them, not to do them actual

harm. They are ready to pity others, because they think every one an honest man, or anyhow better than he is:

they judge their neighbour by their own harmless natures, and so cannot think he deserves to be treated in that

Such, then is the character of the Young. The character of Elderly Menmen who are past their primemay

be said to be formed for the most part of elements that are the contrary of all these. They have lived many

years; they have often been taken in, and often made mistakes; and life on the whole is a bad business. The

result is that they are sure about nothing and underdo everything. They 'think', but they never 'know'; and

because of their hesitation they always add a 'possibly'or a 'perhaps', putting everything this way and nothing

positively. They are cynical; that is, they tend to put the worse construction on everything. Further, their

experience makes them distrustful and therefore suspicious of evil. Consequently they neither love warmly

nor hate bitterly, but following the hint of Bias they love as though they will some day hate and hate as

though they will some day love. They are smallminded, because they have been humbled by life: their

desires are set upon nothing more exalted or unusual than what will help them to keep alive. They are not

generous, because money is one of the things they must have, and at the same time their experience has

taught them how hard it is to get and how easy to lose. They are cowardly, and are always anticipating

danger; unlike that of the young, who are warmblooded, their temperament is chilly; old age has paved the

way for cowardice; fear is, in fact, a form of chill. They love life; and all the more when their last day has

come, because the object of all desire is something we have not got, and also because we desire most strongly

that which we need most urgently. They are too fond of themselves; this is one form that smallmindedness

takes. Because of this, they guide their lives too much by considerations of what is useful and too little by

what is noblefor the useful is what is good for oneself, and the noble what is good absolutely. They are not

shy, but shameless rather; caring less for what is noble than for what is useful, they feel contempt for what

people may think of them. They lack confidence in the future; partly through experiencefor most things go

wrong, or anyhow turn out worse than one expects; and partly because of their cowardice. They live by

memory rather than by hope; for what is left to them of life is but little as compared with the long past; and

hope is of the future, memory of the past. This, again, is the cause of their loquacity; they are continually

talking of the past, because they enjoy remembering it. Their fits of anger are sudden but feeble. Their

sensual passions have either altogether gone or have lost their vigour: consequently they do not feel their

passions much, and their actions are inspired less by what they do feel than by the love of gain. Hence men at

this time of life are often supposed to have a selfcontrolled character; the fact is that their passions have

slackened, and they are slaves to the love of gain. They guide their lives by reasoning more than by moral

feeling; reasoning being directed to utility and moral feeling to moral goodness. If they wrong others, they

mean to injure them, not to insult them. Old men may feel pity, as well as young men, but not for the same

reason. Young men feel it out of kindness; old men out of weakness, imagining that anything that befalls any

one else might easily happen to them, which, as we saw, is a thought that excites pity. Hence they are

querulous, and not disposed to jesting or laughterthe love of laughter being the very opposite of

Such are the characters of Young Men and Elderly Men. People always think well of speeches adapted to,

and reflecting, their own character: and we can now see how to compose our speeches so as to adapt both

As for Men in their Prime, clearly we shall find that they have a character between that of the young and that

of the old, free from the extremes of either. They have neither that excess of confidence which amounts to

rashness, nor too much timidity, but the right amount of each. They neither trust everybody nor distrust

everybody, but judge people correctly. Their lives will be guided not by the sole consideration either of what

is noble or of what is useful, but by both; neither by parsimony nor by prodigality, but by what is fit and

proper. So, too, in regard to anger and desire; they will be brave as well as temperate, and temperate as well

as brave; these virtues are divided between the young and the old; the young are brave but intemperate, the

old temperate but cowardly. To put it generally, all the valuable qualities that youth and age divide between

them are united in the prime of life, while all their excesses or defects are replaced by moderation and fitness.

The body is in its prime from thirty to fiveandthirty; the mind about fortynine.

So much for the types of character that distinguish youth, old age, and the prime of life. We will now turn to

those Gifts of Fortune by which human character is affected. First let us consider Good Birth. Its effect on

character is to make those who have it more ambitious; it is the way of all men who have something to start

with to add to the pile, and good birth implies ancestral distinction. The wellborn man will look down even

on those who are as good as his own ancestors, because any faroff distinction is greater than the same thing

close to us, and better to boast about. Being wellborn, which means coming of a fine stock, must be

distinguished from nobility, which means being true to the family naturea quality not usually found in the

wellborn, most of whom are poor creatures. In the generations of men as in the fruits of the earth, there is a

varying yield; now and then, where the stock is good, exceptional men are produced for a while, and then

decadence sets in. A clever stock will degenerate towards the insane type of character, like the descendants of

Alcibiades or of the elder Dionysius; a steady stock towards the fatuous and torpid type, like the descendants

The type of character produced by Wealth lies on the surface for all to see. Wealthy men are insolent and

arrogant; their possession of wealth affects their understanding; they feel as if they had every good thing that

exists; wealth becomes a sort of standard of value for everything else, and therefore they imagine there is

nothing it cannot buy. They are luxurious and ostentatious; luxurious, because of the luxury in which they

live and the prosperity which they display; ostentatious and vulgar, because, like other people's, their minds

are regularly occupied with the object of their love and admiration, and also because they think that other

people's idea of happiness is the same as their own. It is indeed quite natural that they should be affected thus;

for if you have money, there are always plenty of people who come begging from you. Hence the saying of

Simonides about wise men and rich men, in answer to Hiero's wife, who asked him whether it was better to

grow rich or wise. 'Why, rich,' he said; 'for I see the wise men spending their days at the rich men's doors.'

Rich men also consider themselves worthy to hold public office; for they consider they already have the

things that give a claim to office. In a word, the type of character produced by wealth is that of a prosperous

fool. There is indeed one difference between the type of the newlyenriched and those who have long been

rich: the newlyenriched have all the bad qualities mentioned in an exaggerated and worse formto be

newlyenriched means, so to speak, no education in riches. The wrongs they do others are not meant to injure

their victims, but spring from insolence or selfindulgence, e.g. those that end in assault or in adultery.

As to Power: here too it may fairly be said that the type of character it produces is mostly obvious enough.

Some elements in this type it shares with the wealthy type, others are better. Those in power are more

ambitious and more manly in character than the wealthy, because they aspire to do the great deeds that their

power permits them to do. Responsibility makes them more serious: they have to keep paying attention to the

duties their position involves. They are dignified rather than arrogant, for the respect in which they are held

inspires them with dignity and therefore with moderationdignity being a mild and becoming form of

arrogance. If they wrong others, they wrong them not on a small but on a great scale.

Good fortune in certain of its branches produces the types of character belonging to the conditions just

described, since these conditions are in fact more or less the kinds of good fortune that are regarded as most

important. It may be added that good fortune leads us to gain all we can in the way of family happiness and

bodily advantages. It does indeed make men more supercilious and more reckless; but there is one excellent

quality that goes with itpiety, and respect for the divine power, in which they believe because of events

This account of the types of character that correspond to differences of age or fortune may end here; for to

arrive at the opposite types to those described, namely, those of the poor, the unfortunate, and the powerless,

The use of persuasive speech is to lead to decisions. (When we know a thing, and have decided about it, there

is no further use in speaking about it.) This is so even if one is addressing a single person and urging him to

do or not to do something, as when we scold a man for his conduct or try to change his views: the single

person is as much your 'judge' as if he were one of many; we may say, without qualification, that any one is

your judge whom you have to persuade. Nor does it matter whether we are arguing against an actual

opponent or against a mere proposition; in the latter case we still have to use speech and overthrow the

opposing arguments, and we attack these as we should attack an actual opponent. Our principle holds good of

ceremonial speeches also; the 'onlookers' for whom such a speech is put together are treated as the judges of

it. Broadly speaking, however, the only sort of person who can strictly be called a judge is the man who

decides the issue in some matter of public controversy; that is, in law suits and in political debates, in both of

which there are issues to be decided. In the section on political oratory an account has already been given of

The manner and means of investing speeches with moral character may now be regarded as fully set forth.

Each of the main divisions of oratory has, we have seen, its own distinct purpose. With regard to each

division, we have noted the accepted views and propositions upon which we may base our argumentsfor

political, for ceremonial, and for forensic speaking. We have further determined completely by what means

speeches may be invested with the required moral character. We are now to proceed to discuss the arguments

common to all oratory. All orators, besides their special lines of argument, are bound to use, for instance, the

topic of the Possible and Impossible; and to try to show that a thing has happened, or will happen in future.

Again, the topic of Size is common to all oratory; all of us have to argue that things are bigger or smaller than

they seem, whether we are making political speeches, speeches of eulogy or attack, or prosecuting or

defending in the lawcourts. Having analysed these subjects, we will try to say what we can about the general

principles of arguing by 'enthymeme' and 'example', by the addition of which we may hope to complete the

project with which we set out. Of the abovementioned general lines of argument, that concerned with

Amplification isas has been already saidmost appropriate to ceremonial speeches; that concerned with the

Past, to forensic speeches, where the required decision is always about the past; that concerned with

Let us first speak of the Possible and Impossible. It may plausibly be argued: That if it is possible for one of a

pair of contraries to be or happen, then it is possible for the other: e.g. if a man can be cured, he can also fall

ill; for any two contraries are equally possible, in so far as they are contraries. That if of two similar things

one is possible, so is the other. That if the harder of two things is possible, so is the easier. That if a thing can

come into existence in a good and beautiful form, then it can come into existence generally; thus a house can

exist more easily than a beautiful house. That if the beginning of a thing can occur, so can the end; for

nothing impossible occurs or begins to occur; thus the commensurability of the diagonal of a square with its

side neither occurs nor can begin to occur. That if the end is possible, so is the beginning; for all things that

occur have a beginning. That if that which is posterior in essence or in order of generation can come into

being, so can that which is prior: thus if a man can come into being, so can a boy, since the boy comes first in

order of generation; and if a boy can, so can a man, for the man also is first. That those things are possible of

which the love or desire is natural; for no one, as a rule, loves or desires impossibilities. That things which are

the object of any kind of science or art are possible and exist or come into existence. That anything is possible

the first step in whose production depends on men or things which we can compel or persuade to produce it,

by our greater strength, our control of them, or our friendship with them. That where the parts are possible,

the whole is possible; and where the whole is possible, the parts are usually possible. For if the slit in front,

the toepiece, and the upper leather can be made, then shoes can be made; and if shoes, then also the front slit

and toepiece. That if a whole genus is a thing that can occur, so can the species; and if the species can occur,

so can the genus: thus, if a sailing vessel can be made, so also can a trireme; and if a trireme, then a sailing

vessel also. That if one of two things whose existence depends on each other is possible, so is the other; for

instance, if 'double', then 'half', and if 'half', then 'double'. That if a thing can be produced without art or

preparation, it can be produced still more certainly by the careful application of art to it. Hence Agathon has

That if anything is possible to inferior, weaker, and stupider people, it is more so for their opposites; thus

Isocrates said that it would be a strange thing if he could not discover a thing that Euthynus had found out. As

for Impossibility, we can clearly get what we want by taking the contraries of the arguments stated above.

Questions of Past Fact may be looked at in the following ways: First, that if the less likely of two things has

occurred, the more likely must have occurred also. That if one thing that usually follows another has

happened, then that other thing has happened; that, for instance, if a man has forgotten a thing, he has also

once learnt it. That if a man had the power and the wish to do a thing, he has done it; for every one does do

whatever he intends to do whenever he can do it, there being nothing to stop him. That, further, he has done

the thing in question either if he intended it and nothing external prevented him; or if he had the power to do

it and was angry at the time; or if he had the power to do it and his heart was set upon itfor people as a rule

do what they long to do, if they can; bad people through lack of selfcontrol; good people, because their

hearts are set upon good things. Again, that if a thing was 'going to happen', it has happened; if a man was

'going to do something', he has done it, for it is likely that the intention was carried out. That if one thing has

happened which naturally happens before another or with a view to it, the other has happened; for instance, if

it has lightened, it has also thundered; and if an action has been attempted, it has been done. That if one thing

has happened which naturally happens after another, or with a view to which that other happens, then that

other (that which happens first, or happens with a view to this thing) has also happened; thus, if it has

thundered it has lightened, and if an action has been done it has been attempted. Of all these sequences some

are inevitable and some merely usual. The arguments for the nonoccurrence of anything can obviously be

How questions of Future Fact should be argued is clear from the same considerations: That a thing will be

done if there is both the power and the wish to do it; or if along with the power to do it there is a craving for

the result, or anger, or calculation, prompting it. That the thing will be done, in these cases, if the man is

actually setting about it, or even if he means to do it laterfor usually what we mean to do happens rather

than what we do not mean to do. That a thing will happen if another thing which naturally happens before it

has already happened; thus, if it is clouding over, it is likely to rain. That if the means to an end have

occurred, then the end is likely to occur; thus, if there is a foundation, there will be a house.

For arguments about the Greatness and Smallness of things, the greater and the lesser, and generally great

things and small, what we have already said will show the line to take. In discussing deliberative oratory we

have spoken about the relative greatness of various goods, and about the greater and lesser in general. Since

therefore in each type oratory the object under discussion is some kind of goodwhether it is utility,

nobleness, or justiceit is clear that every orator must obtain the materials of amplification through these

channels. To go further than this, and try to establish abstract laws of greatness and superiority, is to argue

without an object; in practical life, particular facts count more than generalizations.

Enough has now been said about these questions of possibility and the reverse, of past or future fact, and of

The special forms of oratorical argument having now been discussed, we have next to treat of those which are

common to all kinds of oratory. These are of two main kinds, 'Example' and 'Enthymeme'; for the 'Maxim' is

We will first treat of argument by Example, for it has the nature of induction, which is the foundation of

reasoning. This form of argument has two varieties; one consisting in the mention of actual past facts, the

other in the invention of facts by the speaker. Of the latter, again, there are two varieties, the illustrative

parallel and the fable (e.g. the fables of Aesop, those from Libya). As an instance of the mention of actual

facts, take the following. The speaker may argue thus: 'We must prepare for war against the king of Persia

and not let him subdue Egypt. For Darius of old did not cross the Aegean until he had seized Egypt; but once

he had seized it, he did cross. And Xerxes, again, did not attack us until he had seized Egypt; but once he had

seized it, he did cross. If therefore the present king seizes Egypt, he also will cross, and therefore we must not

The illustrative parallel is the sort of argument Socrates used: e.g. 'Public officials ought not to be selected by

lot. That is like using the lot to select athletes, instead of choosing those who are fit for the contest; or using

the lot to select a steersman from among a ship's crew, as if we ought to take the man on whom the lot falls,

Instances of the fable are that of Stesichorus about Phalaris, and that of Aesop in defence of the popular

leader. When the people of Himera had made Phalaris military dictator, and were going to give him a

bodyguard, Stesichorus wound up a long talk by telling them the fable of the horse who had a field all to

himself. Presently there came a stag and began to spoil his pasturage. The horse, wishing to revenge himself

on the stag, asked a man if he could help him to do so. The man said, 'Yes, if you will let me bridle you and

get on to your back with javelins in my hand'. The horse agreed, and the man mounted; but instead of getting

his revenge on the stag, the horse found himself the slave of the man. 'You too', said Stesichorus, 'take care

lest your desire for revenge on your enemies, you meet the same fate as the horse. By making Phalaris

military dictator, you have already let yourselves be bridled. If you let him get on to your backs by giving

Aesop, defending before the assembly at Samos a poular leader who was being tried for his life, told this

story: A fox, in crossing a river, was swept into a hole in the rocks; and, not being able to get out, suffered

miseries for a long time through the swarms of fleas that fastened on her. A hedgehog, while roaming around,

noticed the fox; and feeling sorry for her asked if he might remove the fleas. But the fox declined the offer;

and when the hedgehog asked why, she replied, 'These fleas are by this time full of me and not sucking much

blood; if you take them away, others will come with fresh appetites and drink up all the blood I have left.' 'So,

men of Samos', said Aesop, 'my client will do you no further harm; he is wealthy already. But if you put him

to death, others will come along who are not rich, and their peculations will empty your treasury completely.'

Fables are suitable for addresses to popular assemblies; and they have one advantagethey are comparatively

easy to invent, whereas it is hard to find parallels among actual past events. You will in fact frame them just

as you frame illustrative parallels: all you require is the power of thinking out your analogy, a power

developed by intellectual training. But while it is easier to supply parallels by inventing fables, it is more

valuable for the political speaker to supply them by quoting what has actually happened, since in most

Where we are unable to argue by Enthymeme, we must try to demonstrate our point by this method of

Example, and to convince our hearers thereby. If we can argue by Enthymeme, we should use our Examples

as subsequent supplementary evidence. They should not precede the Enthymemes: that will give the

argument an inductive air, which only rarely suits the conditions of speechmaking. If they follow the

enthymemes, they have the effect of witnesses giving evidence, and this alway tells. For the same reason, if

you put your examples first you must give a large number of them; if you put them last, a single one is

sufficient; even a single witness will serve if he is a good one. It has now been stated how many varieties of

We now turn to the use of Maxims, in order to see upon what subjects and occasions, and for what kind of

speaker, they will appropriately form part of a speech. This will appear most clearly when we have defined a

maxim. It is a statement; not a particular fact, such as the character of lphicrates, but of a general kind; nor is

it about any and every subjecte.g. 'straight is the contrary of curved' is not a maximbut only about

questions of practical conduct, courses of conduct to be chosen or avoided. Now an Enthymeme is a

syllogism dealing with such practical subjects. It is therefore roughly true that the premisses or conclusions of

Here we have a Maxim; add the reason or explanation, and the whole thing is an Enthymeme; thus

From this definition of a maxim it follows that there are four kinds of maxims. In the first Place, the maxim

may or may not have a supplement. Proof is needed where the statement is paradoxical or disputable; no

supplement is wanted where the statement contains nothing paradoxical, either because the view expressed is

this being the general opinion: or because, as soon as the view is stated, it is clear at a glance, e.g.

Of the Maxims that do have a supplement attached, some are part of an Enthymeme, e.g.

Others have the essential character of Enthymemes, but are not stated as parts of Enthymemes; these latter are

reckoned the best; they are those in which the reason for the view expressed is simply implied, e.g.

To say 'it is not right to nurse immortal wrath' is a maxim; the added words 'mortal man' give the reason.

What has been said has shown us how many kinds of Maxims there are, and to what subjects the various

kinds are appropriate. They must not be given without supplement if they express disputed or paradoxical

views: we must, in that case, either put the supplement first and make a maxim of the conclusion, e.g. you

might say, 'For my part, since both unpopularity and idleness are undesirable, I hold that it is better not to be

educated'; or you may say this first, and then add the previous clause. Where a statement, without being

paradoxical, is not obviously true, the reason should be added as concisely as possible. In such cases both

laconic and enigmatic sayings are suitable: thus one might say what Stesichorus said to the Locrians,

The use of Maxims is appropriate only to elderly men, and in handling subjects in which the speaker is

experienced. For a young man to use them islike telling storiesunbecoming; to use them in handling things

in which one has no experience is silly and illbred: a fact sufficiently proved by the special fondness of

To declare a thing to be universally true when it is not is most appropriate when working up feelings of

horror and indignation in our hearers; especially by way of preface, or after the facts have been proved. Even

hackneyed and commonplace maxims are to be used, if they suit one's purpose: just because they are

commonplace, every one seems to agree with them, and therefore they are taken for truth. Thus, any one who

is calling on his men to risk an engagement without obtaining favourable omens may quote

Some proverbs are also maxims, e.g. the proverb 'An Attic neighbour'. You are not to avoid uttering maxims

that contradict such sayings as have become public property (I mean such sayings as 'know thyself' and

'nothing in excess') if doing so will raise your hearers' opinion of your character, or convey an effect of strong

emotione.g. an angry speaker might well say, 'It is not true that we ought to know ourselves: anyhow, if

this man had known himself, he would never have thought himself fit for an army command.' It will raise

people's opinion of our character to say, for instance, 'We ought not to follow the saying that bids us treat our

friends as future enemies: much better to treat our enemies as future friends.' The moral purpose should be

implied partly by the very wording of our maxim. Failing this, we should add our reason: e.g. having said

'We should treat our friends, not as the saying advises, but as if they were going to be our friends always', we

should add 'for the other behaviour is that of a traitor': or we might put it, I disapprove of that saying. A true

friend will treat his friend as if he were going to be his friend for ever'; and again, 'Nor do I approve of the

saying "nothing in excess": we are bound to hate bad men excessively.' One great advantage of Maxims to a

speaker is due to the want of intelligence in his hearers, who love to hear him succeed in expressing as a

universal truth the opinions which they hold themselves about particular cases. I will explain what I mean by

this, indicating at the same time how we are to hunt down the maxims required. The maxim, as has been

already said, a general statement and people love to hear stated in general terms what they already believe in

some particular connexion: e.g. if a man happens to have bad neighbours or bad children, he will agree with

any one who tells him, 'Nothing is more annoying than having neighbours', or, 'Nothing is more foolish than

to be the parent of children.' The orator has therefore to guess the subjects on which his hearers really hold

views already, and what those views are, and then must express, as general truths, these same views on these

same subjects. This is one advantage of using maxims. There is another which is more importantit invests a

speech with moral character. There is moral character in every speech in which the moral purpose is

conspicuous: and maxims always produce this effect, because the utterance of them amounts to a general

declaration of moral principles: so that, if the maxims are sound, they display the speaker as a man of sound

moral character. So much for the Maximits nature, varieties, proper use, and advantages.

We now come to the Enthymemes, and will begin the subject with some general consideration of the proper

way of looking for them, and then proceed to what is a distinct question, the lines of argument to be

embodied in them. It has already been pointed out that the Enthymeme is a syllogism, and in what sense it is

so. We have also noted the differences between it and the syllogism of dialectic. Thus we must not carry its

reasoning too far back, or the length of our argument will cause obscurity: nor must we put in all the steps

that lead to our conclusion, or we shall waste words in saying what is manifest. It is this simplicity that makes

the uneducated more effective than the educated when addressing popular audiencesmakes them, as the

poets tell us, 'charm the crowd's ears more finely'. Educated men lay down broad general principles;

uneducated men argue from common knowledge and draw obvious conclusions. We must not, therefore, start

from any and every accepted opinion, but only from those we have definedthose accepted by our judges or

by those whose authority they recognize: and there must, moreover, be no doubt in the minds of most, if not

all, of our judges that the opinions put forward really are of this sort. We should also base our arguments

The first thing we have to remember is this. Whether our argument concerns public affairs or some other

subject, we must know some, if not all, of the facts about the subject on which we are to speak and argue.

Otherwise we can have no materials out of which to construct arguments. I mean, for instance, how could we

advise the Athenians whether they should go to war or not, if we did not know their strength, whether it was

naval or military or both, and how great it is; what their revenues amount to; who their friends and enemies

are; what wars, too, they have waged, and with what success; and so on? Or how could we eulogize them if

we knew nothing about the seafight at Salamis, or the battle of Marathon, or what they did for the

Heracleidae, or any other facts like that? All eulogy is based upon the noble deedsreal or imaginarythat

stand to the credit of those eulogized. On the same principle, invectives are based on facts of the opposite

kind: the orator looks to see what base deedsreal or imaginarystand to the discredit of those he is

attacking, such as treachery to the cause of Hellenic freedom, or the enslavement of their gallant allies against

the barbarians (Aegina, Potidaea, or any other misdeeds of this kind that are recorded against them. So, too,

in a court of law: whether we are prosecuting or defending, we must pay attention to the existing facts of the

case. It makes no difference whether the subject is the Lacedaemonians or the Athenians, a man or a god; we

must do the same thing. Suppose it to be Achilles whom we are to advise, to praise or blame, to accuse or

defend; here too we must take the facts, real or imaginary; these must be our material, whether we are to

praise or blame him for the noble or base deeds he has done, to accuse or defend him for his just or unjust

treatment of others, or to advise him about what is or is not to his interest. The same thing applies to any

subject whatever. Thus, in handling the question whether justice is or is not a good, we must start with the

real facts about justice and goodness. We see, then, that this is the only way in which any one ever proves

anything, whether his arguments are strictly cogent or not: not all facts can form his basis, but only those that

bear on the matter in hand: nor, plainly, can proof be effected otherwise by means of the speech.

Consequently, as appears in the Topics, we must first of all have by us a selection of arguments about

questions that may arise and are suitable for us to handle; and then we must try to think out arguments of the

same type for special needs as they emerge; not vaguely and indefinitely, but by keeping our eyes on the

actual facts of the subject we have to speak on, and gathering in as many of them as we can that bear closely

upon it: for the more actual facts we have at our command, the more easily we prove our case; and the more

closely they bear on the subject, the more they will seem to belong to that speech only instead of being

commonplaces. By 'commonplaces' I mean, for example, eulogy of Achilles because he is a human being or a

demigod, or because he joined the expedition against Troy: these things are true of many others, so that this

kind of eulogy applies no better to Achilles than to Diomede. The special facts here needed are those that are

true of Achilles alone; such facts as that he slew Hector, the bravest of the Trojans, and Cycnus the

invulnerable, who prevented all the Greeks from landing, and again that he was the youngest man who joined

Here, again, we have our first principle of selection of Enthymemesthat which refers to the lines of

argument selected. We will now consider the various elementary classes of enthymemes. (By an 'elementary

class' of enthymeme I mean the same thing as a 'line of argument'.) We will begin, as we must begin, by

observing that there are two kinds of enthymemes. One kind proves some affirmative or negative proposition;

the other kind disproves one. The difference between the two kinds is the same as that between syllogistic

proof and disproof in dialectic. The demonstrative enthymeme is formed by the conjunction of compatible

We may now be said to have in our hands the lines of argument for the various special subjects that it is

useful or necessary to handle, having selected the propositions suitable in various cases. We have, in fact,

already ascertained the lines of argument applicable to enthymemes about good and evil, the noble and the

base, justice and injustice, and also to those about types of character, emotions, and moral qualities. Let us

now lay hold of certain facts about the whole subject, considered from a different and more general point of

view. In the course of our discussion we will take note of the distinction between lines of proof and lines of

disproof: and also of those lines of argument used in what seems to be enthymemes, but are not, since they do

not represent valid syllogisms. Having made all this clear, we will proceed to classify Objections and

1. One line of positive proof is based upon consideration of the opposite of the thing in question. Observe

whether that opposite has the opposite quality. If it has not, you refute the original proposition; if it has, you

establish it. E.g. 'Temperance is beneficial; for licentiousness is hurtful'. Or, as in the Messenian speech, 'If

war is the cause of our present troubles, peace is what we need to put things right again'. Or

2. Another line of proof is got by considering some modification of the keyword, and arguing that what can

or cannot be said of the one, can or cannot be said of the other: e.g. 'just' does not always mean 'beneficial', or

'justly' would always mean 'beneficially', whereas it is not desirable to be justly put to death.

3. Another line of proof is based upon correlative ideas. If it is true that one man noble or just treatment to

another, you argue that the other must have received noble or just treatment; or that where it is right to

command obedience, it must have been right to obey the command. Thus Diomedon, the taxfarmer, said of

the taxes: 'If it is no disgrace for you to sell them, it is no disgrace for us to buy them'. Further, if 'well' or

'justly' is true of the person to whom a thing is done, you argue that it is true of the doer. But it is possible to

draw a false conclusion here. It may be just that A should be treated in a certain way, and yet not just that he

should be so treated by B. Hence you must ask yourself two distinct questions: (1) Is it right that A should be

thus treated? (2) Is it right that B should thus treat him? and apply your results properly, according as your

answers are Yes or No. Sometimes in such a case the two answers differ: you may quite easily have a

Again there is the lawsuit about Demosthenes and the men who killed Nicanor; as they were judged to have

killed him justly, it was thought that he was killed justly. And in the case of the man who was killed at

Thebes, the judges were requested to decide whether it was unjust that he should be killed, since if it was not,

4. Another line of proof is the 'a fortiori'. Thus it may be argued that if even the gods are not omniscient,

certainly human beings are not. The principle here is that, if a quality does not in fact exist where it is more

likely to exist, it clearly does not exist where it is less likely. Again, the argument that a man who strikes his

father also strikes his neighbours follows from the principle that, if the less likely thing is true, the more

likely thing is true also; for a man is less likely to strike his father than to strike his neighbours. The

argument, then, may run thus. Or it may be urged that, if a thing is not true where it is more likely, it is not

true where it is less likely; or that, if it is true where it is less likely, it is true where it is more likely:

according as we have to show that a thing is or is not true. This argument might also be used in a case of

And, again, 'if Theseus did no wrong, neither did Paris'; or 'the sons of Tyndareus did no wrong, neither did

Paris'; or 'if Hector did well to slay Patroclus, Paris did well to slay Achilles'. And 'if other followers of an art

are not bad men, neither are philosophers'. And 'if generals are not bad men because it often happens that they

are condemned to death, neither are sophists'. And the remark that 'if each individual among you ought to

think of his own city's reputation, you ought all to think of the reputation of Greece as a whole'.

5. Another line of argument is based on considerations of time. Thus Iphicrates, in the case against

Harmodius, said, 'if before doing the deed I had bargained that, if I did it, I should have a statue, you would

have given me one. Will you not give me one now that I have done the deed? You must not make promises

when you are expecting a thing to be done for you, and refuse to fulfil them when the thing has been done.'

And, again, to induce the Thebans to let Philip pass through their territory into Attica, it was argued that 'if he

had insisted on this before he helped them against the Phocians, they would have promised to do it. It is

monstrous, therefore, that just because he threw away his advantage then, and trusted their honour, they

6. Another line is to apply to the other speaker what he has said against yourself. It is an excellent turn to give

to a debate, as may be seen in the Teucer. It was employed by Iphicrates in his reply to Aristophon. 'Would

you', he asked, 'take a bribe to betray the fleet?' 'No', said Aristophon; and Iphicrates replied, 'Very good: if

you, who are Aristophon, would not betray the fleet, would I, who am Iphicrates?' Only, it must be

recognized beforehand that the other man is more likely than you are to commit the crime in question.

Otherwise you will make yourself ridiculous; it is Aristeides who is prosecuting, you cannot say that sort of

thing to him. The purpose is to discredit the prosecutor, who as a rule would have it appear that his character

is better than that of the defendant, a pretension which it is desirable to upset. But the use of such an

argument is in all cases ridiculous if you are attacking others for what you do or would do yourself, or are

7. Another line of proof is secured by defining your terms. Thus, 'What is the supernatural? Surely it is either

a god or the work of a god. Well, any one who believes that the work of a god exists, cannot help also

believing that gods exist.' Or take the argument of Iphicrates, 'Goodness is true nobility; neither Harmodius

nor Aristogeiton had any nobility before they did a noble deed'. He also argued that he himself was more akin

to Harmodius and Aristogeiton than his opponent was. 'At any rate, my deeds are more akin to those of

Harmodius and Aristogeiton than yours are'. Another example may be found in the Alexander. 'Every one

will agree that by incontinent people we mean those who are not satisfied with the enjoyment of one love.' A

further example is to be found in the reason given by Socrates for not going to the court of Archelaus. He said

that 'one is insulted by being unable to requite benefits, as well as by being unable to requite injuries'. All the

persons mentioned define their term and get at its essential meaning, and then use the result when reasoning

8. Another line of argument is founded upon the various senses of a word. Such a word is 'rightly', as has

been explained in the Topics. Another line is based upon logical division. Thus, 'All men do wrong from one

of three motives, A, B, or C: in my case A and B are out of the question, and even the accusers do not allege

10. Another line is based upon induction. Thus from the case of the woman of Peparethus it might be argued

that women everywhere can settle correctly the facts about their children. Another example of this occurred at

Athens in the case between the orator Mantias and his son, when the boy's mother revealed the true facts: and

yet another at Thebes, in the case between Ismenias and Stilbon, when Dodonis proved that it was Ismenias

who was the father of her son Thettaliscus, and he was in consequence always regarded as being so. A further

instance of induction may be taken from the Law of Theodectes: 'If we do not hand over our horses to the

care of men who have mishandled other people's horses, nor ships to those who have wrecked other people's

ships, and if this is true of everything else alike, then men who have failed to secure other people's safety are

not to be employed to secure our own.' Another instance is the argument of Alcidamas: 'Every one honours

the wise'. Thus the Parians have honoured Archilochus, in spite of his bitter tongue; the Chians Homer,

though he was not their countryman; the Mytilenaeans Sappho, though she was a woman; the

Lacedaemonians actually made Chilon a member of their senate, though they are the least literary of men; the

Italian Greeks honoured Pythagoras; the inhabitants of Lampsacus gave public burial to Anaxagoras, though

he was an alien, and honour him even to this day. (It may be argued that peoples for whom philosophers

legislate are always prosperous) on the ground that the Athenians became prosperous under Solon's laws and

the Lacedaemonians under those of Lycurgus, while at Thebes no sooner did the leading men become

11. Another line of argument is founded upon some decision already pronounced, whether on the same

subject or on one like it or contrary to it. Such a proof is most effective if every one has always decided thus;

but if not every one, then at any rate most people; or if all, or most, wise or good men have thus decided, or

the actual judges of the present question, or those whose authority they accept, or any one whose decision

they cannot gainsay because he has complete control over them, or those whom it is not seemly to gainsay, as

the gods, or one's father, or one's teachers. Thus Autocles said, when attacking Mixidemides, that it was a

strange thing that the Dread Goddesses could without loss of dignity submit to the judgement of the

Areopagus, and yet Mixidemides could not. Or as Sappho said, 'Death is an evil thing; the gods have so

judged it, or they would die'. Or again as Aristippus said in reply to Plato when he spoke somewhat too

dogmatically, as Aristippus thought: 'Well, anyhow, our friend', meaning Socrates, 'never spoke like that'.

And Hegesippus, having previously consulted Zeus at Olympia, asked Apollo at Delphi 'whether his opinion

was the same as his father's', implying that it would be shameful for him to contradict his father. Thus too

Isocrates argued that Helen must have been a good woman, because Theseus decided that she was; and Paris

a good man, because the goddesses chose him before all others; and Evagoras also, says Isocrates, was good,

since when Conon met with his misfortune he betook himself to Evagoras without trying any one else on the

12. Another line of argument consists in taking separately the parts of a subject. Such is that given in the

Topics: 'What sort of motion is the soul? for it must be this or that.' The Socrates of Theodectes provides an

example: 'What temple has he profaned? What gods recognized by the state has he not honoured?'

13. Since it happens that any given thing usually has both good and bad consequences, another line of

argument consists in using those consequences as a reason for urging that a thing should or should not be

done, for prosecuting or defending any one, for eulogy or censure. E.g. education leads both to unpopularity,

which is bad, and to wisdom, which is good. Hence you either argue, 'It is therefore not well to be educated,

since it is not well to be unpopular': or you answer, 'No, it is well to be educated, since it is well to be wise'.

The Art of Rhetoric of Callippus is made up of this line of argument, with the addition of those of Possibility

14. Another line of argument is used when we have to urge or discourage a course of action that may be done

in either of two opposite ways, and have to apply the method just mentioned to both. The difference between

this one and the last is that, whereas in the last any two things are contrasted, here the things contrasted are

opposites. For instance, the priestess enjoined upon her son not to take to public speaking: 'For', she said, 'if

you say what is right, men will hate you; if you say what is wrong, the gods will hate you.' The reply might

be, 'On the contrary, you ought to take to public speaking: for if you say what is right the gods will love you;

if you say what is wrong, men will love you.' This amounts to the proverbial 'buying the marsh with the salt'.

It is just this situation, viz. when each of two opposites has both a good and a bad consequence opposite

15. Another line of argument is this: The things people approve of openly are not those which they approve

of secretly: openly, their chief praise is given to justice and nobleness; but in their hearts they prefer their

own advantage. Try, in face of this, to establish the point of view which your opponent has not adopted. This

16. Another line is that of rational correspondence. E.g. Iphicrates, when they were trying to compel his son,

a youth under the prescribed age, to perform one of the state duties because he was tall, said 'If you count tall

boys men, you will next be voting short men boys'. And Theodectes in his Law said, 'You make citizens of

such mercenaries as Strabax and Charidemus, as a reward of their merits; will you not make exiles of such

17. Another line is the argument that if two results are the same their antecedents are also the same. For

instance, it was a saying of Xenophanes that to assert that the gods had birth is as impious as to say that they

die; the consequence of both statements is that there is a time when the gods do not exist. This line of proof

assumes generally that the result of any given thing is always the same: e.g. 'you are going to decide not

about Isocrates, but about the value of the whole profession of philosophy.' Or, 'to give earth and water'

means slavery; or, 'to share in the Common Peace' means obeying orders. We are to make either such

18. Another line of argument is based on the fact that men do not always make the same choice on a later as

on an earlier occasion, but reverse their previous choice. E.g. the following enthymeme: 'When we were

exiles, we fought in order to return; now we have returned, it would be strange to choose exile in order not to

have to fight.' one occasion, that is, they chose to be true to their homes at the cost of fighting, and on the

19. Another line of argument is the assertion that some possible motive for an event or state of things is the

real one: e.g. that a gift was given in order to cause pain by its withdrawal. This notion underlies the lines:

Or the argument in the Ajax of Theodectes, that Diomede chose out Odysseus not to do him honour, but in

order that his companion might be a lesser man than himselfsuch a motive for doing so is quite possible.

20. Another line of argument is common to forensic and deliberative oratory, namely, to consider

inducements and deterrents, and the motives people have for doing or avoiding the actions in question. These

are the conditions which make us bound to act if they are for us, and to refrain from action if they are against

us: that is, we are bound to act if the action is possible, easy, and useful to ourselves or our friends or hurtful

to our enemies; this is true even if the action entails loss, provided the loss is outweighed by the solid

advantage. A speaker will urge action by pointing to such conditions, and discourage it by pointing to the

opposite. These same arguments also form the materials for accusation or defencethe deterrents being

pointed out by the defence, and the inducements by the prosecution. As for the defence,...This topic forms the

21. Another line of argument refers to things which are supposed to happen and yet seem incredible. We may

argue that people could not have believed them, if they had not been true or nearly true: even that they are the

more likely to be true because they are incredible. For the things which men believe are either facts or

probabilities: if, therefore, a thing that is believed is improbable and even incredible, it must be true, since it

is certainly not believed because it is at all probable or credible. An example is what Androcles of the deme

Pitthus said in his wellknown arraignment of the law. The audience tried to shout him down when he

observed that the laws required a law to set them right. 'Why', he went on, 'fish need salt, improbable and

incredible as this might seem for creatures reared in salt water; and olivecakes need oil, incredible as it is

22. Another line of argument is to refute our opponent's case by noting any contrasts or contradictions of

dates, acts, or words that it anywhere displays; and this in any of the three following connexions. (1)

Referring to our opponent's conduct, e.g. 'He says he is devoted to you, yet he conspired with the Thirty.' (2)

Referring to our own conduct, e.g. 'He says I am litigious, and yet he cannot prove that I have been engaged

in a single lawsuit.' (3) Referring to both of us together, e.g. 'He has never even lent any one a penny, but I

23. Another line that is useful for men and causes that have been really or seemingly slandered, is to show

why the facts are not as supposed; pointing out that there is a reason for the false impression given. Thus a

woman, who had palmed off her son on another woman, was thought to be the lad's mistress because she

embraced him; but when her action was explained the charge was shown to be groundless. Another example

is from the Ajax of Theodectes, where Odysseus tells Ajax the reason why, though he is really braver than

24. Another line of argument is to show that if the cause is present, the effect is present, and if absent, absent.

For by proving the cause you at once prove the effect, and conversely nothing can exist without its cause.

Thus Thrasybulus accused Leodamas of having had his name recorded as a criminal on the slab in the

Acropolis, and of erasing the record in the time of the Thirty Tyrants: to which Leodamas replied,

'Impossible: for the Thirty would have trusted me all the more if my quarrel with the commons had been

25. Another line is to consider whether the accused person can take or could have taken a better course than

that which he is recommending or taking, or has taken. If he has not taken this better course, it is clear that he

is not guilty, since no one deliberately and consciously chooses what is bad. This argument is, however,

fallacious, for it often becomes clear after the event how the action could have been done better, though

26. Another line is, when a contemplated action is inconsistent with any past action, to examine them both

together. Thus, when the people of Elea asked Xenophanes if they should or should not sacrifice to Leucothea

and mourn for her, he advised them not to mourn for her if they thought her a goddess, and not to sacrifice to

27. Another line is to make previous mistakes the grounds of accusation or defence. Thus, in the Medea of

Carcinus the accusers allege that Medea has slain her children; 'at all events', they say, 'they are not to be

seen'Medea having made the mistake of sending her children away. In defence she argues that it is not her

children, but Jason, whom she would have slain; for it would have been a mistake on her part not to do this if

she had done the other. This special line of argument for enthymeme forms the whole of the Art of Rhetoric

This line of argument is common in praises of the gods. Thus, too, Conon called Thrasybulus rash in counsel.

And Herodicus said of Thrasymachus, 'You are always bold in battle'; of Polus, 'you are always a colt'; and of

the legislator Draco that his laws were those not of a human being but of a dragon, so savage were they. And,

The Refutative Enthymeme has a greater reputation than the Demonstrative, because within a small space it

works out two opposing arguments, and arguments put side by side are clearer to the audience. But of all

syllogisms, whether refutative or demonstrative, those are most applauded of which we foresee the

conclusions from the beginning, so long as they are not obvious at first sightfor part of the pleasure we feel

is at our own intelligent anticipation; or those which we follow well enough to see the point of them as soon

Besides genuine syllogisms, there may be syllogisms that look genuine but are not; and since an enthymeme

is merely a syllogism of a particular kind, it follows that, besides genuine enthymemes, there may be those

1. Among the lines of argument that form the Spurious Enthymeme the first is that which arises from the

(a) One variety of this is whenas in dialectic, without having gone through any reasoning process, we make

a final statement as if it were the conclusion of such a process, 'Therefore soandso is not true', 'Therefore

also soandso must be true'so too in rhetoric a compact and antithetical utterance passes for an

enthymeme, such language being the proper province of enthymeme, so that it is seemingly the form of

wording here that causes the illusion mentioned. In order to produce the effect of genuine reasoning by our

form of wording it is useful to summarize the results of a number of previous reasonings: as 'some he

savedothers he avengedthe Greeks he freed'. Each of these statements has been previously proved from

other facts; but the mere collocation of them gives the impression of establishing some fresh conclusion.

(b) Another variety is based on the use of similar words for different things; e.g. the argument that the mouse

must be a noble creature, since it gives its name to the most august of all religious ritesfor such the

Mysteries are. Or one may introduce, into a eulogy of the dog, the dogstar; or Pan, because Pindar said:

or we may argue that, because there is much disgrace in there not being a dog about, there is honour in being

a dog. Or that Hermes is readier than any other god to go shares, since we never say 'shares all round' except

of him. Or that speech is a very excellent thing, since good men are not said to be worth money but to be

worthy of esteemthe phrase 'worthy of esteem' also having the meaning of 'worth speech'.

2. Another line is to assert of the whole what is true of the parts, or of the parts what is true of the whole. A

whole and its parts are supposed to be identical, though often they are not. You have therefore to adopt

whichever of these two lines better suits your purpose. That is how Euthydemus argues: e.g. that any one

knows that there is a trireme in the Peiraeus, since he knows the separate details that make up this statement.

There is also the argument that one who knows the letters knows the whole word, since the word is the same

thing as the letters which compose it; or that, if a double portion of a certain thing is harmful to health, then a

single portion must not be called wholesome, since it is absurd that two good things should make one bad

thing. Put thus, the enthymeme is refutative; put as follows; demonstrative: 'For one good thing cannot be

made up of two bad things.' The whole line of argument is fallacious. Again, there is Polycrates' saying that

Thrasybulus put down thirty tyrants, where the speaker adds them up one by one. Or the argument in the

'It is right, too, that the son should avenge his father. Very good: these two things are what Orestes has done.'

Still, perhaps the two things, once they are put together, do not form a right act. The fallacy might also be

said to be due to omission, since the speaker fails to say by whose hand a husbandslayer should die.

3. Another line is the use of indignant language, whether to support your own case or to overthrow your

opponent's. We do this when we paint a highlycoloured picture of the situation without having proved the

facts of it: if the defendant does so, he produces an impression of his innocence; and if the prosecutor goes

into a passion, he produces an impression of the defendant's guilt. Here there is no genuine enthymeme: the

hearer infers guilt or innocence, but no proof is given, and the inference is fallacious accordingly.

4. Another line is to use a 'Sign', or single instance, as certain evidence; which, again, yields no valid proof.

Thus, it might be said that lovers are useful to their countries, since the love of Harmodius and Aristogeiton

caused the downfall of the tyrant Hipparchus. Or, again, that Dionysius is a thief, since he is a vicious

manthere is, of course, no valid proof here; not every vicious man is a thief, though every thief is a vicious

5. Another line represents the accidental as essential. An instance is what Polycrates says of the mice, that

they 'came to the rescue' because they gnawed through the bowstrings. Or it might be maintained that an

invitation to dinner is a great honour, for it was because he was not invited that Achilles was 'angered' with

the Greeks at Tenedos? As a fact, what angered him was the insult involved; it was a mere accident that this

6. Another is the argument from consequence. In the Alexander, for instance, it is argued that Paris must have

had a lofty disposition, since he despised society and lived by himself on Mount Ida: because lofty people do

this kind of thing, therefore Paris too, we are to suppose, had a lofty soul. Or, if a man dresses fashionably

and roams around at night, he is a rake, since that is the way rakes behave. Another similar argument points

out that beggars sing and dance in temples, and that exiles can live wherever they please, and that such

privileges are at the disposal of those we account happy and therefore every one might be regarded as happy

if only he has those privileges. What matters, however, is the circumstances under which the privileges are

7. Another line consists in representing as causes things which are not causes, on the ground that they

happened along with or before the event in question. They assume that, because B happens after A, it happens

because of A. Politicians are especially fond of taking this line. Thus Demades said that the policy of

8. Another line consists in leaving out any mention of time and circumstances. E.g. the argument that Paris

was justified in taking Helen, since her father left her free to choose: here the freedom was presumably not

perpetual; it could only refer to her first choice, beyond which her father's authority could not go. Or again,

one might say that to strike a free man is an act of wanton outrage; but it is not so in every caseonly when it

9. Again, a spurious syllogism may, as in 'eristical' discussions, be based on the confusion of the absolute

with that which is not absolute but particular. As, in dialectic, for instance, it may be argued that whatisnot

is, on the ground that whatisnot is whatisnot: or that the unknown can be known, on the ground that it

can be known to he unknown: so also in rhetoric a spurious enthymeme may be based on the confusion of

some particular probability with absolute probability. Now no particular probability is universally probable:

For what is improbable does happen, and therefore it is probable that improbable things will happen. Granted

this, one might argue that 'what is improbable is probable'. But this is not true absolutely. As, in eristic, the

imposture comes from not adding any clause specifying relationship or reference or manner; so here it arises

because the probability in question is not general but specific. It is of this line of argument that Corax's Art of

Rhetoric is composed. If the accused is not open to the chargefor instance if a weakling be tried for violent

assaultthe defence is that he was not likely to do such a thing. But if he is open to the chargei.e. if he is a

strong manthe defence is still that he was not likely to do such a thing, since he could be sure that people

would think he was likely to do it. And so with any other charge: the accused must be either open or not open

to it: there is in either case an appearance of probable innocence, but whereas in the latter case the probability

is genuine, in the former it can only be asserted in the special sense mentioned. This sort of argument

illustrates what is meant by making the worse argument seem the better. Hence people were right in objecting

to the training Protagoras undertook to give them. It was a fraud; the probability it handled was not genuine

Enthymemes, genuine and apparent, have now been described; the next subject is their Refutation.

An argument may be refuted either by a countersyllogism or by bringing an objection. It is clear that

countersyllogisms can be built up from the same lines of arguments as the original syllogisms: for the

materials of syllogisms are the ordinary opinions of men, and such opinions often contradict each other.

Objections, as appears in the Topics, may be raised in four wayseither by directly attacking your opponent's

own statement, or by putting forward another statement like it, or by putting forward a statement contrary to

1. By 'attacking your opponent's own statement' I mean, for instance, this: if his enthymeme should assert that

love is always good, the objection can be brought in two ways, either by making the general statement that

'all want is an evil', or by making the particular one that there would be no talk of 'Caunian love' if there were

2. An objection 'from a contrary statement' is raised when, for instance, the opponent's enthymeme having

concluded that a good man does good to all his friends, you object, 'That proves nothing, for a bad man does

3. An example of an objection 'from a like statement' is, the enthymeme having shown that illused men

always hate their illusers, to reply, 'That proves nothing, for wellused men do not always love those who

4. The 'decisions' mentioned are those proceeding from wellknown men; for instance, if the enthymeme

employed has concluded that 'that allowance ought to be made for drunken offenders, since they did not

know what they were doing', the objection will be, 'Pittacus, then, deserves no approval, or he would not have

Enthymemes are based upon one or other of four kinds of alleged fact: (1) Probabilities, (2) Examples, (3)

Infallible Signs, (4) Ordinary Signs. (1) Enthymemes based upon Probabilities are those which argue from

what is, or is supposed to be, usually true. (2) Enthymemes based upon Example are those which proceed by

induction from one or more similar cases, arrive at a general proposition, and then argue deductively to a

particular inference. (3) Enthymemes based upon Infallible Signs are those which argue from the inevitable

and invariable. (4) Enthymemes based upon ordinary Signs are those which argue from some universal or

Now (1) as a Probability is that which happens usually but not always, Enthymemes founded upon

Probabilities can, it is clear, always be refuted by raising some objection. The refutation is not always

genuine: it may be spurious: for it consists in showing not that your opponent's premiss is not probable, but

Only in showing that it is not inevitably true. Hence it is always in defence rather than in accusation that it is

possible to gain an advantage by using this fallacy. For the accuser uses probabilities to prove his case: and to

refute a conclusion as improbable is not the same thing as to refute it as not inevitable. Any argument based

upon what usually happens is always open to objection: otherwise it would not be a probability but an

invariable and necessary truth. But the judges think, if the refutation takes this form, either that the accuser's

case is not probable or that they must not decide it; which, as we said, is a false piece of reasoning. For they

ought to decide by considering not merely what must be true but also what is likely to be true: this is, indeed,

the meaning of 'giving a verdict in accordance with one's honest opinion'. Therefore it is not enough for the

defendant to refute the accusation by proving that the charge is not hound to be true: he must do so by

showing that it is not likely to be true. For this purpose his objection must state what is more usually true than

the statement attacked. It may do so in either of two ways: either in respect of frequency or in respect of

exactness. It will be most convincing if it does so in both respects; for if the thing in question both happens

oftener as we represent it and happens more as we represent it, the probability is particularly great.

(2) Fallible Signs, and Enthymemes based upon them, can be refuted even if the facts are correct, as was said

at the outset. For we have shown in the Analytics that no Fallible Sign can form part of a valid logical proof.

(3) Enthymemes depending on examples may be refuted in the same way as probabilities. If we have a

negative instance, the argument is refuted, in so far as it is proved not inevitable, even though the positive

examples are more similar and more frequent. And if the positive examples are more numerous and more

frequent, we must contend that the present case is dissimilar, or that its conditions are dissimilar, or that it is

(4) It will be impossible to refute Infallible Signs, and Enthymemes resting on them, by showing in any way

that they do not form a valid logical proof: this, too, we see from the Analytics. All we can do is to show that

the fact alleged does not exist. If there is no doubt that it does, and that it is an Infallible Sign, refutation now

becomes impossible: for this is equivalent to a demonstration which is clear in every respect.

Amplification and Depreciation are not an element of enthymeme. By 'an element of enthymeme' I mean the

same thing as a line of enthymematic argumenta general class embracing a large number of particular kinds

of enthymeme. Amplification and Depreciation are one kind of enthymeme, viz. the kind used to show that a

thing is great or small; just as there are other kinds used to show that a thing is good or bad, just or unjust,

and anything else of the sort. All these things are the subjectmatter of syllogisms and enthymemes; none of

these is the line of argument of an enthymeme; no more, therefore, are Amplification and Depreciation. Nor

are Refutative Enthymemes a different species from Constructive. For it is clear that refutation consists either

in offering positive proof or in raising an objection. In the first case we prove the opposite of our adversary's

statements. Thus, if he shows that a thing has happened, we show that it has not; if he shows that it has not

happened, we show that it has. This, then, could not be the distinction if there were one, since the same means

are employed by both parties, enthymemes being adduced to show that the fact is or is not soandso. An

objection, on the other hand, is not an enthymeme at all, as was said in the Topics, consists in stating some

accepted opinion from which it will be clear that our opponent has not reasoned correctly or has made a false

Three points must be studied in making a speech; and we have now completed the account of (1) Examples,

Maxims, Enthymemes, and in general the thoughtelement the way to invent and refute arguments. We have

IN making a speech one must study three points: first, the means of producing persuasion; second, the style,

or language, to be used; third, the proper arrangement of the various parts of the speech. We have already

specified the sources of persuasion. We have shown that these are three in number; what they are; and why

there are only these three: for we have shown that persuasion must in every case be effected either (1) by

working on the emotions of the judges themselves, (2) by giving them the right impression of the speakers'

Enthymemes also have been described, and the sources from which they should be derived; there being both

Our next subject will be the style of expression. For it is not enough to know what we ought to say; we must

also say it as we ought; much help is thus afforded towards producing the right impression of a speech. The

first question to receive attention was naturally the one that comes first naturallyhow persuasion can be

produced from the facts themselves. The second is how to set these facts out in language. A third would be

the proper method of delivery; this is a thing that affects the success of a speech greatly; but hitherto the

subject has been neglected. Indeed, it was long before it found a way into the arts of tragic drama and epic

recitation: at first poets acted their tragedies themselves. It is plain that delivery has just as much to do with

oratory as with poetry. (In connexion with poetry, it has been studied by Glaucon of Teos among others.) It

is, essentially, a matter of the right management of the voice to express the various emotionsof speaking

loudly, softly, or between the two; of high, low, or intermediate pitch; of the various rhythms that suit various

subjects. These are the three thingsvolume of sound, modulation of pitch, and rhythmthat a speaker bears

in mind. It is those who do bear them in mind who usually win prizes in the dramatic contests; and just as in

drama the actors now count for more than the poets, so it is in the contests of public life, owing to the defects

of our political institutions. No systematic treatise upon the rules of delivery has yet been composed; indeed,

even the study of language made no progress till late in the day. Besides, delivery isvery properlynot

regarded as an elevated subject of inquiry. Still, the whole business of rhetoric being concerned with

appearances, we must pay attention to the subject of delivery, unworthy though it is, because we cannot do

without it. The right thing in speaking really is that we should be satisfied not to annoy our hearers, without

trying to delight them: we ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing,

therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts. Still, as has been already said, other things affect the

result considerably, owing to the defects of our hearers. The arts of language cannot help having a small but

real importance, whatever it is we have to expound to others: the way in which a thing is said does affect its

intelligibility. Not, however, so much importance as people think. All such arts are fanciful and meant to

When the principles of delivery have been worked out, they will produce the same effect as on the stage. But

only very slight attempts to deal with them have been made and by a few people, as by Thrasymachus in his

'Appeals to Pity'. Dramatic ability is a natural gift, and can hardly be systematically taught. The principles of

good diction can be so taught, and therefore we have men of ability in this direction too, who win prizes in

their turn, as well as those speakers who excel in deliveryspeeches of the written or literary kind owe more

It was naturally the poets who first set the movement going; for words represent things, and they had also the

human voice at their disposal, which of all our organs can best represent other things. Thus the arts of

recitation and acting were formed, and others as well. Now it was because poets seemed to win fame through

their fine language when their thoughts were simple enough, that the language of oratorical prose at first took

a poetical colour, e.g. that of Gorgias. Even now most uneducated people think that poetical language makes

the finest discourses. That is not true: the language of prose is distinct from that of poetry. This is shown by

the state of things today, when even the language of tragedy has altered its character. Just as iambics were

adopted, instead of tetrameters, because they are the most proselike of all metres, so tragedy has given up all

those words, not used in ordinary talk, which decorated the early drama and are still used by the writers of

hexameter poems. It is therefore ridiculous to imitate a poetical manner which the poets themselves have

dropped; and it is now plain that we have not to treat in detail the whole question of style, but may confine

ourselves to that part of it which concerns our present subject, rhetoric. The otherthe poeticalpart of it

We may, then, start from the observations there made, including the definition of style. Style to be good must

be clear, as is proved by the fact that speech which fails to convey a plain meaning will fail to do just what

speech has to do. It must also be appropriate, avoiding both meanness and undue elevation; poetical language

is certainly free from meanness, but it is not appropriate to prose. Clearness is secured by using the words

(nouns and verbs alike) that are current and ordinary. Freedom from meanness, and positive adornment too,

are secured by using the other words mentioned in the Art of Poetry. Such variation from what is usual makes

the language appear more stately. People do not feel towards strangers as they do towards their own

countrymen, and the same thing is true of their feeling for language. It is therefore well to give to everyday

speech an unfamiliar air: people like what strikes them, and are struck by what is out of the way. In verse

such effects are common, and there they are fitting: the persons and things there spoken of are comparatively

remote from ordinary life. In prose passages they are far less often fitting because the subjectmatter is less

exalted. Even in poetry, it is not quite appropriate that fine language should be used by a slave or a very

young man, or about very trivial subjects: even in poetry the style, to be appropriate, must sometimes be

toned down, though at other times heightened. We can now see that a writer must disguise his art and give the

impression of speaking naturally and not artificially. Naturalness is persuasive, artificiality is the contrary; for

our hearers are prejudiced and think we have some design against them, as if we were mixing their wines for

them. It is like the difference between the quality of Theodorus' voice and the voices of all other actors: his

really seems to be that of the character who is speaking, theirs do not. We can hide our purpose successfully

by taking the single words of our composition from the speech of ordinary life. This is done in poetry by

Language is composed of nouns and verbs. Nouns are of the various kinds considered in the treatise on

Poetry. Strange words, compound words, and invented words must be used sparingly and on few occasions:

on what occasions we shall state later. The reason for this restriction has been already indicated: they depart

from what is suitable, in the direction of excess. In the language of prose, besides the regular and proper

terms for things, metaphorical terms only can be used with advantage. This we gather from the fact that these

two classes of terms, the proper or regular and the metaphoricalthese and no othersare used by everybody

in conversation. We can now see that a good writer can produce a style that is distinguished without being

obtrusive, and is at the same time clear, thus satisfying our definition of good oratorical prose. Words of

ambiguous meaning are chiefly useful to enable the sophist to mislead his hearers. Synonyms are useful to

the poet, by which I mean words whose ordinary meaning is the same, e.g. 'porheueseai' (advancing) and

'badizein' (proceeding); these two are ordinary words and have the same meaning.

In the Art of Poetry, as we have already said, will be found definitions of these kinds of words; a

classification of Metaphors; and mention of the fact that metaphor is of great value both in poetry and in

prose. Prosewriters must, however, pay specially careful attention to metaphor, because their other

resources are scantier than those of poets. Metaphor, moreover, gives style clearness, charm, and distinction

as nothing else can: and it is not a thing whose use can be taught by one man to another. Metaphors, like

epithets, must be fitting, which means that they must fairly correspond to the thing signified: failing this, their

inappropriateness will be conspicuous: the want of harmony between two things is emphasized by their being

placed side by side. It is like having to ask ourselves what dress will suit an old man; certainly not the

crimson cloak that suits a young man. And if you wish to pay a compliment, you must take your metaphor

from something better in the same line; if to disparage, from something worse. To illustrate my meaning:

since opposites are in the same class, you do what I have suggested if you say that a man who begs 'prays',

and a man who prays 'begs'; for praying and begging are both varieties of asking. So Iphicrates called Callias

a 'mendicant priest' instead of a 'torchbearer', and Callias replied that Iphicrates must be uninitiated or he

would have called him not a 'mendicant priest' but a 'torchbearer'. Both are religious titles, but one is

honourable and the other is not. Again, somebody calls actors 'hangerson of Dionysus', but they call

themselves 'artists': each of these terms is a metaphor, the one intended to throw dirt at the actor, the other to

dignify him. And pirates now call themselves 'purveyors'. We can thus call a crime a mistake, or a mistake a

crime. We can say that a thief 'took' a thing, or that he 'plundered' his victim. An expression like that of

is inappropriate; the word 'king' goes beyond the dignity of the subject, and so the art is not concealed. A

metaphor may be amiss because the very syllables of the words conveying it fail to indicate sweetness of

vocal utterance. Thus Dionysius the Brazen in his elegies calls poetry 'Calliope's screech'. Poetry and

screeching are both, to be sure, vocal utterances. But the metaphor is bad, because the sounds of 'screeching',

unlike those of poetry, are discordant and unmeaning. Further, in using metaphors to give names to nameless

things, we must draw them not from remote but from kindred and similar things, so that the kinship is clearly

I marked how a man glued bronze with fire to another man's body, the process is nameless; but both it and

gluing are a kind of application, and that is why the application of the cuppingglass is here called a 'gluing'.

Good riddles do, in general, provide us with satisfactory metaphors: for metaphors imply riddles, and

therefore a good riddle can furnish a good metaphor. Further, the materials of metaphors must be beautiful;

and the beauty, like the ugliness, of all words may, as Licymnius says, lie in their sound or in their meaning.

Further, there is a third considerationone that upsets the fallacious argument of the sophist Bryson, that there

is no such thing as foul language, because in whatever words you put a given thing your meaning is the same.

This is untrue. One term may describe a thing more truly than another, may be more like it, and set it more

intimately before our eyes. Besides, two different words will represent a thing in two different lights; so on

this ground also one term must be held fairer or fouler than another. For both of two terms will indicate what

is fair, or what is foul, but not simply their fairness or their foulness, or if so, at any rate not in an equal

degree. The materials of metaphor must be beautiful to the ear, to the understanding, to the eye or some other

physical sense. It is better, for instance, to say 'rosyfingered morn', than 'crimsonfingered' or, worse still,

'redfingered morn'. The epithets that we apply, too, may have a bad and ugly aspect, as when Orestes is

called a 'motherslayer'; or a better one, as when he is called his 'father's avenger'. Simonides, when the

victor in the mulerace offered him a small fee, refused to write him an ode, because, he said, it was so

unpleasant to write odes to halfasses: but on receiving an adequate fee, he wrote

though of course they were daughters of asses too. The same effect is attained by the use of diminutives,

which make a bad thing less bad and a good thing less good. Take, for instance, the banter of Aristophanes in

the Babylonians where he uses 'goldlet' for 'gold', 'cloaklet' for 'cloak', 'scoffiet' for 'scoff, and 'plaguelet'. But

alike in using epithets and in using diminutives we must be wary and must observe the mean.

(1) The misuse of compound words. Lycophron, for instance, talks of the 'many visaged heaven' above the

'giantcrested earth', and again the 'straitpathed shore'; and Gorgias of the 'pauperpoet flatterer' and

'oathbreaking and overoathkeeping'. Alcidamas uses such expressions as 'the soul filling with rage and

face becoming flameflushed', and 'he thought their enthusiasm would be issuefraught' and 'issuefraught

he made the persuasion of his words', and 'sombrehued is the floor of the sea'.The way all these words are

compounded makes them, we feel, fit for verse only. This, then, is one form in which bad taste is shown.

(2) Another is the employment of strange words. For instance, Lycophron talks of 'the prodigious Xerxes' and

'spoliative Sciron'; Alcidamas of 'a toy for poetry' and 'the witlessness of nature', and says 'whetted with the

(3) A third form is the use of long, unseasonable, or frequent epithets. It is appropriate enough for a poet to

talk of 'white milk', in prose such epithets are sometimes lacking in appropriateness or, when spread too

thickly, plainly reveal the author turning his prose into poetry. Of course we must use some epithets, since

they lift our style above the usual level and give it an air of distinction. But we must aim at the due mean, or

the result will be worse than if we took no trouble at all; we shall get something actually bad instead of

something merely not good. That is why the epithets of Alcidamas seem so tasteless; he does not use them as

the seasoning of the meat, but as the meat itself, so numerous and swollen and aggressive are they. For

instance, he does not say 'sweat', but 'the moist sweat'; not 'to the Isthmian games', but 'to the

worldconcourse of the Isthmian games'; not 'laws', but 'the laws that are monarchs of states'; not 'at a run',

but 'his heart impelling him to speed of foot'; not 'a school of the Muses', but 'Nature's school of the Muses

had he inherited'; and so 'frowning care of heart', and 'achiever' not of 'popularity' but of 'universal

popularity', and 'dispenser of pleasure to his audience', and 'he concealed it' not 'with boughs' but 'with boughs

of the forest trees', and 'he clothed' not 'his body' but 'his body's nakedness', and 'his soul's desire was counter

imitative' (this's at one and the same time a compound and an epithet, so that it seems a poet's effort), and 'so

extravagant the excess of his wickedness'. We thus see how the inappropriateness of such poetical language

imports absurdity and tastelessness into speeches, as well as the obscurity that comes from all this

verbosityfor when the sense is plain, you only obscure and spoil its clearness by piling up words.

The ordinary use of compound words is where there is no term for a thing and some compound can be easily

formed, like 'pastime' (chronotribein); but if this is much done, the prose character disappears entirely. We

now see why the language of compounds is just the thing for writers of dithyrambs, who love sonorous

noises; strange words for writers of epic poetry, which is a proud and stately affair; and metaphor for iambic

(4) There remains the fourth region in which bad taste may be shown, metaphor. Metaphors like other things

may be inappropriate. Some are so because they are ridiculous; they are indeed used by comic as well as

tragic poets. Others are too grand and theatrical; and these, if they are farfetched, may also be obscure. For

instance, Gorgias talks of 'events that are green and full of sap', and says 'foul was the deed you sowed and

evil the harvest you reaped'. That is too much like poetry. Alcidamas, again, called philosophy 'a fortress that

threatens the power of law', and the Odyssey 'a goodly lookingglass of human life',' talked about 'offering no

such toy to poetry': all these expressions fail, for the reasons given, to carry the hearer with them. The address

of Gorgias to the swallow, when she had let her droppings fall on him as she flew overhead, is in the best

tragic manner. He said, 'Nay, shame, O Philomela'. Considering her as a bird, you could not call her act

shameful; considering her as a girl, you could; and so it was a good gibe to address her as what she was once

The Simile also is a metaphor; the difference is but slight. When the poet says of Achilles that he

this is a simile; when he says of him 'the lion leapt', it is a metaphorhere, since both are courageous, he has

transferred to Achilles the name of 'lion'. Similes are useful in prose as well as in verse; but not often, since

they are of the nature of poetry. They are to be employed just as metaphors are employed, since they are

The following are examples of similes. Androtion said of Idrieus that he was like a terrier let off the chain,

that flies at you and bites youIdrieus too was savage now that he was let out of his chains. Theodamas

compared Archidamus to an Euxenus who could not do geometrya proportional simile, implying that

Euxenus is an Archidamus who can do geometry. In Plato's Republic those who strip the dead are compared

to curs which bite the stones thrown at them but do not touch the thrower, and there is the simile about the

Athenian people, who are compared to a ship's captain who is strong but a little deaf; and the one about poets'

verses, which are likened to persons who lack beauty but possess youthful freshnesswhen the freshness has

faded the charm perishes, and so with verses when broken up into prose. Pericles compared the Samians to

children who take their pap but go on crying; and the Boeotians to holmoaks, because they were ruining one

another by civil wars just as one oak causes another oak's fall. Demosthenes said that the Athenian people

were like seasick men on board ship. Again, Demosthenes compared the political orators to nurses who

swallow the bit of food themselves and then smear the children's lips with the spittle. Antisthenes compared

the lean Cephisodotus to frankincense, because it was his consumption that gave one pleasure. All these ideas

may be expressed either as similes or as metaphors; those which succeed as metaphors will obviously do well

also as similes, and similes, with the explanation omitted, will appear as metaphors. But the proportional

metaphor must always apply reciprocally to either of its coordinate terms. For instance, if a drinkingbowl

is the shield of Dionysus, a shield may fittingly be called the drinkingbowl of Ares.

Such, then, are the ingredients of which speech is composed. The foundation of good style is correctness of

language, which falls under five heads. (1) First, the proper use of connecting words, and the arrangement of

them in the natural sequence which some of them require. For instance, the connective 'men' (e.g. ego men)

requires the correlative de (e.g. o de). The answering word must be brought in before the first has been

forgotten, and not be widely separated from it; nor, except in the few cases where this is appropriate, is

another connective to be introduced before the one required. Consider the sentence, 'But as soon as he told

me (for Cleon had come begging and praying), took them along and set out.' In this sentence many

connecting words are inserted in front of the one required to complete the sense; and if there is a long interval

before 'set out', the result is obscurity. One merit, then, of good style lies in the right use of connecting words.

(2) The second lies in calling things by their own special names and not by vague general ones. (3) The third

is to avoid ambiguities; unless, indeed, you definitely desire to be ambiguous, as those do who have nothing

to say but are pretending to mean something. Such people are apt to put that sort of thing into verse.

Empedocles, for instance, by his long circumlocutions imposes on his hearers; these are affected in the same

way as most people are when they listen to diviners, whose ambiguous utterances are received with nods of

Diviners use these vague generalities about the matter in hand because their predictions are thus, as a rule,

less likely to be falsified. We are more likely to be right, in the game of 'odd and even', if we simply guess

'even' or 'odd' than if we guess at the actual number; and the oraclemonger is more likely to be right if he

simply says that a thing will happen than if he says when it will happen, and therefore he refuses to add a

definite date. All these ambiguities have the same sort of effect, and are to be avoided unless we have some

such object as that mentioned. (4) A fourth rule is to observe Protagoras' classification of nouns into male,

female, and inanimate; for these distinctions also must be correctly given. 'Upon her arrival she said her say

and departed (e d elthousa kai dialechtheisa ocheto).' (5) A fifth rule is to express plurality, fewness, and

unity by the correct wording, e.g. 'Having come, they struck me (oi d elthontes etupton me).'

It is a general rule that a written composition should be easy to read and therefore easy to deliver. This cannot

be so where there are many connecting words or clauses, or where punctuation is hard, as in the writings of

Heracleitus. To punctuate Heracleitus is no easy task, because we often cannot tell whether a particular word

belongs to what precedes or what follows it. Thus, at the outset of his treatise he says, 'Though this truth is

always men understand it not', where it is not clear with which of the two clauses the word 'always' should be

joined by the punctuation. Further, the following fact leads to solecism, viz. that the sentence does not work

out properly if you annex to two terms a third which does not suit them both. Thus either 'sound' or 'colour'

will fail to work out properly with some verbs: 'perceive' will apply to both, 'see' will not. Obscurity is also

caused if, when you intend to insert a number of details, you do not first make your meaning clear; for

instance, if you say, 'I meant, after telling him this, that and the other thing, to set out', rather than something

of this kind 'I meant to set out after telling him; then this, that, and the other thing occurred.'

The following suggestions will help to give your language impressiveness. (1) Describe a thing instead of

naming it: do not say 'circle', but 'that surface which extends equally from the middle every way'. To achieve

conciseness, do the oppositeput the name instead of the description. When mentioning anything ugly or

unseemly, use its name if it is the description that is ugly, and describe it if it is the name that is ugly. (2)

Represent things with the help of metaphors and epithets, being careful to avoid poetical effects. (3) Use

(4) Do not bracket two words under one article, but put one article with each; e.g. 'that wife of ours.' The

reverse to secure conciseness; e.g. 'our wife.' Use plenty of connecting words; conversely, to secure

conciseness, dispense with connectives, while still preserving connexion; e.g. 'having gone and spoken', and

'having gone, I spoke', respectively. (6) And the practice of Antimachus, too, is usefulto describe a thing by

A subject can be developed indefinitely along these lines. You may apply this method of treatment by

negation either to good or to bad qualities, according to which your subject requires. It is from this source that

the poets draw expressions such as the 'stringless' or 'lyreless' melody, thus forming epithets out of negations.

This device is popular in proportional metaphors, as when the trumpet's note is called 'a lyreless melody'.

Your language will be appropriate if it expresses emotion and character, and if it corresponds to its subject.

'Correspondence to subject' means that we must neither speak casually about weighty matters, nor solemnly

about trivial ones; nor must we add ornamental epithets to commonplace nouns, or the effect will be comic,

as in the works of Cleophon, who can use phrases as absurd as 'O queenly figtree'. To express emotion, you

will employ the language of anger in speaking of outrage; the language of disgust and discreet reluctance to

utter a word when speaking of impiety or foulness; the language of exultation for a tale of glory, and that of

This aptness of language is one thing that makes people believe in the truth of your story: their minds draw

the false conclusion that you are to be trusted from the fact that others behave as you do when things are as

you describe them; and therefore they take your story to be true, whether it is so or not. Besides, an emotional

speaker always makes his audience feel with him, even when there is nothing in his arguments; which is why

Furthermore, this way of proving your story by displaying these signs of its genuineness expresses your

personal character. Each class of men, each type of disposition, will have its own appropriate way of letting

the truth appear. Under 'class' I include differences of age, as boy, man, or old man; of sex, as man or woman;

of nationality, as Spartan or Thessalian. By 'dispositions' I here mean those dispositions only which determine

the character of a man's for it is not every disposition that does this. If, then, a speaker uses the very words

which are in keeping with a particular disposition, he will reproduce the corresponding character; for a rustic

and an educated man will not say the same things nor speak in the same way. Again, some impression is

made upon an audience by a device which speechwriters employ to nauseous excess, when they say 'Who

does not know this?' or 'It is known to everybody.' The hearer is ashamed of his ignorance, and agrees with

the speaker, so as to have a share of the knowledge that everybody else possesses.

All the variations of oratorical style are capable of being used in season or out of season. The best way to

counteract any exaggeration is the wellworn device by which the speaker puts in some criticism of himself;

for then people feel it must be all right for him to talk thus, since he certainly knows what he is doing.

Further, it is better not to have everything always just corresponding to everything elseyour hearers will see

through you less easily thus. I mean for instance, if your words are harsh, you should not extend this

harshness to your voice and your countenance and have everything else in keeping. If you do, the artificial

character of each detail becomes apparent; whereas if you adopt one device and not another, you are using art

all the same and yet nobody notices it. (To be sure, if mild sentiments are expressed in harsh tones and harsh

sentiments in mild tones, you become comparatively unconvincing.) Compound words, fairly plentiful

epithets, and strange words best suit an emotional speech. We forgive an angry man for talking about a wrong

as 'heavenhigh' or 'colossal'; and we excuse such language when the speaker has his hearers already in his

hands and has stirred them deeply either by praise or blame or anger or affection, as Isocrates, for instance,

does at the end of his Panegyric, with his 'name and fame' and 'in that they brooked'. Men do speak in this

strain when they are deeply stirred, and so, once the audience is in a like state of feeling, approval of course

follows. This is why such language is fitting in poetry, which is an inspired thing. This language, then, should

be used either under stress of emotion, or ironically, after the manner of Gorgias and of the passages in the

The form of a prose composition should be neither metrical nor destitute of rhythm. The metrical form

destroys the hearer's trust by its artificial appearance, and at the same time it diverts his attention, making him

watch for metrical recurrences, just as children catch up the herald's question, 'Whom does the freedman

choose as his advocate?', with the answer 'Cleon!' On the other hand, unrhythmical language is too unlimited;

we do not want the limitations of metre, but some limitation we must have, or the effect will be vague and

unsatisfactory. Now it is number that limits all things; and it is the numerical limitation of the forms of a

composition that constitutes rhythm, of which metres are definite sections. Prose, then, is to be rhythmical,

but not metrical, or it will become not prose but verse. It should not even have too precise a prose rhythm,

Of the various rhythms, the heroic has dignity, but lacks the tones of the spoken language. The iambic is the

very language of ordinary people, so that in common talk iambic lines occur oftener than any others: but in a

speech we need dignity and the power of taking the hearer out of his ordinary self. The trochee is too much

akin to wild dancing: we can see this in tetrameter verse, which is one of the trochaic rhythms.

There remains the paean, which speakers began to use in the time of Thrasymachus, though they had then no

name to give it. The paean is a third class of rhythm, closely akin to both the two already mentioned; it has in

it the ratio of three to two, whereas the other two kinds have the ratio of one to one, and two to one

respectively. Between the two last ratios comes the ratio of oneandahalf to one, which is that of the

Now the other two kinds of rhythm must be rejected in writing prose, partly for the reasons given, and partly

because they are too metrical; and the paean must be adopted, since from this alone of the rhythms mentioned

no definite metre arises, and therefore it is the least obtrusive of them. At present the same form of paean is

employed at the beginning a at the end of sentences, whereas the end should differ from the beginning. There

are two opposite kinds of paean, one of which is suitable to the beginning of a sentence, where it is indeed

actually used; this is the kind that begins with a long syllable and ends with three short ones, as

The other paean begins, conversely, with three short syllables and ends with a long one, as

This kind of paean makes a real close: a short syllable can give no effect of finality, and therefore makes the

rhythm appear truncated. A sentence should break off with the long syllable: the fact that it is over should be

indicated not by the scribe, or by his periodmark in the margin, but by the rhythm itself.

We have now seen that our language must be rhythmical and not destitute of rhythm, and what rhythms, in

The language of prose must be either freerunning, with its parts united by nothing except the connecting

words, like the preludes in dithyrambs; or compact and antithetical, like the strophes of the old poets. The

freerunning style is the ancient one, e.g. 'Herein is set forth the inquiry of Herodotus the Thurian.' Every one

used this method formerly; not many do so now. By 'freerunning' style I mean the kind that has no natural

stoppingplaces, and comes to a stop only because there is no more to say of that subject. This style is

unsatisfying just because it goes on indefinitelyone always likes to sight a stoppingplace in front of one: it

is only at the goal that men in a race faint and collapse; while they see the end of the course before them, they

can keep on going. Such, then, is the freerunning kind of style; the compact is that which is in periods. By a

period I mean a portion of speech that has in itself a beginning and an end, being at the same time not too big

to be taken in at a glance. Language of this kind is satisfying and easy to follow. It is satisfying, because it is

just the reverse of indefinite; and moreover, the hearer always feels that he is grasping something and has

reached some definite conclusion; whereas it is unsatisfactory to see nothing in front of you and get nowhere.

It is easy to follow, because it can easily be remembered; and this because language when in periodic form

can be numbered, and number is the easiest of all things to remember. That is why verse, which is measured,

is always more easily remembered than prose, which is not: the measures of verse can be numbered. The

period must, further, not be completed until the sense is complete: it must not be capable of breaking off

By a wrong division of the words the hearer may take the meaning to be the reverse of what it is: for instance,

A Period may be either divided into several members or simple. The period of several members is a portion

of speech (1) complete in itself, (2) divided into parts, and (3) easily delivered at a single breathas a whole,

that is; not by fresh breath being taken at the division. A member is one of the two parts of such a period. By

a 'simple' period, I mean that which has only one member. The members, and the whole periods, should be

neither curt nor long. A member which is too short often makes the listener stumble; he is still expecting the

rhythm to go on to the limit his mind has fixed for it; and if meanwhile he is pulled back by the speaker's

stopping, the shock is bound to make him, so to speak, stumble. If, on the other hand, you go on too long, you

make him feel left behind, just as people who when walking pass beyond the boundary before turning back

leave their companions behind So too if a period is too long you turn it into a speech, or something like a

dithyrambic prelude. The result is much like the preludes that Democritus of Chios jeered at Melanippides for

Which applies likewise to longmembered orators. Periods whose members are altogether too short are not

The periodic style which is divided into members is of two kinds. It is either simply divided, as in 'I have

often wondered at the conveners of national gatherings and the founders of athletic contests'; or it is

antithetical, where, in each of the two members, one of one pair of opposites is put along with one of another

pair, or the same word is used to bracket two opposites, as 'They aided both partiesnot only those who

stayed behind but those who accompanied them: for the latter they acquired new territory larger than that at

home, and to the former they left territory at home that was large enough'. Here the contrasted words are

'staying behind' and 'accompanying', 'enough' and 'larger'. So in the example, 'Both to those who want to get

property and to those who desire to enjoy it' where 'enjoyment' is contrasted with 'getting'. Again, 'it often

happens in such enterprises that the wise men fail and the fools succeed'; 'they were awarded the prize of

valour immediately, and won the command of the sea not long afterwards'; 'to sail through the mainland and

march through the sea, by bridging the Hellespont and cutting through Athos'; 'nature gave them their country

and law took it away again'; 'of them perished in misery, others were saved in disgrace'; 'Athenian citizens

keep foreigners in their houses as servants, while the city of Athens allows her allies by thousands to live as

the foreigner's slaves'; and 'to possess in life or to bequeath at death'. There is also what some one said about

Peitholaus and Lycophron in a lawcourt, 'These men used to sell you when they were at home, and now they

have come to you here and bought you'. All these passages have the structure described above. Such a form

of speech is satisfying, because the significance of contrasted ideas is easily felt, especially when they are

thus put side by side, and also because it has the effect of a logical argument; it is by putting two opposing

Such, then, is the nature of antithesis. Parisosis is making the two members of a period equal in length.

Paromoeosis is making the extreme words of both members like each other. This must happen either at the

beginning or at the end of each member. If at the beginning, the resemblance must always be between whole

words; at the end, between final syllables or inflexions of the same word or the same word repeated. Thus, at

It is possible for the same sentence to have all these features togetherantithesis, parison, and

homoeoteleuton. (The possible beginnings of periods have been pretty fully enumerated in the Theodectea.)

We may now consider the above points settled, and pass on to say something about the way to devise lively

and taking sayings. Their actual invention can only come through natural talent or long practice; but this

treatise may indicate the way it is done. We may deal with them by enumerating the different kinds of them.

We will begin by remarking that we all naturally find it agreeable to get hold of new ideas easily: words

express ideas, and therefore those words are the most agreeable that enable us to get hold of new ideas. Now

strange words simply puzzle us; ordinary words convey only what we know already; it is from metaphor that

we can best get hold of something fresh. When the poet calls 'old age a withered stalk', he conveys a new

idea, a new fact, to us by means of the general notion of bloom, which is common to both things. The similes

of the poets do the same, and therefore, if they are good similes, give an effect of brilliance. The simile, as

has been said before, is a metaphor, differing from it only in the way it is put; and just because it is longer it

is less attractive. Besides, it does not say outright that 'this' is 'that', and therefore the hearer is less interested

in the idea. We see, then, that both speech and reasoning are lively in proportion as they make us seize a new

idea promptly. For this reason people are not much taken either by obvious arguments (using the word

'obvious' to mean what is plain to everybody and needs no investigation), nor by those which puzzle us when

we hear them stated, but only by those which convey their information to us as soon as we hear them,

provided we had not the information already; or which the mind only just fails to keep up with. These two

kinds do convey to us a sort of information: but the obvious and the obscure kinds convey nothing, either at

once or later on. It is these qualities, then, that, so far as the meaning of what is said is concerned, make an

argument acceptable. So far as the style is concerned, it is the antithetical form that appeals to us, e.g.

'judging that the peace common to all the rest was a war upon their own private interests', where there is an

antithesis between war and peace. It is also good to use metaphorical words; but the metaphors must not be

farfetched, or they will be difficult to grasp, nor obvious, or they will have no effect. The words, too, ought

to set the scene before our eyes; for events ought to be seen in progress rather than in prospect. So we must

Of the four kinds of Metaphor the most taking is the proportional kind. Thus Pericles, for instance, said that

the vanishing from their country of the young men who had fallen in the war was 'as if the spring were taken

out of the year'. Leptines, speaking of the Lacedaemonians, said that he would not have the Athenians let

Greece 'lose one of her two eyes'. When Chares was pressing for leave to be examined upon his share in the

Olynthiac war, Cephisodotus was indignant, saying that he wanted his examination to take place 'while he

had his fingers upon the people's throat'. The same speaker once urged the Athenians to march to Euboea,

'with Miltiades' decree as their rations'. Iphicrates, indignant at the truce made by the Athenians with

Epidaurus and the neighbouring seaboard, said that they had stripped themselves of their travelling money

for the journey of war. Peitholaus called the stategalley 'the people's big stick', and Sestos 'the cornbin of

the Peiraeus'. Pericles bade his countrymen remove Aegina, 'that eyesore of the Peiraeus.' And Moerocles

said he was no more a rascal than was a certain respectable citizen he named, 'whose rascality was worth over

thirty per cent per annum to him, instead of a mere ten like his own'.There is also the iambic line of

Polyeuctus said of a paralytic man named Speusippus that he could not keep quiet, 'though fortune had

fastened him in the pillory of disease'. Cephisodotus called warships 'painted millstones'. Diogenes the Dog

called taverns 'the messrooms of Attica'. Aesion said that the Athenians had 'emptied' their town into Sicily:

this is a graphic metaphor. 'Till all Hellas shouted aloud' may be regarded as a metaphor, and a graphic one

again. Cephisodotus bade the Athenians take care not to hold too many 'parades'. Isocrates used the same

word of those who 'parade at the national festivals.' Another example occurs in the Funeral Speech: 'It is

fitting that Greece should cut off her hair beside the tomb of those who fell at Salamis, since her freedom and

their valour are buried in the same grave.' Even if the speaker here had only said that it was right to weep

when valour was being buried in their grave, it would have been a metaphor, and a graphic one; but the

coupling of 'their valour' and 'her freedom' presents a kind of antithesis as well. 'The course of my words',

said Iphicrates, 'lies straight through the middle of Chares' deeds': this is a proportional metaphor, and the

phrase 'straight through the middle' makes it graphic. The expression 'to call in one danger to rescue us from

another' is a graphic metaphor. Lycoleon said, defending Chabrias, 'They did not respect even that bronze

statue of his that intercedes for him yonder'.This was a metaphor for the moment, though it would not always

apply; a vivid metaphor, however; Chabrias is in danger, and his statue intercedes for himthat lifeless yet

living thing which records his services to his country. 'Practising in every way littleness of mind' is

metaphorical, for practising a quality implies increasing it. So is 'God kindled our reason to be a lamp within

our soul', for both reason and light reveal things. So is 'we are not putting an end to our wars, but only

postponing them', for both literal postponement and the making of such a peace as this apply to future action.

So is such a saying as 'This treaty is a far nobler trophy than those we set up on fields of battle; they celebrate

small gains and single successes; it celebrates our triumph in the war as a whole'; for both trophy and treaty

are signs of victory. So is 'A country pays a heavy reckoning in being condemned by the judgement of

It has already been mentioned that liveliness is got by using the proportional type of metaphor and being

making (ie. making your hearers see things). We have still to explain what we mean by their 'seeing things',

and what must be done to effect this. By 'making them see things' I mean using expressions that represent

things as in a state of activity. Thus, to say that a good man is 'foursquare' is certainly a metaphor; both the

good man and the square are perfect; but the metaphor does not suggest activity. On the other hand, in the

expression 'with his vigour in full bloom' there is a notion of activity; and so in 'But you must roam as free as

where 'up sprang' gives us activity as well as metaphor, for it at once suggests swiftness. So with Homer's

common practice of giving metaphorical life to lifeless things: all such passages are distinguished by the

In all these examples the things have the effect of being active because they are made into living beings;

shameless behaviour and fury and so on are all forms of activity. And the poet has attached these ideas to the

things by means of proportional metaphors: as the stone is to Sisyphus, so is the shameless man to his victim.

Metaphors must be drawn, as has been said already, from things that are related to the original thing, and yet

not obviously so relatedjust as in philosophy also an acute mind will perceive resemblances even in things

far apart. Thus Archytas said that an arbitrator and an altar were the same, since the injured fly to both for

refuge. Or you might say that an anchor and an overhead hook were the same, since both are in a way the

same, only the one secures things from below and the other from above. And to speak of states as 'levelled' is

to identify two widely different things, the equality of a physical surface and the equality of political powers.

Liveliness is specially conveyed by metaphor, and by the further power of surprising the hearer; because the

hearer expected something different, his acquisition of the new idea impresses him all the more. His mind

seems to say, 'Yes, to be sure; I never thought of that'. The liveliness of epigrammatic remarks is due to the

meaning not being just what the words say: as in the saying of Stesichorus that 'the cicalas will chirp to

themselves on the ground'. Wellconstructed riddles are attractive for the same reason; a new idea is

conveyed, and there is metaphorical expression. So with the 'novelties' of Theodorus. In these the thought is

startling, and, as Theodorus puts it, does not fit in with the ideas you already have. They are like the

burlesque words that one finds in the comic writers. The effect is produced even by jokes depending upon

changes of the letters of a word; this too is a surprise. You find this in verse as well as in prose. The word

where one imagined the word would be 'sandals'. But the point should be clear the moment the words are

uttered. Jokes made by altering the letters of a word consist in meaning, not just what you say, but something

that gives a twist to the word used; e.g. the remark of Theodorus about Nicon the harpist Thratt' ei su ('you

Thracian slavey'), where he pretends to mean Thratteis su ('you harpplayer'), and surprises us when we find

he means something else. So you enjoy the point when you see it, though the remark will fall flat unless you

are aware that Nicon is Thracian. Or again: Boulei auton persai. In both these cases the saying must fit the

facts. This is also true of such lively remarks as the one to the effect that to the Athenians their empire (arche)

of the sea was not the beginning (arche) of their troubles, since they gained by it. Or the opposite one of

Isocrates, that their empire (arche) was the beginning (arche) of their troubles. Either way, the speaker says

something unexpected, the soundness of which is thereupon recognized. There would be nothing clever is

saying 'empire is empire'. Isocrates means more than that, and uses the word with a new meaning. So too with

the former saying, which denies that arche in one sense was arche in another sense. In all these jokes, whether

a word is used in a second sense or metaphorically, the joke is good if it fits the facts. For instance,

Anaschetos (proper name) ouk anaschetos: where you say that what is soandso in one sense is not

soandso in another; well, if the man is unpleasant, the joke fits the facts. Again, take

Do not the words 'thou must not be', amount to saying that the stranger must not always be strange? Here

again is the use of one word in different senses. Of the same kind also is the muchpraised verse of

This amounts to saying 'it is a fit thing to die when you are not fit to die', or 'it is a fit thing to die when death

is not fit for you', i.e. when death is not the fit return for what you are doing. The type of language

employedis the same in all these examples; but the more briefly and antithetically such sayings can be

expressed, the more taking they are, for antithesis impresses the new idea more firmly and brevity more

quickly. They should always have either some personal application or some merit of expression, if they are to

be true without being commonplacetwo requirements not always satisfied simultaneously. Thus 'a man

should die having done no wrong' is true but dull: 'the right man should marry the right woman' is also true

but dull. No, there must be both good qualities together, as in 'it is fitting to die when you are not fit for

death'. The more a saying has these qualitis, the livelier it appears: if, for instance, its wording is

metaphorical, metaphorical in the right way, antithetical, and balanced, and at the same time it gives an idea

Successful similes also, as has been said above, are in a sense metaphors, since they always involve two

relations like the proportional metaphor. Thus: a shield, we say, is the 'drinkingbowl of Ares', and a bow is

the 'chordless lyre'. This way of putting a metaphor is not 'simple', as it would be if we called the bow a lyre

or the shield a drinkingbowl. There are 'simple' similes also: we may say that a fluteplayer is like a

monkey, or that a shortsighted man's eyes are like a lampflame with water dropping on it, since both eyes

and flame keep winking. A simile succeeds best when it is a converted metaphor, for it is possible to say that

a shield is like the drinkingbowl of Ares, or that a ruin is like a house in rags, and to say that Niceratus is

like a Philoctetes stung by Pratysthe simile made by Thrasyniachus when he saw Niceratus, who had been

beaten by Pratys in a recitation competition, still going about unkempt and unwashed. It is in these respects

that poets fail worst when they fail, and succeed best when they succeed, i.e. when they give the resemblance

These are all similes; and that similes are metaphors has been stated often already.

Proverbs, again, are metaphors from one species to another. Suppose, for instance, a man to start some

undertaking in hope of gain and then to lose by it later on, 'Here we have once more the man of Carpathus

It has now been explained fairly completely how liveliness is secured and why it has the effect it has.

Successful hyperboles are also metaphors, e.g. the one about the man with a black eye, 'you would have

thought he was a basket of mulberries'; here the 'black eye' is compared to a mulberry because of its colour,

the exaggeration lying in the quantity of mulberries suggested. The phrase 'like soandso' may introduce a

is equivalent to 'you would have thought he was Philammon struggling with his punchball'; and

is equivalent to 'his legs are so curly that you would have thought they were not legs but parsley leaves'.

Hyperboles are for young men to use; they show vehemence of character; and this is why angry people use

(The Attic orators are particularly fond of this method of speech.) Consequently it does not suit an elderly

It should be observed that each kind of rhetoric has its own appropriate style. The style of written prose is not

that of spoken oratory, nor are those of political and forensic speaking the same. Both written and spoken

have to be known. To know the latter is to know how to speak good Greek. To know the former means that

you are not obliged, as otherwise you are, to hold your tongue when you wish to communicate something to

The written style is the more finished: the spoken better admits of dramatic deliverylike the kind of oratory

that reflects character and the kind that reflects emotion. Hence actors look out for plays written in the latter

style, and poets for actors competent to act in such plays. Yet poets whose plays are meant to be read are read

and circulated: Chaeremon, for instance, who is as finished as a professional speechwriter; and Licymnius

among the dithyrambic poets. Compared with those of others, the speeches of professional writers sound thin

in actual contests. Those of the orators, on the other hand, are good to hear spoken, but look amateurish

enough when they pass into the hands of a reader. This is just because they are so well suited for an actual

tussle, and therefore contain many dramatic touches, which, being robbed of all dramatic rendering, fail to do

their own proper work, and consequently look silly. Thus strings of unconnected words, and constant

repetitions of words and phrases, are very properly condemned in written speeches: but not in spoken

speechesspeakers use them freely, for they have a dramatic effect. In this repetition there must be variety of

tone, paving the way, as it were, to dramatic effect; e.g. 'This is the villain among you who deceived you,

who cheated you, who meant to betray you completely'. This is the sort of thing that Philemon the actor used

to do in the Old Men's Madness of Anaxandrides whenever he spoke the words 'Rhadamanthus and

Palamedes', and also in the prologue to the Saints whenever he pronounced the pronoun 'I'. If one does not

deliver such things cleverly, it becomes a case of 'the man who swallowed a poker'. So too with strings of

unconnected words, e.g.'I came to him; I met him; I besought him'. Such passages must be acted, not

delivered with the same quality and pitch of voice, as though they had only one idea in them. They have the

further peculiarity of suggesting that a number of separate statements have been made in the time usually

occupied by one. Just as the use of conjunctions makes many statements into a single one, so the omission of

conjunctions acts in the reverse way and makes a single one into many. It thus makes everything more

important: e.g. 'I came to him; I talked to him; I entreated him'what a lot of facts! the hearer thinks'he paid

no attention to anything I said'. This is the effect which Homer seeks when he writes,

If many things are said about a man, his name must be mentioned many times; and therefore people think

that, if his name is mentioned many times, many things have been said about him. So that Homer, by means

of this illusion, has made a great deal of though he has mentioned him only in this one passage, and has

Now the style of oratory addressed to public assemblies is really just like scenepainting. The bigger the

throng, the more distant is the point of view: so that, in the one and the other, high finish in detail is

superfluous and seems better away. The forensic style is more highly finished; still more so is the style of

language addressed to a single judge, with whom there is very little room for rhetorical artifices, since he can

take the whole thing in better, and judge of what is to the point and what is not; the struggle is less intense

and so the judgement is undisturbed. This is why the same speakers do not distinguish themselves in all these

branches at once; high finish is wanted least where dramatic delivery is wanted most, and here the speaker

must have a good voice, and above all, a strong one. It is ceremonial oratory that is most literary, for it is

To analyse style still further, and add that it must be agreeable or magnificent, is useless; for why should it

have these traits any more than 'restraint', 'liberality', or any other moral excellence? Obviously agreeableness

will be produced by the qualities already mentioned, if our definition of excellence of style has been correct.

For what other reason should style be 'clear', and 'not mean' but 'appropriate'? If it is prolix, it is not clear; nor

yet if it is curt. Plainly the middle way suits best. Again, style will be made agreeable by the elements

mentioned, namely by a good blending of ordinary and unusual words, by the rhythm, and bythe

This concludes our discussion of style, both in its general aspects and in its special applications to the various

A speech has two parts. You must state your case, and you must prove it. You cannot either state your case

and omit to prove it, or prove it without having first stated it; since any proof must be a proof of something,

and the only use of a preliminary statement is the proof that follows it. Of these two parts the first part is

called the Statement of the case, the second part the Argument, just as we distinguish between Enunciation

and Demonstration. The current division is absurd. For 'narration' surely is part of a forensic speech only:

how in a political speech or a speech of display can there be 'narration' in the technical sense? or a reply to a

forensic opponent? or an epilogue in closelyreasoned speeches? Again, introduction, comparison of

conflicting arguments, and recapitulation are only found in political speeches when there is a struggle

between two policies. They may occur then; so may even accusation and defence, often enough; but they

form no essential part of a political speech. Even forensic speeches do not always need epilogues; not, for

instance, a short speech, nor one in which the facts are easy to remember, the effect of an epilogue being

always a reduction in the apparent length. It follows, then, that the only necessary parts of a speech are the

Statement and the Argument. These are the essential features of a speech; and it cannot in any case have more

than Introduction, Statement, Argument, and Epilogue. 'Refutation of the Opponent' is part of the arguments:

so is 'Comparison' of the opponent's case with your own, for that process is a magnifying of your own case

and therefore a part of the arguments, since one who does this proves something. The Introduction does

nothing like this; nor does the Epilogueit merely reminds us of what has been said already. If we make such

distinctions we shall end, like Theodorus and his followers, by distinguishing 'narration' proper from

'postnarration' and 'prenarration', and 'refutation' from 'final refutation'. But we ought only to bring in a

new name if it indicates a real species with distinct specific qualities; otherwise the practice is pointless and

silly, like the way Licymnius invented names in his Art of Rhetoric'Secundation', 'Divagation',

The Introduction is the beginning of a speech, corresponding to the prologue in poetry and the prelude in

flutemusic; they are all beginnings, paving the way, as it were, for what is to follow. The musical prelude

resembles the introduction to speeches of display; as flute players play first some brilliant passage they know

well and then fit it on to the opening notes of the piece itself, so in speeches of display the writer should

proceed in the same way; he should begin with what best takes his fancy, and then strike up his theme and

lead into it; which is indeed what is always done. (Take as an example the introduction to the Helen of

Isocratesthere is nothing in common between the 'eristics' and Helen.) And here, even if you travel far from

your subject, it is fitting, rather than that there should be sameness in the entire speech.

The usual subject for the introductions to speeches of display is some piece of praise or censure. Thus

Gorgias writes in his Olympic Speech, 'You deserve widespread admiration, men of Greece', praising thus

those who start,ed the festival gatherings.' Isocrates, on the other hand, censures them for awarding

distinctions to fine athletes but giving no prize for intellectual ability. Or one may begin with a piece of

advice, thus: 'We ought to honour good men and so I myself am praising Aristeides' or 'We ought to honour

those who are unpopular but not bad men, men whose good qualities have never been noticed, like Alexander

son of Priam.' Here the orator gives advice. Or we may begin as speakers do in the lawcourts; that is to say,

with appeals to the audience to excuse us if our speech is about something paradoxical, difficult, or

Introductions to speeches of display, then, may be composed of some piece of praise or censure, of advice to

do or not to do something, or of appeals to the audience; and you must choose between making these

Introductions to forensic speeches, it must be observed, have the same value as the prologues of dramas and

the introductions to epic poems; the dithyrambic prelude resembling the introduction to a speech of display,

In prologues, and in epic poetry, a foretaste of the theme is given, intended to inform the hearers of it in

advance instead of keeping their minds in suspense. Anything vague puzzles them: so give them a grasp of

The tragic poets, too, let us know the pivot of their play; if not at the outset like Euripides, at least somewhere

and so in Comedy. This, then, is the most essential function and distinctive property of the introduction, to

show what the aim of the speech is; and therefore no introduction ought to be employed where the subject is

The other kinds of introduction employed are remedial in purpose, and may be used in any type of speech.

They are concerned with the speaker, the hearer, the subject, or the speaker's opponent. Those concerned with

the speaker himself or with his opponent are directed to removing or exciting prejudice. But whereas the

defendant will begin by dealing with this sort of thing, the prosecutor will take quite another line and deal

with such matters in the closing part of his speech. The reason for this is not far to seek. The defendant, when

he is going to bring himself on the stage, must clear away any obstacles, and therefore must begin by

removing any prejudice felt against him. But if you are to excite prejudice, you must do so at the close, so

The appeal to the hearer aims at securing his goodwill, or at arousing his resentment, or sometimes at gaining

his serious attention to the case, or even at distracting itfor gaining it is not always an advantage, and

You may use any means you choose to make your hearer receptive; among others, giving him a good

impression of your character, which always helps to secure his attention. He will be ready to attend to

anything that touches himself and to anything that is important, surprising, or agreeable; and you should

accordingly convey to him the impression that what you have to say is of this nature. If you wish to distract

his attention, you should imply that the subject does not affect him, or is trivial or disagreeable. But observe,

all this has nothing to do with the speech itself. It merely has to do with the weakminded tendency of the

hearer to listen to what is beside the point. Where this tendency is absent, no introduction wanted beyond a

summary statement of your subject, to put a sort of head on the main body of your speech. Moreover, calls

for attention, when required, may come equally well in any part of a speech; in fact, the beginning of it is just

where there is least slackness of interest; it is therefore ridiculous to put this kind of thing at the beginning,

when every one is listening with most attention. Choose therefore any point in the speech where such an

appeal is needed, and then say 'Now I beg you to note this pointit concerns you quite as much as myself'; or

heard for terror, or for wonder. This is what Prodicus called 'slipping in a bit of the fiftydrachma

showlecture for the audience whenever they began to nod'. It is plain that such introductions are addressed

not to ideal hearers, but to hearers as we find them. The use of introductions to excite prejudice or to dispel

Introductions are popular with those whose case is weak, or looks weak; it pays them to dwell on anything

rather than the actual facts of it. That is why slaves, instead of answering the questions put to them, make

indirect replies with long preambles. The means of exciting in your hearers goodwill and various other

and these are the two things we should aim at. In speeches of display we must make the hearer feel that the

eulogy includes either himself or his family or his way of life or something or other of the kind. For it is true,

as Socrates says in the Funeral Speech, that 'the difficulty is not to praise the Athenians at Athens but at

The introductions of political oratory will be made out of the same materials as those of the forensic kind,

though the nature of political oratory makes them very rare. The subject is known already, and therefore the

facts of the case need no introduction; but you may have to say something on account of yourself or to your

opponents; or those present may be inclined to treat the matter either more or less seriously than you wish

them to. You may accordingly have to excite or dispel some prejudice, or to make the matter under

discussion seem more or less important than before: for either of which purposes you will want an

introduction. You may also want one to add elegance to your remarks, feeling that otherwise they will have a

casual air, like Gorgias' eulogy of the Eleans, in which, without any preliminary sparring or fencing, he

In dealing with prejudice, one class of argument is that whereby you can dispel objectionable suppositions

about yourself. It makes no practical difference whether such a supposition has been put into words or not, so

that this distinction may be ignored. Another way is to meet any of the issues directly: to deny the alleged

fact; or to say that you have done no harm, or none to him, or not as much as he says; or that you have done

him no injustice, or not much; or that you have done nothing disgraceful, or nothing disgraceful enough to

matter: these are the sort of questions on which the dispute hinges. Thus Iphicrates replying to Nausicrates,

admitted that he had done the deed alleged, and that he had done Nausicrates harm, but not that he had done

him wrong. Or you may admit the wrong, but balance it with other facts, and say that, if the deed harmed

him, at any rate it was honourable; or that, if it gave him pain, at least it did him good; or something else like

that. Another way is to allege that your action was due to mistake, or bad luck, or necessity as Sophocles said

he was not trembling, as his traducer maintained, in order to make people think him an old man, but because

he could not help it; he would rather not be eighty years old. You may balance your motive against your

actual deed; saying, for instance, that you did not mean to injure him but to do soandso; that you did not do

what you are falsely charged with doingthe damage was accidental'I should indeed be a detestable person

if I had deliberately intended this result.' Another way is open when your calumniator, or any of his

connexions, is or has been subject to the same grounds for suspicion. Yet another, when others are subject to

the same grounds for suspicion but are admitted to be in fact innocent of the charge: e.g. 'Must I be a

profligate because I am wellgroomed? Then soandso must be one too.' Another, if other people have been

calumniated by the same man or some one else, or, without being calumniated, have been suspected, like

yourself now, and yet have been proved innocent. Another way is to return calumny for calumny and say, 'It

is monstrous to trust the man's statements when you cannot trust the man himself.' Another is when the

question has been already decided. So with Euripides' reply to Hygiaenon, who, in the action for an exchange

of properties, accused him of impiety in having written a line encouraging perjury

Euripides said that his opponent himself was guilty in bringing into the lawcourts cases whose decision

belonged to the Dionysiac contests. 'If I have not already answered for my words there, I am ready to do so if

you choose to prosecute me there.' Another method is to denounce calumny, showing what an enormity it is,

and in particular that it raises false issues, and that it means a lack of confidence in the merits of his case. The

argument from evidential circumstances is available for both parties: thus in the Teucer Odysseus says that

Teucer is closely bound to Priam, since his mother Hesione was Priam's sister. Teucer replies that Telamon

his father was Priam's enemy, and that he himself did not betray the spies to Priam. Another method, suitable

for the calumniator, is to praise some trifling merit at great length, and then attack some important failing

concisely; or after mentioning a number of good qualities to attack one bad one that really bears on the

question. This is the method of thoroughly skilful and unscrupulous prosecutors. By mixing up the man's

There is another method open to both calumniator and apologist. Since a given action can be done from many

motives, the former must try to disparage it by selecting the worse motive of two, the latter to put the better

construction on it. Thus one might argue that Diomedes chose Odysseus as his companion because he

supposed Odysseus to be the best man for the purpose; and you might reply to this that it was, on the

contrary, because he was the only hero so worthless that Diomedes need not fear his rivalry.

Narration in ceremonial oratory is not continuous but intermittent. There must, of course, be some survey of

the actions that form the subjectmatter of the speech. The speech is a composition containing two parts. One

of these is not provided by the orator's art, viz. the actions themselves, of which the orator is in no sense

author. The other part is provided by his namely, the proof (where proof is needed) that the actions were

done, the description of their quality or of their extent, or even all these three things together. Now the reason

why sometimes it is not desirable to make the whole narrative continuous is that the case thus expounded is

hard to keep in mind. Show, therefore, from one set of facts that your hero is, e.g. brave, and from other sets

of facts that he is able, just, A speech thus arranged is comparatively simple, instead of being complicated

and elaborate. You will have to recall wellknown deeds among others; and because they are wellknown,

the hearer usually needs no narration of them; none, for instance, if your object is the praise of Achilles; we

all know the facts of his lifewhat you have to do is to apply those facts. But if your object is the praise of

Nowadays it is said, absurdly enough, that the narration should be rapid. Remember what the man said to the

baker who asked whether he was to make the cake hard or soft: 'What, can't you make it right?' Just so here.

We are not to make long narrations, just as we are not to make long introductions or long arguments. Here,

again, rightness does not consist either in rapidity or in conciseness, but in the happy mean; that is, in saying

just so much as will make the facts plain, or will lead the hearer to believe that the thing has happened, or that

the man has caused injury or wrong to some one, or that the facts are really as important as you wish them to

You may also narrate as you go anything that does credit to yourself, e.g. 'I kept telling him to do his duty

and not abandon his children'; or discredit to your adversary, e.g. 'But he answered me that, wherever he

might find himself, there he would find other children', the answer Herodotus' records of the Egyptian

The defendant will make less of the narration. He has to maintain that the thing has not happened, or did no

harm, or was not unjust, or not so bad as is alleged. He must therefor snot waste time about what is admitted

fact, unless this bears on his own contention; e.g. that the thing was done, but was not wrong. Further, we

must speak of events as past and gone, except where they excite pity or indignation by being represented as

present. The Story told to Alcinous is an example of a brief chronicle, when it is repeated to Penelope in sixty

lines. Another instance is the Epic Cycle as treated by Phayllus, and the prologue to the Oeneus.

The narration should depict character; to which end you must know what makes it do so. One such thing is

the indication of moral purpose; the quality of purpose indicated determines the quality of character depicted

and is itself determined by the end pursued. Thus it is that mathematical discourses depict no character; they

have nothing to do with moral purpose, for they represent nobody as pursuing any end. On the other hand, the

Socratic dialogues do depict character, being concerned with moral questions. This end will also be gained by

describing the manifestations of various types of character, e.g. 'he kept walking along as he talked', which

shows the man's recklessness and rough manners. Do not let your words seem inspired so much by

intelligence, in the manner now current, as by moral purpose: e.g. 'I willed this; aye, it was my moral

purpose; true, I gained nothing by it, still it is better thus.' For the other way shows good sense, but this shows

good character; good sense making us go after what is useful, and good character after what is noble. Where

any detail may appear incredible, then add the cause of it; of this Sophocles provides an example in the

Antigone, where Antigone says she had cared more for her brother than for husband or children, since if the

If you have no such cause to suggest, just say that you are aware that no one will believe your words, but the

fact remains that such is our nature, however hard the world may find it to believe that a man deliberately

Again, you must make use of the emotions. Relate the familiar manifestations of them, and those that

distinguish yourself and your opponent; for instance, 'he went away scowling at me'. So Aeschines described

Cratylus as 'hissing with fury and shaking his fists'. These details carry conviction: the audience take the truth

of what they know as so much evidence for the truth of what they do not. Plenty of such details may be found

Thus did she say: but the old woman buried her face in her hands: a true touchpeople beginning to cry do

Bring yourself on the stage from the first in the right character, that people may regard you in that light; and

the same with your adversary; but do not let them see what you are about. How easily such impressions may

be conveyed we can see from the way in which we get some inkling of things we know nothing of by the

mere look of the messenger bringing news of them. Have some narrative in many different parts of your

In political oratory there is very little opening for narration; nobody can 'narrate' what has not yet happened.

If there is narration at all, it will be of past events, the recollection of which is to help the hearers to make

better plans for the future. Or it may be employed to attack some one's character, or to eulogize himonly

If any statement you make is hard to believe, you must guarantee its truth, and at once offer an explanation,

and then furnish it with such particulars as will be expected. Thus Carcinus' Jocasta, in his Oedipus, keeps

guaranteeing the truth of her answers to the inquiries of the man who is seeking her son; and so with Haemon

The duty of the Arguments is to attempt demonstrative proofs. These proofs must bear directly upon the

question in dispute, which must fall under one of four heads. (1) If you maintain that the act was not

committed, your main task in court is to prove this. (2) If you maintain that the act did no harm, prove this. If

you maintain that (3) the act was less than is alleged, or (4) justified, prove these facts, just as you would

It should be noted that only where the question in dispute falls under the first of these heads can it be true that

one of the two parties is necessarily a rogue. Here ignorance cannot be pleaded, as it might if the dispute were

whether the act was justified or not. This argument must therefore be used in this case only, not in the others.

In ceremonial speeches you will develop your case mainly by arguing that what has been done is, e.g., noble

and useful. The facts themselves are to be taken on trust; proof of them is only submitted on those rare

occasions when they are not easily credible or when they have been set down to some one else.

In political speeches you may maintain that a proposal is impracticable; or that, though practicable, it is

unjust, or will do no good, or is not so important as its proposer thinks. Note any falsehoods about irrelevant

mattersthey will look like proof that his other statements also are false. Argument by 'example' is highly

suitable for political oratory, argument by 'enthymeme' better suits forensic. Political oratory deals with future

events, of which it can do no more than quote past events as examples. Forensic oratory deals with what is or

is not now true, which can better be demonstrated, because not contingentthere is no contingency in what

has now already happened. Do not use a continuous succession of enthymemes: intersperse them with other

matter, or they will spoil one another's effect. There are limits to their number

Friend, you have spoken as much as a sensible man would have spoken. ,as much' says Homer, not 'as well'.

Nor should you try to make enthymemes on every point; if you do, you will be acting just like some students

of philosophy, whose conclusions are more familiar and believable than the premisses from which they draw

them. And avoid the enthymeme form when you are trying to rouse feeling; for it will either kill the feeling or

will itself fall flat: all simultaneous motions tend to cancel each other either completely or partially. Nor

should you go after the enthymeme form in a passage where you are depicting characterthe process of

demonstration can express neither moral character nor moral purpose. Maxims should be employed in the

Argumentsand in the Narration toosince these do express character: 'I have given him this, though I am

quite aware that one should "Trust no man".' Or if you are appealing to the emotions: 'I do not regret it,

though I have been wronged; if he has the profit on his side, I have justice on mine.'

Political oratory is a more difficult task than forensic; and naturally so, since it deals with the future, whereas

the pleader deals with the past, which, as Epimenides of Crete said, even the diviners already know.

(Epimenides did not practise divination about the future; only about the obscurities of the past.) Besides, in

forensic oratory you have a basis in the law; and once you have a startingpoint, you can prove anything with

comparative ease. Then again, political oratory affords few chances for those leisurely digressions in which

you may attack your adversary, talk about yourself, or work on your hearers' emotions; fewer chances indeed,

than any other affords, unless your set purpose is to divert your hearers' attention. Accordingly, if you find

yourself in difficulties, follow the lead of the Athenian speakers, and that of Isocrates, who makes regular

attacks upon people in the course of a political speech, e.g. upon the Lacedaemonians in the Panegyricus, and

upon Chares in the speech about the allies. In ceremonial oratory, intersperse your speech with bits of

episodic eulogy, like Isocrates, who is always bringing some one forward for this purpose. And this is what

Gorgias meant by saying that he always found something to talk about. For if he speaks of Achilles, he

praises Peleus, then Aeacus, then Zeus; and in like manner the virtue of valour, describing its good results,

Now if you have proofs to bring forward, bring them forward, and your moral discourse as well; if you have

no enthymemes, then fall back upon moral discourse: after all, it is more fitting for a good man to display

himself as an honest fellow than as a subtle reasoner. Refutative enthymemes are more popular than

demonstrative ones: their logical cogency is more striking: the facts about two opposites always stand out

The 'Reply to the Opponent' is not a separate division of the speech; it is part of the Arguments to break down

the opponent's case, whether by objection or by countersyllogism. Both in political speaking and when

pleading in court, if you are the first speaker you should put your own arguments forward first, and then meet

the arguments on the other side by refuting them and pulling them to pieces beforehand. If, however, the case

for the other side contains a great variety of arguments, begin with these, like Callistratus in the Messenian

assembly, when he demolished the arguments likely to be used against him before giving his own. If you

speak later, you must first, by means of refutation and countersyllogism, attempt some answer to your

opponent's speech, especially if his arguments have been well received. For just as our minds refuse a

favourable reception to a person against whom they are prejudiced, so they refuse it to a speech when they

have been favourably impressed by the speech on the other side. You should, therefore, make room in the

minds of the audience for your coming speech; and this will be done by getting your opponent's speech out of

the way. So attack that firsteither the whole of it, or the most important, successful, or vulnerable points in

where the speaker has attacked the silliest argument first. So much for the Arguments.

With regard to the element of moral character: there are assertions which, if made about yourself, may excite

dislike, appear tedious, or expose you to the risk of contradiction; and other things which you cannot say

about your opponent without seeming abusive or illbred. Put such remarks, therefore, into the mouth of

some third person. This is what Isocrates does in the Philippus and in the Antidosis, and Archilochus in his

satires. The latter represents the father himself as attacking his daughter in the lampoon

So too Sophocles makes Haemon appeal to his father on behalf of Antigone as if it were others who were

Again, sometimes you should restate your enthymemes in the form of maxims; e.g. 'Wise men will come to

terms in the hour of success; for they will gain most if they do'. Expressed as an enthymeme, this would run,

'If we ought to come to terms when doing so will enable us to gain the greatest advantage, then we ought to

Next as to Interrogation. The best moment to a employ this is when your opponent has so answered one

question that the putting of just one more lands him in absurdity. Thus Pericles questioned Lampon about the

way of celebrating the rites of the Saviour Goddess. Lampon declared that no uninitiated person could be told

of them. Pericles then asked, 'Do you know them yourself?' 'Yes', answered Lampon. 'Why,' said Pericles,

Another good moment is when one premiss of an argument is obviously true, and you can see that your

opponent must say 'yes' if you ask him whether the other is true. Having first got this answer about the other,

do not go on to ask him about the obviously true one, but just state the conclusion yourself. Thus, when

Meletus denied that Socrates believed in the existence of gods but admitted that he talked about a

supernatural power, Socrates proceeded to to ask whether 'supernatural beings were not either children of the

gods or in some way divine?' 'Yes', said Meletus. 'Then', replied Socrates, 'is there any one who believes in

the existence of children of the gods and yet not in the existence of the gods themselves?' Another good

occasion is when you expect to show that your opponent is contradicting either his own words or what every

one believes. A fourth is when it is impossible for him to meet your question except by an evasive answer. If

he answers 'True, and yet not true', or 'Partly true and partly not true', or 'True in one sense but not in another',

the audience thinks he is in difficulties, and applauds his discomfiture. In other cases do not attempt

interrogation; for if your opponent gets in an objection, you are felt to have been worsted. You cannot ask a

series of questions owing to the incapacity of the audience to follow them; and for this reason you should also

In replying, you must meet ambiguous questions by drawing reasonable distinctions, not by a curt answer. In

meeting questions that seem to involve you in a contradiction, offer the explanation at the outset of your

answer, before your opponent asks the next question or draws his conclusion. For it is not difficult to see the

drift of his argument in advance. This point, however, as well as the various means of refutation, may be

When your opponent in drawing his conclusion puts it in the form of a question, you must justify your

answer. Thus when Sophocles was asked by Peisander whether he had, like the other members of the Board

of Safety, voted for setting up the Four Hundred, he said 'Yes.''Why, did you not think it

wicked?''Yes.''So you committed this wickedness?' 'Yes', said Sophocles, 'for there was nothing better to

do.' Again, the Lacedaemonian, when he was being examined on his conduct as ephor, was asked whether he

thought that the other ephors had been justly put to death. 'Yes', he said. 'Well then', asked his opponent, 'did

not you propose the same measures as they?''Yes.''Well then, would not you too be justly put to

death?''Not at all', said he; 'they were bribed to do it, and I did it from conviction'. Hence you should not ask

any further questions after drawing the conclusion, nor put the conclusion itself in the form of a further

As to jests. These are supposed to be of some service in controversy. Gorgias said that you should kill your

opponents' earnestness with jesting and their jesting with earnestness; in which he was right. jests have been

classified in the Poetics. Some are becoming to a gentleman, others are not; see that you choose such as

become you. Irony better befits a gentleman than buffoonery; the ironical man jokes to amuse himself, the

The Epilogue has four parts. You must (1) make the audience welldisposed towards yourself and

illdisposed towards your opponent (2) magnify or minimize the leading facts, (3) excite the required state of

(1) Having shown your own truthfulness and the untruthfulness of your opponent, the natural thing is to

commend yourself, censure him, and hammer in your points. You must aim at one of two objectsyou must

make yourself out a good man and him a bad one either in yourselves or in relation to your hearers. How this

is to be managedby what lines of argument you are to represent people as good or badthis has been already

(2) The facts having been proved, the natural thing to do next is to magnify or minimize their importance.

The facts must be admitted before you can discuss how important they are; just as the body cannot grow

except from something already present. The proper lines of argument to be used for this purpose of

(3) Next, when the facts and their importance are clearly understood, you must excite your hearers' emotions.

These emotions are pity, indignation, anger, hatred, envy, emulation, pugnacity. The lines of argument to be

(4) Finally you have to review what you have already said. Here you may properly do what some wrongly

recommend doing in the introductionrepeat your points frequently so as to make them easily understood.

What you should do in your introduction is to state your subject, in order that the point to be judged may be

quite plain; in the epilogue you should summarize the arguments by which your case has been proved. The

first step in this reviewing process is to observe that you have done what you undertook to do. You must,

then, state what you have said and why you have said it. Your method may be a comparison of your own case

with that of your opponent; and you may compare either the ways you have both handled the same point or

make your comparison less direct: 'My opponent said soandso on this point; I said soandso, and this is

why I said it'. Or with modest irony, e.g. 'He certainly said soandso, but I said soandso'. Or 'How vain

he would have been if he had proved all this instead of that!' Or put it in the form of a question. 'What has not

been proved by me?' or 'What has my opponent proved?' You may proceed then, either in this way by setting

point against point, or by following the natural order of the arguments as spoken, first giving your own, and

For the conclusion, the disconnected style of language is appropriate, and will mark the difference between

the oration and the peroration. 'I have done. You have heard me. The facts are before you. I ask for your