View:
By Section
[1] Propriety of style will be obtained by the expression of emotion and character, and by proportion to the subject matter.
[2] Style is proportionate to the subject matter when neither weighty matters are treated offhand, nor trifling matters with dignity, and no embellishment is attached to an ordinary word; otherwise there is an appearance of comedy, as in the poetry of Cleophon,
1
who used certain expressions that reminded one of saying
madam fig.
[3] Style expresses emotion, when a man speaks with anger of wanton outrage; with indignation and reserve, even in mentioning them, of things foul or impious; with admiration of things praiseworthy; with lowliness of things pitiable; and so in all other cases.
[4] Appropriate style
20
also makes the fact appear credible; for the mind of the hearer is imposed upon
2
under the impression that the speaker is speaking the truth, because, in such circumstances, his feelings are the same, so that he thinks (even if it is not the case as the speaker puts it) that things are as he represents them; and the hearer always sympathizes with one who speaks emotionally, even though he really says nothing.
[5] This is why speakers often confound their hearers by mere noise.
[6] Character also may be expressed by the proof from signs, because to each class and habit there is an appropriate style. I mean class in reference to age—child, man, or old man; to sex—man or woman; to country—Lacedaemonian or Thessalian. I call habits those moral states which form a man's character in life;
[7] for not all habits do this. If then anyone uses the language appropriate to each habit, he will represent the character; for the uneducated man will not say the same things in the same way as the educated. But the hearers also are impressed in a certain way by a device employed
ad nauseam by writers of speeches:
3
Who does not know?
Everybody knows; for the hearer agrees, because he is ashamed to appear not to share what is a matter of common knowledge.
[9] But whenever one has gone too far, the remedy may be found in the common piece of advice—that he should rebuke himself in advance;
5
then the excess seems true, since the orator is obviously aware of what he is doing.
[10] Further, one ought not to make use of all kinds of correspondence
6
together; for in this manner the hearer is deceived. I mean, for instance, if the language is harsh, the voice, features, and all things connected should not be equally harsh; otherwise what each really is becomes evident. But if you do this in one instance and not in another, the art escapes notice, although the result is the same. If mild sentiments are harshly expressed or harsh sentiments mildly, the speech lacks persuasiveness.
[11] Compound words, a number of epithets, and
foreign words especially, are appropriate to an emotional speaker; for when a man is enraged it is excusable for him to call an evil
high-as-heaven or
stupendous. He may do the same when he has gripped his audience and filled it with enthusiasm, either by praise, blame, anger, or friendliness, as Isocrates does at the end of his
Panegyricus
7
:
Oh, the fame and the name! and
In that they endured. For such is the language of enthusiastic orators, and it is clear that the hearers accept what they say in a sympathetic spirit. Wherefore this style is appropriate to poetry; for there is something inspired in poetry. It should therefore be used either in this way or
20
when speaking ironically, after the manner of Gorgias, or of Plato in the
Phaedrus.
8
Rhetoric. Aristotle. John Henry Freese (Translator). London. 1926.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
Funding provided by The Annenberg CPB/Project.