Potentially copyrighted passage
By consulting this text, you confirm that you may use it for personal and educational purposes. Do not reproduce its content. If the book helps you, buy it to support the author or rights holders.
Aristotle
Rhetoric Section 3
Section 752 of 882
Canonical reference 3.13.3
Ancient Greek
νῦν δὲ διαιροῦσι γελοίως· διήγησις γάρ που τοῦ δικανικοῦ μόνου λόγου ἐστίν, ἐπιδεικτικοῦ δὲ καὶ δημηγορικοῦ πῶς ἐνδέχεται εἶναι διήγησιν οἵαν λέγουσιν, ἢ τὰ πρὸς τὸν ἀντίδικον, ἢ ἐπίλογον τῶν ἀποδεικτικῶν; προοίμιον δὲ καὶ ἀντιπαραβολὴ καὶ ἐπάνοδος ἐν ταῖς δημηγορίαις τότε γίνεται ὅταν ἀντιλογία ᾖ. καὶ γὰρ ἡ κατηγορία καὶ ἡ ἀπολογία πολλάκις, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ἡ συμβουλή· ἀλλʼ ὁ ἐπίλογος ἔτι οὐδὲ δικανικοῦ παντός, οἷον ἐὰν μικρὸς ὁ λόγος ἢ τὸ πρᾶγμα εὐμνημόνευτον· συμβαίνει γὰρ τοῦ μήκους ἀφαιρεῖσθαι.
English
J. H. Freese, 1926
But the division now generally made is absurd; for narrative only belongs in a manner to forensic speech, but in epideictic or deliberative speech how is it possible that there should be narrative as it is defined, or a refutation; or an epilogue in demonstrative speeches? In deliberative speeches, again, exordium, comparison, and recapitulation are only admissible when there is a conflict of opinion. For both accusation and defence are often found in deliberative, but not qua deliberative speech. And further, the epilogue does not even belong to every forensic speech, for instance, when it is short, or the matter is easy to recollect; for in the epilogue what happens is that there is a reduction of length.
French AI-generated translation, non-official
Codex gpt-5.6-sol · Non-official working translation · 2026-09-13
Mais la division que l’on adopte aujourd’hui communément est absurde. Car la narration n’appartient, d’une certaine manière, qu’au discours judiciaire. Mais comment pourrait-il y avoir, dans le discours épidictique ou délibératif, une narration telle qu’on la définit, ou une réfutation ; ou encore un épilogue dans les discours démonstratifs ? Dans les discours délibératifs, de plus, l’exorde, la comparaison et la récapitulation ne sont admissibles que lorsqu’il existe un conflit d’opinions. Car l’accusation et la défense se rencontrent souvent dans le discours délibératif, mais non en tant qu’il est délibératif. En outre, l’épilogue n’appartient même pas à tout discours judiciaire, par exemple lorsque celui-ci est court ou que la matière est facile à retenir ; car, dans l’épilogue, ce qui se produit est une réduction de la longueur.
Concepts in this passage
Anger
View detailed page
Filter the library
Elenchus
View detailed page
Filter the library
Family
View detailed page
Filter the library
Fear
View detailed page
Filter the library
Intelligible forms
View detailed page
Filter the library
Justice
View detailed page
Filter the library
Logos of nature
View detailed page
Filter the library
Mindfulness
View detailed page
Filter the library
Reason
View detailed page
Filter the library
Rhetoric
View detailed page
Filter the library