Therefore when the focus of dispute and the arguments pertaining to it have been carefully discovered in accordance with our method, then and only then are the remaining parts of the speech to be set in order.
In our view there are altogether six parts: preface or exordium, narration, division, confirmation, refutation and conclusion. Since the exordium comes first, we’ll first give guidance on it. The exordium prepares the listener for the rest of the speech; it will succeed if it makes him positively inclined, attentive and open to instruction. Constructing a good exordium requires first determining the nature of the case. Cases are of five types: ethical, surprising, trivial, ambiguous and obscure. With an ethical case the listener is favourably inclined even before we begin to speak. A surprising case is strange or unfamiliar to the listener. A trivial case is one that the listener considers insignificant and not worth paying attention to. In an ambiguous case the point at issue is uncertain and the case is partly shameful, partly honourable, so as to prompt both goodwill and opposition; an obscure case is one in which either the listeners are not very intelligent or a verdict requires understanding of challenging material. Because the types of cases are so different, a different approach is necessary for each type.
[…]
In sum, an exordium should be thoughtful and serious and employ all devices that contribute to a sense of dignity, since the best outcome is for the speaker to win the favour of the audience. Brilliance, wit and stylistic polish should be kept to a minimum because they can arouse suspicion of over-preparation and feigned concern, which diminish confidence in the speech and the speaker.
[…]
The narration is a presentation of the events that have occurred or are alleged to have occurred. There are three kinds of narration. The first is limited to the case and points of controversy. The second includes some digression beyond the case and charge, either to attack someone or to draw a comparison or to provide some amusement, but in a manner not inappropriate to the matter at hand, or just for the sake of making the affair seem more important. A third kind of narrative has nothing to do with civil affairs but is written and spoken for the sake of entertainment, although it also provides useful practice. […]
With regard to narration in a civil case, there are three requirements: it must be brief, clear and plausible. It will be brief if it starts where necessary and doesn’t go back to some remote point; if it will not discuss in detail anything that can be summarized, for example it’s often sufficient just to say what happened, not how it happened; if it doesn’t extend beyond what is essential; and if it doesn’t cross over to some other legal matter. Also brevity is achieved if sometimes a point is left unstated but can be inferred from what has been expressed; if we omit both what hinders the truth and things that neither hinder nor help; if each point is stated only once; and if the narrative does not return to matters that have already been discussed. […]
A narration will be clear if what happened first is presented first and if the temporal sequence of events is preserved, so that the story is told as it happened or could have happened. We should take special care not to mention anything out of order or with twists and turns or to wander to another topic, or start too far back or extend the story too far forwards, or omit anything that is pertinent. The rules about brevity apply to clarity as well. Often the case is hard to follow due to the length of the narrative rather than any obscurity. And we must use words that are clear and precise – a topic to be treated when we cover style.
A narration will be plausible if the things that happen in it are the sorts of things that happen in reality; if the behaviour described conforms with the status of the individuals involved; if motives for actions are clear; if there seem to have been means for the actions; if the time can be shown to be appropriate, the space sufficient, the location convenient for carrying out the act to be narrated; if behaviour matches the nature of the agents, the practice of ordinary people and the expectations of the audience. A narrative that seems likely to be true is constructed on the same bases. […]
Let us now consider the division or partition. A properly handled partition makes the entire speech clear and illuminating. There are two versions, both of which are a great resource for clarifying the case and establishing the key point of disagreement. One approach is to show how we agree with the opposition and how we differ. In this way the mind of the auditor is focused as it should be. The other approach is to briefly lay out, point by point, the topics we will be discussing. The auditor then holds in mind specific topics and will know that the speech is over once they have been covered. […]
Confirmation is the part of the speech in which, through argumentation, we establish the believability and authority of our case. [The author then proceeds to discuss the strategies for developing arguments, along the lines presented in the section called ‘Invention or Discovery of Arguments’ above.]
Refutation is the part of the speech in which, through argumentation, we refute or weaken or make light of the opponent’s own confirmation. It uses the same resources for invention as confirmation does, for whatever techniques are used to support an argument can be used to refute it. […]
Generally speaking, an argument is refuted either by refusing to accept its underlying assumptions, or if one or several of the assumptions are accepted, but we deny that a particular conclusion follows from them, or if the form of argumentation is shown to be faulty, or if against a strong argument we set another that is just as strong or even stronger. […]
The conclusion or peroration is the finale and end point of the entire speech. It has three aspects: enumeration, summoning of indignation, appeal to pity. Enumeration or summing-up entails gathering in one place everything discussed throughout the speech for the purpose of reviewing it all at a glance. If everything is treated in the same manner it will be evident to all that you have employed a certain artifice. If matters are handled with variation, it will be possible to avoid such an inference as well as boredom. Therefore sometimes it will be necessary to do what the majority do for simplicity’s sake, namely touch on every point individually and briefly run through all arguments. Sometimes, however, it will be necessary to take the more difficult approach and review the issues you promised to discuss in your partition and recall how you addressed each one, for example: ‘We have proven this, we have made this plain.’ Sometimes it will be useful to ask what the audience ought to expect to be proven. In this way the listener will refresh his own memory and think that there is nothing more that he should be looking for.
In all of these approaches you will sometimes treat your own arguments individually, sometimes – which is more artful – match them with those of your opponent, and sometimes, having reviewed your own argument, proceed to show how you have also refuted what is said against it. Thus through brief comparison the audience will be reminded of what has been proven and what has been disproven. It will also be important to vary your delivery: sometimes you can conduct the summation in your own persona, reminding the audience of what you have said and in what order. Other times you will introduce a different person or entity, assigning to it the entire enumeration. As an example of a different person:
If the author of the law should appear before us and ask you why you are in doubt, what could you say, when such and such has been proven to you? […]
An entity is used when summation is attributed to something like a law, a locale, a city, or a monument, for example:
What if the laws could speak? Would they not beseech you in these words: ‘What more can you ask for, judges, when such and such has been made clear to you?’
With either of these, the various methods of summation are all legitimate. An important lesson for any summation is that for each argument, because the entirety cannot be simply restated, you must choose what is most compelling, and run over such points as briefly as possible. The goal is to reinforce memory, not repeat the speech.
As for summoning indignation, this entails provoking hatred against a person or a sense of grave offence against a deed. […] Any attribute of a person or event can be expanded upon and serve as a basis for indignation. Still, let’s consider one by one instructions concerning indignation.
The first basis for an appeal to indignation is to commemorate the attention given to the affair by those who ought to have the greatest authority: immortal gods, as evidenced by lots, oracles, soothsayers, omens, prodigies, responses and so forth; also, our ancestors, kings, states, peoples, wise men, the senate, the people, the writers of laws. The second is to show, with passionate emphasis, who will be affected by this affair, whether everyone or almost everyone (in which case misconduct is atrocious) or superiors, such as those whose rank prompts indignation (in which case it’s disgraceful), or those who are equals in mind, fortune, body (in which case it’s unjust) or those who are of lower station (in which case it’s the height of arrogance). The third technique involves asking what would happen if everybody else behaved in the same way, simultaneously showing that if the defendant gets off, there will be many ready to imitate his boldness. This allows us to describe the evil that will follow. The fourth technique is one in which we explain that many are eagerly awaiting the decision, knowing that what is permissible for one will be permissible for the rest in a similar situation.
A fifth involves showing that in other instances a bad decision can be revised once the truth is known, but that this case, once decided, cannot be altered by any judgement or corrected by any authority. A sixth consists of demonstrating that this deed was performed intentionally and deliberately, then adding that no forgiveness is to be shown to voluntary bad conduct, even if it is sometimes appropriate in a case of inadvertence. The seventh involves showing our own indignation, calling the deed foul, cruel, unspeakable, tyrannical, carried out by force, direct violence, or wealth in complete contradiction of the law and a sense of fairness. The eighth technique involves showing that the crime is not a commonplace one, that it is not committed even by the most violent sorts of men, being unfamiliar to savage folk, barbarian nations and monstrous beasts. These will be crimes said to have been committed cruelly against parents, children, spouses, blood relations, suppliants or against elders, guests or hosts, neighbours, friends, companions of life or education, mentors, the dead, those who are wretched and deserving of pity, distinguished, noble and honoured men, against those who could not hurt another or defend themselves against such hurt, for example children, the elderly, women. In such cases, the fierce arousal of indignation will summon the greatest hatred against the perpetrators.
The ninth technique is to compare the alleged crime with other deeds that all agree are crimes, thus showing how much more atrocious and disgraceful is the charge in this trial. A tenth involves gathering together everything that was done in the course of the crime and subsequent to it, deploring and turning into an accusation each and every point and with our language as far as possible placing before the eyes the entire affair so that the disgraceful act will be visible as if each member of the audience had been there in person. The eleventh involves showing that the crime was committed by the person for whom it was least right to behave thus and who would be expected to prevent it at the hands of another. The twelfth involves expressing our indignation that this has happened to us first, and that it has never happened to anyone else. Thirteen is to show that insult was added to injury, thereby stirring up hatred against insolence and disdain. In the fourteenth we ask the audience to relate our injuries to their own situation, for example if children are involved have them think about their own offspring, if women, have them think about their wives, if old men, about their fathers or parents. In the fifteenth we assert that even opponents and enemies are undeserving of the treatment we have received. Generally speaking these are the ways in which indignation can be communicated most effectively.
Lamentation is an appeal to the pity of the listeners. The first task is to make the mind of the listener compliant and merciful so that he can be affected by the specific appeal. This will be achieved through the use of commonplaces2 that reveal the power of fortune over everyone and the weakness of humanity. When such things are discussed gravely and thoughtfully the listener’s spirit will droop and be ready to show pity since he will reflect on his own weakness while considering someone else’s misfortune.
After that, the first theme or topic for inducing pity is demonstrating how those who were once happy and prosperous are now in a bad condition. A second involves temporal distinction, showing the evils they have experienced, are experiencing and will experience. A third consists of lamenting in detail each misfortune, for example when speaking of the death of a son, describe the charm of boyhood, the father’s affection, hope, comfort, attention to his upbringing and anything that can be said by way of grieving over whatever misfortune. A fourth means is to describe the shameful humiliations they have endured and will endure, actions unsuited to their age, family, earlier fortune, status and generosity.
The fifth is to place everything, one by one, before the eyes so that the listener actually seems to see them and will be led to pity by the events themselves and not just by words. The sixth is to show how the subject is in distress contrary to what was expected, and that he has not only not achieved what he was hoping for but fallen into the greatest misery. The seventh involves turning to the audience and asking them when they see us to recall their children or parents or someone dear to them. The eighth is to say that something happened that should not have happened, or something hasn’t happened that should have, for example: ‘I was not present, I did not see, I did not hear his final words, I did not catch his dying breath.’ Or: ‘In the hands of enemies he died, in a hostile land he has been lying unburied, mutilated by wild beasts, lacking common dignity in death.’
A ninth consists of presenting someone as speaking to a mute or inanimate object, for example a horse, a house, a garment. The mind of listeners who have cherished something of the sort is greatly affected. The tenth puts on display poverty, weakness, isolation. An eleventh in which the speaker hands over to the audience his children, parents or the task of burying his body. A twelfth entails deploring forceful separation from someone you lived with most willingly, such as a parent, a son, a brother or a close friend. A thirteenth in which we angrily complain that we are being mistreated by those from whom we least deserve mistreatment, for example, relatives or friends we have treated kindly and we thought would help us, or by those from whom such ill treatment is unworthy, such as slaves, freedmen, clients or suppliants. A fourteenth consists of begging or beseeching, in which we pray that those who hear will show mercy. A fifteenth in which we present ourselves as mourning the misfortunes not of ourselves but of those who ought to be dear to us. Sixteenth, we show that we feel compassion for others yet remain and will remain generous, noble and tolerant of whatever evils may befall us. For often courage and grandeur, which carry a certain gravity and authority, are more effective at summoning pity than humility and grovelling.
Once the spirits of the audience have been aroused, it will not be necessary to dwell on lamentation for any great length of time. As the rhetorician Apollonius3 said, ‘Nothing dries faster than tears.’