[9]
If this is so, it is obvious that all those who
definitely lay down, for instance, what should be the contents of the exordium
or the narrative, or of the other parts of the discourse, are bringing under the
rules of art what is outside the subject; for the only thing to which their
attention is devoted
is how to put the judge into a
certain frame of mind. They give no account of the artificial proofs,1 which make a man a master of
rhetorical argument.
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
View text chunked by:
1 Systematic logical proofs （enthymeme, for example）, including testimony as to character and appeals to the emotions （2.3）, which the rhetorician has to invent （ εὑρεῖν, inventio） for use in particular cases. They are contrasted with “inartificial” proofs, which have nothing to do with the rules of the art, but are already in existence, and only need to be made use of. The former are dealt with in chs. 4-14, the latter in ch. 15 of this book.
Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 22, translated by J. H. Freese. Aristotle. Cambridge and London. Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd. 1926.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
Purchase a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.