§1.1.1ἡ ῥητορική ἐστιν ἀντίστροφος τῇ διαλεκτικῇ·
Rhetoric is the counterpart of dialectic.
ἀμφότεραι γὰρ περὶ τοιούτων τινῶν εἰσιν ἃ κοινὰ τρόπον τινὰ ἁπάντων ἐστὶ γνωρίζειν καὶ οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιστήμης ἀφωρισμένης·
For both are concerned with such things as are, in a way, common for all to know and belong to no defined science.
διὸ καὶ πάντες τρόπον τινὰ μετέχουσιν ἀμφοῖν· πάντες γὰρ μέχρι τινὸς καὶ ἐξετάζειν καὶ ὑπέχειν λόγον καὶ ἀπολογεῖσθαι καὶ κατηγορεῖν ἐγχειροῦσιν.
Therefore, all people, in a way, participate in both; for all, to a certain extent, attempt both to examine and to sustain an argument, and to defend themselves and to accuse.
§1.1.2τῶν μὲν οὖν πολλῶν οἱ μὲν εἰκῇ ταῦτα δρῶσιν, οἱ δὲ διὰ συνήθειαν ἀπὸ ἕξεως·
Now, among the multitude, some do these things at random, while others do so through habit from a disposition.
ἐπεὶ δʼ ἀμφοτέρως ἐνδέχεται, δῆλον ὅτι εἴη ἂν αὐτὰ καὶ ὁδῷ ποιεῖν·
But since both ways are possible, it is clear that it would also be possible to do them by a method.
διʼ ὃ γὰρ ἐπιτυγχάνουσιν οἵ τε διὰ συνήθειαν καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτομάτου τὴν αἰτίαν θεωρεῖν ἐνδέχεται, τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον ἤδη πάντες ἂν ὁμολογήσαιεν τέχνης ἔργον εἶναι.
For it is possible to observe the cause through which both those who succeed by habit and those who do so by chance achieve their goal, and everyone would already agree that such a thing is the function of an art.
§1.1.3νῦν μὲν οὖν οἱ τὰς τέχνας τῶν λόγων συντιθέντες οὐδὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν πεπορίκασιν αὐτῆς μόριον (αἱ γὰρ πίστεις ἔντεχνόν εἰσι μόνον, τὰ δʼ ἄλλα προσθῆκαι), οἱ δὲ περὶ μὲν ἐνθυμημάτων οὐδὲν λέγουσιν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ σῶμα τῆς πίστεως, περὶ δὲ τῶν ἔξω τοῦ πράγματος τὰ πλεῖστα πραγματεύονται·
Now, those who compile the arts of speech have provided, so to speak, no part of it (for modes of persuasion alone are artistic, while other things are mere additions), but they say nothing about enthymemes, which are the body of persuasion, and busy themselves mostly with things outside the subject.
§1.1.4διαβολὴ γὰρ καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ὀργὴ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πάθη τῆς ψυχῆς οὐ περὶ τοῦ πράγματός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν δικαστήν·
For slander, pity, anger, and such emotions of the soul are not about the subject, but are directed toward the judge.
ὥστʼ εἰ περὶ πάσας ἦν τὰς κρίσεις καθάπερ ἐν ἐνίαις γε νῦν ἐστι τῶν πόλεων καὶ μάλιστα ταῖς εὐνομουμέναις, οὐδὲν ἂν εἶχον ὅ τι λέγωσιν·
Consequently, if all trials were conducted as they are now in some cities, especially those with good laws, they would have nothing to say.
§1.1.5ἅπαντες γὰρ οἱ μὲν οἴονται δεῖν οὕτω τοὺς νόμους ἀγορεύειν, οἱ δὲ καὶ χρῶνται καὶ κωλύουσιν ἔξω τοῦ πράγματος λέγειν, καθάπερ καὶ ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ, ὀρθῶς τοῦτο νομίζοντες·
For everyone either thinks that the laws should speak in this way, or they actually apply this rule and forbid speaking outside the subject, as is also done in the Areopagus, holding this view rightly.
οὐ γὰρ δεῖ τὸν δικαστὴν διαστρέφειν εἰς ὀργὴν προάγοντας ἢ φθόνον ἢ ἔλεον· ὅμοιον γὰρ κἂν εἴ τις ᾧ μέλλει χρῆσθαι κανόνι, τοῦτον ποιήσειε στρεβλόν.
For one ought not to warp the judge by prompting him to anger, envy, or pity; for that would be just as if someone were to make crooked the ruler they are about to use.
§1.1.6ἔτι δὲ φανερὸν ὅτι τοῦ μὲν ἀμφισβητοῦντος οὐδέν ἐστιν ἔξω τοῦ δεῖξαι τὸ πρᾶγμα ὅτι ἔστιν ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν, ἢ γέγονεν ἢ οὐ γέγονεν·
Furthermore, it is clear that the disputant has no other duty than to show that the fact is or is not, or has or has not happened.
εἰ δὲ μέγα ἢ μικρόν, ἢ δίκαιον ἢ ἄδικον, ὅσα μὴ ὁ νομοθέτης διώρικεν, αὐτὸν δή που τὸν δικαστὴν δεῖ γιγνώσκειν καὶ οὐ μανθάνειν παρὰ τῶν ἀμφισβητούντων.
But as to whether it is important or trivial, or just or unjust, in so far as the legislator has not defined it, the judge himself must surely decide and not learn it from the disputing parties.
§1.1.7μάλιστα μὲν οὖν προσήκει τοὺς ὀρθῶς κειμένους νόμους, ὅσα ἐνδέχεται, πάντα διορίζειν αὐτούς, καὶ ὅτι ἐλάχιστα καταλείπειν ἐπὶ τοῖς κρίνουσι, πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι ἕνα λαβεῖν καὶ ὀλίγους ῥᾷον ἢ πολλοὺς εὖ φρονοῦντας καὶ δυναμένους νομοθετεῖν καὶ δικάζειν·
Most of all, then, it is fitting that rightly enacted laws should themselves define all things, as far as possible, and leave as little as possible to those who judge.
ἔπειθʼ αἱ μὲν νομοθεσίαι ἐκ πολλοῦ χρόνου σκεψαμένων γίνονται, αἱ δὲ κρίσεις ἐξ ὑπογυίου, ὥστε χαλεπὸν ἀποδιδόναι τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ συμφέρον καλῶς τοὺς κρίνοντας.
First, because it is easier to find one or a few who are wise and capable of legislating and judging than many; second, because while legislations are made by those who have deliberated over a long time, trials are held on the spur of the moment, so that it is difficult for those who judge to render what is just and advantageous properly.
τὸ δὲ πάντων μέγιστον, ὅτι ἡ μὲν τοῦ νομοθέτου κρίσις οὐ κατὰ μέρος, ἀλλὰ περὶ μελλόντων τε καὶ καθόλου ἐστίν, ὁ δʼ ἐκκλησιαστὴς καὶ δικαστὴς ἤδη περὶ παρόντων καὶ ἀφωρισμένων κρίνουσιν·
But greatest of all is that while the judgment of the legislator is not about particular cases, but about future and universal things, the assemblyman and the judge decide on things already present and specific.
πρὸς οὓς καὶ τὸ φιλεῖν ἤδη καὶ τὸ μισεῖν καὶ τὸ ἴδιον συμφέρον συνήρτηται πολλάκις, ὥστε μηκέτι δύνασθαι θεωρεῖν ἱκανῶς τὸ ἀληθές, ἀλλʼ ἐπισκοτεῖν τῇ κρίσει τὸ ἴδιον ἡδὺ ἢ λυπηρόν.
In their case, loving, hating, and personal interest are already often involved, so that they are no longer able to observe the truth adequately, but their own pleasure or pain darkens their judgment.
§1.1.8περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἄλλων, ὥσπερ λέγομεν, δεῖ ὡς ἐλαχίστων ποιεῖν κύριον τὸν κριτήν, περὶ δὲ τοῦ γεγονέναι ἢ μὴ γεγονέναι, ἢ ἔσεσθαι ἢ μὴ ἔσεσθαι, ἢ εἶναι ἢ μὴ εἶναι, ἀνάγκη ἐπὶ τοῖς κριταῖς καταλείπειν· οὐ γὰρ δυνατὸν ταῦτα τὸν νομοθέτην προϊδεῖν.
Therefore, as we say, on other matters the judge should be made master of as few things as possible, but concerning whether a thing has happened or not, or will be or not, or is or is not, it is necessary to leave these to the judges; for it is not possible for the legislator to foresee these things.
§1.1.9εἰ δὲ ταῦθʼ οὕτως ἔχει, φανερὸν ὅτι τὰ ἔξω τοῦ πράγματος τεχνολογοῦσιν ὅσοι τἆλλα διορίζουσιν, οἷον τί δεῖ τὸ προοίμιον ἢ τὴν διήγησιν ἔχειν, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον μορίων·
If this is so, it is clear that those who define other matters—for instance, what the introduction or the narrative should contain, and each of the other parts—are systematizing things outside the subject.
οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἄλλο πραγματεύονται πλὴν ὅπως τὸν κριτὴν ποιόν τινα ποιήσωσιν, περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐντέχνων πίστεων οὐδὲν δεικνύουσιν, τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶν ὅθεν ἄν τις γένοιτο ἐνθυμηματικός.
For in these they busy themselves with nothing else than how to put the judge into a certain frame of mind, while they show nothing about artistic modes of persuasion, which is the very source from which one would become master of the enthymeme.
§1.1.10διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο τῆς αὐτῆς οὔσης μεθόδου περὶ τὰ δημηγορικὰ καὶ δικανικά, καὶ καλλίονος καὶ πολιτικωτέρας τῆς δημηγορικῆς πραγματείας οὔσης ἢ τῆς περὶ τὰ συναλλάγματα, περὶ μὲν ἐκείνης οὐδὲν λέγουσι, περὶ δὲ τοῦ δικάζεσθαι πάντες πειρῶνται τεχνολογεῖν, ὅτι ἧττόν ἐστι πρὸ ἔργου τὰ ἔξω τοῦ πράγματος λέγειν ἐν τοῖς δημηγορικοῖς καὶ ἧττόν ἐστι κακοῦργον ἡ δημηγορία δικολογίας, ὅτι κοινότερον.
For this reason, although the method is the same for deliberative and forensic speeches, and the treatment of deliberative speech is finer and more statesmanlike than that concerning contracts, they say nothing about the former, but all try to systematize the art of litigation. This is because in deliberative speeches it is less useful to speak outside the subject, and deliberative speech is less malicious than forensic pleading, because it is of more common interest.
ἐνταῦθα μὲν γὰρ ὁ κριτὴς περὶ οἰκείων κρίνει, ὥστʼ οὐδὲν ἄλλο δεῖ πλὴν ἀποδεῖξαι ὅτι οὕτως ἔχει ὥς φησιν ὁ συμβουλεύων·
For there, the judge decides about his own interests, so that nothing more is needed than to demonstrate that the case is as the adviser says.
ἐν δὲ τοῖς δικανικοῖς οὐχ ἱκανὸν τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ πρὸ ἔργου ἐστὶν ἀναλαβεῖν τὸν ἀκροατήν·
But in forensic speeches this is not enough; rather, it is useful to win over the hearer.
περὶ ἀλλοτρίων γὰρ ἡ κρίσις, ὥστε πρὸς τὸ αὑτῶν σκοπούμενοι καὶ πρὸς χάριν ἀκροώμενοι διδόασι τοῖς ἀμφισβητοῦσιν, ἀλλʼ οὐ κρίνουσιν.
For the judgment is about others' affairs, so that, looking to their own interest and listening for gratification, they surrender to the disputants but do not truly judge.
διὸ καὶ πολλαχοῦ, ὥσπερ πρότερον εἶπον, ὁ νόμος κωλύει λέγειν ἔξω τοῦ πράγματος· ἐκεῖ δʼ αὐτοὶ οἱ κριταὶ τοῦτο τηροῦσιν ἱκανῶς.
Therefore, as I said before, in many places the law forbids speaking outside the subject; but there, the judges themselves guard this sufficiently.