§3.13.1ἔστι δὲ τοῦ λόγου δύο μέρη· ἀναγκαῖον γὰρ τό τε πρᾶγμα εἰπεῖν περὶ οὗ, καὶ τοῦτʼ ἀποδεῖξαι.
There are two parts of a speech; for it is necessary both to state the matter concerning which it is, and to prove this.
διὸ εἰπόντα μὴ ἀποδεῖξαι ἢ ἀποδεῖξαι μὴ προειπόντα ἀδύνατον· ὅ τε γὰρ ἀποδεικνύων τι ἀποδείκνυσι, καὶ ὁ προλέγων ἕνεκα τοῦ ἀποδεῖξαι προλέγει.
Therefore, to state it without proving it, or to prove it without first stating it, is impossible; for he who proves, proves something, and he who states beforehand, states it for the sake of proving.
§3.13.2τούτων δὲ τὸ μὲν πρόθεσίς ἐστι τὸ δὲ πίστις, ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις διέλοι ὅτι τὸ μὲν πρόβλημα τὸ δὲ ἀπόδειξις.
Of these, the one is the statement, the other the proof, just as if one were to make a division, saying that the one is the problem, the other the demonstration.
§3.13.3νῦν 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;
But nowadays they make ridiculous divisions; for narrative is surely a part of the judicial speech alone, but in an epideictic or deliberative speech, how is it possible for there to be a narrative such as they describe, or the refutation of the opponent, or an epilogue of the demonstrations?
προοίμιον δὲ καὶ ἀντιπαραβολὴ καὶ ἐπάνοδος ἐν ταῖς δημηγορίαις τότε γίνεται ὅταν ἀντιλογία ᾖ.
And introduction, comparison, and recapitulation in deliberative speeches occur only when there is opposition.
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.
For accusation and defense occur often, but not advice; and furthermore, the epilogue is not even a part of every judicial speech, for instance if the speech is short or the matter is easy to remember; for it results in a subtraction from the length.
§3.13.4ἀναγκαῖα ἄρα μόρια πρόθεσις καὶ πίστις.
Therefore, the necessary parts are the statement and the proof.
ἴδια μὲν οὖν ταῦτα, τὰ δὲ πλεῖστα προοίμιον πρόθεσις πίστις ἐπίλογος· τὰ γὰρ πρὸς τὸν ἀντίδικον τῶν πίστεών ἐστι, καὶ ἡ ἀντιπαραβολὴ αὔξησις τῶν αὐτοῦ, ὥστε μέρος τι τῶν πίστεων (ἀποδείκνυσι γάρ τι ὁ ποιῶν τοῦτο), ἀλλʼ οὐ τὸ προοίμιον, οὐδʼ ὁ ἐπίλογος, ἀλλʼ ἀναμιμνήσκει.
These then are the proper parts, but at most they are introduction, statement, proof, and epilogue; for the refutation of the opponent belongs to the proofs, and the comparison is an amplification of one's own arguments, so that it is a certain part of the proofs (for he who does this proves something), whereas the introduction is not, nor is the epilogue, which merely reminds.
§3.13.5ἔσται οὖν, ἄν τις τὰ τοιαῦτα διαιρῇ, ὅπερ ἐποίουν οἱ περὶ Θεόδωρον, διήγησις ἕτερον καὶ ἐπιδιήγησις καὶ προδιήγησις, καὶ ἔλεγχος καὶ ἐπεξέλεγχος.
If, then, one makes such divisions, there will be what Theodoros and his followers used to do: narrative as one thing, and post-narrative and pre-narrative, and refutation and post-refutation.
δεῖ δὲ εἶδός τι λέγοντα καὶ διαφορᾷ ὄνομα τίθεσθαι· εἰ δὲ μή, γίνεται κενὸν καὶ ληρῶδες, οἷον Λικύμνιος ποιεῖ ἐν τῇ τέχνῃ, ἐπούρωσιν ὀνομάζων καὶ ἀποπλάνησιν καὶ ὄζους.
But one ought to give a name only when speaking of a distinct class and a real difference; otherwise, it becomes empty and nonsensical, such as Licymnius does in his Art, naming epourosis, apoplanesis, and ozoi.