Four-Part Epilogue

Aristotle has a rather helpful way of using lists to swiftly and effectively tell you the main parts of his writing. He does this for many of his subjects, some of which include Persuasion, Refutation, and Making Speeches. According to Aristotle, there are four parts to an effective epilogue:

1) Making the audience well-disposed towards yourself and ill-disposed towards your opponent,

2) Magnifying or minimizing the leading facts,

3) Prompting the right emotion in your audience, and

4) Refreshing your audience’s memory.

During your argument, you should have succeeded in putting yourself in a good light before your audience. At the end of your argument, all you need to do is reiterate your good character and trustworthiness. As well as your reputation, you should reiterate your main points or facts to remind your audience why your argument is so convincing. Saying a couple sentences to evoke the proper emotion is another way to end your argument successfully, along with refreshing your audience’s memory one last time with your thesis statement.

Interrogation

Aristotle begins his discussion on this subject by telling us the best time to use it: when your opponent answers a question that opens him to the risk of contradiction. When he has walked into the metaphorical trap, you take the opportunity and ask questions intended to back him into a corner. When it is impossible for him to reply to your question without negating himself, he will give an attempt at an evasive answer and prove his argument fallible.

Interrogation isn’t just a spy tactic: showing that your opponent is contradicting his own words or a proven truth is a relatively easy way to disprove an argument without having to formulate a counterargument.

The Happy Medium

In talking about the length and speed of introductions, Aristotle uses wording that is reminiscent of an old fairy tale: “We are not to make long narrations… rightness does not consist either in rapidity or in conciseness, but in the happy mean.” Many people, if confronted about matters of different extremes, would follow in the footsteps of Goldilocks and choose the “just right” bowl of porridge. Not too hot, not too cold, but right in the middle.

This is a direct reflection of how too many people live their lives: not terrible, but not the best possible. They give just enough effort to squeeze by, but stop trying when the time comes to really push forward. When the rubber hits the road, they give up because they don’t want to work. Unfortunately, these people are often happy with their mediocre lives because they cannot see over the hill in front of them. They’ve never given enough effort to reach the top, so the great reward that lies just over the hill is out of their sight. The impending obstacle could be overcome with just a bit more effort, but they get stuck in the middle because they won’t try. Don’t settle for “the happy medium.”

Defend Yourself

Throughout life, false accusations are constantly thrown at us. Enemies or rivals often create rumors meant to debase your reputation and damage your trustworthiness. Being able to defend yourself is a necessary skill to have if you’re going to engage in any kind of debate or argument, or even uphold a state of just authority.

To begin with, disproving the accusation with solid evidence should be the first move, if possible. If not, outright denying the alleged fact can be a step in the right direction. You can also help your case by showing that the accusation isn’t fully true, or that your accuser is guilty of something similar. There are many ways for you to defend yourself besides these, and learning them will not only protect you from accusations but improve your accusing skills.

Arrangement

Aristotle has mentioned before that he believes that most speeches are just too long. Orators crowd their arguments with unnecessary words, add useless and unrelated facts, and reiterate points that don’t need reiteration. This is why his first statement in his discussion of arrangement is this: “A speech has two parts. You must state your case, and you must prove it.” Unless you’re giving a very long speech that could benefit from a recapitulation, these are the only two main segments you’ll need. Aristotle encourages us to stick to only the necessary features of a speech- it will be much more effective that way.

Intonation

Aristotle has written many different discussions in many different sections about one specific topic: Style. How you form it, how you personalize it, how you use it to enhance your argument, you name it- he’s covered it all. Most of the advice, however, had been about the format or flow of the style, and not the intonation, which is why Aristotle dedicated a section solely to the subject.

Usually, Aristotle centers his thoughts around the importance of using the right words, arranging them to best persuade your audience, and including writing enhancements such as metaphors, maxims, or examples. What he talks about in this section is how you speak these words. He tells us to sound dramatic when delivering a dramatic argument, sincere when talking about a subject of great importance, passionate when calling people to action, and caring when garnering sympathy from your audience. The tone of your voice can completely change the reaction of listeners, and it can be used to achieve the reaction you desire. It embodies the vibe of your argument and it plays a crucial part in oratorical arguments. Just as it can improve your argument, Aristotle warns us against the problems misuse of intonation can cause: imagine a speaker using a tone of caring and compassion when trying to rally an army- it would pretty much defeat the whole purpose. He says this not to discourage use of intonation, but to encourage thoughtful use of it.

Got? Seriously?

As you may very well know, Aristotle is experienced and knowledgeable in the realm of writing and rhetoric. Whether it’s creating persuasive arguments or giving eloquent speeches, he knows his stuff. Not only that, but he’s pretty good at the grammar portion of language as well.

However, no one is immune to mistakes. Everyone makes them, but you’d think that Aristotle would’ve caught this one: “…that liveliness is got by using…” Aristotle, Greek philosopher and rhetorician, just used got as the verb form for this sentence, instead of gained or achieved. Just taking the time to read this sentence out loud would reveal this blaring mistake! How this ever passed by his thorough scrutiny befuddles me.

It’s actually “Pluck the Day”

While reading Aristotle’s Rhetoric, I ran across a sentence of that sounded quite familiar.

Aristotle is writing about, well, writing in this section. To be specific, he is discussing “the way to devise lively and taking sayings,” i.e. metaphors and similes. In this he tells us to “seize a new idea,” which immediately reminded me of the Latin phrase carpe diem, which means “seize the day” in English. Out of curiosity, I decided to translate Aristotle’s phrase into Latin and found myself slightly puzzled: “occupare novum idea” wasn’t exactly what I expected (I thought that carpe would’ve been in there somewhere).

With a bit more research, I discovered that breaking down the phrases and inspecting the singular words yielded different results than the whole phrases themselves. Carpe = pluck, and occupare = seize, while their phrases mean “seize the day” and “seize a new idea,” respectively. It’s interesting how the same meaning is conveyed by two different words, but even more interesting is the fact that carpe diem actually translates to “pluck the day.”

Follow Along

In one of the parts of Book III in Aristotle’s Rhetoric, the author addresses what I translate as run-ons. Not just the grammatically incorrect sentences, but the way one writes: a “free-running style.” Writing continuously and monotonously with no set stopping point is what Aristotle takes issue with, but instead of attacking this style he presents an alternative called “compact style.” This writing structure is set with a beginning and an end, and outfitted with periods and paragraphs to improve readability. This language style is easy to follow and satisfying to read. Unlike free-running style, it has a goal in mind and leaves the reader feeling like he understood the concept and reached a conclusion. As well as being more easily remembered, this compact style is more efficient when it comes to getting your point across. Ergo, I see no reason why compact style shouldn’t be used when writing an argumentative or persuasive paper.

Aristotle talks about Rhythm

Language is a very important topic to Aristotle, especially elegant yet convincing language. Under this deliverance of language falls rhythm, to which he dedicates a few paragraphs on do’s and don’ts.

The whole focus of this section on rhythm is that the form of a prose composition should be neither “metrical nor destitute of rhythm.” In other words, not robotic and not strictly poetic. Don’t get me wrong- using ornate language can, when used correctly, bolster and enhance your writing. However, this attempt at embellishment often turns a wonderful composition into an unwanted poetry piece.  On the other hand, Aristotle warns us about doing the exact opposite- writing void of rhythm. This choppy, monotonous tone is sometimes the result of trying to avoid extremely poetic writing. The last thing you’d want in your writing is to sound like a robot (unless, of course, you sound like C-3PO or the Terminator).

Aristotle’s final note on rhythm sums up what he discussed in the segment: “We have now seen that our language must be rhythmical and not destitute of rhythm, and what rhythms, in what particular shape, make it so.” What really gets me about this last sentence is not the message it brings but the awkward, clumsy rhythm it presents.