CHAP. XVIII. What reason does Aristotle adduce in this chapter for his treating of the τὰ ἤθη ? Did Aristotle treat of any 0ŋ in the first book of Rhetoric? Why did he treat of the ra ήθη κατα της πολιτείας in the first book? Of the τόποι περὶ δυνατῶν καὶ ἀδυνάτων do you consider the τὸ γεγονὸς and τὸ ἐσόμενον both equally applicable to the judicial and deliberative species of orations? CHAP. XIX. The reader is referred to Hobbes' Brief for an exposition of the Tómo in this chapter. CHAP. XX. Are the παράδειγμα and ἐνθύμημα common to all the species of oration? As Aristotle says that the rapádɛyμa is like induction, explain in what points they resemble, and in what they differ. (vide Riccobon in cap. xx. hujus libri.) How many distinctions of πapádɛɩyμa are there? Into how many species is the rò avtov tolɛt̃v, or matter invented by the orator, subdivided? Explain what is meant by the species παραβολὴ ? "Quod si ex tanta latrocinio iste unus tolletur; videbimur fortasse ad breve quoddam tempus cura et metu esse relevati; periculum autem residebit, et erit inclusum penitus in venis atque visceribus reipublicæ. Ut sæpe homines ægri morbo gravi cum æstu febrique jactantur, si aquam gelidam biberint, primo relevare videntur; deinde multo gravius vehementiusque afflictantur; sic hic morbus, qui est in republica, relevatus istius pœna vehementius, civibus reliquis, ingravescet;" is this a παραβολὴ οι λόγος ? When Agrippa Menenius says, "Tempore, quo in homine, non, ut nunc, omnia in unum consentiebant, sed singulus membris suum cuique consilium, suus sermo fuerat, indignatas reliquas partes, sua cura, suo labore ac ministerio ventri omnia quæri: ventrem, in medio quietum, nihil aliud, quam datis voluptatibus frui; conspirasse inde, ne manus ad os cibum` ferrent, nec os acciperet datum, nec dentes conficerent. Hac ira, dum ventrem fame domare vellent, ipsa una membra totumque corpus ad extremam tabem venisse. Inde apparuisse, ventris quoque haud segne ministerium esse: nec magis ali, quam alere eum, reddentem in omnes corporis partes hunc, quo vivimus vigemusque, divisum pariter in venas maturum, confecto cibo, sanguinem. Is this a Tapaßoλn or λóyos? Which of the two distinctions of the Tapádyμa do you consider most persuasive in deliberative oratory? If the orator has not enthymems at command, how does Aristotle recommend him to use the παράδειγμα ? But if the orator has both enthymems and examples at command, which does he recommend should be placed before the other? In the passage quoted from Cicero does he follow Aristotle's precept or not? Why is the Tapádelyμa and its species, when placed before the enthymems, little adapted to a speech? What advantage is gained by placing the rapádεyμa after the enthymem ? In placing the Tapádelyμa after the enthymem will one be a sufficient proof, or are several requisite ? CHAP. XXI. Give the definition of the ἡ γνώμη. Are the conclusions of enthymems ever γνώμαι ? How many subaltern genera of the n yvwun are there? Into how many species is the subaltern genus ävev étiλóyov subdivided? Into how many species is the other subaltern genus μɛr' ἐπιλόγου subdivided ? Explain what kind of yvwμaι those are which require not the annexation of the ἐπίλογος. Explain what kind of yruar those are which require the annexation of the ἐπίλογος. You have stated that each subaltern genus is subdivided into two species would you be correct in saying that the 1st species of the subaltern genus (ävev étiλóyov) require not the annexation of the iniλoyos, because they were understood before uttered; and that the 2nd species of the same subaltern genus require not the annexation of the miλoyos, because they are understood as soon as uttered; and that the 3rd species of the subaltern genus (μer' étiλóyov) are parts of enthymems: and that the 4th species of the same subaltern genus are essentially enthymems, and have the riλoyos as it were inserted in them? What division does Aristotle make with respect to the use of γνώμαι ? (.) On dubious and incredible subjects, which of the above species does Aristotle recommend to be used? On subjects not altogether incredible, but obscure, which of the above species does he recommend to be used? (vi. ai d' ενθυμήματι καὶ μὲν.) We now come to the third' use of γνώμαι (τίσιν ἀρμόττει): is the use of yvéμai equally suited to all ages and conditions of persons? Ought yváμaι not universally true to be indiscriminately used in every part of a speech? In what occasions then should yvwpaι of this description only be used, and ought they to have the riλoyos? Are yvúpa which are generally admitted to be true, admissible in every part of a speech? Are the γνώμαι which contravene current sayings (παρὰ τὰ dεdnuoσievμévais) equally admissible in every part of a speech? On what occasions then is it fit that they should be used? (xiii.) How will the τὸ ἦθος be made to appear βέλτιον ? Do I understand you to say "by being manifested in the diction, or by annexing the reason for the received opinion?" What advantages does the use of yvúμaι contribute to the orator? When the orator wishes to give his speech an air of moral character by the use of yvwuai, what principle must he manifest? Aristotle has treated of the Tíow åpμótteι first, in violation of his proposed arrangement in the beginning of the chapter. In the following quotation from Demosthenes περὶ τοῦ Στεφάνου is there a γνώμη ? ̓Αλλ' οὐ διὰ ταῦτα προεῖντο τοὺς καταφεύγοντας ἐφ' ἑαυτούς, ἀλλ ̓ ὑπὲρ εὐδοξίας καὶ τιμῆς ἤθελον τοῖς δεινοῖς αὑτοὺς διδόναι, ὀρθῶς καὶ καλῶς βουλευόμενοι. πέρας μὲν γὰρ ἅπασιν ἀνθρώποις ἐστὶ τοῦ βίου θάνατος, κἂν ἐν οἰκίσκῳ τις αὑτὸν καθείρξας τηρῇ δεῖ δὲ τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας ἐγχειρεῖν μὲν ἅπασιν ἀεὶ τοῖς καλοῖς, τὴν ἀγαθὴν προβαλλομένους ἐλπίδα, φέρειν δ' ὅ τι ἂν ὁ Θεὸς διδῷ γενναίως. To which species does it belong, and why does it not require the annexation of the ἐπίλογος ? CHAP. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. The reader is referred to Hobbes' Brief on the subject of these chapters. CHAP. XXV. XXVI. You stated in reply to a question in the first book, that the πίστεις διὰ τοῦ δείκνυσθαι, &c., were divided into two species, ἐνθύμημα and παράδειγμα: what subdivision does Aristotle make of the ἐνθύμημα in the second book? (Book II. chap. xxii. 14.) How many modes of the ἡ λύσις, or solution of arguments, are there? Explain the different methods of starting an objection. How is a παράδειγμα solvable ? How is a τεκμήριον solvable? How is a σημεῖον solvable ? What reason does Aristotle give for not considering the rò αὔξειν καὶ μειοῦν as τόποι ἐνθυμήματος How is a solution of them effected? ANALYTICAL QUESTIONS ON ARISTOTLE'S RHETORIC. BOOK III.-CHAP. I. WHAT importance does Aristotle ascribe to the λέğıç in rhetoric? Does he ascribe any importance to the ὑπόκρισις ? In what does he consider it to consist? (iv.) But why does he treat only of the Xis when he ascribes importance to the vπóкρɩɩs? (vi. and vii.) Does he make any distinction between the style of poetry and orations ? CHAP. II. Define the Xeεwç άperǹ, or excellence of style. It seems that Aristotle in this definition notes two things as conducive to the λέξεως ἀρετὴ, viz. τὸ σαφῆ εἶναι and πρέTOVσav; how are these attained in style? (ii. iii. and iv.) Why does Aristotle object to the too frequent use of γλώτταις or exotic words, πεποιήμενοις or newly-coined words, and dinλous or compound words? Is the orator obliged to confine himself to the use of the Kúpia or words in common use, or is he at liberty to use the other species occasionally? What advantage does the use of the kúpia contribute to style? What advantage does the use of the yλwrraus, &c. contribute to style when sparingly used? |