law, which would be the scientific method, the orator quotes one instance pointing in the direction of a law. Thus “Dionysius, in asking to be allowed a body-guard, aims at establishing a tyranny;—did not Pisistratus do just the same?” The “example” is, of course, an arguing by analogy, and the question must always be whether the cases compared with each other are really analogous, or whether there is any essential difference in the circumstances. Aristotle says that some orators deal more in examples, others more in enthymemes. He is inclined to think that in obtaining applause the enthymemes are the more successful.
After thus setting forth the general framework of oratory, Aristotle proceeds to make suggestions with regard to the matter of speeches. This will naturally be different in kind for the three different kinds of oratory. Him who is to practise deliberative oratory, Aristotle advises to study and make himself well acquainted with five points relative to the State to which he belongs: its finance; its foreign relations; the state of its defences; its imports and exports; and its system of law.[1] In reference to the last of these, Aristotle recommends the comparative study of political constitutions, and for that end that the accounts of travellers should be read. He adds that for political debate in general a knowledge of the works of historians is a valuable preparation.
These, however, are mere hints, directing the student to funds of information which lie outside of the art of
- ↑ The same points are specified in the advice given by Socrates to a young politician—Xenophon ‘Memorab.’ iii. 6.
