When scholars speak of the narrative as part of a speech, they typically mean a continuous, discrete narrative.26 Some scholars distinguish the continuous ‘narrative’ from pieces of‘narration’ that appear in other parts of the speech. When the orators use a discrete narrative, it is typically introduced by a formulaic transition sentence such as ‘I wish to recount these matters from the beginning’, and then begins with the particle gar'27 The orators do not however always include a stand-alone narrative. A speaker’s side of the story is often segmented and combined with arguments. Isaeus uses this technique for handling the complexities of inheritance cases, wherein arguments needed to be contextualized by complicated sets of facts, as does Demosthenes in speeches where the argument is built around documents (e. g., Dem. 35), or where the facts to be narrated are episodes of past litigation (e. g., Dem. 34.6-21).28
The Rhetoric to Alexander states that a narrative should be clear and concise, and according to Quintilian this advice dates back to Isocrates. Aristotle bristles at the idea that one can set a rule for length. As he writes (showing his sense of humor), ‘But nowadays they all ridiculously say that the narrative should be rapid. Yet, as the man said to the baker when asked whether the dough should be kneaded hard or soft, ‘‘What? Can’t it be done right?’’ ’29 The orators however often promise to as brief as possible (e. g., Isoc. 21.2, Dem. 37.3, 40.5, 54.2). One speaker notes that his time is insufficient to discuss all his opponent’s crimes, and so promises to focus on only the worst and most relevant ([Dem.] 53.3).
According to Aristotle, not every speech needs a narrative. For example, the audience may already know the facts of a deliberative speech (Rhet. 3.16.11). The Rhetoric to Alexander by contrast seems committed to the notion that every speech should have a narrative in some form: if the facts are already known to the audience, it is possible to attach the narrative to the prooimion, but it is still necessary to remind them; or it is necessary for speaker to narrate the facts that are going to happen, and a speech without a narrative may lack bulk (1438a2-16). The narrative is often omitted in the orators, and not only in deliberative speeches. Aristotle says that occasionally the narrative is also unnecessary in defense speeches because the prosecution will have already established the facts of the case (Rhet. 3.16.6). This however probably does not account for the fact that narratives are sometimes missing because defense speakers practically never accepted the prosecution’s version of events. Moreover, rather than simply disputing the main point, they tend to offer a ‘counter-narrative’ meant not only to deny the misdeed in question, but also to re-contextualize the whole situation of the trial.30 A more relevant reason is that a separate, continuous narrative is not useful in every case. Neither Aristotle nor the author of the Rhetoric to Alexander take into account the common practice of team litigation as a reason for omitting a narrative. Often as many as three different speakers would argue a case, and the narrative, it was necessary at all, could be presented by just one of them.31
The schema of the four-part speech implies that the narrative is mainly a proposition to be confirmed by the proof. The Rhetoric to Alexander refers to the narrative section as ‘the facts’ (hai praxeis, 1438a4), while referring to the proof section as the confirmation ( bebaiosis, 1438b29). Aristotle (Rhet. 3.13.4) conveys the same by implying that a speech without a narrative has a prothesis (statement of the case) instead. They give little or no indication that a narrative can be a means of persuasion as well as a statement of the facts. Aristotle (Rhet. 3.16.8) notes that the narrative should be ‘ethical’, that is, it should reveal the speaker’s character. But neither come close to describing how powerfully the narrative itself can function as a vehicle of persuasion.
The narrative of Demosthenes’ Against Conon (54) is case in point.32 The speaker is suing a certain Conon for an assault that took place in the Agora. He strengthens his case by recounting how his conflict ultimately began two years earlier when he was stationed on garrison duty with Conon’s son (54.3-5):
Two years ago we went out to garrison duty at Panactum. The sons of Conon camped near us (how I wish they hadn’t!), for our enmity and hostility began there. You will hear about these matters. They drank every day, beginning at breakfast time and continuing all day, and they did this the whole time we were on garrison duty. We however behaved there, as we are accustomed to behaving at home. When dinnertime for others came, typically they were already drunk. They ended up doing violence to our slaves, and eventually to us. Claiming that our slaves bothered them with smoke from cooking, or that they spoke to them rudely - whatever it was - they beat the slaves, emptied chamber pots on them, and pissed on them; they committed every form of abuse and insult you can think of. Seeing this we were vexed, but at first we let it go. Yet when they continued to insult us and wouldn’t stop, we reported the matter to the general - not us alone, but with all of our messmates. But even after he chewed them out and reprimanded them, not only for their insolence towards us, but for their whole behavior around the camp, they were so far from stopping or being ashamed that as soon as it grew dark, that same evening, they burst into our tents, where they first hurled insults and then struck me. They made such hue and cry that both the general and the captains as well as some of the soldiers came and prevented them from doing us any serious harm, and also prevented us from doing the same to our drunken attackers.
A speaker, Aristotle notes (Rhet. 3.16.8), can reveal moral character through the narrative by calling attention to deliberate choices. Demosthenes shows us that the character revealed through narrative and the facts narrative reports can in effect corroborate one another.33 Conon, the speaker’s opponent, apparently planned to argue that the fight in question was nothing but youthful brawling, that the speaker provoked it, and his decision to bring the matter to court was unmanly and litigious. The background related in this passage anticipates and indirectly rebuts each of these claims. The reported behavior of Conon’s son establishes him as a ruffian and a menace, while the speaker’s initial decision to ignore insult illustrates his forbearance. His suggestion that fellow soldiers needed to restrain him from his attackers as much as his attackers from him disputes the notion that he would turn to law out of weakness. The audience is led to think that the speaker’s actions must have been as he reports them because that is the sort of person he is - he must be that sort of person because his actions reveal him to be so. In that, narrative functions as a form of proof in and of itself.
World History
