Delivery and Style

In the opening lines of Book 3, Aristotle tells us that the three technical modes of persuasion have been dealt with and that he will now discuss style or expression. By way of explanation, he adds that it is not sufficient to grasp what ought to be said; it is also necessary to say it in the right way, for that contributes greatly to the impression one has of a speech (3.1 1403b6-18). So much is straightforward, but what follows introduces difficulties. Aristotle distinguishes between how one sets out the facts of a case, the style in which the facts are expressed, and how one delivers an oration. He tells us that delivery is the most powerful of the three, and that it has not been a subject of rhetorical investigation. In addition, Aristotle characterizes delivery as the management of voice and tells us that delivery owes its power to corrupt political arrangements. What is right is arguing the issue on the basis of the facts. Everything else including delivery should be deemed extraneous, even if it is efficacious in dealing with an audience that is corrupt (1403b18-1404a8). Such a negative attitude toward delivery is intelligible. We need only think of a demagogue like Cleon, whom Aristotle describes as especially responsible for corrupting the people of Athens and the first to shout aloud while on the speaker’s platform (AP 28.3). Moreover, the emphasis on arguing the issue on the basis of facts - it is just to compete by means of the facts themselves; everything but demonstration is extraneous (1404a5-7) - recalls

1.1,  which is likely to reflect an early stage in Aristotle’s thinking about rhetoric. His remarks on delivery in 3.1 may be roughly contemporaneous. But whether early or not, the treatment of delivery in 3.1 is disappointing. It ignores gesture and facial expression, even though they are recognized alongside voice elsewhere in the Rhetoric (2.8 1386a32, 3.7 1408b6). More satisfactory are Aristotle’s remarks in the Poetics, where voice is not ignored (19 1456b8-13, 20 1457a21-22), but bodily movement receives the fuller treatment (26 1461b26-1462a14). Aristotle recognizes that tragic actors can overdo the use of gesture, but that does not mean that all gesture is to be avoided. Similarly in oratory, gesture, facial expression and variations in voice are desirable when used in moderation and in conjunction with an appropriate style. For delivery and style ought to work together, and when they do, they assist comprehension and add emphasis. Aristotle touches on this mutual dependence toward the end of the discussion of style (3.12 1413b17-31), but he is not motivated to write at length on delivery. He appears to have left the topic to his pupil Theophrastus, who wrote a separate treatise on the subject.

Despite the dampening remarks of 3.1 - in speaking one ought to strive neither to annoy nor to delight (1404a4-5) - the treatment of style that follows is not dismissive of the subject. In 3.2 we are told that the virtue of style is to be clear in what one says, to avoid meanness and undue elevation, and to express oneself appropriately (1404b1-5). This is a tripartite virtue (cf. 3.12 1414a23-24), in which clarity enjoys pride ofplace. And rightly so, for oratory is a form of communication. To be sure, expression that is unclear can serve a purpose - e. g., an orator may wish to mislead his audience through equivocal usage or simply leave the audience confused. However, on the whole an orator aims to be clear and toward that end ordinary words used in their everyday sense are recommended. Nevertheless, there are good reasons for elevating style through the introduction of unfamiliar words and phrases and through the use of metaphor. Language of this sort arouses wonder, which in turn is pleasing to the listener. But moderation is necessary, lest the speaker express himself in ways that are inappropriate. When a subject is of no special importance, elevated language will be off-putting. And when elevated language is put in the mouth of a simple man, it will not only be inappropriate but also lack credibility. In any case, a speaker should attempt to disguise his art and to give the impression of speaking naturally (1404b5-25).

In 3.3-4 Aristotle takes up frigidity (bad taste) and the simile, which is presented as an expanded metaphor. In 3.5-7 good Greek, weight, and the appropriate are discussed. The chapters are likely to have been composed before the discussion of virtue in

3.2,  but whatever the chronology, a close relationship is obvious. Speaking good Greek relates to clarity, weight to elevation, and the appropriate to the like-named virtue. In 3.8 Aristotle tells us that prose should be rhythmical but not metrical, for then it would be verse. He recommends beginning sentences with the first paean (-uuu) and ending them with the fourth paean (uuu-). A long final syllable makes the ending clear and in this way facilities comprehension. In 3.9 Aristotle turns to the period, which is analyzed in terms of its internal structure. It can be either simple or divided into cola or members. No connection with prose rhythm is made, and a longer second colon is not recommended.

The subject of 3.10-11 is ‘urbanity’. Aristotle analyzes it in terms of audience psychology. Learning with ease is said to be pleasant and for this reason metaphor is recommended.14 Like the enthymeme, a metaphor conveys a new idea and therefore promotes learning. And when a metaphor is expressed with brevity, combined with antithesis, and made vivid, it is especially appealing. The discussion of style is concluded in 3.12. Written style is distinguished from that which is appropriate to live debate. The former is said to be more precise, the latter less so. It is especially given to delivery (1413b8-9). In addition, the styles of deliberative, judicial and epideictic oratory are distinguished from one another. Deliberative style is likened to shadow painting; exactness would be wasted before a large crowd. Judicial speeches call for a more exact style, especially when the judge is a single person, for the relevant and the irrelevant are easily discerned. Epideictic style is said to be most like writing, for it is meant to be read (1414a7-18).