(7) ἡ μὲν οὖν δημηγορικὴ λέξις καὶ παντελῶς ἔοικεν τῇ (8) σκιαγραφίᾳ·
ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν πλείων ᾖ ὁ ὄχλος, πορρώτερον ἡ (9) θέα,
διὸ τὰ ἀκριβῆ περίεργα καὶ χείρω φαίνεται ἐν ἀμφο(10)τέροις·
ἡ δὲ δικανικὴ ἀκριβεστέρα.
ἔτι δὲ μᾶλλον ἡ <ἐν> (11) ἑνὶ κριτῇ· ἐλάχιστον γὰρ ἔνεστι ῥητορικῆς·
εὐσύνοπτον (12) γὰρ μᾶλλον τὸ οἰκεῖον τοῦ πράγματος καὶ τὸ ἀλλότριον, καὶ (13) ὁ ἀγὼν ἄπεστιν, ὥστε καθαρὰ ἡ κρίσις.
διὸ οὐχ οἱ αὐτοὶ (14) ἐν πᾶσιν τούτοις εὐδοκιμοῦσιν ῥήτορες·
ἀλλ’ ὅπου μάλιστα (15) ὑπόκρισις, ἐνταῦθα ἥκιστα ἀκρίβεια ἔνι.
τοῦτο δὲ ὅπου (16) φωνῆς, καὶ μάλιστα ὅπου μεγάλης.
(17) ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐπιδεικτικὴ λέξις γραφικωτάτη·
τὸ γὰρ ἔργον (18) αὐτῆς ἀνάγνωσις· δευτέρα δὲ ἡ δικανική.
τὸ δὲ προσδι(19)αιρεῖσθαι τὴν λέξιν, ὅτι ἡδεῖαν δεῖ εἶναι καὶ μεγαλοπρεπῆ, περί(20)εργον·
τί γὰρ μᾶλλον ἢ σώφρονα καὶ ἐλευθέριον καὶ εἴ τις (21) ἄλλη ἤθους ἀρετή;
τὸ δὲ ἡδεῖαν εἶναι ποιήσει δηλονότι (22) τὰ εἰρημένα, εἴπερ ὀρθῶς ὥρισται ἡ ἀρετὴ τῆς λέξεως·
(23) τίνος γὰρ ἕνεκα δεῖ σαφῆ καὶ μὴ ταπεινὴν εἶναι ἀλλὰ (24) πρέπουσαν;
ἄν τε γὰρ ἀδολεσχῇ, οὐ σαφής, οὐδὲ ἂν σύν(25)τομος, ἀλλὰ δῆλον ὅτι τὸ μέσον ἁρμόττει.
καὶ τὸ ἡδεῖαν (26) τὰ εἰρημένα ποιήσει, ἂν εὖ μιχθῇ, τὸ εἰωθὸς καὶ <τὸ> ξενικόν, (27) καὶ ὁ ῥυθμός, καὶ τὸ πιθανὸν ἐκ τοῦ πρέποντος.(28)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
So that Homer, by means of this illusion, has made a great deal of though he has mentioned him only in this one passage, and has preserved his memory, though he nowhere says a word about him afterwards.
Now the style of oratory addressed to public assemblies is really just like scene—painting.
The bigger the throng, the more distant is the point of view:
so that, in the one and the other, high finish in detail is superfluous and seems better away.
The forensic style is more highly finished;
still more so is the style of language addressed to a single judge, with whom there is very little room for rhetorical artifices,
since he can take the whole thing in better, and judge of what is to the point and what is not; the struggle is less intense and so the judgement is undisturbed.
This is why the same speakers do not distinguish themselves in all these branches at once;
high finish is wanted least where dramatic delivery is wanted most,
and here the speaker must have a good voice, and above all, a strong one.
It is ceremonial oratory that is most literary,
for it is meant to be read; and next to it forensic oratory.
To analyse style still further, and add that it must be agreeable or magnificent, is useless;
for why should it have these traits any more than ‘restraint’, ‘liberality’, or any other moral excellence?
Obviously agreeableness will be produced by the qualities already mentioned, if our definition of excellence of style has been correct.
For what other reason should style be ‘clear’, and ‘not mean’ but ‘appropriate’?
If it is prolix, it is not clear; nor yet if it is curt. Plainly the middle way suits best.