ἀναγκαῖα ἄρα μόρια πρόθεσις καὶ (8) πίστις.
ἴδια μὲν οὖν ταῦτα, τὰ δὲ πλεῖστα προοίμιον πρό(9)θεσις πίστις ἐπίλογος·
τὰ γὰρ πρὸς τὸν ἀντίδικον τῶν (10) πίστεών ἐστι, καὶ ἡ ἀντιπαραβολὴ αὔξησις τῶν αὐτοῦ, (11) ὥστε μέρος τι τῶν πίστεων (ἀποδείκνυσι γάρ τι ὁ ποιῶν (12) τοῦτο),
ἀλλ’ οὐ τὸ προοίμιον, οὐδ’ ὁ ἐπίλογος, ἀλλ’ ἀνα(13)μιμνήσκει.
ἔσται οὖν, ἄν τις τὰ τοιαῦτα διαιρῇ, ὅπερ ἐποί(14)ουν οἱ περὶ Θεόδωρον, διήγησις ἕτερον καὶ [ἡ] ἐπιδιήγησις (15) καὶ προδιήγησις, καὶ ἔλεγχος καὶ ἐπεξέλεγχος.
δεῖ δὲ εἶδός (16) τι λέγοντα καὶ διαφορᾷ ὄνομα τίθεσθαι·
εἰ δὲ μή, γίνεται (17) κενὸν καὶ ληρῶδες, οἷον Λικύμνιος ποιεῖ ἐν τῇ τέχνῃ, ἐπ(18)ούρωσιν ὀνομάζων καὶ ἀποπλάνησιν καὶ ὄζους.
not, for instance, a short speech, nor one in which the facts are easy to remember, the effect of an epilogue being always a reduction in the apparent length.
It follows, then, that the only necessary parts of a speech are the Statement and the Argument.
These are the essential features of a speech; and it cannot in any case have more than Introduction, Statement, Argument, and Epilogue.
’Refutation of the Opponent’ is part of the arguments: so is ‘Comparison’ of the opponent’s case with your own, for that process is a magnifying of your own case and therefore a part of the arguments, since one who does this proves something.
The Introduction does nothing like this; nor does the Epilogue—it merely reminds us of what has been said already.
If we make such distinctions we shall end, like Theodorus and his followers, by distinguishing ‘narration’ proper from ‘post—narration’ and ‘pre—narration’, and ‘refutation’ from ‘final refutation’.
But we ought only to bring in a new name if it indicates a real species with distinct specific qualities;
