ὥστε λοιπὸν ἀνα(28)μνῆσαι τὰ προειρημένα.
τοῦτο δὲ ἁρμόττει ποιεῖν οὐχ ὥσπερ (29) φασὶν ἐν τοῖς προοιμίοις, οὐκ ὀρθῶς λέγοντες.
ἵνα γὰρ (30) εὐμαθὴς ᾖ, κελεύουσι πολλάκις εἰπεῖν.
ἐκεῖ μὲν οὖν δεῖ (31) τὸ πρᾶγμα εἰπεῖν, ἵνα μὴ λανθάνῃ περὶ οὗ ἡ κρίσις,
ἐν(32)ταῦθα δὲ δι’ ὧν δέδεικται, κεφαλαιωδῶς.
ἀρχὴ δὲ διότι ἃ (33) ὑπέσχετο ἀποδέδωκεν,
ὥστε ἅ τε καὶ δι’ ὃ λεκτέον.
λέγεται (34) δὲ ἐξ ἀντιπαραβολῆς τοῦ ἐναντίου.
παραβάλλειν δὲ [ἢ] ὅσα (35) περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἄμφω εἶπον, ἢ [μὴ] καταντικρύ (“ἀλλ’ οὗτος (1420a1) μὲν τάδε περὶ τούτου, ἐγὼ δὲ ταδί, καὶ διὰ ταῦτα”),
ἢ ἐξ (2) εἰρωνείας (οἷον “οὗτος γὰρ τάδ’ εἶπεν, ἐγὼ δὲ ταδί”,
καὶ “τὶ (3) ἂν ἐποίει, εἰ τάδε ἔδειξεν, ἀλλὰ μὴ ταδί”),
ἢ ἐξ ἐρωτήσεως (“τί (4) οὖν δέδεικται;” ἢ “οὗτος τί ἔδειξεν;”).
ἢ δὴ οὕτως [ἢ] ἐκ παρα(5)βολῆς ἢ κατὰ φύσιν ὡς ἐλέχθη, οὕτως τὰ αὐτοῦ, καὶ πάλιν, (6) ἐὰν βούλῃ, χωρὶς τὰ τοῦ ἐναντίου λόγου.
τελευτὴ δὲ τῆς (7) λέξεως ἁρμόττει ἡ ἀσύνδετος, ὅπως ἐπίλογος ἀλλὰ μὴ λόγος (8) ᾖ·
“εἴρηκα, ἀκηκόατε, ἔχετε, κρίνατε”.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The lines of argument to be used for these purposes also have been previously mentioned.
(4) Finally you have to review what you have already said.
Here you may properly do what some wrongly recommend doing in the introduction—
repeat your points frequently so as to make them easily understood.
What you should do in your introduction is to state your subject, in order that the point to be judged may be quite plain;
in the epilogue you should summarize the arguments by which your case has been proved.
The first step in this reviewing process is to observe that you have done what you undertook to do.
You must, then, state what you have said and why you have said it.
Your method may be a comparison of your own case with that of your opponent;
and you may compare either the ways you have both handled the same point or make your comparison less direct: ‘My opponent said so—and—so on this point; I said so—and—so, and this is why I said it’.
Or with modest irony, e.g. ’He certainly said so—and—so, but I said so—and—so’.
Or ‘How vain he would have been if he had proved all this instead of that!’
Or put it in the form of a question. ’What has not been proved by me?’ or ‘What has my opponent proved?’
You may proceed then, either in this way by setting point against point, or by following the natural order of the arguments as spoken, first giving your own, and then separately, if you wish, those of your opponent.
For the conclusion, the disconnected style of language is appropriate, and will mark the difference between the oration and the peroration.
