t e c hni c a l r he t or i c 23

must refute this, insisting that the two of them were alone, in order to
use the argument How could a little one like me have attacked a big
one like him? (273b4c1).
There is thus the possibility of using probabilities on either side of the
case. Far from discrediting the technique as immoral, this adaptability
seems to have recommended it to the Greeks of the fth century, who
delighted in subtleties of argument and in the demonstration that one
probability was more probable than another probability. Conversely,
they distrusted direct evidence, such as that of documents and eyewit-
nesses, because of their experience that these could be faked or bribed.
Now, of course, most oratory deals with matters of probability, not cer-
tainty, and most evidence is in the realm of the probable, not the scientif-
ically demonstrable; but later orators usually prefer to construct a com-
plex fabric of argumentation in which probable conclusions are drawn
on the basis of more or less hard evidence, including witnesses, using the
personality of those involved and their motivations as important factors.
Fifth-century orators as known from extant texts, and the speeches in
fth-century dramatic and historical writing make less use of either
direct evidence or the specic character or personality of those involved
and prefer to rest their case on the probability of basic human action:
What would anybody have believed or done under the circumstances?
Handbooks of public speaking rst appeared in fth-century Greece
and have continued to be written and published ever since. At rst, such
a work was called a techn logn, an art of words, later a techn rht-
orik. Ars rhetorica became the usual title in Latin for such a work.
Rhetoric as described in such handbooks is generally easy to distinguish
from rhetoric as understood in other forms of the classical tradition:
They set out precepts for public speaking, often accompanied by exam-
ples, with primary focus on judicial rhetoric, though in the Middle Ages
and Renaissance focus shifts to letter writing, verse composition, and
preaching. Writers of handbooks usually have not regarded it as part of
their task to tell a prospective speaker what cases to undertake or what
should be the limits of legitimate appeal to an audience. They imply
success if the rules are followed and usually do not insist on truthfulness.
It is often easy to recognize their characteristically prescriptive language:
You should. . . . The qualications usually and often are needed