[25] “The import of these ‘characters,’ as of the ἤθη τῶν πολιτειῶν in I. 8. 6, and the use to which they are to be applied, may be thus expressed in other words. Certain ages and conditions of men are marked by different and peculiar characteristics. A speaker is always liable to be confronted with an audience in which one or other of these classes forms the preponderating element. In order to make a favorable impression upon them, he must necessarily adapt his tone and language [Aristotle means rather his method and arguments] to the sentiments and habits of thought prevailing amongst them, and the feelings and motives by which they are usually influenced. And for this purpose he must study their characters, and make himself acquainted with their ordinary motives and feelings and opinions. And the following analysis will supply him with topics for this purpose.” Cope, _Introduction_, foot-note to page 248. [26] Certain difficulties here in the text, with the principal emendations proposed, are discussed by Cope in his _Introduction_, and more largely in the Cope and Sandys edition. Vahlen was so convinced of an error in transmission that he proposed to restore what he considered the original order by transposing bodily Chapters xviii-end and Chapters i-xvii. But in spite of difficulties of detail, the present order shows sufficiently clear progress if we remember that these latter chapters (xviii-end) are written, as all the rest of the book is written, from the point of view of the audience. So viewed, what has seemed repetition and expansion of Book I is seen to be distinct, and not merely additional, but progressive. [27] 1391 b. [28] τὸ δυνατόν. Chapter xix. [29] παράδειγμα. Chapter xx. [30] πράγματα προγεγενημένα. [31] γνῶμαι. Chapter xxi. [32] 1395 b. [33] Chapters xxii-xxiv. [34] Opening of Chapter xxiii. [35] Chapters xxv-xxvi. [36] 1403 b. [37] λέξις. It should be observed that Aristotle is not here divorcing “manner” from “matter.” Book III opens a third approach, which presupposes the preceding approaches. This seems to be insufficiently considered by H. P. Breitenbach (The _De compositione of Dionysius of Halicarnassus considered with reference to the Rhetoric of Aristotle_), who regards Book III as a deviation from the philosophic position of the preceding books. [38] τάξαι. [39] The fifth traditional item, memory, he omits altogether. [40] Chapter i, 1354. [41] 1404 a. [42] φαντασία. [43] Welldon’s translation “rhetorical actors” can hardly stand. The phrase τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ὑπόκρισιν ῥήτορσιν means rather _acting orators_, or, more exactly, orators who practise the art of the actor, who are skilled in delivery. Their advantage appears in their winning prizes for written speeches, which can be memorized and declaimed and which are sometimes _tours de force_, showing more style than thought. Such speeches—I think Aristotle cites them as an extreme case—show the separable value of style, including delivery.