{"id":4903,"date":"2021-10-20T11:51:34","date_gmt":"2021-10-20T09:51:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4903"},"modified":"2025-07-14T15:51:24","modified_gmt":"2025-07-14T13:51:24","slug":"epicheirema-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/epicheirema-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Epicheirema"},"content":{"rendered":"

EPICHEIREMA<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/em><\/h1>\n

The word epicheirema<\/em> comes from the Greek \u201cepicheirein,<\/em> meaning \u00ab\u00a0to endeavor, attempt to prove\u00a0\u00bb (Webster, epicheirema<\/em>). It\u00a0 is translated into Latin as ratiocinatio<\/em> (Cicero), meaning \u201creasoning\u201d, or as argumentatio<\/em> (Ad. Her.<\/em>) meaning \u00ab\u00a0argument.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n

In ancient argumentation theory, the term epicheirema<\/em> has three different definitions.<\/p>\n

1. The epicheirema as dialectical reasoning<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Aristotelian theory of syllogistic reasoning contrasts the philosopheme<\/em> with the epicheirema<\/em>. A philosopheme<\/strong> is another name for an analytical or scientific syllogism, in which the premises are true and the rule of deduction is valid (Top<\/em>., VIII, 11; p. 156).
\nIn contrast, <\/strong>an epicheirema<\/strong> is a dialectical inference\u201d (ibid<\/em>.), that is, a syllogism based on premises taken from the doxa<\/a>, and, therefore only probable. This inference leads to a probability.<\/p>\n

2. The epicheirema as an argumentation whose premises are themselves argued.<\/span><\/span><\/h1>\n

In rhetorical argumentation, the word epicheirema<\/em> is a synonym for probable (rhetorical) syllogism<\/em>, enthymeme<\/em> and argumentation<\/em>. A well-constructed, persuasive, rhetorical proof is defined as an argument (ratiocinatio<\/em>) whose premises are only probable, and should therefore be explicitly supported by proofs (Cicero, Inv<\/em>. I, 34; Hubbell, pp. 98-99).
\nIn short, a probable premise becomes certain when it is\u00a0 accompanied by its proof. Cicero discusses the following rhetorical syllogism (id<\/em>., 101-103)<\/p>\n

\u2014 Premise 1 + proof of premise 1:<\/em><\/p>\n

Premise 1:<\/em> \u201cThings that are governed by design are managed better than those that are not.\u201d<\/span>
\nProof of premise 1:<\/em> \u201cA house that is managed in accordance with a reasoned plan is better managed that those that are not. The army [\u2026] The ship [\u2026]\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0Premise 2 + Proof of Premise 2:<\/em><\/p>\n

Premise 2:<\/em> \u201cOf all things, the universe is best governed.\u201d<\/span>
\nProof of Premise 2 (our numbering and presentation)
\n<\/em><\/span>(a) \u201cThe rising and the setting of the constellations follow a fixed order.\u201d<\/span>
\n(b) \u201cThe changes of the seasons not only (b1) proceed in the same way by a fixed law but (b2) are also adapted to the advantage of all nature.<\/span>
\n(c) \u201cThe alternation of night and day has never caused any harm through variation.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0Conclusion:<\/em>\u00a0\u201cTherefore, the universe is governed by design<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Premise 1 is the conclusion of an induction<\/em><\/a>, that is, an enumeration of examples, that have the same structure and orientation.
\nIn premise 2, case (b), the element (b2) argues for not only a design but also for a benevolent design<\/em>, as does case (c).<\/p>\n

Structure of an epicheirema
\n<\/span><\/strong>Whether an epicheirema consists of five or three components is a controversial question (Solmsen 1941, p. 170). On the surface level, an epicheirema is a sequence of five components:<\/p>\n

Premise 1 + Proof of Premise 1 + Premise 2 + Proof of Premise 2 + Conclusion.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This corresponds to a three-element deep structure:<\/p>\n

(Premise 1 and its proof) + (Premise 2 and its proof) + Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is Quintilian’s position: \u201cTo me, as well as to the majority of authors, there appear to be no more than three [parts]\u201d (IO<\/em>, V, 14, 6).<\/p>\n

The epicheirema corresponds to a linked<\/em> argument, presented as follows:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

3. The epicheirema is a communicated argument<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Rhetoric to Herennius<\/em> defines<\/p>\n

The most complete and perfect argument [argumentatio<\/em>]\u201d as \u201cthat which consists of five parts: the proposition<\/strong>, the reason<\/strong>, the proof of the reason<\/strong>, the embellishment<\/strong> and the r\u00e9sum\u00e9<\/strong>.<\/span><\/span> \u00a0<\/span>(Ad Her<\/em>., II, 28)<\/span><\/p>\n

This perfect rhetorical argument is described as a sequence of five components, similar to a logical epicheirema, but with a completely different organization.<\/p>\n

Logical component<\/strong><\/span>
\nThe first three elements correspond to the linear development of the argument\u00a0 that establishes the proposition:<\/p>\n

[Reason 1 + Proof of the Reason] + Proposition<\/strong><\/p>\n

The proof of the reason<\/em>, \u201ccorroborates the briefly presented reason by means of additional arguments\u201d (Id<\/em>., p. 107). The overall argument must now be viewed as serial<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n

[<\/strong><\/span>Argument1<\/sub>\u00a0\u00a0 => \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>{<\/span>(<\/span><\/strong>Conclusion]<\/span> = Argument2<\/sub><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 =>\u00a0 Conclusion<\/strong>}<\/span>
\n<\/strong>Proof of the Reason<\/em><\/strong> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 Reason\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Claim<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Communicative component<\/span>
\nThe embellishment<\/span><\/strong> is a reformulation that \u201cadorns and enriches the argument (argumentatio<\/em>).\u201d The concluding r\u00e9sum\u00e9<\/strong><\/span> is not the conclusion. Its \u201c[brevity]\u201d contrasts with the preceding episode of amplification episode, creating a kind of hot \/ cold contrast. This component of the argumentation articulates two elements that clearly have a communicative<\/em> function.<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

EPICHEIREMA The word epicheirema comes from the Greek \u201cepicheirein, meaning \u00ab\u00a0to endeavor, attempt to prove\u00a0\u00bb (Webster, epicheirema). It\u00a0 is translated into Latin as ratiocinatio (Cicero), meaning \u201creasoning\u201d, or as argumentatio (Ad. Her.) meaning \u00ab\u00a0argument.\u00a0\u00bb In ancient argumentation theory, the term epicheirema has three different definitions. 1. The epicheirema as dialectical reasoning The Aristotelian theory of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4903","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4903","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4903"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4903\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14617,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4903\/revisions\/14617"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4903"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4903"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4903"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}