CHAPTER ONE

Introduction: The Nature of Rhetoric

A NEW
HISTORY OF The English word "rhetoric" is derived from Greek rhetorike, which ap-
parently came into use in the circle of Socrates in the fifth century and first
appears in Plato's dialogue Gorgias, probably written about 385 B.C. but set
CLASSICAL RHETORIC dramatically a generation earlier. Rhetorike in Greek specifically denotes the
civic art of public speaking as it developed in deliberative assemblies, law
courts, and other formal occasions under constitutional government in the
Greek cities, especially the Athenian democracy, As such, it is a specific
cultural subset of a more general concept of the power of words and their
AND
potential to affect a situation in which they are used or received. Ultimately,
Greek Rhetoric under what we call "rhetoric" can be traced back to the natural instinct to survive
Christian Emperors and to control our environment and influence the actions of others in what
seems the best interest of ourselves, our families, our social and political
groups, and our descendants. This can be done by direct action—force,
threats, bribes, for example—or it can be done by the use of "signs," of
which the most important are words in speech or writing. Some concept of
GEORGE A. KENNEDY rhetoric, under different names, can be found in many ancient societies. In
Egypt and China, for example, as in Greece, practical handbooks were writ-
ten to advise the reader how to become an effective speaker.

AN EXTENSIVE REVISION AND

Classical writers regarded rhetoric as having been "invented," or more
ABRIDGMENT OF
accurately, "discovered," in the fifth century B.C. in the democracies of
The Art of Persuasion in Greece Syracuse and Athens. What they mean by this is that then, for the first time in
Europe, attempts were made to describe the features of an effective
The Art of Rhetoric in the speech and to teach someone how to plan and deliver one. Under democra-
Roman World cies citizens were expected to participate in political debate, and they were
expected to speak on their own behalf in courts of law. A theory of public
WITH ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF speaking evolved, which developed an extensive technical vocabulary to de-
LATE LATIN RHETORIC scribe features of argument, arrangement, style, and delivery. In recent
years, the term "metarhetoric" has been coined to describe a theory or art of
rhetoric in contrast to the practice or application of the art in a particular
discourse. The first teachers of rhetoric were the itinerent lecturers of fifth-
century Greece known as "sophists," to be discussed in the next chapter;
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS beginning with Isocrates in the fourth century, regular schools of rhetoric
PRINCETON. NEW JERSEY became common, and throughout the Greco-Roman period the study of
rhetoric was a regular part of the formal education of young men.

Classical rhetoricians—that is, teachers of rhetoric—recognized that

many features of their subject could be found in Greek literature before the
"invention" of rhetoric as an academic discipline, and they frequently used

1
 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ONE convince the audience, and the p a t h o s or emotion that the speaker can
awaken in the audience. The artistic means of persuasion utilize "topics"
rh e to ric a l c o n c e p ts in lite ra ry c ritic is m C o n v e rs e ly , th e te a c h in g o f rh e -
(Gk. to p o i, Lat. lo c i), which are ethical or political premises on which an
toric in the schools, ostensibly concerned primarily with training in public
argument can be built or are logical strategies, such as arguing from cause to
address, had a significant effect on written corn posit ion, and thus on liter-
effect. A speaker can also use topics, many of which became traditional, to
ature All literature is "rhetorical" in the sense that its function is to affect a
gain the trust or the interest of the audience. The importance of the case
reader in sonic way--"to teach and to please," as the Roman poet Horace
can be stressed, not only for the speaker, but as a precedent for future deci-
and many other critics put it—but beginning in the last three centuries
sions or for its effect on society.
m u c h G re e k a n d L a tin lite ra tu re is o v e rtly rh e to ric a l in th a t it w a s
composed with a knowledge of classical rhetorical theory and shows its The second part of classical rhetoric is "arrangement" (Gk. t a x i s , Lat.
influence. dispositio). "Arrangement" means the organization of a speech into parts,
though the order in which arguments are presented, whether the strongest
In the third chapter of his lectures On Rhetoric, Aristotle distinguished
first or toward a climax, is sometimes discussed. Rhetoricians found it dif-
three "species" of rhetoric. An audience, he says, is either a judge or not a
ficult to separate discussion of arrangement from discussion of invention
judge of what is being said. By this he means that an audience either is or is
and often merged the two into an account of the inventional features
not being asked to make a specific decision on an issue presented to it. If the
of each part of a speech. The basic divisions recognized by the handbooks
audience is a j udge, it is either j udging events of the past, as in a court of law, in
and applying best to judicial oratory are (1) introduction, or prooemium,
which case the speech is classified as "judicial," or it is judging what
(Gk. prooimion, Lat. exordium); (2) narration (Gk. diegesis, Lat. narratio),
action to take in the future, in which case the speech is "deliberative." If the
the exposition of the background and factual details; (3) proof (Gk. pistis,
audience is not being asked to take a specific action, Aristotle calls the
Lat. probatio); and (4) conclusion, or epilogue, (Gk. epilogos, Lat. peroratio).
speech "epideictic" (i e , "demonstrative"). What he has in mind are
Each part has its own function and characteristics: the prooemium, for ex-
speeches on ceremonial occasions, such as public festivals or funerals, which
ample, aims at securing the interest and good will of the audience; the nar-
speeches he characterizes as aimed at praise or blame. These three catego-
ra tio n s h o u ld b e c le a r, b rie f, a n d p e rs u a s iv e ; th e p ro o f s u p p lie s lo g ic a l
ries—judicial, deliberative, epideictic—remained fundamental throughout
the history of classical rhetoric and are still useful in categorizing forms of arguments in support of the speaker's position and also seeks to refute ob-
discourse today. The concept of epideictic rhetoric, however, needs to be jections that might be made against it; the epilogue is often divided into a
b ro a d e n e d b e y o n d A ris to tle 's d e fin itio n . In la te r a n tiq u ity , s o m e rh e to ri - recapitulation and an emotional appeal to the audience. Some rhetoricians
cians included within it all poetry and prose. Perhaps epideictic rhetoric is added other parts. At the beginning of the proof often a "proposition" and a
hest regarded as any discourse that does not aim at a specific action but is "distribution" of headings is discussed. Sometimes there is what is called a
intended to influence the values and beliefs of the audience. "digression" or "excursus," which is not so much a true digression as a
•••••••...

discussion of some related matter that may affect the outcome or a descrip-
tion of the moral character, whether favorable or unfavorable, of those in-
In its fully developed form, as seen for example in writings of Cicero in volved in the case. Deliberative speeches usually have a prooemium, proof,
the first century and of Quint ii an a century later, classical rhetorical and epilogue and can often omit a narration. Epideictic speeches have a
teaching consisted of five parts that parallel the act of planning and deliver- structure of their own; for example a speech in praise of someone may take
ing a speech Since a knowledge of how to speak in a law court was probably up the "topics" of his or her country, ancestry, education, character, and
the skill most needed by most students, classical rhetorical theory primarily conduct.
focused on judicial rhetoric. Rhetoricians, however, usually also gave sonic
attention to deliberative and epideictic forms, and from the time of the
Roman Empire some treatises describe epideictic forms in considerable Once the speaker has planned "what" to say and the order in which to say it,
detail. the third task is to decide "how" to say it, that is how to embody it in
words and sentences. This is "style" (Gk. lexis, Lat. elocutio). It is character-
The first of the five parts of classical rhetoric is "invention" (Gk. heuresis, istic of classical rhetoric to regard style as a deliberate process of casting
I,at inventio). This is concerned with thinking out the subject matter: with subject into language; the same ideas can be expressed in different words
identifying the question at issue, which is called the stasis of the speech, and with different effect. There are two parts to style: "diction," or the choice of
the available means of persuading the audience to accept the speaker's posi- words; and "composition," the putting of words together into sentences, which includes
tion. The means of persuasion include, first, direct evidence, such as wit- periodic structure, prose rhythm, and figures of speech. Discussion of style
nesses and contracts, which the speaker "uses" but does not "invent"; sec- is usually organized around the concept of four "virtues" (aretai) that were
ond, "artistic" means of persuasion, which include presentation of the first defined by Aristotle's student Theophrastus: correctness (of grammar
speaker's character (ethos) as trustworthy, logical argument (logos) that may
2
and usage), clarity, ornamentation, and propriety. Ornamentation includes speaking at his trial in 399 B.C., says he is accused of "making the weaker
"tropes," literally "turnings" or substitutions of one term for another as in argument the stronger." Aristotle (On Rhetoric 2.24.11) identifies "making
metaphor; figures of speech, or changes in the sound or arrangement of a the weaker cause the stronger" with the use of argument from probability as
sequence of words, such as anaphora or asyndeton; and figures of thought, in described in fifth-century rhetorical handbooks and says the phrase was
which a statement is recast to stress it or achieve audience contact, as in used against the sophist Protagoras. The phrase reflects the frustration of
the rhetorical question. Styles were often classified into types or those unskilled in the new techniques of debate when traditional ideas of
"characters," of which the best known categorization is the threefold morality and truth were undermined by verbal argument and paradoxical
division into "grand," "middle," and "plain." views that seemed wrong to common sense were seemingly demonstrated.
Examples might include not only the comic debate in the Clouds but
Invention, arrangement, and style are the three most important parts of Zeno's argument that Achilles could never overtake a tortoise in a race or
classical rhetoric, applicable equally to public speaking and written compo- the argument attributed to Lysias in Plato's Phaedrus that it is better to
sition. The earliest recognition of them as three separate actions seems to be accept as lover a person who does not love you than one who does. To make
in Isocrates' speech Against the Sophists (section 16), written about 390 B.C. the weaker argument the stronger can certainly be open to moral objections,
Aristotle discusses all three subjects in his lectures On Rhetoric, which in its but historically the discovery in the fifth century of the possibilities of logical
present form dates from around 335 B.C., but in the first chapter of book 3 argument, and thus the willingness to ask new questions, proved funda-
he suggests that a fourth part might be added, "delivery." By the first cen- mental to scientific progress and social and political change. That the earth is
tury B.C. in fact two more parts had been added. Fourth in the usual se- round and circles the sun had long seemed absurd to most people, and to
quence comes "memory " Once a speech was planned and written out, the argue that blacks should be equal to whites had long seemed to many the
student of rhetoric was expected to memorize it word for word for oral "weaker cause."
delivery A mnemonic system of backgrounds and images had been devel-
oped for this purpose.' The best ancient discussion is found in the third
book of the Rhetoric for Herennius, written in the early first century B.C. The most important and most influential of the critics of rhetoric was
Fifth and last came "delivery," as Aristotle had proposed. This is divided Plato, especially in the dialogue Gorgias.3 The word rhetOr in Greek means a
into control of the voice—volume, pitch, and so on—and gesture, which public speaker, but it often had the more dubious connotation of a "politi-
includes effective control of the eyes and limbs. The best ancient discussion is cian"; the abstraction rhetorike could then be represented as the morally
found in Quintilian's Education of the Orator, book 11. dubious technique of contemporary politicians in contast to the nobler
study of philosophy with its basis in "truth." Socrates in the Gorgias cer-
tainly criticizes fifth-century political orators as having corrupted the people,
Classical metarhetoric, as set out in Greek and Latin handbooks from the
but his criticism is more immediately addressed to Gorgias and Gorgias'
fourth century B.C. to the end of antiquity, was a standard body of knowl-
follower Polus for teaching a form of flattery and for their ignorance of the
edge. Once fully developed, it remained unaltered in its essential features,
subjects on which they spoke. Gorgias was one of several traveling lecturers,
though constantly revised and often made more detailed by teachers who
called "sophists" (literally "wise men"), who sought to teach techniques of
sought some originality. Was the teaching of rhetoric ever called into ques-
success in civic life, including what came to be called rhetoric. The sophists as
tion in antiquity? The answer is "yes." Just as today "rhetoric" in popular
a group were philosophical relativists, skeptical about the possibility of
usage can have negative connotations as deceitful or empty, so it was viewed
knowledge of universal truth. The earliest of the sophists, Protagoras, had
with hostility or suspicion by some in classical times.
begun a treatise with the famous words "Man is the measure of all things, of
The earliest context in which this criticism explicitly appears is the things that are in so far as they are and of things that are not in so far as they
Clouds of Aristophanes, a comic play originally staged in 423 B.C. at the
height of the activity of the older sophists.' The play includes a debate (lines
The beginnings of the mnemonic system were traditionally attributed to the sixth-century Schiappa, in "Did Plato Coin Rhitorike?" has argued that Plato actually coined the word
Creek poet Simonides (Cicero, On the Orator 2 360); that some techniques were known in rhetorike, which does not occur in any earlier text, but the dramatic date of the dialogue is in
the fifth century can be seen in Dissoi Logoi 9 (Sprague, The Older Sophists, 292-93). the late fifth century, and both Gorgias and Polus are represented there as accepting the term
The text we have is a revision by the poet made a few years later. without objection.

6 7
889-1104) between "Just Speech" and "Injust Speech," in which injus-
tice acknowledges itself the "weaker" but triumphs by verbal trickery over
justice, the "stronger." In Plato's Apology (18b8) Socrates, imagined as

3
 CHAPTER ONE describes an ideal orator trained in rhetoric, philosophy, law, history, and all
knowledge. Such an orator should be morally good and an active participant
are not." One of the surviving works of Gorgias, entitled On Nature, argues in public life. The more practical process of rhetoric is substituted for the
in outline form that nothing exists, that if it does exist it cannot be known, more theoretical goal of philosophy, but with a deeper basis of knowledge
and that if it could be known knowledge could not be communicated by one than could be derived solely from the study of rhetorical rules.
person to another.' The consequence of this position is that the value of
Hostility between rhetoric and philosophy existed throughout the period of
opinions about what is true, right, or just should he judged from the circum-
the Roman Empire. The problem was acerbated by Stoic and Cynic phi-
stances as understood by individuals at a particular time; courses of practical
losophers who criticized the emperors as autocratic. The emperor Domi-
action Can best he determined by considering the advantages of the alter-
tian, toward the end of the first century after Christ, expelled philosophers
natives This opens up a place for rhetoric in debate and a need to argue
from Rome, and the rhetorician Quintilian, who enjoyed Domitian's pa-
hot h sides of an issue as persuasively as possible, but it also opens up a place
- tronage, scorned them as antisocial dissidents. The emperor Marcus Aure-
for skill in -making the weaker the stronger cause. Socrates in the Gorgias,
lius in the second century had studied with the rhetorician Fronto but in-
and elsewhere in Plato's dialogues, contends that there is such a thing as
creasingly turned to the attractions of philosophy. That Plato's criticisms of
absolute truth and universal principles of right and wrong. In the Gorgias
rhetoric were still regarded as forceful is seen in the fact that Aelius Aristides
(463a-b) he describes rhetoric as a form of flattery and a sham counterpart
in the mid-second century composed an extended reply to Plato entitled In
of justice. But in a later dialogue, Phaedrus, Socrates is made to describe a
valid, philosophical rhetoric that would be based on a knowledge of truth, of
Defense of Oratory. Later in the century the skeptical philosopher Sextus
logical method, and of the psychology of the audience. As we shall see, Empiricus in Against the Rhetoricians dismissed the study of rhetoric as a
lsocrates and others attempted to answer Plato's objections, and Aristotle waste of time. Rhetoric was a problem for early Christian thinkers. Saint
eventually provided the best solution to the argument by showing that rhet- Paul in first Corinthians (2:4) rejects the "wisdom of this world": "My
oric, like dialectic, is a morally neutral art, which can argue both sides of an speech and my proclamation are not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in
issue but which draws on knowledge from other disciplines in the interests demonstration of the Spirit and power, in order that your faith may not be
of determining what is advantageous, just, or honorable and employs a dis- in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." Radical early Christians
tinct method of its own. often scorned rhetoric as worldly, but Paul was, within his own faith, a
skilled rhetorician, and the Apologists of the second century found tradi-
tional rhetorical skills useful in presenting the new faith to larger audiences.
Although criticisms of rhetoric were occasionally voiced by others in the With the toleration and official establishment of Christianity in the fourth
fourth and third centuries B.C., the utility of the study of rhetoric for civic century, Christian leaders show a greater openness to the study of rhetoric.
life and for writing became generally recognized. The question was, how- Saint Augustine began his career as a teacher of rhetoric; though he aban-
43 ever, reopened in the middle of the second century B.C. by teachers of phi- doned that on his conversion, he eventually worked out a synthesis of the
losophy, who seem to have been threatened by the number of students place of rhetoric in interpretation of the Bible and in preaching as described
flocking to rhetoricians for advanced study rather than to the philosophical in On Christian Doctrine.
schools, traditionally the source of higher education in antiquity. These stu-
dents included Romans interested in acquiring a knowledge of Greek cul-
ture. Cicero (On the Orator 1.46) says that the philosophers in Athens in Some modern readers sympathize with philosophy in its dispute with
the late second century B.C. "all with one voice drove the orator from the rhetoric. In the former discipline they see devotion to truth, intellectual
government of states, excluded him from all learning and knowledge of honesty, depth of perception, consistency, and sincerity; in the later, verbal
greater things, and pushed down and locked him up in courts of justice and dexterity, empty pomposity, triviality, moral ambivalence, and a desire to
insignificant disputes as though in a mill." Cicero's dialogue On the Orator, achieve self-interest by any means. The picture is not quite so clear cut.
written in the middle of the first century B.C., is an eloquent and thoughtful Rhetorical theorists such as Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian are not unscru-
response to criticisms of rhetoric, which are blamed in the first instance on pulous tricksters with words. Furthermore, rhetoric was at times a greater
Socrates' division between tongue and brain (3.61). In books I and 3, Cras- liberalizing force in ancient intellectual life than was philosophy, which
sus, the character in the dialogue with whom Cicero clearly most identified, tended to become dogmatic. The basic principle of humane law—that any-
one, however clear the evidence on the other side seems to be, has a right to
For discussion of this statement as well as "making the weaker the strong cause" as applied to present a case in the best light possible—is an inheritance from Greek
Protagoras. see Schiappa, Protagoras and Logos, 103-33. justice and Roman law. Political debaters under democracy in Greece and
For English translations of the surviving writings of the sophists, see Sprague, The Older
Sophists
INTRODUCTION
9

4
CHAPTER ONE

republican government in Rome recognized the need to entertain opposing

views when expressed with rhetorical effectiveness. Finally, linguistic, philo-
sophical, and critical studies in the twentieth century have pointed to the
conclusion that there is no such a thing as nonrhetorical discourse; even
ostensibly ob j ective scientific and philosophical writing contains social and
political assumptions that may be questioned and uses rhetorical tech-
niques that carry ethical and emotional connotations to argue its case. In
the first chapter of On Rhetoric Aristotle presents reasons for concluding
that rhetoric is useful; we can go beyond that to say it is necessary and
inevitable. In speaking, writing, hearing, and reading, we are better off if we
understand the process.

5
 Aristotle: Art of Rhetoric
(Book 1, Chapters 1-3)
Translated by W. Rhys Roberts

BOOK ONE Again, a litigant has clearly nothing to do

I but to show that the alleged fact is so or is
not so, that it has or has not happened. As to

R HETORIC is the counterpart of

Dialectic. Both alike are concerned
with such things as come, more or
less, within the general ken of all men and
belong to no definite science. Accordingly
whether a thing is important or unimportant,
just or unjust, the judge must surely refuse
to take his instructions from the litigants: he
must decide for himself all such points as
the law-giver has not already defined for
all men make use, more or less, of both; for him.
to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss Now, it is of great moment that well-
statements and to maintain them, to defend drawn laws should themselves define all the
themselves and to attack others. Ordinary points they possibly can and leave as few as
people do this either at random or through may be to the decision of the judges; and
practice and from acquired habit. Both ways this for several reasons. First, to find one
being possible, the subject can plainly be man, or a few men, who are sensible persons
handled systematically, for it is possible to and capable of legislating and administering
inquire the reason why some speakers justice is easier than to find a large number.
succeed through practice and others Next, laws are made after long
spontaneously; and every one will at once consideration, whereas decisions in the
agree that such an inquiry is the function of courts are given at short notice, which
an art. makes it hard for those who try the case to
Now, the framers of the current treatises satisfy the claims of justice and expediency.
on rhetoric have constructed but a small The weightiest reason of all is that the
portion of that art. The modes of persuasion decision of the lawgiver is not particular but
are the only true constituents of the art: prospective and general, whereas members
everything else is merely accessory. These of the assembly and the jury find it their
writers, however, say nothing about duty to decide on definite cases brought
enthymemes, which are the substance of before them. They will often have allowed
rhetorical persuasion, but deal mainly with themselves to be so much influenced by
non-essentials. The arousing of prejudice, feelings of friendship or hatred or self-
pity, anger, and similar emotions has interest that they lose any clear vision of the
nothing to do with the essential facts, but is truth and have their judgment obscured by
merely a personal appeal to the man who is considerations of personal pleasure or pain.
judging the case. Consequently if the rules In general, then, the judge should, we say,
for trials which are now laid down some be allowed to decide as few things as
states-especially in well-governed states- possible. But questions as to whether
were applied everywhere, such people something has happened or has not
would have nothing to say. All men, no happened, will be or will not be, is or is not,
doubt, think that the laws should prescribe must of necessity be left to the judge, since
such rules, but some, as in the court of the lawgiver cannot foresee them. If this is
Areopagus, give practical effect to their so, it is evident that any one who lays down
thoughts and forbid talk about non- rules about other matters, such as what must
essentials. This is sound law and custom. It be the contents of the ‘introduction’ or the
is not right to pervert the judge by moving ‘narration’ or any of the other divisions of a
him to anger or envy or pity-one might as speech, is theorizing about non-essentials as
well warp a carpenter’s rule before using it. if they belonged to the art. The only

6
question with which these writers here deal a syllogism is produced will also be best
is how to put the judge into a given frame of skilled in the enthymeme, when he has
mind. About the orator’s proper modes of further learnt what its subject-matter is and
persuasion they have nothing to tell us; in what respects it differs from the syllogism
nothing, that is, about how to gain skill in of strict logic. The true and the
enthymemes. approximately true are apprehended by the
Hence it comes that, although the same same faculty; it may also be noted that men
systematic principles apply to political as to have a sufficient natural instinct for what is
forensic oratory, and although the former is true, and usually do arrive at the truth.
a nobler business, and fitter for a citizen, Hence the man who makes a good guess at
than that which concerns the relations of truth is likely to make a good guess at
private individuals, these authors say probabilities.
nothing about political oratory, but try, one It has now been shown that the ordinary
and all, to write treatises on the way to plead writers on rhetoric treat of non-essentials; it
in court. The reason for this is that in has also been shown why they have inclined
political oratory there is less inducement to more towards the forensic branch of oratory.
talk about nonessentials. Political oratory is Rhetoric is useful (1) because things that
less given to unscrupulous practices than are true and things that are just have a
forensic, because it treats of wider issues. In natural tendency to prevail over their
a political debate the man who is forming a opposites, so that if the decisions of judges
judgement is making a decision about his are not what they ought to be, the defeat
own vital interests. There is no need, must be due to the speakers themselves, and
therefore, to prove anything except that the they must be blamed accordingly. Moreover,
facts are what the supporter of a measure (2) before some audiences not even the
maintains they are. In forensic oratory this is possession of the exactest knowledge will
not enough; to conciliate the listener is what make it easy for what we say to produce
pays here. It is other people’s affairs that are conviction. For argument based on
to be decided, so that the judges, intent on knowledge implies instruction, and there are
their own satisfaction and listening with people whom one cannot instruct. Here,
partiality, surrender themselves to the then, we must use, as our modes of
disputants instead of judging between them. persuasion and argument, notions possessed
Hence in many places, as we have said by everybody, as we observed in the Topics
already, irrelevant speaking is forbidden in when dealing with the way to handle a
the law-courts: in the public assembly those popular audience. Further, (3) we must be
who have to form a judgment are themselves able to employ persuasion, just as strict
well able to guard against that. reasoning can be employed, on opposite
It is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in sides of a question, not in order that we may
its strict sense, is concerned with the modes in practice employ it in both ways (for we
of persuasion. Persuasion is clearly a sort of must not make people believe what is
demonstration, since we are most fully wrong), but in order that we may see clearly
persuaded when we consider a thing to have what the facts are, and that, if another man
been demonstrated. The orator’s argues unfairly, we on our part may be able
demonstration is an enthymeme, and this is, to confute him. No other of the arts draws
in general, the most effective of the modes opposite conclusions: dialectic and rhetoric
of persuasion. The enthymeme is a sort of alone do this. Both these arts draw opposite
syllogism, and the consideration of conclusions impartially. Nevertheless, the
syllogisms of all kinds, without distinction, underlying facts do not lend themselves
is the business of dialectic, either of dialectic equally well to the contrary views. No;
as a whole or of one of its branches. It things that are true and things that are better
follows plainly, therefore, that he who is are, by their nature, practically always easier
best able to see how and from what elements to prove and easier to believe in. Again, (4)

7
it is absurd to hold that a man ought to be II
ashamed of being unable to defend himself Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty
with his limbs, but not of being unable to of observing in any given case the available
defend himself with speech and reason, means of persuasion. This is not a function
when the use of rational speech is more of any other art. Every other art can instruct
distinctive of a human being than the use of or persuade about its own particular subject-
his limbs. And if it be objected that one who matter; for instance, medicine about what is
uses such power of speech unjustly might do healthy and unhealthy, geometry about the
great harm, that is a charge which may be properties of magnitudes, arithmetic about
made in common against all good things numbers, and the same is true of the other
except virtue, and above all against the arts and sciences. But rhetoric we look upon
things that are most useful, as strength, as the power of observing the means of
health, wealth, generalship. A man can persuasion on almost any subject presented
confer the greatest of benefits by a right use to us; and that is why we say that, in its
of these, and inflict the greatest of injuries technical character, it is not concerned with
by using them wrongly. any special or definite class of subjects.
It is clear, then, that rhetoric is not Of the modes of persuasion some belong
bound up with a single definite class of strictly to the art of rhetoric and some do
subjects, but is as universal as dialectic; it is not. By the latter I mean such things as are
clear, also, that it is useful. It is clear, not supplied by the speaker but are there at
further, that its function is not simply to the outset-witnesses, evidence given under
succeed in persuading, but rather to discover torture, written contracts, and so on. By the
the means of coming as near such success as former I mean such as we can ourselves
the circumstances of each particular case construct by means of the principles of
allow. In this it resembles all other arts. For rhetoric. The one kind has merely to be
example, it is not the function of medicine used, the other has to be invented.
simply to make a man quite healthy, but to Of the modes of persuasion furnished by
put him as far as may be on the road to the spoken word there are three kinds. The
health; it is possible to give excellent first kind depends on the personal character
treatment even to those who can never enjoy of the speaker; the second on putting the
sound health. Furthermore, it is plain that it audience into a certain frame of mind; the
is the function of one and the same art to third on the proof, or apparent proof,
discern the real and the apparent means of provided by the words of the speech itself.
persuasion, just as it is the function of Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s
dialectic to discern the real and the apparent personal character when the speech is so
syllogism. What makes a man a ‘sophist’ is spoken as to make us think him credible. We
not his faculty, but his moral purpose. In believe good men more fully and more
rhetoric, however, the term ‘rhetorician’ readily than others: this is true generally
may describe either the speaker’s knowledge whatever the question is, and absolutely true
of the art, or his moral purpose. In dialectic where exact certainty is impossible and
it is different: a man is a ‘sophist’ because opinions are divided. This kind of
he has a certain kind of moral purpose, a persuasion, like the others, should be
‘dialectician’ in respect, not of his moral achieved by what the speaker says, not by
purpose, but of his faculty. what people think of his character before he
Let us now try to give some account of begins to speak. It is not true, as some
the systematic principles of Rhetoric itself- writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric,
of the right method and means of succeeding that the personal goodness revealed by the
in the object we set before us. We must speaker contributes nothing to his power of
make as it were a fresh start, and before persuasion; on the contrary, his character
going further define what rhetoric is. may almost be called the most effective
means of persuasion he possesses. Secondly,

8
persuasion may come through the hearers, syllogisms or inductions (and this is clear to
when the speech stirs their emotions. Our us from the Analytics), it must follow that
judgments when we are pleased and friendly enthymemes are syllogisms and examples
are not the same as when we are pained and are inductions. The difference between
hostile. It is towards producing these effects, example and enthymeme is made plain by
as we maintain, that present-day writers on the passages in the Topics where induction
rhetoric direct the whole of their efforts. and syllogism have already been discussed.
This subject shall be treated in detail when When we base the proof of a proposition on
we come to speak of the emotions. Thirdly, a number of similar cases, this is induction
persuasion is effected through the speech in dialectic, example in rhetoric; when it is
itself when we have proved a truth or an shown that, certain propositions being true, a
apparent truth by means of the persuasive further and quite distinct proposition must
arguments suitable to the case in question. also be true in consequence, whether
There are, then, these three means of invariably or usually, this is called syllogism
effecting persuasion. The man who is to be in dialectic, enthymeme in rhetoric. It is
in command of them must, it is clear, be plain also that each of these types of oratory
able (1) to reason logically, (2) to has its advantages. Types of oratory, I say:
understand human character and goodness in for what has been said in the Methodics
their various forms, and (3) to understand applies equally well here; in some oratorical
the emotions-that is, to name them and styles examples prevail, in others
describe them, to know their causes and the enthymemes; and in like manner, some
way in which they are excited. It thus orators are better at the former and some at
appears that rhetoric is an offshoot of the latter. Speeches that rely on examples
dialectic and also of ethical studies. Ethical are as persuasive as the other kind, but those
studies may fairly be called political; and for which rely on enthymemes excite the louder
this reason rhetoric masquerades as political applause. The sources of examples and
science, and the professors of it as political enthymemes, and their proper uses, we will
experts-sometimes from want of education, discuss later. Our next step is to define the
sometimes from ostentation, sometimes processes themselves more clearly.
owing to other human failings. As a matter A statement is persuasive and credible
of fact, it is a branch of dialectic and similar either because it is directly self-evident or
to it, as we said at the outset. Neither because it appears to be proved from other
rhetoric nor dialectic is the scientific study statements that are so. In either case it is
of any one separate subject: both are persuasive because there is somebody whom
faculties for providing arguments. This is it persuades. But none of the arts theorize
perhaps a sufficient account of their scope about individual cases. Medicine, for
and of how they are related to each other. instance, does not theorize about what will
With regard to the persuasion achieved help to cure Socrates or Callias, but only
by proof or apparent proof: just as in about what will help to cure any or all of a
dialectic there is induction on the one hand given class of patients: this alone is
and syllogism or apparent syllogism on the business: individual cases are so infinitely
other, so it is in rhetoric. The example is an various that no systematic knowledge of
induction, the enthymeme is a syllogism, them is possible. In the same way the theory
and the apparent enthymeme is an apparent of rhetoric is concerned not with what seems
syllogism. I call the enthymeme a rhetorical probable to a given individual like Socrates
syllogism, and the example a rhetorical or Hippias, but with what seems probable to
induction. Every one who effects persuasion men of a given type; and this is true of
through proof does in fact use either dialectic also. Dialectic does not construct
enthymemes or examples: there is no other its syllogisms out of any haphazard
way. And since every one who proves materials, such as the fancies of crazy
anything at all is bound to use either people, but out of materials that call for

9
discussion; and rhetoric, too, draws upon the or possible must be drawn from premises
regular subjects of debate. The duty of that do the same, just as ‘necessary’
rhetoric is to deal with such matters as we conclusions must be drawn from ‘necessary’
deliberate upon without arts or systems to premises; this too is clear to us from the
guide us, in the hearing of persons who Analytics. It is evident, therefore, that the
cannot take in at a glance a complicated propositions forming the basis of
argument, or follow a long chain of enthymemes, though some of them may be
reasoning. The subjects of our deliberation ‘necessary,’ will most of them be only
are such as seem to present us with usually true. Now the materials of
alternative possibilities: about things that enthymemes are Probabilities and Signs,
could not have been, and cannot now or in which we can see must correspond
the future be, other than they are, nobody respectively with the propositions that are
who takes them to be of this nature wastes generally and those that are necessarily true.
his time in deliberation. A Probability is a thing that usually
It is possible to form syllogisms and happens; not, however, as some definitions
draw conclusions from the results of would suggest, anything whatever that
previous syllogisms; or, on the other hand, usually happens, but only if it belongs to the
from premises which have not been thus class of the ‘contingent’ or ‘variable.’ It
proved, and at the same time are so little bears the same relation to that in respect of
accepted that they call for proof. Reasonings which it is probable as the universal bears to
of the former kind will necessarily be hard the particular. Of Signs, one kind bears the
to follow owing to their length, for we same relation to the statement it supports as
assume an audience of untrained thinkers; the particular bears to the universal, the
those of the latter kind will fail to win other the same as the universal bears to the
assent, because they are based on premises particular. The infallible kind is a ‘complete
that are not generally admitted or believed. proof’ (tekmerhiou); the fallible kind has no
The enthymeme and the example must, specific name. By infallible signs I mean
then, deal with what is in the main those on which syllogisms proper may be
contingent, the example being an induction, based: and this shows us why this kind of
and the enthymeme a syllogism, about such Sign is called ‘complete proof’: when people
matters. The enthymeme must consist of few think that what they have said cannot be
propositions, fewer often than those which refuted, they then think that they are
make up the normal syllogism. For if any of bringing forward a ‘complete proof,’
these propositions is a familiar fact, there is meaning that the matter has now been
no need even to mention it; the hearer adds demonstrated and completed
it himself. Thus, to show that Dorieus has (peperhasmeuou); for the word ‘perhas’ has
been victor in a contest for which the prize the same meaning (of ‘end’ or ‘boundary’)
is a crown, it is enough to say ‘For he has as the word ‘tekmarh’ in the ancient tongue.
been victor in the Olympic games,’ without Now the one kind of Sign (that which bears
adding ‘And in the Olympic games the prize to the proposition it supports the relation of
is a crown,’ a fact which everybody knows. particular to universal) may be illustrated
There are few facts of the ‘necessary’ thus. Suppose it were said, ‘The fact that
type that can form the basis of rhetorical Socrates was wise and just is a sign that the
syllogisms. Most of the things about which wise are just.’ Here we certainly have a
we make decisions, and into which therefore Sign; but even though the proposition be
we inquire, present us with alternative true, the argument is refutable, since it does
possibilities. For it is about our actions that not form a syllogism. Suppose, on the other
we deliberate and inquire, and all our actions hand, it were said, ‘The fact that he has a
have a contingent character; hardly any of fever is a sign that he is ill,’ or, ‘The fact
them are determined by necessity. Again, that she is giving milk is a sign that she has
conclusions that state what is merely usual lately borne a child.’ Here we have the

10
infallible kind of Sign, the only kind that everybody-one that also subsists between
constitutes a complete proof, since it is the the syllogisms treated of in dialectic. One
only kind that, if the particular statement is sort of enthymeme really belongs to
true, is irrefutable. The other kind of Sign, rhetoric, as one sort of syllogism really
that which bears to the proposition it belongs to dialectic; but the other sort really
supports the relation of universal to belongs to other arts and faculties, whether
particular, might be illustrated by saying, to those we already exercise or to those we
‘The fact that he breathes fast is a sign that have not yet acquired. Missing this
he has a fever.’ This argument also is distinction, people fail to notice that the
refutable, even if the statement about the fast more correctly they handle their particular
breathing be true, since a man may breathe subject the further they are getting away
hard without having a fever. from pure rhetoric or dialectic. This
It has, then, been stated above what is statement will be clearer if expressed more
the nature of a Probability, of a Sign, and of fully. I mean that the proper subjects of
a complete proof, and what are the dialectical and rhetorical syllogisms are the
differences between them. In the Analytics a things with which we say the regular or
more explicit description has been given of universal Lines of Argument are concerned,
these points; it is there shown why some of that is to say those lines of argument that
these reasonings can be put into syllogisms apply equally to questions of right conduct,
and some cannot. natural science, politics, and many other
The ‘example’ has already been things that have nothing to do with one
described as one kind of induction; and the another. Take, for instance, the line of
special nature of the subject-matter that argument concerned with ‘the more or less.’
distinguishes it from the other kinds has also On this line of argument it is equally easy to
been stated above. Its relation to the base a syllogism or enthymeme about any of
proposition it supports is not that of part to what nevertheless are essentially
whole, nor whole to part, nor whole to disconnected subjects-right conduct, natural
whole, but of part to part, or like to like. science, or anything else whatever. But there
When two statements are of the same order, are also those special Lines of Argument
but one is more familiar than the other, the which are based on such propositions as
former is an ‘example.’ The argument may, apply only to particular groups or classes of
for instance, be that Dionysius, in asking as things. Thus there are propositions about
he does for a bodyguard, is scheming to natural science on which it is impossible to
make himself a despot. For in the past base any enthymeme or syllogism about
Peisistratus kept asking for a bodyguard in ethics, and other propositions about ethics
order to carry out such a scheme, and did on which nothing can be based about natural
make himself a despot as soon as he got it; science. The same principle applies
and so did Theagenes at Megara; and in the throughout. The general Lines of Argument
same way all other instances known to the have no special subject-matter, and therefore
speaker are made into examples, in order to will not increase our understanding of any
show what is not yet known, that Dionysius particular class of things. On the other hand,
has the same purpose in making the same the better the selection one makes of
request: all these being instances of the one propositions suitable for special Lines of
general principle, that a man who asks for a Argument, the nearer one comes,
bodyguard is scheming to make himself a unconsciously, to setting up a science that is
despot. We have now described the sources distinct from dialectic and rhetoric. One may
of those means of persuasion which are succeed in stating the required principles,
popularly supposed to be demonstrative. but one’s science will be no longer dialectic
There is an important distinction or rhetoric, but the science to which the
between two sorts of enthymemes that has principles thus discovered belong. Most
been wholly overlooked by almost enthymemes are in fact based upon these

11
particular or special Lines of Argument; done. The ceremonial orator is, properly
comparatively few on the common or speaking, concerned with the present, since
general kind. As in the therefore, so in this all men praise or blame in view of the state
work, we must distinguish, in dealing with of things existing at the time, though they
enthymemes, the special and the general often find it useful also to recall the past and
Lines of Argument on which they are to be to make guesses at the future.
founded. By special Lines of Argument I Rhetoric has three distinct ends in view,
mean the propositions peculiar to each one for each of its three kinds. The political
several class of things, by general those orator aims at establishing the expediency or
common to all classes alike. We may begin the harmfulness of a proposed course of
with the special Lines of Argument. But, action; if he urges its acceptance, he does so
first of all, let us classify rhetoric into its on the ground that it will do good; if he
varieties. Having distinguished these we urges its rejection, he does so on the ground
may deal with them one by one, and try to that it will do harm; and all other points,
discover the elements of which each is such as whether the proposal is just or
composed, and the propositions each must unjust, honorable or dishonorable, he brings
employ. in as subsidiary and relative to this main
consideration. Parties in a law-case aim at
III establishing the justice or injustice of some
Rhetoric falls into three divisions, action, and they too bring in all other points
determined by the three classes of listeners as subsidiary and relative to this one. Those
to speeches. For of the three elements in who praise or attack a man aim at proving
speech-making--speaker, subject, and person him worthy of honor or the reverse, and they
addressed--it is the last one, the hearer, that too treat all other considerations with
determines the speech’s end and object. The reference to this one.
hearer must be either a judge, with a That the three kinds of rhetoric do aim
decision to make about things past or future, respectively at the three ends we have
or an observer. A member of the assembly mentioned is shown by the fact that speakers
decides about future events, a juryman about will sometimes not try to establish anything
past events: while those who merely decide else. Thus, the litigant will sometimes not
on the orator’s skill are observers. From this deny that a thing has happened or that he has
it follows that there are three divisions of done harm. But that he is guilty of injustice
oratory-(1) political, (2) forensic, and (3) the he will never admit; otherwise there would
ceremonial oratory of display. be no need of a trial. So too, political orators
Political speaking urges us either to do often make any concession short of
or not to do something: one of these two admitting that they are recommending their
courses is always taken by private hearers to take an inexpedient course or not
counselors, as well as by men who address to take an expedient one. The question
public assemblies. Forensic speaking either whether it is not unjust for a city to enslave
attacks or defends somebody: one or other its innocent neighbors often does not trouble
of these two things must always be done by them at all. In like manner those who praise
the parties in a case. The ceremonial oratory or censure a man do not consider whether
of display either praises or censures his acts have been expedient or not, but
somebody. These three kinds of rhetoric often make it a ground of actual praise that
refer to three different kinds of time. The he has neglected his own interest to do what
political orator is concerned with the future: was honorable. Thus, they praise Achilles
it is about things to be done hereafter that he because he championed his fallen friend
advises, for or against. The party in a case at Patroclus, though he knew that this meant
law is concerned with the past; one man death, and that otherwise he need not die:
accuses the other, and the other defends yet while to die thus was the nobler thing for
himself, with reference to things already

12
him to do, the expedient thing was to live
on.
It is evident from what has been said
that it is these three subjects, more than any
others, about which the orator must be able
to have propositions at his command. Now
the propositions of Rhetoric are Complete
Proofs, Probabilities, and Signs. Every kind
of syllogism is composed of propositions,
and the enthymeme is a particular kind of
syllogism composed of the aforesaid
propositions.
Since only possible actions, and not
impossible ones, can ever have been done in
the past or the present, and since things
which have not occurred, or will not occur,
also cannot have been done or be going to
be done, it is necessary for the political, the
forensic, and the ceremonial speaker alike to
be able to have at their command
propositions about the possible and the
impossible, and about whether a thing has or
has not occurred, will or will not occur.
Further, all men, in giving praise or blame,
in urging us to accept or reject proposals for
action, in accusing others or defending
themselves, attempt not only to prove the
points mentioned but also to show that the
good or the harm, the honor or disgrace, the
justice or injustice, is great or small, either
absolutely or relatively; and therefore it is
plain that we must also have at our
command propositions about greatness or
smallness and the greater or the lesser-
propositions both universal and particular.
Thus, we must be able to say which is the
greater or lesser good, the greater or lesser
act of justice or injustice; and so on.
Such, then, are the subjects regarding
which we are inevitably bound to master
the propositions relevant to them. We
must now discuss each particular class of
these subjects in turn, namely those dealt
with in political, in ceremonial, and
lastly in legal, oratory.

13