Aristotle's definition of rhetoric

¶ … rhetoric is the art of meaning, the art of speech and writing, the art of language. Aristotle addressed this issue as he did so many others, seeking to offer a compendium of the knowledge of his time. Aristotle collected together as much of human knowledge as he could and explained it in terms of ideas and underlying connections between disciplines. He wrote about rhetoric in his book of the same name, Rhetoric, and he was highly influential through this work. Later Roman rhetoricians such as Cicero and Quintilian used Aristotelian concepts in their writings, as would even later commentators on the same issues.

An Aristotelian analysis of rhetoric is oriented more toward making a judgment about the rightness or wrongness of the rhetoric and the reasoning that went into developing the speech act itself. Aristotle discusses the ability to be in command of the elements of speech and says that this requires certain capabilities:

to reason logically;

to understand human character and goodness in their various forms; and 3) to understand the emotions.

Aristotle says of his subject:

The duty of rhetoric is to deal wit such matters as we deliberate upon without arts or systems to guide us, in the hearing of persons who cannot take in at a glance a complicated argument, or follow a long chain of reasoning (Aristotle, 1990, p. 155).

Aristotle describes three types of rhetoric, political, forensic, and ceremonial. In dividing rhetoric into three different approaches, Aristotle is also showing the belief in different types of logic with differing values. The logic of the argument in political rhetoric should be of a higher order, tending towards the absolute good and toward the benefit of society.

Aristotelian analysis offers a way of assessing the impact and structure of rhetoric. Aristotle does not simply explain the rhetorical situation but instead seeks to assess its importance, its structure, and its impact. Aristotle sets up a hierarchy, expecting rhetoric to move from one level to the next while always maintaining the same quality of logic and purpose. The explanation of Aristotle's rhetoric holds that the philosophy divides all rhetoric into deductive (enthymeme) or inductive (example). The different types of appeal, logical, ethical, and pathetical, become elements that are typically present in all reasonable arguments.

Kennedy (1991) points out that "Aristotle was primarily concerned with public address on the occasions offered by civic life in Greece, though he notes the presence of rhetoric in literature and in private communications" (p. 7). Aristotle also explins the role and place of rhetoric in civic life, as Kennedy notes:

1) deliberation about the future action in the best interests of a state; (2) speeches of prosecution or defense in a court of law seeking to determine the just resolution of actions alleged to have been taken in the past; and (3) what he calls epideictic, or speeches that do not call for any immediate action by the audience but that characteristically praise or blame some person or thing, often on a ceremonial occasion such as a public funeral or holiday. In all three settings speakers seek to persuade or influence action or belief and thus to impose their own ideas or values on others (Kennedy, 1991, p. 7).

The second situation would include rhetoric in a court of law and emphasize that an important role for rhetoric is persuasion.

Kennedy expands on this aspect further and finds that this was a key element in rhetoric in Aristotle's time, a time in which the law court was quite different from what we think of today;

Handbooks of rhetoric were published, beginning with Corax and Tisias in Sicily in the second quarter of the fifth century B.C. And continuing with others in Athens down through Aristotle's time. They outlined techniques for effective public speaking, especially in the law courts. Not only were there no professional lawyers in Greece, there were no professional judges. Cases were decided by juries (in Athens made up of 201 or more citizens) chosen by lot. Litigants had a limited time to make their cases in formal speeches, convincing the jury that they were trustworthy persons, persuading them of the truth of what they were saying, and arousing in them the motivation to share their views and take the decisions they wanted (Kennedy, 1991, p. 8).

In seeking to cover the range of human knowledge, Aristotle divided knowledge into three major classes, stating that all thought is either practical, productive, or theoretical. Aristotle identified the productive sciences as those concerned with the making of things, such as farming, art, and engineering. Aristotle did not say much about productive knowledge. The practical sciences are concerned with action and with how we ought to act in various circumstances, in both private and public affairs. Knowledge becomes theoretical when its goals are neither production nor action but simply truth, and this is what we now think of as science. For Aristotle, this truth contained by far the greatest part of the sum of human knowledge. Aritotle then divides this subject into three species, meaning the theoretical philosophies of mathematics, natural science, and theology.

Rhetoric is also linked closely to the field of logic, and Aristotle expresses this link when he examines language and expresses the view that he is "interested only in sentences that are true and false (commands, questions, exhortations, and the like are the concern of the student of rhetoric or linguistics). He holds that every such sentence is either simple or else compounded from simple sentences; and he explains that simple sentences are those which affirm or deny something of something -- some one thing of some one thing, as he later insists" (Barnes, 2000, p. 46). Aristotle sees rhetoric as part of the search for truth, and in this reagard it fits clearly with the work of a court of law, which is also directed ast finding the truth.

One way of doing so is through the application of logic, and, as noted, rhetoric is closely allied to logic. Rhetoric is also the art of persuasion, properly achieved through the application of logic over emotions, and rhetoric in the courtroom has a particular role as a persuasive device, using language and logic to make an argument and to shape a story in order to persuade others. To achieve this, the individual may use elements that are both enthymemic (meaning deductive) and inductive, arguing by example. Both are common in the rhetoric of the law. Arguments in court can be both ethical arguments and arguments by example.

The ideas expressed by Aristotle would help shape ideas about rhetoric, politics, and law for generations. Cicero was a follower of Aristotle, for instance, and Cicero's works are also important because they serve as a link between the theirs of Aristotle in the Greek world and later generations, carrying ideas through the Hellenistic age which otherwise would be lost to us: "They furnish, accordingly, some notion, incomplete to be sure but nevertheless valuable, of the ideas about government which passed from Greece to Rome in the three centuries before the Christian era and produced such profound effects upon Roman law" (Cicero, 1976, p. 40). In addition, Cicero's works contain the germs of ideas that would be developed during the imperial age by the great jurists and which would appear later in the teachings of the Roman lawyers of Bologna and in the early political theories of the Middle Ages.