Home · Book Reports · 2018 · Aristotle's Rhetoric

designates my notes. / designates important.

Thoughts

Though I was less than impressed with the first half of this book, owing to it, in my opinion, goes too far off the topic of rhetoric and into the realm of what is good, the motivations of men, and similar foundational concepts. It is not to say that these are not important; as I said, they are foundational concepts, but belong to more than rhetoric and should be treated in their own work.

That said, if one is not philosophically inclined, has not studied the more foundational works like Aristotle’s Ethic’s this work will provide a one stop shop.

The second half of the book, which covers more what might be expected given the title, was more than enough to make up for what I consider a slow start. It follows a decidedly logical structure and covers each of the components of rhetoric in sequence, making sure to exhaust one topic before moving to the next. Overall, I think it provides a more than adequate understanding of how to argue your points and win over an audience.

Book 1

The work is divided into three books. The first defines terms and describes rhetoric. It reminds us that everyone uses rhetoric, be it spontaneously or through training. Further, rhetoric is treated as an art.

Interestingly, in light of history and modernity, when it is said that truth generally wins and that you should refrain from misleading people with your rhetoric, I have to smile. I wonder what Aristotle would make of the modern world, so full of lies and deceit?

Unlike the other arts, which are confined to themselves, rhetoric is concerned with the persuasion of anything, knowing no limits to where it might be found.

Persuasion follows in three ways: logical reasoning, understand human character, and understanding human emotion.

The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself.

As it is often taught, the speech should be written with the audience in mind. You’d address a group of mathematicians different than a group of farmers. They simply have different vocabularies and understanding. Of course this inability to understand goes both ways: where a farmer might be on shaky ground discussing functions, the mathematician would falter similarly in a discussion regarding a soil’s nutrients.

This is, literally, age-old advice:

For of the three elements in speech-making–speaker, subject, and person addressed–it is the last one, the hearer, that determines the speech’s end and object.

From here the book begins it discourse into things like the good, emotions, and motives. Why do people commit wrong? Desire and anger are among two common reasons. Desire can manifest in both the wealthy and the poverty stricken at different levels. Similarly anger knows no prejudice.

Additionally men may have the mindset that they have nothing left to lose or that that have wealth and influence, friends in high places, that might be leveraged to get them off.

There is a mention of written and unwritten laws. I wonder how much value this thinking is in the modern age when the law is often employed to the letter, no more nor less. Things like honor, that might be considered unwritten laws, are ignored if not held in outright contempt today.

A slight digression from these foundational concepts is taken to point out that, obviously, there are two ways to argue: either for or against. Your argument will be different depending on what you relation to your stance is.

The digression continues with a discussion of oaths and how they might affect your augment.

I don’t think these topics fits with this part of the book (the overall book, not the sub books), but they do fit in the book.

Book 2

The second book continues exploring emotions and reasons people do what they do. What causes people to become angry, calm, or afraid, and how, if you can push the right buttons, your speech can deliver the audience to these emotions.

When it comes to fear, we are not afraid when we either don’t understand something or when we don’t have the means to deal with what might cause fear. Both of which seem wrong to me since people often fear most what they don’t understand and I see no reason not to fear what I can’t control. Either way, anger, strength, and having numerous friends by our side can mitigate fear.

It continues with similar arguments for shame and shamelessness, kindness, pity (when bad things happen to good people), indignation (when good things happen to bad people), envy, and emulation. Again, while all of this is important and interesting in its own right, I think it belongs in a separate work.

Next the types of character are explored. This is more appropriate, but could also be broken out into another work. Here we look at how each type might argue and react to arguments.

The young man is driven by passion, hot-tempered, quick to change his opinion, looks forward instead of back, has less fear and experience, and is more trusting and easily swayed. He is optimistic, loves honor and victory more than money, is always sure of himself and tends to over-do everything. He wants to be noble.

The elderly man, obviously, is the opposite of the young man. He is never sure, under does everything, owing to experience looks backward more than forward, is cynical, distrustful, and more concerned with money. His ambition has been humbled by his years and he is more shameless.

Similarly the middle-aged man lies between these two extremes.

Depending on what types of characters your audience is made up of, you can appeal to different desires to elicit particular reactions.

Additional coverage is given to character through looking at: the well-born, who come from good stock, those that come from wealth, and those that come from power. Each of these types, like the young, middle, and elderly men, can be swayed more or less effectively by appealing to their desires.

Finally, almost 60% of the way through the entire work, it seems to turn from emotions and character types to what one might expect in a book titled: rhetoric, namely argumentative tactics.

The first tactic discussed is amplification. If you are trying to prove the positive or the negative, you should amplify what supports your argument and neglect that which does not. Amplification is appropriate when dealing with the past or the future, with the forensic of the political (as well as the ceremonial).

Next a recurring theme, enthymemes, are introduced in earnest. This can be roughly translated as the body of evidence for your argument. Examples are a very common form used to build your argument. Fables, a specific kind of example, are powerful enough to act as a witness to your evidence. When making your speech, you should place fables and examples at the end, to solidify what has come before, rather than at the beginning, where they are not as powerful and might require more of them. You want the fable or example, coming near the end, to stick in your audiences’ mind.

Maxims are another form that can support your position in a similar fashion to examples and fables.

Enthymeme are a kind of syllogism that can be constructed from the aforementioned. This does not mean that all enthymemes and syllogisms are genuine, but they can be made to look genuine with careful crafting. When this is discussed I am not sure whether it is as a defensive or offensive posture. A sophist could easily confound and audience with a clever, but inaccurate, argument, but this was frowned on earlier in the book when Aristotle says explicitly that you should not tell untruths. Alternatively it might be put forth so that one might identify when their opponent is using fallacious arguments.

The latter seems reasonable since the next section talks about refutation, counter syllogisms (which are constructed in the same manner as syllogisms), and objections.

Book 3

Book three is probably the most pragmatic of the books, laying down a number of ‘rules’ to follow when constructing your speech.

In making a speech one must study three points: first, the means of producing persuasion; second, the style, or language, to be used; third, the proper arrangement of the various parts of the speech.

The speech itself, the actual sound made, is also made up of three points:

These are the three things-volume of sound, modulation of pitch, and rhythm-that a speaker bears in mind.

Sadly, in my opinion, “the whole business of rhetoric … concerned with appearances,” is extremely evident to this day. The delivery and physical appearance is as, or more, important than the actual content of the delivery. Aristotle agrees that this is “unworthy though it is” true.

You should thus choose your language to reflect your audience. Do not use overly fancy or mean language. If your audience is unfamiliar with your words they will be alerted to your artificiality.

strange words simply puzzle us; ordinary words convey only what we know already; it is from metaphor that we can best get hold of something fresh.

Metaphors should be employed more in prose, where they are more useful than in poetry. While the poet has many techniques for painting a mental picture, and the audience expects artifice, the orator is limited in acceptable devices; this brings more weight to bear on the metaphor.

Keep the subject and the verb close together, unless you want to be difficult to understand. Describe what you need to describe as succinctly as possible, sometimes choosing to name the thing directly, as when it is familiar, and sometimes choosing to describe it more intricately, as when it is unfamiliar to the audience. In all cases you should avoid ambiguities.

Your language should be chose so to express emotion. We have seen, in the first half of this work, that emotions, passions, and character, are the buttons that can be pushed to make the human organ sing as the orator wants. Logic, while important, if often not the moving element of a speech.

Like poetry, prose should have some kind rhythm, but, unlike poetry, it should not be metrical.

When the speaker attempts to paint a picture for the audience, they ought to use activity in the words, puns, jokes, proverbs, and even hyperbole. The antithesis, metaphor, and actuality of what you are trying to describe should all be available to employ.

Which tools should you use? It depends on the kind of rhetoric you are trying to produce. Each type, political, forensic, and ceremonial, all have their own styles that the audience might expect. You should write/speak in that style. There are no rules here and research into past and modern speeches will be required.

Lastly the composition of a speech is discussed.

A speech has two parts. You must state your case, and you must prove it.

Further, these two parts give rise to four distinct sections: Introduction, Statement, Argument, and Epilogue.

Each of these sections is discussed, but I think what they consist of is fairly obvious and need not be mentioned here.

A few loose rules are proposed; you should not “use a continuous succession of enthymemes: intersperse them with other matter, or they will spoil one another’s effect.”

you should kill your opponents’ earnestness with jesting and their jesting with earnestness…

Irony better befits a gentleman than buffoonery; the ironical man jokes to amuse himself, the buffoon to amuse other people.

Finally, the saddest, but truest, piece of knowledge presented in the book is shown in these last two quotes:

The Epilogue has four parts. You must (1) make the audience well-disposed towards yourself and ill-disposed towards your opponent (2) magnify or minimize the leading facts, (3) excite the required state of emotion in your hearers, and (4) refresh their memories.

it is more fitting for a good man to display himself as an honest fellow than as a subtle reasoner.

(1) and (3), plus the second quote, all recount that it is not necessarily the argument that will win a debate by winning over an audience, but the presentation and emotional hot-buttons that can be manipulated most effective are what will often determine the victor.

I have done. You have heard me. The facts are before you. I ask for your judgment.

Exceptional Excerpts

“The arousing of prejudice, pity, anger, and similar emotions has nothing to do with the essential facts, but is merely a personal appeal to the man who is judging the case."

“Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. This is not a function of any other art. Every other art can instruct or persuade about its own particular subject-matter; for instance, medicine about what is healthy and unhealthy, geometry about the properties of magnitudes, arithmetic about numbers, and the same is true of the other arts and sciences. Butrhetoric we look upon as the power of observing the means of persuasion on almost any subject presented to us”

“The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself."

“For of the three elements in speech-making–speaker, subject, and person addressed–it is the last one, the hearer, that determines the speech’s end and object."

“In order to be wronged, a man must (1) suffer actual harm, (2) suffer it against his will."

“Much may happen to make the angry man pity those who offend him, but the hater under no circumstances wishes to pity a man whom he has once hated: for the one would have the offenders suffer for what they have done; the other would have them cease to exist."

“that concerned with Amplification is-as has been already said-most appropriate to ceremonial speeches; that concerned with the Past, to forensic speeches, where the required decision is always about the past; that concerned with Possibility and the Future, to political speeches."

“The illustrative parallel is the sort of argument Socrates used: e.g. ‘Public officials ought not to be selected by lot. That is like using the lot to select athletes, instead of choosing those who are fit for the contest; or using the lot to select a steersman from among a ship’s crew, as if we ought to take the man on whom the lot falls, and not the man who knows most about it.’"

“Instances of the fable are that of Stesichorus about Phalaris, and that of Aesop in defence of the popular leader. When the people of Himera had made Phalaris military dictator, and were going to give him a bodyguard, Stesichorus wound up a long talk by telling them the fable of the horse who had a field all to himself. Presently there came a stag and began to spoil his pasturage. The horse, wishing to revenge himself on the stag, asked a man if he could help him to do so. The man said, ‘Yes, if you will let me bridle you and get on to your back with javelins in my hand’. The horse agreed, and the man mounted; but instead of getting his revenge on the stag, the horse found himself the slave of the man. ‘You too’, said Stesichorus, ’take care lest your desire for revenge on your enemies, you meet the same fate as the horse. By making Phalaris military dictator, you have already let yourselves be bridled. If you let him get on to your backs by giving him a bodyguard, from that moment you will be his slaves.’"

“If [examples/fables] follow the enthymemes, they have the effect of witnesses giving evidence, and this alway tells. For the same reason, if you put your examples first you must give a large number of them; if you put them last, a single one is sufficient…"

“The Refutative Enthymeme has a greater reputation than the Demonstrative, because within a small space it works out two opposing arguments, and arguments put side by side are clearer to the audience. But of all syllogisms, whether refutative or demonstrative, those are most applauded of which we foresee the conclusions from the beginning, so long as they are not obvious at first sight-for part of the pleasure we feel is at our own intelligent anticipation; or those which we follow well enough to see the point of them as soon as the last word has been uttered."

“the whole business of rhetoric being concerned with appearances, we must pay attention to the subject of delivery, unworthy though it is”

“Words of ambiguous meaning are chiefly useful to enable the sophist to mislead his hearers."

“The form of a prose composition should be neither metrical nor destitute of rhythm."

“strange words simply puzzle us; ordinary words convey only what we know already; it is from metaphor that we can best get hold of something fresh."

“It should be observed that each kind of rhetoric has its own appropriate style. The style of written prose is not that of spoken oratory, nor are those of political and forensic speaking the same. Both written and spoken have to be known."

“Do not use a continuous succession of enthymemes: intersperse them with other matter, or they will spoil one another’s effect. There are limits to their number”

“it is more fitting for a good man to display himself as an honest fellow than as a subtle reasoner."

“you should kill your opponents’ earnestness with jesting and their jesting with earnestness”

"‘I have done. You have heard me. The facts are before you. I ask for your judgment.’"

Table of Contents

• Book 1
• Book 2
• Book 3

· Book 1

page 1:

• The arousing of prejudice, pity, anger, and similar emotions has nothing to do with the essential facts, but is merely a personal appeal to the man who is judging the case.

page 3:

• it is absurd to hold that a man ought to be ashamed of being unable to defend himself with his limbs, but not of being unable to defend himself with speech and reason, when the use of rational speech is more distinctive of a human being than the use of his limbs.

• In dialectic it is different: a man is a ‘sophist’ because he has a certain kind of moral purpose, a ‘dialectician’ in respect, not of his moral purpose, but of his faculty.

• Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. This is not a function of any other art. Every other art can instruct or persuade about its own particular subject-matter; for instance, medicine about what is healthy and unhealthy, geometry about the properties of magnitudes, arithmetic about numbers, and the same is true of the other arts and sciences. Butrhetoric we look upon as the power of observing the means of persuasion on almost any subject presented to us

page 4:

• Our judgments when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile.

• The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself.

• these three means of effecting persuasion. The man who is to be in command of them must, it is clear, be able (1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various forms, and (3) to understand the emotions

page 7:

• For of the three elements in speech-making–speaker, subject, and person addressed–it is the last one, the hearer, that determines the speech’s end and object.

• three divisions of oratory-(1) political, (2) forensic, and (3) the ceremonial oratory of display.

page 9:

• The main matters on which all men deliberate and on which political speakers make speeches are some five in number: ways and means, war and peace, national defence, imports and exports, and legislation.

• For men become richer not only by increasing their existing wealth but also by reducing their expenditure.

page 10:

• Thus, democracy loses its vigour, and finally passes into oligarchy, not only when it is not pushed far enough, but also when it is pushed a great deal too far

page 19:

• The most important and effective qualification for success in persuading audiences and speaking well on public affairs is to understand all the forms of government and to discriminate their respective customs, institutions, and interests. For all men are persuaded by considerations of their interest, and their interest lies in the maintenance of the established order.

• The forms of government are four-democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, monarchy.

page 22:

• To praise a man is in one respect akin to urging a course of action.

• Thus the statement ‘A man should be proud not of what he owes to fortune but of what he owes to himself’, if put like this, amounts to a suggestion; to make it into praise we must put it thus, ‘Since he is proud not of what he owes to fortune but of what he owes to himself.’ Consequently, whenever you want to praise any one, think what you would urge people to do; and when you want to urge the doing of anything, think what you would praise a man for having done.

page 24:

• Thus every action must be due to one or other of seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reasoning, anger, or appetite.

page 26:

• Now the things that are pleasant to remember are not only those that, when actually perceived as present, were pleasant, but also some things that were not, provided that their results have subsequently proved noble and good. Hence the words:

• Sweet ’tis when rescued to remember pain,

• Even his griefs are a joy long after to one that remembers All that he wrought and endured.

page 31:

• In order to be wronged, a man must (1) suffer actual harm, (2) suffer it against his will.

page 33:

• If the written law tells against our case, clearly we must appeal to the universal law, and insist on its greater equity and justice. We must argue that the juror’s oath ‘I will give my verdict according to honest opinion’ means that one will not simply follow the letter of the written law.

page 35:

• Concerning contracts argument can be so far employed as to increase or diminish their importance and their credibility;we shall try to increase both if they tell in our favour, and to diminish both if they tell in favour of our opponent.

· Book 2

page 40:

• you cannot be afraid of a person and also at the same time angry with him.

• Why?

page 43:

• Anger is always concerned with individuals-a Callias or a Socrates-whereas hatred is directed also against classes

• anger can be cured by time; but hatred cannot

• Much may happen to make the angry man pity those who offend him, but the hater under no circumstances wishes to pity a man whom he has once hated: for the one would have the offenders suffer for what they have done; the other would have them cease to exist.

page 54:

• Such are the characters of Young Men and Elderly Men. People always think well of speeches adapted to, and reflecting, their own character: and we can now see how to compose our speeches so as to adapt both them and ourselves to our audiences.

page 55:

• The body is in its prime from thirty to five-and-thirty; the mind about forty-nine.

• saying of Simonides about wise men and rich men, in answer to Hiero’s wife, who asked him whether it was better to grow rich or wise. ‘Why, rich,’ he said; ‘for I see the wise men spending their days at the rich men’s doors.’

• In a word, the type of character produced by wealth is that of a prosperous fool.

page 57:

• that concerned with Amplification is-as has been already said-most appropriate to ceremonial speeches; that concerned with the Past, to forensic speeches, where the required decision is always about the past; that concerned with Possibility and the Future, to political speeches.

page 59:

• The illustrative parallel is the sort of argument Socrates used: e.g. ‘Public officials ought not to be selected by lot. That is like using the lot to select athletes, instead of choosing those who are fit for the contest; or using the lot to select a steersman from among a ship’s crew, as if we ought to take the man on whom the lot falls, and not the man who knows most about it.’

• Instances of the fable are that of Stesichorus about Phalaris, and that of Aesop in defence of the popular leader. When the people of Himera had made Phalaris military dictator, and were going to give him a bodyguard, Stesichorus wound up a long talk by telling them the fable of the horse who had a field all to himself. Presently there came a stag and began to spoil his pasturage. The horse, wishing to revenge himself on the stag, asked a man if he could help him to do so. The man said, ‘Yes, if you will let me bridle you and get on to your back with javelins in my hand’. The horse agreed, and the man mounted; but instead of getting his revenge on the stag, the horse found himself the slave of the man. ‘You too’, said Stesichorus, ’take care lest your desire for revenge on your enemies, you meet the same fate as the horse. By making Phalaris military dictator, you have already let yourselves be bridled. If you let him get on to your backs by giving him a bodyguard, from that moment you will be his slaves.’

• Aesop, defending before the assembly at Samos a poular leader who was being tried for his life, told this story: A fox, in crossing a river, was swept into a hole in the rocks; and, not being able to get out, suffered miseries for a long time through the swarms of fleas that fastened on her. A hedgehog, while roaming around, noticed the fox; and feeling sorry for her asked if he might remove the fleas. But the fox declined the offer; and when the hedgehog asked why, she replied, ‘These fleas are by this time full of me and not sucking much blood; if you take them away, others will come with fresh appetites and drink up all the blood I have left.’ ‘So, men of Samos’, said Aesop, ‘my client will do you no further harm; he is wealthy already. But if you put him to death, others will come along who are not rich, and their peculations will empty your treasury completely.’

• If [examples/fables] follow the enthymemes, they have the effect of witnesses giving evidence, and this alway tells. For the same reason, if you put your examples first you must give a large number of them; if you put them last, a single one is sufficient…

page 60:

• There is no man in all things prosperous,

• and

• There is no man among us all is free,

• are maxims; but the latter, taken with what follows it, is an Enthymeme-

• For all are slaves of money or of chance.

page 62:

• Enthymeme is a syllogism

page 67:

• ‘if you say what is right, men will hate you; if you say what is wrong, the gods will hate you.’

page 69:

• The Refutative Enthymeme has a greater reputation than the Demonstrative, because within a small space it works out two opposing arguments, and arguments put side by side are clearer to the audience. But of all syllogisms, whether refutative or demonstrative, those are most applauded of which we foresee the conclusions from the beginning, so long as they are not obvious at first sight-for part of the pleasure we feel is at our own intelligent anticipation; or those which we follow well enough to see the point of them as soon as the last word has been uttered.

• Besides genuine syllogisms, there may be syllogisms that look genuine but are not; and since an enthymeme is merely a syllogism of a particular kind, it follows that, besides genuine enthymemes, there may be those that look genuine but are not.

page 72:

• Objections, as appears in the Topics, may be raised in four ways-either by directly attacking your opponent’s own statement, or by putting forward another statement like it, or by putting forward a statement contrary to it, or by quoting previous decisions.

• Enthymemes are based upon one or other of four kinds of alleged fact: (1) Probabilities, (2) Examples, (3) Infallible Signs, (4) Ordinary Signs.

· Book 3

• In making a speech one must study three points: first, the means of producing persuasion; second, the style, or language, to be used; third, the proper arrangement of the various parts of the speech.

• These are the three things-volume of sound, modulation of pitch, and rhythm-that a speaker bears in mind.

• the whole business of rhetoric being concerned with appearances, we must pay attention to the subject of delivery, unworthy though it is

page 76:

• Words of ambiguous meaning are chiefly useful to enable the sophist to mislead his hearers.

• metaphor is of great value both in poetry and in prose. Prose-writers must, however, pay specially careful attention to metaphor, because their other resources are scantier than those of poets.

page 81:

• The form of a prose composition should be neither metrical nor destitute of rhythm.

page 85:

• strange words simply puzzle us; ordinary words convey only what we know already; it is from metaphor that we can best get hold of something fresh.

page 89:

• Hyperboles are for young men to use; they show vehemence of character; and this is why angry people use them more than other people.

• It should be observed that each kind of rhetoric has its own appropriate style. The style of written prose is not that of spoken oratory, nor are those of political and forensic speaking the same. Both written and spoken have to be known.

page 90:

• A speech has two parts. You must state your case, and you must prove it.

page 91:

• Introduction, Statement, Argument, and Epilogue

page 92:

• You may use any means you choose to make your hearer receptive; among others, giving him a good impression of your character, which always helps to secure his attention.

page 97:

• Do not use a continuous succession of enthymemes: intersperse them with other matter, or they will spoil one another’s effect. There are limits to their number

• it is more fitting for a good man to display himself as an honest fellow than as a subtle reasoner.

page 98:

• For just as our minds refuse a favourable reception to a person against whom they are prejudiced, so they refuse it to a speech when they have been favourably impressed by the speech on the other side. You should, therefore, make room in the minds of the audience for your coming speech; and this will be done by getting your opponent’s speech out of the way. So attack that first-either the whole of it, or the most important, successful, or vulnerable points in it, and thus inspire confidence in what you have to say yourself

page 99:

• you should kill your opponents’ earnestness with jesting and their jesting with earnestness

• Irony better befits a gentleman than buffoonery; the ironical man jokes to amuse himself, the buffoon to amuse other people.

• The Epilogue has four parts. You must (1) make the audience well-disposed towards yourself and ill-disposed towards your opponent (2) magnify or minimize the leading facts, (3) excite the required state of emotion in your hearers, and (4) refresh their memories.

page 100:

• ‘I have done. You have heard me. The facts are before you. I ask for your judgment.’