On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse

350 Pages·2007·3.756 MB·English

by  Aristotle, George A. Kennedy

ON RHETORIC
R
ARISTOTLE
R
ON RHETORIC
A THEORY OF CIVIC DISCOURSE
Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Appendices by
GEORGE A. KENNEDY
Second Edition
New York Oxford
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
2007
Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s
objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education.
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Copyright ©2007 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
http://www.oup.com
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Aristotle.
[Rhetoric. English]
On rhetoric : a theory of civic discourse / by Aristotle ; translated with
introduction, notes, and appendices by George A. Kennedy. — 2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 13: 978-0-19-530508-1 (alk. paper) — ISBN 13: 978-0-19-530509-8
(pbk. : alk. paper)
ISBN 0-19-530508-6 (alk. paper) — ISBN 0-19-530509-4 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Rhetoric—Early works to 1800. 2. Aristotle. Rhetoric. I. Kennedy, George
Alexander, 1928– II. Title.
PN173.A7K46 2006
808.5—dc22
2005055487
Printing number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper.
To My Grandson,
Alexander Kennedy Morton,
The Original Rhetoric for a Later Alexander
Contents
Prooemion ix
Notes on the Translation xiv
Introduction 1
A. Aristotle’s Life and Works 1
B. Rhetoric Before Aristotle 7
C. Aristotle’s Classification of Rhetoric 16
D. Aristotle’s Original Audience and His Audience Today 17
E. The Strengths and Limitations of On Rhetoric 20
F. Chapter-by-Chapter Outline of On Rhetoric 23
BOOK 1: Pisteis, or The Means of Persuasion in Public
Address 27
BOOK 2: Pisteis, or The Means of Persuasion in Public
Address (continued) 111
BOOK 3: Delivery, Style, and Arrangement 193
Appendix I: Supplementary Texts 251
A. Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen 251
B. Socrates’ Critique of Sophistic Rhetoric 256
C. Lysias’ Speech Against the Grain Dealers 259
D. Introduction to Dialectic from Aristotle, Topics 1.1–3 263
E. Two Selections from Isocrates 266
1. From Against the Sophists 266
2. From Antidosis 267
F. Selections from Rhetoric for Alexander 269
vii
viii Contents
G. On Word Choice and Metaphor from Aristotle’s Poetics 275
H. Demosthenes’ Third Philippic 277
Appendix II: Supplementary Essays 293
A. The Earliest Rhetorical Handbooks 293
B. The History of the Text After Aristotle 306
Glossary 313
Bibliography 321
Index 331
Prooemion
The study of rhetoric in the western world began in Greece in the fifth
century b.c.e. Democratic government was emerging in Athens,
based on the assumption that all citizens had an equal right and duty
to participate in their own government. To do so effectively, they
needed to be able to speak in public. Decisions on public policy were
made in regularly held assemblies composed of adult male citizens,
any of whom had the right to speak. Not surprisingly, however, the
leadership role in debate was played by a small number of ambitious
individuals called rhBtores, who sought to channel the course of
events in a direction they thought was best for the city or for them-
selves. There were no professional lawyers in Greece, and if citizens
needed to seek redress in the courts for some wrong or if they were
summoned to court as defendants, they were expected in most
instances to speak on their own behalf. There were also occasions for
public address on holidays or at funerals, as well as more informal
speeches at symposia or private meetings.
Some people seem to have a natural gift for communication;
others can develop these skills by studying the principles of speech
and composition, by observing the method of successful speakers
and writers, and by practice. To meet the needs of students in Greece,
teachers called “sophists” emerged who took students for pay and
taught them how to be effective in public life by marshaling argu-
ments, dividing speeches into logical parts, and carefully choosing
and combining words. One of the most famous of these teachers was
a man named Gorgias, who came from Sicily to Athens in 427 b.c.e.
and made a great impression on his audiences by his poetic style and
paradoxical arguments. Others began to publish short handbooks on
the “art” of speeches, concerned primarily with showing how a person
with little or no experience could organize a speech for delivery in a
court of law and how to argue on the basis of the probability of what
someone might have done in a given situation. These handbooks
ix
x Prooemion
contained examples of techniques that could be adapted to different
needs. Socrates and his student Plato distrusted the teaching of the
sophists and handbook writers. In Plato’s dialogue GorgiasSocrates
criticizes civic rhetoric in fifth-century b.c.e.Athens as essentially a
form of flattery—morally irresponsible and not based on knowledge
of truth or sound logic.
The debate over the role of rhetoric in society has existed ever
since, and there are still people today for whom the word “rhetoric”
means empty words, misleading arguments, and appeal to base
emotions. There are dangers in rhetoric—political extremism, racism,
and unscrupulous sales techniques, for example—but by studying
rhetoric we can become alert to its potential for misuse and learn to
recognize when a speaker is seeking to manipulate us. There is great
positive power in rhetoric as well, which we can use for valid ends.
The American Founding Fathers organized public opinion in the
cause of American independence by use of the logical, ethical, and
emotional power of rhetoric. Rhetoric has helped black leaders,
women, and minority groups begin to secure their rights in society.
It has also been an essential feature in the preaching and teaching of
the world’s religions, in the transmission of cultural values, and in
the judicial process.
Aristotle was perhaps the first person to recognize clearly that
rhetoric as an art of communication was morally neutral, that it could
be used for either good or ill. In the second chapter of On Rhetoric he
says that persuasion depends on three things: the truth and logical
validity of what is being argued, the speaker’s success in conveying
to the audience a perception that he or she can be trusted, and the
emotions that a speaker is able to awaken in an audience to accept the
views advanced and act in accordance with them. Modern rhetor-
icians use terms derived from Aristotle to refer to these three means of
persuasion, though they have somewhat broadened his definitions:
logical argument is called logos; the projection of the speaker’s char-
acter is called Bthos; awakening the emotions of the audience is called
pathos.
Aristotle composed his treatise On Rhetoric in the third quarter of
the fourth century b.c.e.as a text for lectures he planned to give in his
philosophical school. Although it influenced the view of rhetoric of
Cicero, Quintilian, and other teachers in Rome and became known in
the western Middle Ages in a Latin translation, it has been more stud-
ied in modern times than ever before. Most teachers of composition,
communication, and speech regard it as a seminal work that organizes
Prooemion xi
its subject into essential parts, provides insight into the nature of speech
acts, creates categories and terminology for discussing discourse, and
illustrates and applies its teachings so that they can be used in society.
Although Aristotle largely limited the province of rhetoric to public
address, he took a broader view of what that entails than do most
modern writers on communication. This may surprise and interest
readers today. He addresses issues of philosophy, government, history,
ethics, and literature; and in Book 2 he includes a comprehensive
account of human psychology. In Aristotle’s view, speakers need to
understand how the minds of their listeners work, and in the process
we come to understand something of who we are and why we do what
we do.
On Rhetoric can be a difficult work for modern readers, and many
need help to understand it. Some difficulties may come from a lack
of familiarity with the history and thought of the period in which it
was composed. Other difficulties come from the compressed style in
which it is written: words, thoughts, transitions, or explanations often
need to be added to make the argument clear. Some problems result
from apparent inconsistencies. Aristotle seems to have written differ-
ent portions of the work at different times, he sometimes changed his
views, and he never made a complete revision of the whole, nor did
he add as many illustrations and examples as we would like. Finally,
his attitude toward rhetoric was ambivalent. He wanted his students
to understand the dangers of sophistic rhetoric as dramatically por-
trayed by Plato, and at the same time to be able to defend themselves
and be effective if they engaged in public life. The differing views
found in the text, especially when taken in conjunction with Plato’s
criticism or Isocrates’ celebration of rhetoric, can provide a good
starting point for discussions by modern students about the nature and
functions of rhetoric in society.
This translation attempts both to convey something of Aristotle’s
distinctive style and way of thinking and to render the work more
accessible to modern readers through introductory comments, sup-
plemental phrases in the text, and extensive notes and appendices.
Earlier translators often paraphrased or avoided technicalities to
make the text more readable, but in our age, one reason for studying
Aristotle is to learn his technical language. I have kept this and offered
explanations of it.
As is the case with most Greek literature, our knowledge of what
Aristotle wrote is based on manuscripts copied by scribes from older
manuscripts, which were in turn copied from still earlier ones, going