RETORICA

Plato's political rhetoric

Plato developed a structural role for rhetoric as a tool of philosophy. Plato acknowledges that rhetoric possesses a certain utility regard to persuasion, and on that basis he grants rhetoric a limited and dependent claim to the status of techne. the limit is set by philosophy. In this respect rhetoric becomes parallel to the other tools that are at the disposal of the benevolent ruler, such as mythological tales, civic cult, noble lies.... Plato' s effort to develop a form of rhetoric that would serve proper political ends become evident in Republic and Laws where he imagines politicas communities under the control of philosophy. Always the purpose of the state is to enhace knowledge and virtue among the citizens.

3. Rhetoric and Education

In Phaedrus Socrates describes what a true art of rhetoric is like. Rejecting the rhetorical theories of contemporary sophists, Socrates proposes a vast new art of discourse that includes dialectic and psychology.

The Phaedrus looks at rhetoric as more than just a tool of mass politial communication, useful to the ruling philosopher in his dealings with the citizens. Understood as the art of arousing and directing desire, rhetoric becomes a kind of soul-moving power of discourse, an art of awakening in souls their natural desire for the good and beautiful, of educating souls and turning them towards philosophy.

PLATO ENLARGES THE SCOPE OF RHETORIC. FROM ITS POLITICAL ORIENTATION AS TAUGHT BY THE SOPHISTS IT BECOMES A UNIVERSAL ART OF DISCOURSE, EMBRACING "ALL THINGS THAT ARE SAID", DISCOURSE WHICH IS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, EXTEMPORANEOUS AND PREPARED, SPOKEN AND WRITTEN, EPIDEICTIC AND DIALECTICAL.

NEXT SOCRATES PREFIGURES PSYCHOLOGY AS ESSENTIAL PART OF RHETORIC. THE SOUL IS THE MATERIAL WITH WHICH THE ART OF RHETORIC OPERATES, SO RHETORIC MUST HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE SOUL AND THE WAYS IN WHICH DISCOURSES AFFECT SOUL. PERSUASION IS THE CREATION OF DESIRE IN THE AUDITOR'S SOUL.

THIRD SOCRATES ARGUES THAT THE PROFICIENT RHETOR MUST HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF HIS DISCOURSE, BECAUSE HIS ABILITY TO PERSUADE IS ENHANCED BY SUCH KNOWLEDGE.

SOCRATES INTROUCES DIALECTIC, WHICH IS A SYSTEMATIC WAY OF THINKING, ARGUING AND ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE.

SCIENTIFIC RIGOR AND COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE ART OF RHETORIC AS PRESENTED BY PLATO.

4) P. CHIRON, "THE RHETORIC OF ALEXANDER"

FOR THE GREEKS, THE FORTH CENTURY IS THE GOLDEN AGE OF RHETORIC IN BOTH ITS PRACTICAL AND THEORETICAL DIMENSIONS. BESIDES THE CORPUS OF ATTIC ORATORS, 2 COMPLETE TECHNICAL TREATISES HAVE BEEN PRESERVED> ARISTOTLE'S RHETORIC AND THE RHETORIC TO ALEXANDER, WHICH IS TRADITIONALLY INCLUDED AMONG THE WORKS OF ARISTOTLE, BUT NOW GENERALLY ASCRIBED TO ANAXIMENES OF LAMPSACUS.

ARISTOTLE'S RHETORIC RELATES RHETORIC TO DIALECTIC, ETHICS AND POLITICS.

THE RHETORIC TO ALEXANDER IS A TREATISE WITH VERY PRACTICAL AMBITIONS. IT IS WRITTEN FOR PROFESSIONAL ORATORS. THE AUTHOR RELIES ON THE PRACTICES OF HIS TIME AND HAS RECOURSE TO A VAST NUMBER OF TECHNICAL DEVICES ELABORATED SINCE THE FIFTH CENTURY.


5) W.W. FORTENBAUGH, "ARISTOTLE'S ART OF RHETORIC"

ARISTOTLE OFFERS US A CONCISE, YET COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF THE ART OF RHETORIC.

HE POITS OUT THAT ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE PERSUASION IS NOT REQUIRED OF THE ART. ACCORDING TO HIM THE PRACTITIONER OF RHETORIC, THE ORATOR, MAY SPEAK WITH CONSUMMATE SKILL AND NEVERTHELESS FAIL TO PERSUADE THE AUDIENCE.

HENCE ARISTOTLE DEFINES THE ART OF RHETORIC AS THE CAPACITY OF CONSIDERING IN EACH CASE THE POSSIBLE MEANS OF PERSUASION.

THERE ARE 3 ARTFUL MODES OF PERSUASION> BY ARGUING, BY PRESENTING HIMSELF A MAN OF GOOD CHARACTER, BY AROUSING EMOTION IN THE AUDIENCE.
DELIVERY IS ALSO IMPORTANT AS WELL AS THE SELECTION OF WORDS.

ARISTOTLE DIVIDES THE SPEECH INTO DISCERNIBLE PARTS (INTRODUCTION, NARRATION, ARGUMENT, EPILOGUE), EACH OF WHICH MAKES SPECIAL DEMANDS OF THE ORATOR. THE FIRST THREE ARE ORGANIZED ACCORDING THE TRIPARTITE DIVISION OF RHETORIC INTO EPIDEICTIC, JUDICIAL AND DELIBERATIVE.

THE WORK CONTAINS 3 BOOKS. the first 2 deal with the artful modes of persuasion,

1) ARGUMENT

2) THE CHARACTER OF THE ORATOR

3)EMOTIONAL APPEAL

4) ARRANGEMENT

http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/300/aristotle/aristotle1.html

6) JOHN VANDERSPOEL, "HELLENISTIC RHETORIC IN THEORY AND PRACTICE"

THE EMPIRE OF ALEXANDER AND ITS SUCCESSOR KINGDOMS SPREAD THE USE OF THE GREEK LANGUAGE THROUGH THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN WORLD AND ENGENDERED THE DEVELOPMENT OF A KOINE (COMMON GREEK). THE LANGUAGE ENCOURAGED THE INTRODUCTION OF OTHER ASPECTS OF GREEK CULTURE INCLUDING THE STUDY OF RHETORIC.

NOT A SINGLE COMPLETE SPEECH OF THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD SURVIVES. THERE WAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF WORKS ON THEORY AND PRACTICE BUT THEY ALL DISAPPEARED. MODERN SCHOLARS MUST RELY ON THE REPORTS OF LATER AUTHORS AND FRAGMENTS FOUND IN DIFFERENT WRITINGS. THAT MAKES THE STUDY OF RHETORIC IN HELLENISTIC PERIOD DIFFICULT.

THEOFRASTUS (IN THE LIMIT BETWEEN CLASSIC AND HELLENISTIC PERIOD).

THIS DISCIPLE OF ARISTOTLE WROTE TREATISES ON MANY ISSUES RELATED TO RHETORIC. DIOGENES LAERTIUS CREDITS HIM WITH ABOUT 20 WORKS ON RHETORIC AND SEVERAL MORE ON POETRY.

MUCH OF HIS WRITING ON RHETORIC DEALT WITH TECNIQUE. HE EXERCISED MUCH INFLUENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF RHETORIC IN HELLENISTIC PERIOD. OF ALL THE MOST FREQUENTLY CITED IS HIS WORK ON STYLE. IN IT HE DEFINES 4 STRENGHTENS OF STYLE> CORRECTNESS, CLARITY, APPROPRIATENESS, ORNAMENTATION.

WE HAVE THE WORK CHARACTERS WHERE THE PHILOSOPHER DESCRIBES A SERIES OF CHARACTERS....ONE PURPOSE MAY BE RHETORIC. THIS WORK PROVIDED ORATORS WITH A HANDY REFERENCE GUIDE TO THE TYPES OF HUMAN BEGAVIOR THEY MIGHT WISH TO INCLUDE IN THE SPEECHES.

MOST LIKELY HIS WORKS WERE WIDELY READ IN THE SCHOOLS OF THE HELLENISTIC WORLD.

NEW SCHOOLS OF RHETORIC EVERYWHERE. TO SATISFY THE NEED OF THE YOUNG ELITES TO BE EDUCATED. BETTER TEACHERS IN MAJOR CITIES.

EMBASSIES TO RULERS WERE A REGULAR FEATURE OF CITIES' RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR POLITICAL MASTERS. AMBASSADORS USED SPEECHES TO COMMUNICATE THEIR DESIRES TO RULERS. TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, SCHOOLS OF RHETORIC BEGAN TO SPRING UP ALL OVER TEH GREEK-SPEAKING MEDITERRANEAN WORLD.

AS THE NUMBER OF SCHOOLS GREW, SO GREW THE NUMBER OF RHETORES WHO WROTE HANDBOOKS ON THE NATURE OF RHETORIC AND THE TECHNIQUES THAT ORATORS COULD USE.

HERMAGORAS OF TEMNOS (II C) IS CREDITED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A THEORY OF STASIS "REVOLUTION". THE CONCEPT RELATES TO THE ESSENTIAL AND CENTRAL POINT AT ISSUE.

ANOTHER WRITER OF THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD IS DEMETRIUS, AUTHOR OF AN EXTANT WORK ON STYLE. (I C). HE WROTE ON LITERARY CRITICISM.

ATTIC, RHODIAN AND ASIANIC RHETORIC

THE SHARP DIVISIONS BETWEEN SHOOLS OF THOUGHT WAS A PRODUCT OF THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD.

ATTIC ORATORY, WHICH SOUGHT ITS MODELS IN THE CANONICAL ATTIC ORATORS, SUCH AS ISOCRATES, LYSIAS AND DEMOSTHENES, WAS TYPICALLY SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD.

ASIANIC WAS THE OPPOSITE> FLORID AND COMPLEX.

THE RHODIAN STYLE WAS SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN.

BUT IT WAS NOT AS EASY AS THIS. THE ATTIC ORATORS DIFFERED GREATLY AMONG THEMSELVES. DEMOSTHENES' ORATORY WAS MORE ORNATE THAN THAT OF LYSIAS.

MANY ORATORS ADOPTED DIFFERENT STYLES AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

FOR THE RHODIAN STYLE POSSIBLE ANTISTHENES, SAID TO HAVE FOUNDED A SCHOOL THERE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THE ORIGIN OF THE STYLE.

ASIANIC ORATORY DEVELOPED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE WIDESPREAD EXPANSION OF RHETORICAL SCHOOLS OVER THE GREEK-SPEAKING WORLD IN THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. ASIANIC ORATORY ENCOURAGED VIRTUOSITY FOR ITS OWN SAKE.

WHAT HAD BEGUN AS A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PHILOSOPHERS AND THE SOPHISTS ABOUT THE UTILITY AND NATURE OF RHETORIC BECAME A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF RHETORICAL THOUGHT ABOUT THE PROPER STYLE OF ORATORY. IN SOME WAY, THE ASIANISTS REPLACED THE SOPHISTS. BUT NOW THE BATTLE WAS FOUGHT IN TECHNICAL TERMS RATHER THAN CENTRING ON ISSUES OF MORALITY.

IN HELLENISTIC PERIOD WE FIND A DIVISION BETWEEN PHILOSOPHER AND ORATOR.

THE ORATOR WAS PURELY A TECHNICIAN FOR THE PHILOSOPHERS EVEN IF THEY DID NOT CONSIDER THEMSELVES SO.

SCHOOLS OF PHILOSOPHY
STOICS CONTRIBUTED LITTLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF RHETORIC, EXCEPT IN THE SENSE THAT THEIR PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES DERIVED INTO ARGUMENTS AND MORAL JUDGMENTS.

CYNICS DID NOT ADHERE TO ESTABLISHED RULES. THEY SAID EXACTLY WHAT THEY THOUGHT WITHOUT ADORNMENT OF RHETORICAL TECHNIQUE.

7) JOY CONNOLLY, "THE NEW WORLD ORDER: GREEK RHETORIC IN ROME"