Rhetoric

The historical context in which Aristotle wrote is crucial to fully understanding the Rhetoric. Although the principles outlined in this work are generally flexible and easily adapted to different circumstances—by design—they are understandably founded on the basis of Athenian democracy, which flourished roughly from 510 to 323 BCE. This was a time of major intellectual and political upheaval, and as Aristotle lived and wrote in the final decades of this period, this work (along with the rest of Aristotle’s writings) could be seen as a culmination of Greek Classical thought.

The advent of Athenian radical democracy necessitated the invention of rhetoric as a field of study. Under this system, adult male citizens had no representation in government; instead, every Athenian man had the right (and the obligation) to sit and vote in the public assembly (the seat of government, which made legislative decisions and decided other important matters concerning the city-state). During debates in the assembly, any citizen was allowed to speak, as well, and to contribute to the political discussion. Assembly meetings had a quorum of 6,000 (at least 10 percent of the eligible citizen population), meaning that matters of great importance depended on which speeches held the broadest appeal to the citizenry.

Similarly, Athenian citizens had no representation in law courts. Whether accusing or defending, men had to speak for themselves or as representatives of their dependents. Like the assembly, the law courts decided matters by vote; depending on the circumstances, a jury could consist of anywhere from 201 to 1,501 citizens, chosen by lot. The need to speak persuasively in the courts made rhetorical training essential for those involved in public life. Thus two of the three branches of oratory, deliberative and forensic, are of particularly widespread importance in democratic states.

The effects of the Athenian democracy extended well beyond the study of rhetoric and touched nearly every aspect of Athenian life. Since every citizen male was equal under this system, nobility and power took on new connotations that we see reflected in the Rhetoric. In his discussion of “good birth” (nobility), Aristotle elaborates: “The term ‘well-born’ applies merely to descent from good stock [...] such persons usually are insignificant enough” (138). Although being born to a good family still brought certain privileges, Aristotle shows that there is no further honor attendant upon it; this argument is easy to make in a society that has effectively done away with class distinction. Aristotle’s description of power, too, shows the impact of democracy on society: for example, power and wealth do not go hand-in-hand under this system, and Aristotle treats them entirely separately. Although they have many of the same flaws as the wealthy, powerful men have some distinctions that one would not associate with inherited status: “[M]en in power are characterized by a higher ambition and greater manliness […] They are dignified rather than overbearing” (140). These are qualities that attend men who have acquired their power through action rather than an accident of birth, as would be the case under other social and political systems.

The influence of Athenian democracy resonates throughout Aristotle’s Rhetoric, yet it is important to note that this was not the only system of government in Greece at the time. Aristotle himself was not even from Athens (though he spent his formative years there, studying under the philosopher Plato), and he was closely affiliated with the Macedonian royal court (eventually becoming the tutor of Alexander the Great). Aristotle acknowledges the existence of other forms of government (oligarchy, aristocracy, and monarchy) and advises the reader to master all of these forms in order to adjust his rhetoric toward the character of that government. It is important for the reader to understand that the author takes the Athenian democratic audience as his default. Indeed, the omnipresence of rhetoric in Athenian society informs the entire project of the Rhetoric, and nearly every aspect of Aristotle’s method originates from the experience of the radical democracy.

The Classical Period of Ancient Greece, which corresponds to the period of Athenian democracy, was a time of remarkable intellectual development. As a one-time student of the philosopher Plato, who was himself a follower of Socrates, Aristotle was an academic giant and philosophical innovator.

In tackling the Rhetoric, Aristotle also drew on a long history of rhetorical thought dating back beyond the origins of democracy. As democracy expanded its scope and the need for speaking instruction became apparent, itinerant rhetoric teachers called Sophists began to offer their services. The orator Isocrates established the first permanent school of rhetoric at Athens, and he produced many model speeches for his students to emulate. Others also produced handbooks of rhetoric, several of which are referenced (disparagingly) in the Rhetoric. It is against this background that Aristotle produced his Rhetoric, which was by far the most thorough and systematic treatise on the topic to date. An awareness of the shortcomings of other treatises suffuses this work: “[I]t is clear that our authors of handbooks [...] are dwelling upon irrelevant matters, for their rules have to do, simply and solely, with the production of a certain mental attitude in the judge” (3). It is helpful for the reader to recall that the minute detail of this work reflects the author’s deliberate improvement over the deficiencies of previous rhetorical works. Perhaps the most striking innovation is the development of the enthymeme, on which see Symbols and Motifs.