Preamble

In this book, Aristotle means to convince the reader on the usefulness of the art of persuasion. He then proceeds to explain the different varieties of rhetoric, and the different types of arguments that can be made. As one of his main points, he explains that a skilled orator must be well versed in the subject matter, must be eloquent, and must know his audience.

Aristotle goes into great detail about the moralistic character of the times in which he lives. In typical philosophical manner, he discusses what people desire, what they fear, and what he deems to be the most important and valuable things in life. This makes the text somewhat harder to read, as these reflections are interwoven with the main arguments amd his explanations of the nature of rhetoric.

We must remember that the original interpreter was a scholar of ancient Greek, and that his aim was to provide a translation that is as close to the original style as possible. This makes the text somewhat harder to read, as the original style is quite different from modern English. For your reading convenience, I have added “editor’s notes” in the text, to clarify some of the more obscure references or phrasings. These notes are placed in a separate block, and are denoted with an icon that looks like this:

Where applicable, I have added a title to the chapters, to make it easier to navigate the book. These titles are not part of the original text, as the ancients did not use titles in their writings, but used incremental numbers to keep different parts of their writing apart.

Aristotle assumes the reader is familiar with terms that were common in his time. To help the modern reader, I have included a short Glossary of the more obscure terms. At times, the original interpretation of J.H. Freese contains footnotes with additional clarification. Those footnotes are included in the text, and are marked with a superscript number.

To make the text more understandable, this Glossary is placed at the start of the book, rather than at the end. It is my hope that this will make the text more accessible to the reader.

I advise you to read through these definitions before you start reading the book. Unless you are already familiar with the classical world, and their manner of speaking, you will find it difficult to understand the text without knowing these terms. Aristotle sometimes explains the terms he uses, but when he does, it is done in a very concise manner and usually only after he has used the term in multiple instances. He followed his own advice, as he explains in the book: “The audience does not need to be explained that which they are already familiar with.”

Deliberative rhetoric

(syn. political oratory, legislative rhetoric, convincing argumentation)

the art of speaking on things that will (or should) happen in the future. This is a specific form of rhetoric, usually aimed at convincing a group of people to take a certain course of action.

Dialectic

(syn. debate, argumentation, logical reasoning)

The art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions. It is a method of argument, using logical reasoning and questioning, that has been the foundation of future scientific and legal methods.

Dicast

(syn. judge, juror, magistrate, official)

A member of a jury in ancient Athens. The dicasts were selected by lot, and were paid for their service. The term is used to indicate someone who holds a formal position, and is asked to render judgement on a (legal) matter. The modern term “judge” is used in the text to indicate someone who forms an opinion on a matter, without the connotation of them being in a formal position of power.

Enthymeme

a form of syllogism, where one of the premises is not stated, but is implied. This is a form of argumentation that is often used in rhetoric, as the speaker can rely on the audience to fill in the missing premise. This makes the argument more persuasive, provided the audience has sufficient knowledge to fill in the gaps.

Epideictic rhetoric

(syn. ceremonial oratory, public speaking, praise and blame)

the art of speaking on things that are happening in the present (or have happened very recently). This is a specific form of rhetoric, usually intended to speak about the virtues of a person, or their accomplishments. In modern times, we would call this “public relations” or “marketing”.

Forensic rhetoric

(syn. forensic oratory, judicial rhetoric, legal argumentation)

the art of speaking on things that have happened in the past. This is a specific form of rhetoric, usually aimed at convincing a judge or jury of the truth of a matter.

Induction

(syn. generalization, inference, reasoning from specific to general)

a form of reasoning that starts from specific observations, and then makes a generalization. This is the opposite of deduction, which starts from a generalization and then makes a specific conclusion. Induction is often used in scientific reasoning, as it is a way to form a hypothesis based on empirical evidence.

Orator

(syn. speaker, rhetorician, public speaker)

Someone who speaks publicly, either to a crowd, a general assembly, or in a court of law. The term “orator” is mostly used for those skilled in the art of persuasion, but in essence, it refers to anyone who speaks on formal occasions.

Sophist

(syn. tutor, teacher, mentor, moralist)

A paid theacher of philisophy, rhetoric, and science in the ancient Hellenistic world. Sophists are assosiated with teaching other how to argue live a virtuous life, and how to be a good citizen. They were often criticized for their relativistic views on truth and morality, and for “having their heads in the clouds”.

Syllogism

a form of reasoning aimed at drawing a conclusion from two propositions that share a common subject. The conclusion is valid if both of the propositions are accurate. This is a rudimentary form of logical reasoning, stating A & B -> C where A and B are premises, and C is the conclusion. Modern logical theory teaches us to interpret this as: “either C is true, or A & B is false”, which is slightly different to the classical interpretation of the form.

example 1: all men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

example 2: all dogs are animals. All animals have four legs. Therefore, all dogs have four legs. (in this example, the second premise is incorrect, as there are animals with less than four legs)