View source for Rhetoric

{{Short description|Art of persuasion}}
{{For|the work by Aristotle|Rhetoric (Aristotle){{!}}''Rhetoric'' (Aristotle)}}{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2017}}
{{Rhetoric}}
[[File:Knight academy lecture (Rosenborg Palace).jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.25|Painting depicting a lecture in a [[knight academy]], painted by [[Pieter Isaacsz]] or [[Reinhold Timm]] for [[Rosenborg Castle]] as part of a series of seven paintings depicting the seven independent arts. This painting illustrates rhetoric.]]
[[File:Jesus-SermonOnTheMount (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright|[[Jesus]] was a preacher in 1st-century [[Judea (Roman province)|Judea]].]]

'''Rhetoric'''{{NoteTag|The word ''rhetoric'' comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] {{lang|grc|ῥητορικός}} ''rhētorikós'', "oratorical", from {{lang|grc|ῥήτωρ}} ''rhḗtōr'', "public speaker".<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite book |chapter-url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2392374 |chapter=ῥητορ-ικός (rhetorikos) |first1=Henry George |last1=Liddell |first2=Robert |last2=Scott |title=A Greek-English Lexicon |publisher=Clarendon Press|location=Oxford|year=1940}}
|2=op. cit. at [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2392385 "ῥήτωρ (rhetor)"]
|3=op. cit. at [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2392330 "ῥῆμα (rhema)"]
|4=op. cit. at [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2342831 "ἐρῶ (ero)"]
}}</ref> The adjective form, ''rhetorical'', is pronounced {{IPAc-en|r|ɪ|ˈ|t|ɒr|ɪ|k|əl}}.}} is the [[Art (skill)|art]] of [[persuasion]]. It is one of the three ancient arts of discourse ([[trivium]]) along with [[grammar]] and [[logic]]/[[dialectic]]. As an [[academic discipline]] within the [[humanities]], rhetoric aims to study the techniques that speakers or writers use to inform, persuade, and motivate their [[audience]]s.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite book |last=Corbett |first=E. P. J. |year=1990 |title=Classical rhetoric for the modern student |location= New York |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |page=1}}
|2={{cite book |last1=Young |first1=R. E. |last2=Becker |first2=A. L. |last3=Pike |first3=K. L. |year=1970 |title=Rhetoric: discovery and change |location=New York |publisher=Harcourt Brace & World |page=1}} }}</ref> Rhetoric also provides [[heuristics]] for understanding, discovering, and developing [[argument]]s for particular situations.

[[Aristotle]] defined rhetoric as "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion", and since mastery of the art was necessary for victory in a case at law, for passage of proposals in the assembly, or for fame as a speaker in civic ceremonies, he called it "a combination of the science of logic and of the ethical branch of politics".<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite book|author=[[Aristotle]]|title=[[Politics (Aristotle)|Politics]] |chapter-url=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~honeyl/Rhetoric/rhet1-4.html |chapter=I.2§1359|translator-first=W. Rhys|translator-last=Roberts |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080916083515/http://www.public.iastate.edu/~honeyl/Rhetoric/rhet1-4.html |archive-date=16 September 2008}}
|2={{cite book |chapter-url=http://rhetoric.eserver.org/aristotle/rhet1-2.html |author=[[Aristotle]]|title=[[Rhetoric (Aristotle)|Rhetoric]]|chapter=I.2 |access-date=19 October 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120415101347/http://rhetoric.eserver.org/aristotle/rhet1-2.html |archive-date=15 April 2012 |df=dmy-all}}
}}</ref> Aristotle also identified three persuasive audience appeals: [[logos]], [[pathos]], and [[ethos]]. The [[#Five Canons of Rhetoric|five canons of rhetoric]], or phases of developing a persuasive speech, were first codified in classical Rome: [[inventio]]n, [[Dispositio|arrangement]], [[Elocutio|style]], [[Memoria|memory]], and [[Pronuntiatio|delivery]].

From [[Ancient Greece]] to the late 19th century, rhetoric played a central role in [[Western education]] and [[Education in Islam|Islamic education]] in training [[Public speaking|orators]], [[lawyer]]s, counsellors, [[historian]]s, [[Politician|statesmen]], and [[poet]]s.<ref>{{cite book|first=Thomas|last=Conley|title=Rhetoric in the European Tradition|publisher=[[University of Chicago]]|year=1991}}</ref>{{NoteTag|The definition of rhetoric is a controversial subject in the field and has given rise to philological battles over its meaning in Ancient Greece.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1080/07350199609389075 |volume=14 |title=On schiappa versus poulakos |year=1996 |journal=Rhetoric Review |pages=438–440 |last1=Parlor |first1=Burkean |last2=Johnstone |first2=Henry W. |issue=2}}</ref>}}

==Uses==

===Scope===
[[File:Schnorr von Carolsfeld Bibel in Bildern 1860 126.png|thumb|right|[[Ezra]] calls for the rebuilding of the temple in this 1860 woodcut by [[Julius Schnorr von Karolsfeld]].]]
Scholars have debated the scope of rhetoric since ancient times. Although some have limited rhetoric to the specific realm of [[Discourse analysis|political discourse]], to many modern scholars it encompasses every aspect of culture. Contemporary studies of rhetoric address a much more diverse range of domains than was the case in ancient times. While classical rhetoric trained speakers to be effective persuaders in public forums and in institutions such as courtrooms and assemblies, contemporary rhetoric investigates human discourse [[wikt:writ large|writ large]]. Rhetoricians have studied the discourses of a wide variety of domains, including the natural and social sciences, fine art, religion, journalism, digital media, fiction, history, [[cartography]], and architecture, along with the more traditional domains of politics and the law.<ref>{{multiref2
|1=John S. Nelson, Allan Megill, and Donald N. McCloskey ''[http://hhs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/citation/3/2/305?ck=nck The Rhetoric of Human Sciences: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091124163114/http://hhs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/citation/3/2/305?ck=nck |date=24 November 2009 }}'', London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. "In the last ten years, many scholars have investigated exactly how rhetoric works within a particular field."{{clarify|reason=the link goes to a review of a book, and it's not clear from the citation whether it is the review itself or the book being reviewed that forms the correct citation|date=September 2023}}
|2={{cite journal |doi=10.1111/j.1469-5812.2005.00136.x |volume=37 |title=Educational Theory as Theory of Culture: A Vichian perspective on the educational theories of John Dewey and Kieran Egan |year=2005 |journal=[[Educational Philosophy and Theory]] |pages=475–494 |last1=Polito |first1=Theodora |issue=4 |s2cid=143830059}}
|3={{cite book | last=McCloskey | first=Deirdre N. | author-link=Deirdre N. McCloskey | title=The Rhetoric of Economics | publisher=Univ of Wisconsin Press | year=1998 | isbn=978-0-299-15813-2 }}
|4={{cite journal | last=McCloskey | first=Donald N. | title=The Rhetoric of Economics | journal=Journal of Economic Literature | publisher=American Economic Association | volume=21 | issue=2 | year=1983 | issn=0022-0515 | jstor=2724987 | pages=481–517}}
|5={{cite book | last=Nelson | first=John S. | title=Tropes of Politics | publisher=[[University of Wisconsin Press]] | year=1998 | isbn=978-0-299-15833-0}}
|6={{cite book | last=Brown | first=Richard Harvey | title=Society as Text | publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] | location=Chicago | year=1987 | isbn=978-0-226-07617-1}}
}}</ref>

Because the ancient Greeks valued public political participation, rhetoric emerged as an important curriculum for those desiring to influence politics. Rhetoric is still associated with its political origins. However, even the original instructors of [[Western culture|Western]] speech—the [[Sophists]]—disputed this limited view of rhetoric. According to Sophists like [[Gorgias]], a successful rhetorician could speak convincingly on a topic in any field, regardless of his experience in that field. This suggested rhetoric could be a means of communicating any expertise, not just politics. In his ''[[Encomium to Helen]]'', Gorgias even applied rhetoric to fiction by seeking, for his amusement, to prove the blamelessness of the mythical [[Helen of Troy]] in starting the [[Trojan War]].<ref>{{cite book |chapter=Encomium of Helen|author=Gorgias|translator-first=George|translator-last=Kennedy|editor-first=Rosamond Kent |editor-last=Sprague |title=The Older Sophists: A Complete Translations by Several Hands of the Fragments |location=Columbia, South Carolina |publisher=[[University of South Carolina Press]] |edition=first|year=1972 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/oldersophists0000unse/page/50 50]–54 |isbn=0-87249-192-7 |url=https://archive.org/details/oldersophists0000unse|url-access=registration}}</ref>

[[Plato]] defined the scope of rhetoric by discarding any connotation of religious ritual or magical incantation, simply taking the term in its literal sense, which means "leading the soul" through words.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Cleary |first1=John Joseph |title=Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy: Volume XXIV (2008) |last2=Gurtler |first2=Gary M. |date=2009 |publisher=BRILL |isbn=978-90-04-17742-0 |location=Leiden |pages=236 |language=en}}</ref> He criticized the Sophists for using rhetoric to deceive rather than to discover truth. In ''[[Gorgias (dialogue)|Gorgias]]'', one of his [[Socratic Dialogues]], Plato defines rhetoric as the persuasion of ignorant masses within the courts and assemblies.<ref>{{cite book|author=[[Plato]]|title=Gorgias|url=http://www.classicallibrary.org/plato/dialogues/15_gorgias.htm|publisher=The Classical Library|translator-first=Benjamin|translator-last=Jowett}}</ref> Rhetoric, in Plato's opinion, is merely a form of flattery and functions similarly to [[culinary arts]], which mask the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Hallsby |first1=Atilla |title=Reading Rhetorical Theory |url=https://open.lib.umn.edu/rhetoricaltheory/chapter/origins-of-rhetorical-theory/ |website=University of Minnesota |access-date=15 August 2025}}</ref> Plato considered any speech of lengthy [[prose]] aimed at flattery as within the scope of rhetoric. Some scholars, however, contest the idea that Plato despised rhetoric and instead view his dialogues as a dramatization of complex rhetorical principles.<ref name="KBB">{{multiref2
|1={{Cite book|last=Kastely|first=James|title=The Rhetoric of Plato's Republic|publisher=Chicago UP|year=2015|language=en}}
|2={{Cite journal|last=Bjork|first=Collin|date=2021|title=Plato, Xenophon, and the Uneven Temporalities of Ethos in the Trial of Socrates|journal=Philosophy & Rhetoric|volume=54|issue=3|pages=240–262|doi=10.5325/philrhet.54.3.0240|jstor=10.5325/philrhet.54.3.0240|s2cid=244334227|issn=0031-8213}}
|3={{Cite book|last=Bengtson|first=Erik|title=The epistemology of rhetoric: Plato, doxa and post-truth|publisher=Uppsala UP|year=2019}}
}}</ref> Socrates explained the relationship between rhetoric in flattery when he maintained that a rhetorician who teaches anyone how to persuade people in an assembly to do what he wants, without knowledge of what is just or unjust, engages in a kind of flattery (''kolakeia'') that constitutes an image (''eidolon'') of a part of the art of politics.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Zuckert |first=Catherine H. |title=Plato's Philosophers: The Coherence of the Dialogues |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-226-99338-6 |location=Chicago |pages=40 |language=en}}</ref>

Aristotle both redeemed rhetoric from Plato and narrowed its focus by defining three genres of rhetoric—[[Deliberative rhetoric|deliberative]], [[forensic rhetoric|forensic]] or judicial, and [[epideictic]].<ref>{{cite web|last=Rapp|first=Christof|at=[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/#StruRhet §2 "The Structure of the Rhetoric"]|title=Aristotle's Rhetoric|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/|website=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]|year=2022}}</ref> Yet, even as he provided order to existing rhetorical theories, Aristotle generalized the definition of rhetoric to be the ability to identify the appropriate means of persuasion in a given situation based upon the art of rhetoric (''technê'').<ref>{{Citation |last=Rapp |first=Christof |title=Aristotle's Rhetoric |date=2023 |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/ |access-date=2024-03-21 |edition=Winter 2023 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |editor2-last=Nodelman |editor2-first=Uri}}</ref> This made rhetoric applicable to all fields, not just politics. Aristotle viewed the [[enthymeme]] based upon [[logic]] (especially, based upon the syllogism) as the basis of rhetoric.

Aristotle also outlined generic constraints that focused the rhetorical art squarely within the domain of public political practice. He restricted rhetoric to the domain of the [[Contingency (philosophy)|contingent]] or probable: those matters that admit multiple legitimate opinions or arguments.<ref>{{Citation |last=Rapp |first=Christof |title=Aristotle's Rhetoric |date=2023 |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/ |access-date=2024-03-14 |edition=Winter 2023 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |editor2-last=Nodelman |editor2-first=Uri}}</ref>

Since the time of Aristotle, logic has changed. For example, [[modal logic]] has undergone a major development that also modifies rhetoric.<ref>{{cite book |first=George A. |last=Kennedy |title=Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse |location=New York |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=1991}}</ref>

The contemporary [[Neo-Aristotelianism (literature)|neo-Aristotelian]] and neo-Sophistic positions on rhetoric mirror the division between the Sophists and Aristotle. Neo-Aristotelians generally study rhetoric as political discourse, while the neo-Sophistic view contends that rhetoric cannot be so limited. Rhetorical scholar [[Michael Leff]] characterizes the conflict between these positions as viewing rhetoric as a "thing contained" versus a "container". The neo-Aristotelian view threatens the study of rhetoric by restraining it to such a limited field, ignoring many critical applications of rhetorical theory, criticism, and practice. Simultaneously, the neo-Sophists threaten to expand rhetoric beyond a point of coherent theoretical value.

In more recent years, people studying rhetoric have tended to enlarge its object domain beyond speech. [[Kenneth Burke]] asserted humans use rhetoric to resolve conflicts by identifying shared characteristics and interests in symbols. People engage in [[Identification (psychology)|identification]], either to assign themselves or another to a group. This definition of [[Identification in rhetoric|rhetoric as identification]] broadens the scope from strategic and overt political persuasion to the more implicit tactics of identification found in an immense range of sources{{Specify|reason=which sources? what kind of things are "sources"?|date=September 2023}}.<ref>{{cite book |first=Kenneth |last=Burke |title=A Rhetoric of Motives |location=Berkeley |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |year=1969}}</ref> Burke focused on the interplay of identification and division, maintaining that identification compensates for an original division by preventing a strict separation between objects, people, and spaces.<ref name=":11">{{Cite book |last=Jensen |first=Kyle |title=Kenneth Burke's Weed Garden: Refiguring the Mythic Grounds of Modern Rhetoric |publisher=Pennsylvania State University Press |year=2022 |isbn=9780271092928 |language=en}}</ref> This is achieved by assigning to them common properties through linguistic symbols.<ref name=":11" />

Among the many scholars who have since pursued Burke's line of thought, [[James Boyd White]] sees rhetoric as a broader domain of social experience in his notion of [[constitutive rhetoric]]. Influenced by theories of [[social construction]], White argues that culture is "reconstituted" through language. Just as language influences people, people influence language. Language is socially constructed, and depends on the meanings people attach to it. Because language is not rigid and changes depending on the situation, the very usage of language is rhetorical. An author, White would say, is always trying to construct a new world and persuading his or her readers to share that world within the text.<ref name=WhiteWords>{{cite book |first=James Boyd |last=White |title=When Words Lose Their Meaning |location=Chicago |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |year=1984}}</ref>

People engage in rhetoric any time they speak or produce meaning. Even in the field of [[science]], via practices which were once viewed as being merely the objective testing and reporting of knowledge, scientists persuade their audience to accept their findings by sufficiently demonstrating that their study or experiment was conducted reliably and resulted in sufficient evidence to support their conclusions.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Vernon |first1=Jamie L |title=Leveraging rhetoric for improved communication of science: a scientist's perspective |journal=Poroi |date=31 January 2014 |volume=10 |issue=1 |page=3 |doi=10.13008/2151-2957.1181|doi-access=free }}</ref>

The vast scope of rhetoric is difficult to define. Political discourse remains the paradigmatic example for studying and theorizing specific techniques and conceptions of persuasion or rhetoric.<ref>{{cite book |first=Michael |last=Leff |chapter=The Habitation of Rhetoric |title=Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader |editor1-first=John Louis |editor1-last=Lucaites |display-editors=etal |location=New York |publisher=[[Guilford Press]] |year=1993}}</ref>

===As a civic art===
Throughout [[European History]], rhetoric meant persuasion in public and political settings such as assemblies and courts.{{citation needed|reason=|date=September 2023}} Because of its associations with democratic institutions, rhetoric is commonly said to flourish in open and democratic societies with rights of [[free speech]], free assembly, and political enfranchisement for some portion of the population.{{citation needed|reason=|date=September 2023}} Those who classify rhetoric as a civic art believe that rhetoric has the power to shape communities, form the character of citizens, and greatly affect civic life.

Rhetoric was viewed as a civic art by several of the ancient philosophers. Aristotle and [[Isocrates]] were two of the first to see rhetoric in this light. In ''[[Antidosis]]'', Isocrates states, "We have come together and founded cities and made laws and invented arts; and, generally speaking, there is no institution devised by man which the power of speech has not helped us to establish."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Henderson |first=Jeffrey |title=Antidosis |url=https://www.loebclassics.com/view/isocrates-discourses_15_antidosis/1929/pb_LCL229.327.xml |access-date=2025-04-24 |website=Loeb Classical Library |date=1929 |page=327 |language=en |doi=10.4159/DLCL.isocrates-discourses_15_antidosis.1929}}</ref> With this statement he argues that rhetoric is a fundamental part of civic life in every society and that it has been necessary in the foundation of all aspects of society. He further argues in ''[[Against the Sophists]]'' that rhetoric, although it cannot be taught to just anyone, is capable of shaping the character of man. He writes, "I do think that the study of political discourse can help more than any other thing to stimulate and form such qualities of character."<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Matsen |first1=Patricia |title=Readings from Classical Rhetoric |last2=Rollinson |first2=Philip |last3=Sousa |first3=Marion |publisher=Southern Illinois University Press |year=1990 |isbn=0-8093-1593-9 |location=United States of America |page=55}}</ref> Aristotle, writing several years after Isocrates, supported many of his arguments and argued for rhetoric as a civic art.

In the words of Aristotle, in the ''Rhetoric'', rhetoric is "...the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion". According to Aristotle, this art of persuasion could be used in public settings in three different ways: "A member of the assembly decides about future events, a juryman about past events: while those who merely decide on the orator's skill are observers. From this it follows that there are three divisions of oratory—(1) political, (2) forensic, and (3) the ceremonial oratory of display".<ref>{{cite book|author=Aristotle|title=Rhetoric|at=I.3}}</ref> Eugene Garver, in his critique of Aristotle's ''Rhetoric'', confirms that Aristotle viewed rhetoric as a civic art. Garver writes, "''Rhetoric'' articulates a civic art of rhetoric, combining the almost incompatible properties of {{transliteration|grc|techne}} and appropriateness to citizens."<ref>{{cite book |last=Garver |first=Eugene |title=Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character |location=Chicago |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |year=1994 }}</ref> Each of Aristotle's divisions plays a role in civic life and can be used in a different way to affect the {{transliteration|grc|[[polis]]}}.

Because rhetoric is a public art capable of shaping opinion, some of the ancients, including [[Plato]] found fault in it. They claimed that while it could be used to improve civic life, it could be used just as easily to deceive or manipulate. The masses were incapable of analyzing or deciding anything on their own and would therefore be swayed by the most persuasive speeches. Thus, civic life could be controlled by whoever could deliver the best speech. Plato explores the problematic moral status of rhetoric twice: in ''Gorgias'' and in ''The [[Phaedrus (dialogue)|Phaedrus]]'', a dialogue best-known for its commentary on love.

More trusting in the power of rhetoric to support a republic, the Roman orator [[Cicero]] argued that art required something more than eloquence. A good orator needed also to be a good person, enlightened on a variety of civic topics. In ''[[De Oratore]]'', modeled on Plato's dialogues, Cicero emphasized that effective rhetoric comes from a combination of '''wisdom (sapientia)''' and '''eloquence (eloquentia)'''.<ref name="Keith">Keith, William M. The Rhetorical Tradition: The Origins of Rhetoric, pp. 5–8.</ref> According to Cicero, the ideal orator must demonstrate not only stylistic skill but also moral integrity and broad learning, thus uniting theory and practice for the betterment of the state. Influenced by Aristotelian ideas, Cicero advanced the tradition by systematizing the five canons of rhetoric—inventio (invention), dispositio (arrangement), elocutio (style), memoria (memory), and pronuntiatio (delivery)—which he saw as key to crafting persuasive discourse.<ref name="CrowleyHawhee">Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students.</ref> In this view, a well-trained orator, who draws from philosophy, law, and other disciplines, is best able to address civic and ethical challenges, thus underscoring Cicero's vision of rhetoric as both an intellectual and ethical pursuit.<ref name="Keith"/>

Modern works continue to support the claims of the ancients that rhetoric is an art capable of influencing civic life. In ''Political Style'', [[Robert Hariman]] claims that "questions of freedom, equality, and justice often are raised and addressed through performances ranging from debates to demonstrations without loss of moral content".<ref>{{cite book|last=Hariman|first=Robert|title=Political Style: The Artistry of Power|location=Chicago|publisher=The University of Chicago Press|year=1995}}</ref> [[James Boyd White]] argues that rhetoric is capable not only of addressing issues of political interest but that it can influence culture as a whole. In his book, ''When Words Lose Their Meaning'', he argues that words of persuasion and identification define community and civic life. He states that words produce "the methods by which culture is maintained, criticized, and transformed".{{r|WhiteWords}}

Rhetoric remains relevant as a civic art. In speeches, as well as in non-verbal forms, rhetoric continues to be used as a tool to influence communities from local to national levels.

===As a political tool===
Political parties employ "manipulative rhetoric" to advance their party-line goals and lobbyist agendas. They use it to portray themselves as champions of compassion, freedom, and culture, all while implementing policies that appear to contradict these claims. It serves as a form of political propaganda, presented to sway and maintain public opinion in their favor, and garner a positive image, potentially at the expense of suppressing dissent or criticism. An example of this is the government's actions in freezing bank accounts and regulating internet speech, ostensibly to protect the vulnerable and preserve freedom of expression, despite contradicting values and rights.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Netzer |first=Olek |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ch4SEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA13 |title=Person-Centered Political Party: A Blueprint for Organization Free of Power Corruption |date=2021-06-14 |publisher=LIT Verlag Münster |isbn=978-3-643-91296-1 |pages=13+ |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Cheminant |first1=Wayne Le |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sCjGBQAAQBAJ |title=Manipulating Democracy: Democratic Theory, Political Psychology, and Mass Media |last2=Parrish |first2=John M. |date=2010-09-22 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-136-99445-6 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Saussure |first1=Louis de |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-uj7zi4p664C&pg=PA213 |title=Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind |last2=Schulz |first2=Peter |date=2005-01-01 |publisher=John Benjamins Publishing |isbn=978-90-272-2707-2 |pages=213+ |language=en}}</ref>

Going back to the fifth century BCE, the term rhetoric originated in Ancient Greece. During this period, a new government (democracy) had been formed and as speech was the main method of information, an effective communication strategy was needed. Sophists, a group of intellectuals from Sicily, taught the ancient Greeks the art of persuasive speech in order to be able to navigate themselves in the court and senate.<ref name=":2" /> This new technique was then used as an effective method of speech in political speeches and throughout government. Consequently people began to fear that persuasive speech would overpower truth. However, Aristotle argued that speech can be used to classify, study, and interpret speeches and as a useful skill. Aristotle believed that this technique was an art, and that persuasive speech could have truth and logic embedded within it. In the end, rhetoric speech still remained popular and was used by many scholars and philosophers.<ref name=":2">Lundberg, C. O., & Keith, W. M. (2018). The essential guide to rhetoric. Bedford/St. Martin's.
‌</ref>

===As a course of study===
The study of rhetoric trains students to speak and/or write effectively, and to critically understand and analyze discourse. It is concerned with how people use symbols, especially language, to reach agreement that permits coordinated effort.<ref>{{cite book |last=Hauser |first=Gerard |author-link=Gerard Hauser |title=Introduction to Rhetorical Theory |publisher=Waveland Press |location=Illinois |year=2002 |page=2 |isbn=978-1-57766-221-1}}</ref>

Rhetoric as a course of study has evolved since its ancient beginnings, and has adapted to the particular exigencies of various times, venues,<ref>{{cite book|last=Kennedy|first=George A.|title=Classical Rhetoric & Its Christian and Secular Tradition|location=Chapel Hill|publisher=The [[University of North Carolina Press]]|year=1999}}</ref> and applications ranging from architecture to literature.<ref>{{cite book|last=Vickers|first=Brian|chapter=Deconstruction's Designs on Rhetoric|title=Rhetoric and Pedagogy: Its History, Philosophy, and Practice|editor-first1=Winifred Bryan|editor-last1=Horner|editor-first2=Michael|editor-last2=Leff|pages=295–315}}</ref> Although the curriculum has transformed in a number of ways, it has generally emphasized the study of principles and rules of composition as a means for moving audiences.

Rhetoric began as a civic art in Ancient Greece where students were trained to develop tactics of oratorical persuasion, especially in legal disputes. Rhetoric originated in a school of [[pre-Socratic]] philosophers known as the [[Sophists]] {{circa|{{BCE|600}}}}. [[Demosthenes]] and [[Lysias]] emerged as major orators during this period, and [[Isocrates]] and [[Gorgias]] as prominent teachers. Modern teachings continue to reference these rhetoricians and their work in discussions of classical rhetoric and persuasion.

Rhetoric was taught in universities during the [[Middle Ages]] as one of the three original [[liberal arts]] or [[trivium (education)|trivium]] (along with [[logic]] and [[grammar]]).<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite book|last=Conley|first=T.M.|year=1990|title=Rhetoric in the European Tradition|publisher=University of Chicago Press}}
|2={{cite book|last=Kennedy|first=G.A.|year=1994|title=A New History of Classical Rhetoric|publisher=Princeton University Press}}
}}</ref> During the medieval period, political rhetoric declined as republican oratory died out and the emperors of Rome garnered increasing authority. With the rise of European monarchs, rhetoric shifted into courtly and religious applications. [[Augustine]] exerted strong influence on Christian rhetoric in the Middle Ages, advocating the use of rhetoric to lead audiences to truth and understanding, especially in the church. The study of liberal arts, he believed, contributed to rhetorical study: "In the case of a keen and ardent nature, fine words will come more readily through reading and hearing the eloquent than by pursuing the rules of rhetoric."<ref>{{cite book|author=[[Augustine of Hippo]]|title=[[De doctrina Christiana]]|at=IV|orig-date={{CE|426}}}}</ref> Poetry and letter writing became central to rhetorical study during the Middle Ages.<ref name=Prill1987>{{cite journal |last1=Prill |first1=Paul E. |year=1987 |title=Rhetoric and Poetics in the Early Middle Ages |journal=Rhetorica |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=129–147 |doi=10.1525/rh.1987.5.2.129}}</ref>{{rp|129–47}} After the fall of the Roman republic, poetry became a tool for rhetorical training since there were fewer opportunities for political speech.{{r|Prill1987|page=131}} Letter writing was the primary way business was conducted both in state and church, so it became an important aspect of rhetorical education.<ref name="bedfordstmartins.com">{{cite web|title=A Brief History of Rhetoric and Composition|website=The Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Writing|url=http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/bb/history.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100516061220/http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/bb/history.html |archive-date=16 May 2010 }}</ref>

Rhetorical education became more restrained as style and substance separated in 16th-century France, and attention turned to the scientific method. Influential scholars like [[Peter Ramus]] argued that the processes of invention and arrangement should be elevated to the domain of philosophy, while rhetorical instruction should be chiefly concerned with the use of figures and other forms of the ornamentation of language. Scholars such as [[Francis Bacon]] developed the study of "scientific rhetoric"<ref>{{cite journal |last=Zappen |first=James P. |title=Francis Bacon and the Historiography of Scientific Rhetoric |journal=Rhetoric Review |volume=8 |number=1 |year=1989 |pages=74–88 |doi=10.1080/07350198909388879 |jstor=465682}}</ref> which rejected the elaborate style characteristic of classical oration. This plain language carried over to [[John Locke]]'s teaching, which emphasized concrete knowledge and steered away from ornamentation in speech, further alienating rhetorical instruction—which was identified wholly with such ornamentation—from the pursuit of knowledge.

In the 18th century, rhetoric assumed a more social role, leading to the creation of new education systems (predominantly in England): "[[Elocution]] schools" in which girls and women analyzed classic literature, most notably the works of [[William Shakespeare]], and discussed pronunciation tactics.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Edwards |first1=Paul C. |year=1984 |title=Elocution and Shakespeare: An Episode in the History of Literary Taste |journal=[[Shakespeare Quarterly]] |volume=35 |issue=3 |pages=305–14 |doi=10.2307/2870367 |jstor=2870367}}</ref>

The study of rhetoric underwent a revival with the rise of democratic institutions during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. [[Hugh Blair]] was a key early leader of this movement. In his most famous work, ''Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres'', he advocates rhetorical study for common citizens as a resource for social success. Many American colleges and secondary schools used Blair's text throughout the 19th century to train students of rhetoric.{{r|bedfordstmartins.com}}

Political rhetoric also underwent renewal in the wake of the U.S. and French revolutions. The rhetorical studies of ancient Greece and Rome were resurrected as speakers and teachers looked to [[Cicero]] and others to inspire defenses of the new republics. Leading rhetorical theorists included [[John Quincy Adams]] of [[Harvard]], who advocated the democratic advancement of rhetorical art. Harvard's founding of the [[Boylston Professorship of Rhetoric and Oratory]] sparked the growth of the study of rhetoric in colleges across the United States.{{r|bedfordstmartins.com}} Harvard's rhetoric program drew inspiration from literary sources to guide organization and style, and studies the rhetoric used in political communication to illustrate how political figures persuade audiences.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite journal |url=http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/j_roffee_rhetoric_aboriginal_australians_2016.pdf |last=Roffee |first=J. A. |year=2016 |title=Rhetoric, Aboriginal Australians and the Northern Territory intervention: A socio-legal investigation into pre-legislative argumentation |journal=International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=131–47 |doi=10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i1.285 |s2cid=146941187 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170205013154/http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/j_roffee_rhetoric_aboriginal_australians_2016.pdf |archive-date=5 February 2017 |df=dmy-all}}
|2={{cite journal |last=Roffee |first=J. A. |year=2014 |title=Synthetic Necessary Truth Behind New Labour's Criminalisation of Incest |doi=10.1177/0964663913502068 |volume=23 |journal=[[Social & Legal Studies]] |pages=113–30 |s2cid=145292798}}
}}</ref> [[William G. Allen]] became the first American college professor of rhetoric, at [[New-York Central College]], 1850–1853.

Debate clubs and lyceums also developed as forums in which common citizens could hear speakers and sharpen debate skills. The American lyceum in particular was seen as both an educational and social institution, featuring group discussions and guest lecturers.<ref>{{cite book |last=Ray |first=Angela G. |title=The Lyceum and Public Culture in the Nineteenth-Century United States |location=East Lansing |publisher=[[Michigan State University Press]] |year=2005 |pages=14–15}}</ref> These programs cultivated democratic values and promoted active participation in political analysis.

Throughout the 20th century, rhetoric developed as a concentrated field of study, with the establishment of rhetorical courses in high schools and universities. Courses such as [[public speaking]] and [[speech analysis]] apply fundamental Greek theories (such as the modes of persuasion: {{transliteration|grc|[[ethos]]}}, {{transliteration|grc|[[pathos]]}}, and {{transliteration|grc|[[logos]]}}) and trace rhetorical development through history. Rhetoric earned a more esteemed reputation as a field of study with the emergence of [[Communication Studies]] departments and of Rhetoric and Composition programs within English departments in universities,<ref>{{cite book |last=Borchers |first=Timothy A. |title=Rhetorical Theory: An Introduction (with InfoTrac) |year=2006 |publisher=[[Wadsworth Publishing]] |location=Canada |isbn=978-0-534-63918-1 |page=21}}</ref> and in conjunction with the [[linguistic turn]] in [[Western philosophy]]. Rhetorical study has broadened in scope, and is especially used by the fields of marketing, politics, and literature.

Another area of rhetoric is the study of cultural rhetorics, which is the communication that occurs between cultures and the study of the way members of a culture communicate with each other.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal |last1=Cobos |first1=Casie |last2=Raquel Ríos |first2=Gabriela |last3=Johnson Sackey |first3=Donnie |last4=Sano-Franchini |first4=Jennifer |last5=Haas |first5=Angela M. |date=2018-04-03 |title=Interfacing Cultural Rhetorics: A History and a Call |journal=Rhetoric Review |volume=37 |issue=2 |pages=139–154 |doi=10.1080/07350198.2018.1424470 |s2cid=150341115 |issn=0735-0198}}</ref> These ideas{{Specify|reason=which ideas?|date=September 2023}} can then be studied and understood by other cultures, in order to bridge gaps in modes of communication and help different cultures communicate effectively with each other. James Zappen defines cultural rhetorics as the idea that rhetoric is concerned with negotiation and listening, not persuasion, which differs from ancient definitions.<ref name=":7" /> Some ancient rhetoric was disparaged because its persuasive techniques could be used to teach falsehoods.<ref>{{Cite book |first=Keith|last=Lundberg |title=The Essential Guide to Rhetoric |publisher=Bedford/St. Martin's |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-312-47239-9 |edition=1st |pages=5–8 |language=English}}</ref> Communication as studied in cultural rhetorics is focused on listening and negotiation, and has little to do with persuasion.<ref name=":7" /> Cultural rhetoric is not a singular definition or any one thing, but instead an approach to rhetoric that highlights the connection of culture and rhetoric. The article “Interfacing Cultural Rhetorics: A History and a Call” argues that culture and rhetoric should not be viewed only individually, as they often overlap. Culture can be studied both as a process and as a context, while rhetoric highlights how these cultural processes and contexts are expressed and negotiated. An important theme from the article is that cultural rhetorics emphasized listening and negotiating. Bacon’s analysis of coming out narratives highlights how rhetorics are not simply for persuasion, but can help create meaning and “write new bodies into existence”. Indigenous rhetoricians, including Malea Powell and Angela Haas, emphasize the importance of place, story, and relationships in cultural rhetorics, highlighting their decolonial nature.<ref>Cobos, Casie, Gabriela Raquel Ríos, Donnie Johnson Sackey, Jennifer Sano-Franchini, and Angela M. Haas. “Interfacing Cultural Rhetorics: A History and a Call.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 37, no. 2, 2018, pp. 139-154. doi:10.1080/07350198.2018.1424470</ref>
====Canons====
Rhetorical education focused on five [[Canon (basic principle)|canons]]. The {{visible anchor|Five Canons of Rhetoric|text=Five Canons of Rhetoric}} serve as a guide to creating persuasive messages and arguments:

; ''[[inventio]]'' (invention) : the process that leads to the development and refinement of an argument.
; ''[[dispositio]]'' (disposition, or arrangement) : used to determine how an argument should be organized for greatest effect, usually beginning with the ''[[exordium (rhetoric)|exordium]]''
; ''[[elocutio]]'' (style) : determining how to present the arguments
; ''[[memoria]]'' (memory) : the process of learning and memorizing the speech and persuasive messages
; ''[[pronuntiatio]]'' (presentation) and ''[[actio]]'' (delivery) : the gestures, pronunciation, tone, and pace used when presenting the persuasive arguments—the [[Grand Style]].

[[Memoria|Memory]] was added much later to the original four canons.<ref>{{Cite book |first=Jay |last=Heinrichs |title= [[Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion|Thank You for Arguing]] |year=2017 |page=303}}{{ISBN?}}</ref>

===Music===
During the [[Renaissance]] rhetoric enjoyed a resurgence, and as a result nearly every author who wrote about music before the [[Romantic era]] discussed rhetoric.<ref>{{cite book |last=Haynes |first=Bruce |title=The End of Early Music: A Period Performer's History of Music |year=2007 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=978-0-19-804094-1 |page=8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nOAtpUTjewEC|url-access=limited |access-date=6 August 2019}}</ref> [[Joachim Burmeister]] wrote in 1601, "there is only little difference between music and the nature of oration".{{quote without source|date=September 2023}} [[Christoph Bernhard]] in the latter half of the century said "...until the art of music has attained such a height in our own day, that it may indeed be compared to a rhetoric, in view of the multitude of figures".{{Context inline|date=September 2023}}<ref>{{cite book |last1=Bartel |first1=Dietrich |title=Musica Poetica: Musical-Rhetorical Figures in German Baroque Music |date=1997 |publisher=[[University of Nebraska Press]] |isbn=0-8032-3593-3 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=p45OwxQB05YC&pg=PA57 57] }}</ref>

===Knowledge===
[[Epistemology]] and rhetoric have been compared to one another for decades, but the specifications of their similarities have gone undefined. Since scholar [[Robert L. Scott]] stated that, "rhetoric is [[Epistemology|epistemic]],"<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal |last=Scott |first=Robert L. |date=1967 |title=On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic |journal=Central States Speech Journal |volume=18 |issue=1 |pages=9–17 |doi=10.1080/10510976709362856 |issn=0008-9575}}</ref> rhetoricians and [[Philosophy|philosophers]] alike have struggled to concretely define the expanse of implications these words hold. Those who have identified this inconsistency maintain the idea that [[Robert L. Scott|Scott's]] relation is important, but requires further study.<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal |last=Harpine |first=William D. |date=2004 |title=What Do You Mean, Rhetoric Is Epistemic? |journal=Philosophy and Rhetoric |volume=37 |issue=4 |pages=335–352 |doi=10.1353/par.2004.0026 |s2cid=53057130 |issn=1527-2079|url=https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=aiken_communications_facpub |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

The root of the issue lies in the ambiguous use of the term rhetoric itself, as well as the epistemological terms [[knowledge]], [[certainty]], and [[truth]].<ref name=":9" /> Though counterintuitive and vague, [[Robert L. Scott|Scott's]] claims are accepted by some academics, but are then used to draw different conclusions. [[Sonja K. Foss]], for example, takes on the view that, "rhetoric creates knowledge,"<ref>{{Cite book |title=Rhetorical criticism: exploration & practice |date=1996 |publisher=Waveland Press |isbn=978-0-88133-873-7 |editor-last=Foss |editor-first=Sonja K. |edition=2nd |location=Prospect Heights, Ill}}</ref> whereas [[James A. Herrick|James Herrick]] writes that rhetoric assists in people's ability to form [[belief]]s, which are defined as [[knowledge]] once they become widespread in a community.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Herrick |first=James A. |date=2017-09-22 |title=The History and Theory of Rhetoric |doi=10.4324/9781315404141|isbn=978-1-315-40414-1 }}</ref>

It is unclear whether [[Robert L. Scott|Scott]] holds that [[certainty]] is an inherent part of establishing [[knowledge]], his references to the term abstract.<ref name=":8" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Scott |first=Robert L. |date=February 2000 |title=The Forum |journal=Quarterly Journal of Speech |volume=86 |issue=1 |pages=108–110 |doi=10.1080/00335630009384281 |s2cid=147585248 |issn=0033-5630}}</ref> He is not the only one, as the debate's persistence in [[philosophical]] circles long predates his addition of rhetoric. There is an overwhelming majority that does support the concept of [[certainty]] as a requirement for [[knowledge]], but it is at the definition of [[certainty]] where parties begin to diverge. One definition maintains that [[certainty]] is subjective and feeling-based, the other that it is a byproduct of [[Justification (epistemology)|justification]].

The more commonly accepted definition of rhetoric claims it is synonymous with [[persuasion]]. For rhetorical purposes, this definition, like many others, is too broad. The same issue presents itself with definitions that are too narrow. Rhetoricians in support of the [[Epistemology|epistemic]] view of rhetoric have yet to agree in this regard.<ref name=":9" />

[[Philosophical]] teachings refer to [[knowledge]] as a [[justified true belief]]. However, the [[Gettier problem|Gettier Problem]] explores the room for fallacy in this concept.<ref>{{Cite book |date=2017-07-05 |title=Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? |doi=10.4324/9781912281862|isbn=978-1-912281-86-2 |url=https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01439314/file/2013%20Gettier%20Conocimiento.pdf }}</ref> Therefore, the [[Gettier problem|Gettier Problem]] impedes the effectivity of the argument of Richard A. Cherwitz and James A. Hikins,<ref name=":10">{{Cite journal |last1=Miller |first1=Susan |last2=Cherwitz |first2=Richard A. |last3=Hikins |first3=James |date=May 1987 |title=Communication and Knowledge: An Investigation in Rhetorical Epistemology |journal=College Composition and Communication |volume=38 |issue=2 |page=216 |doi=10.2307/357725 |jstor=357725 |issn=0010-096X}}</ref> who employ the [[justified true belief]] standpoint in their argument for rhetoric as [[Epistemology|epistemic]]. Celeste Condit Railsback takes a different approach,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Railsback |first=Celeste Condit |date=November 1983 |title=Beyond rhetorical relativism: A structural-material model of truth and objective reality |journal=Quarterly Journal of Speech |volume=69 |issue=4 |pages=351–363 |doi=10.1080/00335638309383662 |issn=0033-5630}}</ref> drawing from Ray E. McKerrow's system of [[belief]] based on [[Validity (logic)|validity]] rather than [[certainty]].<ref>{{Citation |last=McKerrow |first=Ray E. |chapter=Chapter 16. Rhetorical Validity: an Analysis of three Perspectives on the Justification of Rhetorical Argument |date=1992-12-31 |title=Readings in Argumentation |pages=297–312 |publisher=DE GRUYTER |doi=10.1515/9783110885651.297 |isbn=978-3-11-013576-3}}</ref>

William D. Harpine refers to the issue of unclear definitions that occurs in the theories of "rhetoric is epistemic" in his 2004 article "What Do You Mean, Rhetoric Is Epistemic?".<ref name=":9" /> In it, he focuses on uncovering the most appropriate definitions for the terms "rhetoric", "knowledge", and "certainty". According to Harpine, certainty is either objective or subjective. Although both Scotts<ref name=":8" /> and Cherwitz and Hikins<ref name=":10" /> theories deal with some form of certainty, Harpine believes that knowledge is not required to be neither objectively nor subjectively certain. In terms of "rhetoric", Harpine argues that the definition of rhetoric as "the art of persuasion" is the best choice in the context of this theoretical approach of rhetoric as epistemic. Harpine then proceeds to present two methods of approaching the idea of rhetoric as epistemic based on the definitions presented. One centers on Alston's<ref>{{Cite book |last=Alston |first=William P. |title=Epistemic Justification: Essays in the Theory of Knowledge |publisher=Cornell University Press |year=1989 |location=Ithaca, NY |pages=153–171}}</ref> view that one's beliefs are justified if formed by one's normal doxastic while the other focuses on the causal theory of knowledge.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Goldman |first=Alan H. |title=Empirical Knowledge |publisher=University of California Press |year=1988 |location=Berkeley, CA |pages=22–23}}</ref> Both approaches manage to avoid Gettier's problems and do not rely on unclear conceptions of certainty.

In “What Do You Mean, Rhetoric Is Epistemic?” (1992), William D. Harpine explores the idea that rhetoric not only communicates knowledge but helps to create it. Based on the work of Robert L. Scott, Harpine argues that knowledge is formed through persuasion, dialogue, and reasoning within communities rather than found as fixed truth. He explains how certainty is subjective, shaped by individual and cultural belief rather than by absolute objectivity. Harpine also connects to the Gettier Problem, which challenges the idea that “justified true belief” is equal to knowledge. By emphasizing communication and collaboration, Harpine closes that rhetoric functions as a social process in which people build, test, and revise what they accept as knowledge. <ref> Harpine, William D. (1992). "What Do You Mean, Rhetoric Is Epistemic?" Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 22(1), 1–13.</ref>

In the discussion of rhetoric and [[epistemology]], comes the question of [[ethics]]. Is it [[Ethics|ethical]] for rhetoric to present itself in the branch of [[knowledge]]? [[Robert L. Scott|Scott]] rears this question, addressing the issue, not with ambiguity in the definitions of other terms, but against subjectivity regarding [[certainty]]. Ultimately, according to Thomas O. Sloane, rhetoric and [[epistemology]] exist as counterparts, working towards the same purpose of establishing [[knowledge]], with the common enemy of subjective [[certainty]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Waddington |first1=Raymond B. |last2=Sloane |first2=Thomas O. |date=1999 |title=On the Contrary: The Protocol of Traditional Rhetoric |journal=Comparative Literature |volume=51 |issue=4 |page=346 |doi=10.2307/1771268 |jstor=1771268 |issn=0010-4124}}</ref>

==History and development==
Rhetoric is a persuasive speech that holds people to a common purpose and therefore facilitates collective action. During the fifth century BCE, Athens had become active in metropolis and people all over there. During this time the Greek city state had been experimenting with a new form of government—democracy, ''demos'', "the people". Political and cultural identity had been tied to the city area—the citizens of Athens formed institutions to the red processes: are the Senate, jury trials, and forms of public discussions, but people needed to learn how to navigate these new institutions. With no forms of passing on the information, other than word of mouth the Athenians needed an effective strategy to inform the people. A group of wandering Sicilians, later known as the '''Sophists''', began teaching the Athenians persuasive speech, with the goal of navigating the courts and senate. The sophists became speech teachers known as ''Sophia;'' Greek for "wisdom" and root for philosophy, or "''love of wisdom"''—the sophists came to be common term for someone who sold wisdom for money.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Cite journal |date=2021-11-18 |title=Creating the Ancient Rhetorical Tradition: Dionysius of Halicarnassus in Rome |journal=Creating the Ancient Rhetorical Tradition |pages=137–244 |doi=10.1017/9781108873956.008|isbn=978-1-108-87395-6 |s2cid=243489639 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Although there is no clear understanding why the Sicilians engaged to educating the Athenians persuasive speech. It is known that the Athenians did, indeed rely on persuasive speech, more during public speak, and four new political processes, also increasing the sophists trainings leading too many victories for legal cases, public debate, and even a simple persuasive speech. This ultimately led to concerns rising on falsehood over truth, with highly trained, persuasive speakers, knowingly, misinforming.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

Rhetoric has its origins in [[Mesopotamia]].<ref name=":0">{{cite book |first=William W. |last=Hallo |chapter=The Birth of Rhetoric |title=Rhetoric before and beyond the Greeks |editor1-first=Carol S. |editor1-last=Lipson |editor2-first=Roberta A. |editor2-last=Binkley |publisher=[[State University of New York Press]] |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-7914-6099-3 |pages=25–46}}</ref> Some of the earliest examples of rhetoric can be found in the [[Akkadian literature|Akkadian writings]] of the princess and priestess [[Enheduanna]] ({{circa|{{BCE|2285–2250}}}}).<ref name=":1">{{cite book |first=Roberta |last=Binkley |chapter=The Rhetoric of Origins and the Other: Reading the Ancient Figure of Enheduanna |title=Rhetoric before and beyond the Greeks |editor1-first=Carol S. |editor1-last=Lipson |editor2-first=Roberta A. |editor2-last=Binkley |publisher=[[State University of New York Press]] |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-7914-6099-3 |pages=47–64}}</ref> As the first named author in history,<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /> Enheduanna's writing exhibits numerous rhetorical features that would later become canon in Ancient Greece. Enheduanna's "The Exaltation of [[Inanna]]", includes an [[Exordium (rhetoric)|exordium]], [[argument]], and [[peroration]],<ref name=":0" /> as well as elements of {{transliteration|grc|ethos}}, {{transliteration|grc|pathos}}, and {{transliteration|grc|logos}},<ref name=":1" /> and repetition and [[metonymy]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Binkley|first=R.|year=2004|chapter=Suggestions for Teaching Ancient Rhetorics: Mesopotamia—Problems of Origins and Reading Enheduanna|editor-last1=Lipson|editor-first1=C. S.|editor-last2=Binkley|editor-first2=R. A.|title=Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks|publisher=[[SUNY Press]]|pages=227–29}}</ref> She is also known for describing her process of invention in "The Exaltation of Inanna", moving between first- and third-person address to relate her composing process in collaboration with the goddess Inanna,<ref name=":1" /> reflecting a mystical [[enthymeme]]<ref>{{cite journal|last=Stark|first=R. J.|year=2008|title=Some Aspects of Christian Mystical Rhetoric, Philosophy, and Poetry|journal=Philosophy and Rhetoric|volume=41|number=3|pages=260–77|doi=10.2307/25655316 |jstor=25655316 }}</ref> in drawing upon a Cosmic audience.<ref name=":1" />

Later examples of early rhetoric can be found in the [[Neo-Assyrian Empire]] during the time of [[Sennacherib]] ({{BCE|704–681}}).<ref>{{cite book |first1=Paul Y.|last1=Hoskisson|first2=Grant M.|last2=Boswell |chapter=Neo-Assyrian Rhetoric: The Example of the Third Campaign of Sennacherib (704–681 BC) |title=Rhetoric before and beyond the Greeks |editor1=Carol S. Lipson |editor2 = Roberta A. Binkley |publisher=[[State University of New York Press]] |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-7914-6099-3 |pages=65–78}}</ref>

In [[ancient Egypt]], rhetoric had existed since at least the [[Middle Kingdom of Egypt|Middle Kingdom period]] ({{circa|{{BCE|2080–1640}}}}). The five canons of eloquence in ancient Egyptian rhetoric were silence, timing, restraint, fluency, and truthfulness.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{Cite journal|last=Fox|first=Michael V.|year=1983|title=Ancient Egyptian Rhetoric|url=https://online.ucpress.edu/rhetorica/article/1/1/9/81987/Ancient-Egyptian-Rhetoric|url-access=subscription|journal=Rhetorica|language=en|volume=1|issue=1|pages=9–22|doi=10.1525/rh.1983.1.1.9|issn=0734-8584}}
|2={{cite book | last1=Glenn | first1=Cheryl | last2=Ratcliffe | first2=Krista | title=Silence and Listening as Rhetorical Arts | publisher=Southern Illinois University Press | location=Carbondale | date=2011-01-05 | isbn=978-0-8093-3017-1}}
}}</ref> The [[Egyptians]] held eloquent speaking in high esteem. Egyptian rules of rhetoric specified that "knowing when not to speak is essential, and very respected, rhetorical knowledge", making rhetoric a "balance between eloquence and wise silence". They also emphasized "adherence to social behaviors that support a conservative status quo" and they held that "skilled speech should support, not question, society".<ref>{{cite journal |title=Ancient Egyptian Rhetoric in the Old and Middle Kingdoms |first=David |last=Hutto |journal=[[Rhetorica]] |date=Summer 2002 |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=213–33 |doi=10.1525/rh.2002.20.3.213 |s2cid=55717336 }}</ref>

In [[ancient China]], rhetoric dates back to the [[Chinese philosophy|Chinese philosopher]], [[Confucius]] ({{BCE|551–479}}). The tradition of [[Confucianism]] emphasized the use of [[eloquence]] in speaking.<ref>{{cite book |first=George Q. |last=Xu |chapter=The Use of Eloquence: The Confucian Perspective |title = Rhetoric before and beyond the Greeks |editor1-first=Carol S. |editor1-last=Lipson |editor2-first=Roberta A. |editor2-last=Binkley |publisher=[[State University of New York Press]] |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-7914-6099-3 |pages=115–30}}</ref>

The use of rhetoric can also be found in the ancient [[Biblical]] tradition.<ref>{{cite book |first=David |last=Metzger |chapter=Pentateuchal Rhetoric and the Voice of the Aaronides |title = Rhetoric before and beyond the Greeks |editor1-first=Carol S. |editor1-last=Lipson |editor2-first=Roberta A. |editor2-last=Binkley |publisher=[[State University of New York Press]] |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-7914-6099-3 |pages=165–82}}</ref>

===Ancient Greece===
In Europe, organized thought about public speaking began in [[ancient Greece]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Kennedy|first=G.A.|year=1994|title=A New History of Classical Rhetoric|publisher=Princeton University Press|page=3}}</ref>

In [[ancient Greece]], the earliest mention of oratorical skill occurs in [[Homer]]'s ''[[Iliad]]'', in which heroes like [[Achilles]], [[Hector]], and [[Odysseus]] were honored for their ability to advise and exhort their peers and followers (the {{transliteration|grc|Laos}} or army) to wise and appropriate action. With the rise of the democratic {{transliteration|grc|polis}}, speaking skill was adapted to the needs of the public and political life of cities in ancient Greece. Greek citizens used [[oratory (speech)|oratory]] to make political and judicial decisions, and to develop and disseminate philosophical ideas. For modern students, it can be difficult to remember that the wide use and availability of written texts is a phenomenon that was just coming into vogue in [[Classical Greece]]. In Classical times, many of the great thinkers and political leaders performed their works before an audience, usually in the context of a competition or contest for fame, political influence, and cultural capital. In fact, many of them are known only through the texts that their students, followers, or detractors wrote down. {{transliteration|grc|Rhetor}} was the Greek term for "orator": A {{transliteration|grc|rhetor}} was a citizen who regularly addressed juries and political assemblies and who was thus understood to have gained some knowledge about public speaking in the process, though in general facility with language was often referred to as {{transliteration|grc|logôn techne}}, "skill with arguments" or "verbal artistry".<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite book|author-link=Mogens Herman Hansen|first=Mogens Herman|last=Hansen|title=The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes|publisher=Blackwell|year=1991}}
|2={{cite book|first=Josiah|last=Ober|title=Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=1989}}
|3={{cite book|first=Jeffrey|last=Walker|title=Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2000}}
}}</ref>{{page needed|date=September 2023}}

Possibly the first study about the power of language may be attributed to the philosopher [[Empedocles]] (d. {{circa|{{BCE|444}}}}), whose theories on human knowledge would provide a basis for many future rhetoricians. The first written manual is attributed to [[Corax of Syracuse|Corax]] and his pupil [[Tisias]]. Their work, as well as that of many of the early rhetoricians, grew out of the courts of law; Tisias, for example, is believed to have written judicial speeches that others delivered in the courts.

Rhetoric evolved as an important art, one that provided the orator with the forms, means, and strategies for persuading an audience of the correctness of the orator's arguments. Today the term ''rhetoric'' can be used at times to refer only to the form of argumentation, often with the pejorative connotation that rhetoric is a means of obscuring the truth. Classical [[philosopher]]s believed quite the contrary: the skilled use of rhetoric was essential to the discovery of truths, because it provided the means of ordering and clarifying arguments.

====Sophists====
{{Main|Sophist|l1=Sophists}}

Teaching in oratory was popularized in {{BCE|the 5th century}} by itinerant teachers known as [[sophist]]s, the best known of whom were [[Protagoras]] ({{circa|{{BCE|481–420}}}}), [[Gorgias]] ({{circa|{{BCE|483–376}}}}), and [[Isocrates]] ({{BCE|436–338}}). [[Aspasia]] of Miletus is believed to be one of the first women to engage in private and public rhetorical activities as a Sophist.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/rhetoricaltradit00bizz |title=The Rhetorical tradition: readings from classical times to the present |publisher=Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press |year=1990 |isbn=978-0-312-00348-7 |editor1-last=Bizzell |editor1-first=Patricia |location=Boston |pages=232 |oclc=21325600 |editor2-last=Herzberg |editor2-first=Bruce |url-access=registration}}</ref> The Sophists were a disparate group who travelled from city to city, teaching in public places to attract students and offer them an education. Their central focus was on {{transliteration|grc|logos}}, or what we might broadly refer to as discourse, its functions and powers.{{citation needed|reason=|date=September 2023}} They defined parts of speech, analyzed poetry, parsed close synonyms, invented argumentation strategies, and debated the nature of reality.{{citation needed|reason=|date=September 2023}} They claimed to make their students better, or, in other words, to teach virtue. They thus claimed that human excellence was not an accident of fate or a prerogative of noble birth, but an art or "{{transliteration|grc|techne}}" that could be taught and learned. They were thus among the first humanists.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2003-10-01 |title=on humanism past & present {{!}} American Academy of Arts and Sciences |url=https://www.amacad.org/publication/daedalus/humanism-past-present |access-date=2024-10-27 |website=www.amacad.org |language=en}}</ref>

Several Sophists also questioned received wisdom about the gods and the Greek culture, which they believed was taken for granted by Greeks of their time, making these Sophists among the first agnostics. For example, some argued that cultural practices were a function of convention or {{transliteration|grc|[[Law|nomos]]}} rather than blood or birth or {{transliteration|grc|[[phusis]]}}.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Taylor |first1=C.C.W. |title=The Sophists |date=2020 |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sophists/ |access-date=2024-10-27 |edition=Fall 2020 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |last2=Lee |first2=Mi-Kyoung}}</ref> They argued further that the morality or immorality of any action could not be judged outside of the cultural context within which it occurred. The well-known phrase, "Man is the measure of all things" arises from this belief.{{citation needed|reason=|date=September 2023}} One of the Sophists' most famous, and infamous, doctrines has to do with probability and counter arguments. They taught that every argument could be countered with an opposing argument, that an argument's effectiveness derived from how "likely" it appeared to the audience (its probability of seeming true), and that any probability argument could be countered with an inverted probability argument. Thus, if it seemed likely that a strong, poor man were guilty of robbing a rich, weak man, the strong poor man could argue, on the contrary, that this very likelihood (that he would be a suspect) makes it unlikely that he committed the crime, since he would most likely be apprehended for the crime.{{citation needed|reason=|date=September 2023}} They also taught and were known for their ability to make the weaker (or worse) argument the stronger (or better).{{citation needed|reason=|date=September 2023}} [[Aristophanes]] famously parodies the clever inversions that sophists were known for in his play ''[[The Clouds]]''.{{citation needed|reason=|date=September 2023}}

The word "sophistry" developed negative connotations in ancient Greece that continue today, but in ancient Greece, Sophists were popular and well-paid professionals, respected for their abilities and also criticized for their excesses.

According to William Keith and Christian Lundberg, as the Greek society shifted towards more democratic values, the Sophists were responsible for teaching the newly democratic Greek society the importance of persuasive speech and strategic communication for its new governmental institutions.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Keith |first1=William M. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/166373607 |title=The essential guide to rhetoric |last2=Lundberg |first2=Christian O. |date=2008 |publisher=Bedford/St. Martin's |isbn=978-0-312-47239-9 |location=Boston |oclc=166373607}}</ref>

====Isocrates====
{{Main|Isocrates}}

Isocrates ({{BCE|436–338}}), like the Sophists, taught public speaking as a means of human improvement, but he worked to distinguish himself from the Sophists, whom he saw as claiming far more than they could deliver. He suggested that while an art of virtue or excellence did exist, it was only one piece, and the least, in a process of self-improvement that relied much more on honing one's talent, desire, constant practice, and the imitation of good models. Isocrates believed that practice in speaking publicly about noble themes and important questions would improve the character of both speaker and audience while also offering the best service to a city. Isocrates was an outspoken champion of rhetoric as a mode of civic engagement.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite book|author=[[Isocrates]]|chapter=Against the Sophists|title=Isocrates with an English Translation|translator-first=George|translator-last=Norlin|translator-link=George Norlin|location=New York|publisher=G.P. Putnam's Sons|year=1929|volume=II|pages=160–177|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/isocrateswitheng02isocuoft/page/159/mode/1up|orig-date={{circa|{{BCE|392}}}} }}
|2={{cite book|author=[[Isocrates]]|chapter=Antidosis|title=Isocrates with an English Translation|translator-first=George|translator-last=Norlin|translator-link=George Norlin|location=New York|publisher=G.P. Putnam's Sons|year=1929|volume=II|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/isocrateswitheng02isocuoft/page/179/mode/1up|pages=181–365|orig-date={{circa|{{BCE|353}}}} }}
}}</ref> He thus wrote his speeches as "models" for his students to imitate in the same way that poets might imitate Homer or Hesiod, seeking to inspire in them a desire to attain fame through civic leadership. His was the first permanent school in [[Athens]] and it is likely that [[Plato's Academy]] and [[Aristotle's Lyceum]] were founded in part as a response to Isocrates. Though he left no handbooks, his speeches (''"[[Antidosis (treatise)|Antidosis]]"'' and ''"[[Against the Sophists]]"'' are most relevant to students of rhetoric) became models of oratory and keys to his entire educational program. He was one of the canonical "[[Ten Attic Orators]]". He influenced [[Cicero]] and [[Quintilian]], and through them, the entire educational system of the west.

====Plato====
{{Main|Plato|Platonism}}
[[Plato]] ({{BCE|427–347}}) outlined the differences between true and false rhetoric in a number of dialogues—particularly the ''[[Gorgias (dialogue)|Gorgias]]'' and ''[[Phaedrus (dialogue)|Phaedrus]]'', dialogues in which Plato disputes the [[sophistry|sophistic]] notion that the art of persuasion (the Sophists' art, which he calls "rhetoric"), can exist independent of the art of [[dialectic]]. Plato claims that since Sophists appeal only to what seems probable, they are not advancing their students and audiences, but simply flattering them with what they want to hear. While Plato's condemnation of rhetoric is clear in the ''Gorgias'', in the ''Phaedrus'' he suggests the possibility of a true art wherein rhetoric is based upon the knowledge produced by dialectic. He relies on a dialectically informed rhetoric to appeal to the main character, Phaedrus, to take up philosophy. Thus Plato's rhetoric is actually dialectic (or philosophy) "turned" toward those who are not yet philosophers and are thus unready to pursue dialectic directly. Plato's animosity against rhetoric, and against the Sophists, derives not only from their inflated claims to teach virtue and their reliance on appearances, but from the fact that his teacher, Socrates, was sentenced to death after Sophists' efforts.

Some scholars, however, see Plato not as an opponent of rhetoric but rather as a nuanced rhetorical theorist who dramatized rhetorical practice in his dialogues and imagined rhetoric as more than just oratory.{{r|KBB}}

==== Aristotle ====
[[File:Aristotle Altemps Inv8575.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|A marble bust of Aristotle]]
{{Main|Rhetoric (Aristotle)}}Aristotle: Rhetoric is an antistrophes to dialectic. "Let rhetoric [be defined as] an ability [dynamis], in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion." "Rhetoric is a counterpart of dialectic" — an art of practical civic reasoning, applied to deliberative, judicial, and "display" speeches in political assemblies, lawcourts, and other public gatherings.{{more citations needed section|date=September 2013}}

[[Aristotle]] ({{BCE|384–322}}) was a student of Plato who set forth an extended treatise on rhetoric that still repays careful study today. In the first sentence of ''[[Rhetoric (Aristotle)|The Art of Rhetoric]]'', Aristotle says that "rhetoric is the {{transliteration|grc|[[antistrophe]]}} of dialectic".<ref name=Aristotle>{{cite book|author=Aristotle|title=Rhetoric}}</ref>{{rp|at=I.1}} As the "{{transliteration|grc|antistrophe}}" of a Greek [[ode]] responds to and is patterned after the structure of the "{{transliteration|grc|[[strophe]]}}" (they form two sections of the whole and are sung by two parts of the chorus), so the art of rhetoric follows and is structurally patterned after the art of dialectic because both are arts of discourse production. While dialectical methods are necessary to find truth in theoretical matters, rhetorical methods are required in practical matters such as adjudicating somebody's guilt or innocence when charged in a court of law, or adjudicating a prudent course of action to be taken in a deliberative assembly.

For Plato and Aristotle, dialectic involves persuasion, so when Aristotle says that rhetoric is the {{transliteration|grc|antistrophe}} of dialectic, he means that rhetoric as he uses the term has a domain or scope of application that is parallel to, but different from, the domain or scope of application of dialectic. Claude Pavur explains that "[t]he Greek prefix 'anti' does not merely designate opposition, but it can also mean 'in place of'".<ref>{{cite book|last=Pavur|first=Claude Nicholas|title=Nietzsche Humanist|year=1998|publisher=Marquette University Press|page=129}}</ref>

Aristotle's treatise on rhetoric systematically describes civic rhetoric as a human art or skill ({{transliteration|grc|techne}}). It is more of {{clarify|reason=what does that mean?|text=an objective theory|date=September 2023}} than it is an interpretive theory with a rhetorical tradition. Aristotle's art of rhetoric emphasizes persuasion as the purpose of rhetoric. His definition of rhetoric as "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion", essentially a mode of discovery, limits the art to the inventional process; Aristotle emphasizes the logical aspect of this process. A speaker supports the probability of a message by logical, ethical, and emotional proofs.

Aristotle identifies three steps or "offices" of rhetoric—invention, arrangement, and style—and three different types of rhetorical proof:{{r|Aristotle|at=I.2}}
; {{transliteration|grc|[[ethos]]}} : Aristotle's theory of character and how the character and credibility of a speaker can influence an audience to consider him/her to be believable—there being three qualities that contribute to a credible ethos: perceived intelligence, virtuous character, and goodwill
; {{transliteration|grc|[[pathos]]}} : the use of emotional appeals to alter the audience's judgment through metaphor, amplification, storytelling, or presenting the topic in a way that evokes strong emotions in the audience
; {{transliteration|grc|[[logos]]}} : the use of reasoning, either [[Inductive reasoning|inductive]] or [[Deductive reasoning|deductive]], to construct an argument

Aristotle emphasized ''[[Deductive reasoning|enthymematic reasoning]]'' as central to the process of rhetorical invention, though later rhetorical theorists placed much less emphasis on it. An "enthymeme" follows the form of a [[syllogism]], however it excludes either the major or minor premise. An enthymeme is persuasive because the audience provides the missing premise. Because the audience participates in providing the missing premise, they are more likely to be persuaded by the message.

Aristotle identified three different types or genres of civic rhetoric:{{r|Aristotle|at=I.3}}
; [[Forensic rhetoric|Forensic]] (also known as judicial) : concerned with determining the truth or falseness of events that took place in the past and issues of guilt—for example, in a courtroom{{r|Aristotle|at=I.10–15}}
; [[Deliberative rhetoric|Deliberative]] (also known as political) : concerned with determining whether or not particular actions should or should not be taken in the future—for example, making laws
; [[Epideictic]] (also known as ceremonial) : concerned with praise and blame, values, right and wrong, demonstrating beauty and skill in the present—for example, a eulogy or a wedding toast

Another Aristotelian doctrine was the idea of topics (also referred to as [[The Common Topics|common topics]] or commonplaces). Though the term had a wide range of application (as a memory technique or compositional exercise, for example) it most often referred to the "seats of argument"—the list of categories of thought or modes of reasoning—that a speaker could use to generate arguments or proofs. The topics were thus a heuristic or inventional tool designed to help speakers categorize and thus better retain and apply frequently used types of argument. For example, since we often see effects as "like" their causes, one way to invent an argument (about a future effect) is by discussing the cause (which it will be "like"). This and other rhetorical topics derive from Aristotle's belief that there are certain predictable ways in which humans (particularly non-specialists) draw conclusions from premises. Based upon and adapted from his dialectical Topics, the rhetorical topics became a central feature of later rhetorical theorizing, most famously in Cicero's work of that name.

===India===
{{Further|Ancient Indian rhetoric}}

''[[India's Struggle for Independence]]'' offers a vivid description of the culture that sprang up around the newspaper in village India of the early 1870s:

{{Blockquote|A newspaper would reach remote villages and would then be read by a reader to tens of others. Gradually library movements sprung up all over the country. A local 'library' would be organized around a single newspaper. A table, a bench or two or a ''charpoy'' would constitute the capital equipment. Every piece of news or editorial comment would be read or heard and thoroughly discussed. The newspaper not only became the political educator; reading or discussing it became a form of political participation.<ref>{{cite book|title=[[India's Struggle for Independence]]|first1=Bipan|last1=Chandra|first2=Mridula|last2=Mukherjee|first3=Aditya|last3=Mukherjee|first4=Sucheta|last4=Mahajan|first5=K.N.|last5=Panikkar|year=1987|publisher=Penguin Random House|page=[https://archive.org/details/indiasstrugglefo0000unse/page/103/mode/1up 103]}}</ref>}}

This reading and discussion was the focal point of origin of the modern Indian rhetorical movement. Much before this, ancients such as [[Kautilya]], [[Birbal]], and the like indulged in a great deal of discussion and persuasion.

Keith Lloyd argued that much of the recital of the [[Vedas]] can be likened to the recital of ancient Greek poetry.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Lloyd | first=Keith | title=Rethinking Rhetoric from an Indian Perspective: Implications in the ''Nyaya Sutra'' | journal=Rhetoric Review | publisher=Informa UK Limited | volume=26 | issue=4 | year= 2007 | issn=0735-0198 | doi=10.1080/07350190701577892 | pages=365–384| s2cid=43698162 }}</ref> Lloyd proposed including the ''[[Nyāya Sūtras]]'' in the field of rhetorical studies, exploring its methods within their historical context, comparing its approach to the traditional logical syllogism, and relating it to modern perspectives of [[Stephen Toulmin]], [[Kenneth Burke]], and [[Chaim Perelman]].

{{transliteration|sa|Nyaya}} is a Sanskrit word which means "just" or "right" and refers to "the science of right and wrong reasoning".<ref name=RadMoo>{{cite book|first1=Sarvepalli|last1=Radhakrishnan|first2=Charles A.|last2=Moore|title=A Source Book in Indian Philosophy|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=1957}}</ref>{{rp|356}}
{{transliteration|sa|Sutra}} is also a Sanskrit word which means string or thread. Here sutra refers to a collection of aphorism in the form of a manual. Each sutra is a short rule usually consisted of one or two sentences. An example of a sutra is: "Reality is truth, and what is true is so, irrespective of whether we know it is, or are aware of that truth." The ''Nyāya Sūtras'' is an ancient Indian Sanskrit text composed by [[Aksapada Gautama]]. It is the foundational text of the [[Nyaya]] school of Hindu philosophy. It is estimated that the text was composed between {{BCE|6th-century}} and {{CE|2nd-century}}. The text may have been composed by more than one author, over a period of time.<ref>{{cite book | last=Zimmer | first=Heinrich | title=Philosophies of India | publisher=Routledge | location=London | date=2008 | isbn=978-0-415-46232-7}}{{page needed|date=September 2023}}</ref> Radhakrishan and Moore placed its origin in the {{BCE|third century}} "though some of the contents of the Nyaya Sutra are certainly a post-Christian era".{{r|RadMoo|page=36}} The ancient school of Nyaya extended over a period of one thousand years, beginning with Gautama about {{BCE|550}} and ending with Vatsyayana about {{CE|400}}.<ref>{{cite book | last=Sinha | first=Nandalal | title=The Nyaya Sutras of Gotama | publisher=Motilal Banarsidass Publ. | location=Delhi | date=1990-12-31 | isbn=81-208-0748-0}}{{page needed|date=September 2023}}</ref>

Nyaya provides insight into Indian rhetoric. Nyaya presents an argumentative approach with which a rhetor can decide about any argument. In addition, it proposes an approach to thinking about cultural tradition which is different from Western rhetoric. Whereas Toulmin emphasizes the situational dimension of argumentative genre as the fundamental component of any rhetorical logic; Nyaya views this situational rhetoric {{Vague|reason=|text=in a new way which offers context of practical arguments|date=September 2023}}.

Some of India's famous rhetors include [[Kabir Das]], [[Rahim Das]], [[Chanakya]], and [[Chandragupt Maurya]].

===Rome===

====Cicero====
[[File:Thorvaldsen Cicero.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|Bust of Marcus Tullius Cicero]]
{{Main|Cicero|Asiatic style|De Inventione|De Oratore|Brutus (Cicero)|De Optimo Genere Oratorum|De Partitionibus Oratoriae}}

For the Romans, oration became an important part of public life. [[Cicero]] ({{BCE|106–43}}) was chief among Roman rhetoricians and remains the best known ancient orator and the only orator who both spoke in public and produced treatises on the subject. ''[[Rhetorica ad Herennium]]'', formerly attributed to Cicero but now considered to be of unknown authorship, is one of the most significant works on rhetoric and is still widely used as a reference today. It is an extensive reference on the use of rhetoric, and in the [[Middle Ages]] and [[Renaissance]], it achieved wide publication as an advanced school text on rhetoric.

Cicero charted a middle path between the competing [[Atticism|Attic]] and [[Asiatic style]]s to become considered second only to [[Demosthenes]] among history's orators.<ref>{{cite book|first=Gesine|last=Manuwald|chapter=Relevance of Demosthenes and Atticism|title=Cicero, Philippics 3–9|volume=1|location=Berlin|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|year=2007|pages=129ff}}</ref> His works include the early and very influential ''[[De Inventione]]'' (On Invention, often read alongside ''Ad Herennium'' as the two basic texts of rhetorical theory throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance), ''[[De Oratore]]'' (a fuller statement of rhetorical principles in dialogue form), ''[[Topica (Cicero)|Topics]]'' (a rhetorical treatment of common topics, highly influential through the Renaissance), ''[[Brutus (Cicero)|Brutus]]'' (a discussion of famous orators), and ''[[Orator (Cicero)|Orator]]'' (a defense of Cicero's style). Cicero also left a large body of speeches and letters which would establish the outlines of Latin eloquence and style for generations.

The rediscovery of Cicero's speeches (such as [[Pro Archia Poeta|the defense of Archias]]) and letters ([[Epistulae ad Atticum|to Atticus]]) by Italians like [[Petrarch]] helped to ignite the Renaissance.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Petrarch {{!}} Western Civilization |url=https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-herkimer-westerncivilization/chapter/petrarch/ |access-date=2024-04-10 |website=courses.lumenlearning.com}}</ref>

Cicero championed the learning of Greek (and Greek rhetoric), contributed to Roman ethics, linguistics, philosophy, and politics, and emphasized the importance of all forms of appeal (emotion, humor, stylistic range, irony, and digression in addition to pure reasoning) in oratory. But perhaps his most significant contribution to subsequent rhetoric, and education in general, was his argument that orators learn not only about the specifics of their case (the ''hypothesis'') but also about the general questions from which they derived (the ''theses'').{{citation needed|reason=|date=September 2023}} Thus, in giving a speech in defense of a poet whose Roman citizenship had been questioned, the orator should examine not only the specifics of that poet's civic status, he should also examine the role and value of poetry and of literature more generally in Roman culture and political life. The orator, said Cicero, needed to be knowledgeable about all areas of human life and culture, including law, politics, history, literature, ethics, warfare, medicine, and even arithmetic and geometry. Cicero gave rise to the idea that the "ideal orator" be well-versed in all branches of learning: an idea that was rendered as "liberal humanism", and that lives on today in liberal arts or general education requirements in colleges and universities around the world.<ref>{{cite book|author=Cicero|title=De Inventione|at=I.35}}</ref>

====Quintilian====
{{Main|Quintilian|Byzantine rhetoric}}

{{unreferenced section|date=July 2010}}

Quintilian ({{CE|35–100}}) began his career as a pleader in the courts of law; his reputation grew so great that [[Vespasian]] created a chair of rhetoric for him in Rome. The culmination of his life's work was the ''[[Institutio Oratoria]]'' (''Institutes of Oratory,'' or alternatively, ''The Orator's Education''), a lengthy treatise on the training of the orator, in which he discusses the training of the "perfect" orator from birth to old age and, in the process, reviews the doctrines and opinions of many influential rhetoricians who preceded him.

In the ''Institutes'', Quintilian organizes rhetorical study through the stages of education that an aspiring orator would undergo, beginning with the selection of a nurse. Aspects of elementary education (training in reading and writing, grammar, and literary criticism) are followed by preliminary rhetorical exercises in composition (the {{transliteration|grc|[[progymnasmata]]}}) that include maxims and fables, narratives and comparisons, and finally full legal or political speeches. The delivery of speeches within the context of education or for entertainment purposes became widespread and popular under the term "declamation".

This work was available only in fragments in medieval times, but the discovery of a complete copy at the [[Abbey of St. Gall]] in 1416 led to its emergence as one of the most influential works on rhetoric during the Renaissance.

Quintilian's work describes not just the art of rhetoric, but the formation of the perfect orator as a politically active, virtuous, publicly minded citizen. His emphasis was on the ethical application of rhetorical training, in part in reaction against the tendency in Roman schools toward standardization of themes and techniques. At the same time that rhetoric was becoming divorced from political decision making, rhetoric rose as a culturally vibrant and important mode of entertainment and cultural criticism in a movement known as the "[[Second Sophistic]]", a development that gave rise to the charge (made by Quintilian and others) that teachers were emphasizing style over substance in rhetoric.

===Medieval to Enlightenment===
After the breakup of the western Roman Empire, the study of rhetoric continued to be central to the study of the verbal arts. However the study of the verbal arts went into decline for several centuries, followed eventually by a gradual rise in formal education, culminating in the rise of medieval universities. Rhetoric transmuted during this period into the arts of letter writing ({{lang|la|[[ars dictaminis]]}}) and sermon writing ({{lang|la|ars praedicandi}}). As part of the {{lang|la|[[trivium (education)|trivium]]}}, rhetoric was secondary to the study of logic, and its study was highly scholastic: students were given repetitive exercises in the creation of discourses on historical subjects ({{lang|la|suasoriae}}) or on classic legal questions ({{lang|la|controversiae}}).

Although he is not commonly regarded as a rhetorician, [[Augustine of Hippo|St. Augustine]] (354–430) was trained in rhetoric and was at one time a professor of Latin rhetoric in Milan. After his conversion to Christianity, he became interested in using these "[[Paganism|pagan]]" arts for spreading his religion. He explores this new use of rhetoric in ''[[De doctrina Christiana]]'', which laid the foundation of what would become [[homiletics]], the rhetoric of the sermon. Augustine asks why "the power of eloquence, which is so efficacious in pleading either for the erroneous cause or the right", should not be used for righteous purposes.<ref>{{cite book|author=Augustine of Hippo|title=De doctrina Christiana|at=[https://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0137/__P3I.HTM IV.2]|quote={{lang|la|Cum ergo sit in medio posita facultas eloquii, quae ad persuadenda seu prava seu recta valet plurimum, cur non bonorum studio comparatur, ut militet veritati, si eam mali ad obtinendas perversas vanasque causas in usus iniquitatis et erroris usurpant?}}}}</ref>

One early concern of the medieval Christian church was its attitude to classical rhetoric itself. [[Jerome]] (d. 420) complained, "What has [[Horace]] to do with the Psalms, [[Virgil]] with the Gospels, Cicero with the Apostles?"<ref>{{cite book|author=Jerome of Stridon|title=Letters of St. Jerome|chapter-url=https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001022.htm|chapter=To Eustochium, on the preservation of Virginity|at=§29|translator-first1=W.H.|translator-last1=Fremantle|translator-first2=G.|translator-last2=Lewis|translator-first3=W.G.|translator-last3=Martley|series=Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series|volume=VI|editor-first1=Philip|editor-last1=Schaff|editor-first2=Henry|editor-last2=Wace|location=Buffalo, N.Y.|publisher=Christian Literature Publishing Co.|year=1893|orig-date=384|url=https://archive.org/details/selectlibraryofn06scha}}</ref> Augustine is also remembered for arguing for the preservation of pagan works and fostering a church tradition that led to conservation of numerous pre-Christian rhetorical writings.

Rhetoric would not regain its classical heights until the Renaissance, but new writings did advance rhetorical thought. [[Boethius]] ({{circa|480}}–524), in his brief ''Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric'', continues Aristotle's taxonomy by placing rhetoric in subordination to philosophical argument or dialectic.<ref>{{cite book|first1=Patricia|last1=Bizzell|first2=Bruce|last2=Herzberg|title=The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present|location=Boston|publisher=Bedford / St. Martins|edition=2nd|year=2001|page=486}}</ref> The [[Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe|introduction of Arab scholarship]] from European relations with the [[Caliphate|Muslim empire]] (in particular [[Al-Andalus]]) renewed interest in Aristotle and Classical thought in general, leading to what some historians call [[Renaissance of the 12th century|the 12th century Renaissance]]. A number of medieval grammars and studies of poetry and rhetoric appeared.

Late medieval rhetorical writings include those of St. [[Thomas Aquinas]] ({{circa|1225}}–1274), [[Matthew of Vendôme]] (''Ars Versificatoria'', {{circa|1175}}), and [[Geoffrey of Vinsauf]] ([[Geoffrey of Vinsauf#The Poetria nova|''Poetria Nova'']], 1200–1216). Pre-modern female rhetoricians, outside of Socrates' friend [[Aspasia]], are rare; but medieval rhetoric produced by women either in religious orders, such as [[Julian of Norwich]] (d. 1415), or the very well-connected [[Christine de Pizan]] ({{circa|1364}}–{{circa|1430}}), did occur although it was not always recorded in writing.

In his 1943 [[Cambridge University]] doctoral dissertation in English, Canadian [[Marshall McLuhan]] (1911–1980) surveys the verbal arts from approximately the time of [[Cicero]] down to the time of [[Thomas Nashe]] (1567–{{circa|1600}}).<ref>{{Cite book |last=McLuhan |first=Marshall |title=The Classical Trivium: The Place of Thomas Nashe in the Learning of His Time |publisher=Gingko Press |year=2009|orig-date=1943 |isbn=978-1-58423-235-3}}</ref> His dissertation is still noteworthy for undertaking to study the history of the verbal arts together as the trivium, even though the developments that he surveys have been studied in greater detail since he undertook his study. As noted below, McLuhan became one of the most widely publicized communication theorists of the 20th century.

Another interesting record of medieval rhetorical thought can be seen in the many [[medieval debate literature|animal debate poems]] popular in England and the continent during the Middle Ages, such as ''[[The Owl and the Nightingale]]'' (13th century) and [[Geoffrey Chaucer]]'s ''[[Parliament of Fowls]]''.

===Sixteenth century===
[[Renaissance humanism]] defined itself broadly as disfavoring medieval scholastic logic and dialectic and as favoring instead the study of classical Latin style and grammar and philology and rhetoric.<ref>{{cite book|last=Ong|first=Walter J.|chapter=Humanism|title=Faith and Contexts|publisher=Scholars Press|year=1999|volume=4|pages=69–91}}</ref>

[[File:Quentin Massys- Erasmus of Rotterdam.JPG|thumb|upright=0.85|Portrait of [[Erasmus of Rotterdam]]]]

One influential figure in the rebirth of interest in classical rhetoric was [[Erasmus]] ({{circa|1466}}–1536). His 1512 work, ''De Duplici Copia Verborum et Rerum'' (also known as ''[[Copia: Foundations of the Abundant Style]]''), was widely published (it went through more than 150 editions throughout Europe) and became one of the basic school texts on the subject. Its treatment of rhetoric is less comprehensive than the classic works of antiquity, but provides a traditional treatment of {{lang|la|res-verba}} (matter and form). Its first book treats the subject of {{lang|la|[[elocutio]]}}, showing the student how to use [[figure of speech|schemes and tropes]]; the second book covers {{lang|la|[[inventio]]}}. Much of the emphasis is on abundance of variation ({{lang|la|copia}} means "plenty" or "abundance", as in copious or cornucopia), so both books focus on ways to introduce the maximum amount of variety into discourse. For instance, in one section of the ''De Copia'', Erasmus presents two hundred variations of the sentence "Always, as long as I live, I shall remember you" ("{{lang|la|Semper, dum vivam, tui meminero.}}") Another of his works, the extremely popular ''[[The Praise of Folly]]'', also had considerable influence on the teaching of rhetoric in the later 16th century. Its orations in favour of qualities such as madness spawned a type of exercise popular in Elizabethan grammar schools, later called [[adoxography]], which required pupils to compose passages in praise of useless things.

[[Juan Luis Vives]] (1492–1540) also helped shape the study of rhetoric in England. A Spaniard, he was appointed in 1523 to the Lectureship of Rhetoric at Oxford by [[Cardinal Wolsey]], and was entrusted by [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]] to be one of the tutors of Mary. Vives fell into disfavor when Henry VIII divorced [[Catherine of Aragon]] and left England in 1528. His best-known work was a book on education, ''{{lang|la|De Disciplinis}}'', published in 1531, and his writings on rhetoric included ''{{lang|la|Rhetoricae, sive De Ratione Dicendi, Libri Tres}}'' (1533), ''{{lang|la|De Consultatione}}'' (1533), and a treatise on letter writing, ''{{lang|la|De Conscribendis Epistolas}}'' (1536).

It is likely that many well-known English writers were exposed to the works of Erasmus and Vives (as well as those of the Classical rhetoricians) in their schooling, which was conducted in Latin (not English), often included some study of Greek, and placed considerable emphasis on rhetoric.<ref>{{cite book|first=T.W.|last=Baldwin|title=William Shakspere's Small Latine and Lesse Greeke|publisher=University of Illinois Press|year=1944}} (2 vols.)</ref>

The mid-16th century saw the rise of vernacular rhetorics—those written in English rather than in the Classical languages. Adoption of works in English was slow, however, due to the strong scholastic orientation toward Latin and Greek. [[Leonard Cox]]'s ''The Art or Crafte of Rhetoryke'' ({{circa|1524–1530}}; second edition published in 1532) is the earliest text on rhetorics in English; it was, for the most part, a translation of the work of [[Melanchthon|Philipp Melanchthon]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ives Carpenter |first1=Frederic |year=1898 |title=Leonard Cox and the First English Rhetoric |journal=Modern Language Notes |volume=13 |issue=5 |pages=146–47 |doi=10.2307/2917751 |jstor=2917751}}</ref> [[Thomas Wilson (rhetorician)|Thomas Wilson]]'s ''{{lang|en-emodeng|The Arte of Rhetorique}}'' (1553) presents a traditional treatment of rhetoric, for instance, the standard five canons of rhetoric. Other notable works included [[Angel Day]]'s ''{{lang|en-emodeng|The English Secretorie}}'' (1586, 1592), [[George Puttenham]]'s ''{{lang|en-emodeng|The Arte of English Poesie}}'' (1589), and Richard Rainholde's ''{{lang|en-emodeng|Foundacion of Rhetorike}}'' (1563).

During this same period, a movement began that would change the organization of the school curriculum in Protestant and especially Puritan circles and that led to rhetoric losing its central place. A French scholar, [[Petrus Ramus]] (1515–1572), dissatisfied with what he saw as the overly broad and redundant organization of the [[trivium (education)|trivium]], proposed a new curriculum. In his scheme of things, the five components of rhetoric no longer lived under the common heading of rhetoric. Instead, invention and disposition were determined to fall exclusively under the heading of dialectic, while style, delivery, and memory were all that remained for rhetoric.<ref>{{cite book|author-link=Walter J. Ong|first=Walter J.|last=Ong|title=Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue: From the Art of Discourse to the Art of Reason|publisher=University of Chicago Press|orig-date=1958|year=2004}}</ref> Ramus was martyred during the French Wars of Religion. His teachings, seen as inimical to Catholicism, were short-lived in France but found a fertile ground in the Netherlands, Germany, and England.<ref>See {{citation|author-link=Marc Fumaroli|first=Marc|last=Fumaroli|title=Age de l'Éloquence|year=1980}}. For an extensive presentation of the intricate political and religious debates concerning rhetoric in France and Italy at the time.</ref>

One of Ramus' French followers, [[Audomarus Talaeus]] (Omer Talon) published his rhetoric, ''Institutiones Oratoriae'', in 1544. This work emphasized style, and became so popular that it was mentioned in [[John Brinsley the elder|John Brinsley]]'s (1612) ''{{lang|la|Ludus literarius}}; {{lang|en-emodeng|or The Grammar Schoole}}'' as being the "{{lang|en-emodeng|most used in the best schooles}}". Many other [[Ramist]] rhetorics followed in the next half-century, and by the 17th century, their approach became the primary method of teaching rhetoric in Protestant and especially Puritan circles.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite book |last=Ong |first=Walter J. |author-link=Walter J. Ong |year=1958 |title=Ramus and Talon Inventory |location=Cambridge, Mass. |publisher=Harvard University Press}}
|2={{cite book |last=Freedman |first=Joseph S. |year=1999 |title=Philosophy and the Art Europe, 1500–1700: Teaching and Texts at Schools and Universities |publisher=Ashgate}}
}}</ref> [[John Milton]] (1608–1674) wrote a textbook in logic or dialectic in Latin based on Ramus' work.<ref>{{cite book |last=Milton |first=John |year=1935 |orig-date=1672 |title=Artis Logicae Plenior Institutio: Ad Petri Rami Methodum Concinnata |series=The Works of John Milton |volume=XI |translator-last=Gilbert |translator-first=Allan H. |location=New York |publisher=Columbia University Press |oclc=35848829}}</ref>

Ramism could not exert any influence on the established Catholic schools and universities, which remained loyal to Scholasticism, or on the new Catholic schools and universities founded by members of the [[Society of Jesus]] or the Oratorians, as can be seen in the [[Jesuit]] curriculum (in use up to the 19th century across the Christian world) known as the {{lang|la|[[Ratio Studiorum]]}}.<ref>{{cite book|editor-first=Claude Nicholas|editor-last=Pavur|title=The Ratio studiorum: The Official Plan for Jesuit Education|location=St. Louis, Mo.|publisher=Institute of Jesuit Sources|year=2005|oclc=58476251|isbn=978-1-880810-59-0}}</ref> If the influence of Cicero and Quintilian permeates the {{lang|la|Ratio Studiorum}}, it is through the lenses of devotion and the militancy of the [[Counter-Reformation]]. The {{lang|la|Ratio}} was indeed imbued with a sense of the divine, of the incarnate logos, that is of rhetoric as an eloquent and humane means to reach further devotion and further action in the Christian city, which was absent from Ramist formalism. The Ratio is, in rhetoric, the answer to [[Ignatius Loyola]]'s practice, in devotion, of "[[Spiritual Exercises|spiritual exercises]]". This complex oratorical-prayer system is absent from Ramism.

===Seventeenth century===
In New England and at [[Harvard College]] (founded 1636), Ramus and his followers dominated.<ref>{{cite book|author-link=Perry Miller|first=Perry|last=Miller|title=The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=1939|url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.182960}}</ref>{{page needed|date=September 2023}} However, in England, several writers influenced the course of rhetoric during the 17th century, many of them carrying forward the dichotomy{{Specify|reason=which dichotomy is that?|date=September 2023}} that had been set forth by Ramus and his followers during the preceding decades. This century also saw the development of a modern, vernacular style that looked to English, rather than to Greek, Latin, or French models.

[[Francis Bacon]] (1561–1626), although not a rhetorician, contributed to the field in his writings. One of the concerns of the age was to find a suitable style for the discussion of scientific topics, which needed above all a clear exposition of facts and arguments, rather than an ornate style. Bacon in his ''[[The Advancement of Learning]]'' criticized those who are preoccupied with style rather than "the weight of matter, worth of subject, soundness of argument, life of invention, or depth of judgment".<ref>{{cite book|last=Bacon|first=Francis|author-link=Francis Bacon|title=[[The Advancement of Learning|Of the Advancement and Proficience of Learning or the Partitions of Sciences]]|year=1605|at=I.4§2}}</ref> On matters of style, he proposed that the style conform to the subject matter and to the audience, that simple words be employed whenever possible, and that the style should be agreeable.<ref>{{cite book|author-link=Lisa Jardine|first=Lisa|last=Jardine|title=Francis Bacon: Discovery and the Art of Discourse|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|year=1975}}</ref>{{page needed|date=September 2023}}

[[Thomas Hobbes]] (1588–1679) also wrote on rhetoric. Along with a shortened translation of [[Aristotle]]'s ''Rhetoric'', Hobbes also produced a number of other works on the subject. Sharply contrarian on many subjects, Hobbes, like Bacon, also promoted a simpler and more natural style that used figures of speech sparingly.

Perhaps the most influential development in English style came out of the work of the [[Royal Society]] (founded in 1660), which in 1664 set up a committee to improve the English language. Among the committee's members were [[John Evelyn]] (1620–1706), [[Thomas Sprat]] (1635–1713), and [[John Dryden]] (1631–1700). Sprat regarded "fine speaking" as a disease, and thought that a proper style should "reject all amplifications, digressions, and swellings of style" and instead "return back to a primitive purity and shortness".<ref>{{cite book|last=Sprat|first=Thomas|author-link=Thomas Sprat|title=The History of the Royal Society of London, for the Improving of Natural Knowledge|publisher=T.R. for J. Martyn at the Bell|year=1667|pages=112–13}}</ref>

While the work of this committee never went beyond planning, John Dryden is often credited with creating and exemplifying a new and modern English style. His central tenet was that the style should be proper "to the occasion, the subject, and the persons".<ref>{{cite book|last=Dryden|first=John|author-link=John Dryden|title=[[The Spanish Friar|The Spanish Fryar]]|chapter=Dedication|location=London|year=1797|publisher=George Cawthorn|series=Bell's British Theatre|volume=II|page=vii|orig-date=1681}}</ref> As such, he advocated the use of English words whenever possible instead of foreign ones, as well as vernacular, rather than Latinate, syntax. His own prose (and his poetry) became exemplars of this new style.

===Eighteenth century===
Arguably one of the most influential schools of rhetoric during the 18th century was Scottish [[Belles-lettres|Belletristic]] rhetoric, exemplified by such professors of rhetoric as [[Hugh Blair]] whose ''[[Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres]]'' saw international success in various editions and translations, and [[Lord Kames]] with his influential ''Elements of Criticism''.

Another notable figure in 18th century rhetoric was [[Maria Edgeworth]], a novelist and children's author whose work often parodied the male-centric rhetorical strategies of her time. In her 1795 "An Essay on the Noble Science of Self-Justification," Edgeworth presents a satire of Enlightenment rhetoric's science-centrism and the Belletristic Movement.<ref>{{cite book|last=Herrick|first=James A.|year=2013|title=The History and Theory of Rhetoric|edition=fifth|publisher=Pearson|pages=183–84}}</ref> She was called "the great Maria" by [[Walter Scott|Sir Walter Scott]], with whom she corresponded,<ref>{{cite book|chapter=Edgeworth, Maria|year=2012|editor-last1=Birch|editor-first1=D.|editor-last2=Hooper|editor-first2=K.|title=The Concise Oxford Companion to English Literature|publisher=Oxford University Press|pages=215–16}}</ref> and by modern scholars is noted as "a transgressive and ironic reader" of the 18th century rhetorical norms.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Donawerth|first=Jane|year=2000|title=Poaching on Men's Philosophies of Rhetoric: Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Rhetorical Theory by Women|journal=Philosophy & Rhetoric|volume=33|number=3|pages=243–258|doi=10.1353/par.2000.0017 |s2cid=170719233 }}</ref>

== Modern ==
At the turn of the 20th century, there was a revival of rhetorical study manifested in the establishment of departments of rhetoric and speech at academic institutions, as well as the formation of national and international professional organizations.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite book|last=Cohen|first=H.|year=1994|title=The history of speech communication: The emergence of a discipline, 1914–1945|location=Annandale, Va.|publisher=Speech Communication Association}}
|2={{cite book|last=Gehrke|first=P.J.|year=2009|title=The ethics and politics of speech: Communication and rhetoric in the twentieth century|location=Carbondale, Ill.|publisher=[[Southern Illinois University Press]]}}
}}</ref> The early interest in rhetorical studies was a movement away from elocution as taught in English departments in the United States, and an attempt to refocus rhetorical studies from delivery-only to civic engagement and a "rich complexity" of the nature of rhetoric.<ref>{{cite book|first1=Jim A.|last1=Kuypers|author-link1=Jim A. Kuypers|first2=Andrew|last2=King|title=Twentieth-Century Roots of Rhetorical Studies|location=Westpost, Conn.|publisher=Praeger|year=2001}}</ref>

By the 1930s, advances in [[mass media]] technology led to a revival of the study of rhetoric, language, persuasion, and political rhetoric and its consequences. The [[linguistic turn]] in philosophy also contributed to this revival. The term rhetoric came to be applied to media forms other than verbal language, e.g. [[visual rhetoric]], "temporal rhetorics",<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bjork |first1=Collin |last2=Buhre |first2=Frida |year=2021 |title=Resisting Temporal Regimes, Imagining Just Temporalities |journal=Rhetoric Society Quarterly |volume=51 |issue=3 |pages=177–181 |doi=10.1080/02773945.2021.1918503 |issn=0277-3945 |doi-access=free |s2cid=235812222}}</ref> and the "temporal turn"<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{Cite journal |last=Mao |first=LuMing |date=18 December 2018 |title=In the Present and Importantly Present: Enacting a Temporal Turn for Asian American Rhetoric |url=http://enculturation.net/in-the-present-and-importantly-present |journal=Enculturation}}
|2={{Cite journal |last1=Houdek |first1=Matthew |last2=Phillips |first2=Kendall R. |year=2020 |title=Rhetoric and the Temporal Turn: Race, Gender, Temporalities |journal=Women's Studies in Communication |volume=43 |issue=4 |pages=369–383 |doi=10.1080/07491409.2020.1824501 |issn=0749-1409 |doi-access=free |s2cid=230637522}}
}}</ref> in rhetorical theory and practice.

The rise of [[advertising]] and of mass media such as [[photography]], [[telegraphy]], [[radio]], and [[film]] brought rhetoric more prominently into people's lives. The discipline of rhetoric has been used to study how [[advertising]] persuades,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Stern |first=Barbara B. |year=1990 |title=Pleasure and Persuasion in Advertising: Rhetorical Irony as a Humor Technique |journal=Current Issues and Research in Advertising |volume=12 |issue=1–2 |pages=25–42 |doi=10.1080/01633392.1990.10504942 |doi-broken-date=3 July 2025 |issn=0163-3392}}</ref> and to help understand the spread of [[fake news]] and [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] on social media.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Diaz Ruiz |first1=Carlos |last2=Nilsson |first2=Tomas |year=2023 |title=Disinformation and Echo Chambers: How Disinformation Circulates on Social Media Through Identity-Driven Controversies |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07439156221103852 |journal=Journal of Public Policy & Marketing |language=en |volume=42 |issue=1 |pages=18–35 |doi=10.1177/07439156221103852 |s2cid=248934562 |issn=0743-9156}}</ref>

=== Notable theorists ===
; [[Kenneth Burke]] : Burke was a rhetorical theorist, philosopher, and poet. Many of his works are central to modern rhetorical theory: ''Counterstatement'' (1931), ''A Grammar of Motives'' (1945), ''A Rhetoric of Motives'' (1950), and ''Language as Symbolic Action'' (1966). Among his influential concepts are "identification", "consubstantiality", and the "[[dramatistic pentad]]". He described rhetoric as "the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Borchers |first=Timothy A. |title=Rhetorical theory: an introduction |year=2006 |publisher=[[Thomson/Wadsworth]] |location=Belmont, Calif. |isbn=978-0-534-63918-1}}</ref> In relation to Aristotle's theory, Aristotle was more interested in constructing rhetoric, while Burke was interested in "debunking" it.
; The [[Groupe μ]] : This interdisciplinary team contributed to the renovation of the {{lang|la|elocutio}} in the context of poetics and modern linguistics, significantly with ''Rhétorique générale''<ref>{{cite book|first1=J.|last1=Dubois|first2=F.|last2=Edeline|first3=J.-M.|last3=Klinkenberg|first4=P.|last4=Minguet|first5=F.|last5=Pire|first6=H.|last6=Trinon|orig-date=1970|title=A General Rhetoric|translator-first1=Paul B.|translator-last1=Burrell|translator-first2=Edgar M.|translator-last2=Slotkin|publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press|year=1981}}</ref> and ''Rhétorique de la poésie'' (1977).
; [[Marshall McLuhan]] : McLuhan was a media theorist whose theories and whose choice of objects of study are important to the study of rhetoric. McLuhan's book ''[[The Mechanical Bride]]''<ref>{{cite book|last=McLuhan|first=Marshall|author-link=Marshall McLuhan|title=[[The Mechanical Bride]]: The Folklore of Industrial Man|publisher=Vanguard Press|year=1951}}</ref> was a compilation of exhibits of ads and other materials from popular culture with short essays involving rhetorical analyses of the persuasive strategies in each item. McLuhan later shifted the focus of his rhetorical analysis and began to consider how communication media themselves affect us as persuasive devices. His famous dictum "[[the medium is the message]]" highlights the significance of the medium itself. This shift in focus led to his two most widely known books, ''[[The Gutenberg Galaxy]]''<ref>{{cite book|last=McLuhan|first=Marshall|author-link=Marshall McLuhan|title=[[The Gutenberg Galaxy]]: The Making of Typographic Man|publisher=University of Toronto Press|year=1962}}</ref> and ''[[Understanding Media]]''.<ref>{{cite book|last=McLuhan|first=Marshall|author-link=Marshall McLuhan|title=[[Understanding Media]]: The Extensions of Man|publisher=[[McGraw-Hill]]|year=1964}}</ref> These books represent an inward turn to attending to one's consciousness in contrast to the more outward orientation of other rhetoricians toward sociological considerations and symbolic interaction. No other scholar of the history and theory of rhetoric was as widely publicized in the 20th century as McLuhan.
; [[Chaïm Perelman]] : Perelman was among the most important [[argumentation theory|argumentation]] theorists of the 20th century. His chief work is the ''Traité de l'argumentation—la nouvelle rhétorique'' (1958), with [[Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca]], which was translated into English as ''The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation''.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Perelman|first1=Chaïm|last2=Olbrechts-Tyteca|first2=Lucie|author-link1=Chaïm Perelman|author-link2=Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca|title=The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation|translator-first1=John|translator-last1=Wilkinson|translator-first2=Purcell|translator-last2=Weaver|year=1969|orig-date=1958|publisher=University of Notre Dame Press|isbn=978-0-268-00446-0|lccn=68-20440|location=Notre Dame, Ind.}}</ref> Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca move rhetoric from the periphery to the center of argumentation theory. Among their most influential concepts are "dissociation", "the universal audience", "quasi-logical argument", and "presence".
; [[I. A. Richards]] : Richards was a literary critic and rhetorician. His ''The Philosophy of Rhetoric'' is an important text in modern rhetorical theory.<ref name=Richards1965>{{cite book |last=Richards |first=I. A. |year=1965 |title=The Philosophy of Rhetoric |location=New York |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=978-0-19-500715-2}}</ref> In this work, he defined rhetoric as "a study of misunderstandings and its remedies", and introduced the influential concepts ''tenor'' and ''vehicle'' to describe the components of a metaphor—the main idea and the concept to which it is compared.{{r|Richards1965|p=97}}
; [[Stephen Toulmin]] : Toulmin was a philosopher whose ''Uses of Argument'' is an important text in modern rhetorical theory and [[argumentation theory]].<ref>{{cite book |first=Stephen |last=Toulmin |author-link=Stephen Toulmin |year=2003 |title=The Uses of Argument |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-0-521-53483-3}}</ref>
; [[Richard M. Weaver]] : Weaver was a rhetorical and cultural critic known for his contributions to the new conservatism. He focused on the ethical implications of rhetoric in his books ''Language is Sermonic'' and ''The Ethics of Rhetoric''. According to Weaver there are four types of argument, and through the argument type a rhetorician habitually uses a critic can discern their worldview. Those who prefer the argument from genus or definition are idealists. Those who argue from similitude, such as poets and religious people, see the connectedness between things. The argument from consequence sees a cause and effect relationship. Finally the argument from circumstance considers the particulars of a situation and is an argument preferred by liberals.

===Methods of analysis===

====Criticism seen as a method====
Rhetoric can be analyzed by a variety of methods and theories. One such method is criticism. When those using criticism analyze instances of rhetoric what they do is called rhetorical criticism {{See below|[[#Criticism|Criticism]]}}. According to rhetorical critic [[Jim A. Kuypers]], "The use of rhetoric is an art, and as such, it does not lend itself well to scientific methods of analysis. Criticism is an art as well, and as such is particularly well suited for examining rhetorical creations."<ref name="Jim A 2009">{{cite book|first=Jim A.|last=Kuypers|chapter=Rhetorical Criticism as Art|title=Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action|editor-first=Jim A.|editor-last=Kuypers|location=Lanham, Md.|publisher=[[Lexington Books]]|year=2009|isbn=978-0-7391-2774-2}}</ref>{{rp|14}} He asserts that criticism is a method of generating knowledge just as the scientific method is a method for generating knowledge:<ref name="Jim A 2009"/> 

{{Blockquote
|multiline=yes
|text=The way the Sciences and the Humanities study the phenomena that surround us differ greatly in the amount of researcher personality allowed to influence the results of the study. For example, in the Sciences researchers purposefully adhere to a {{em|strict}} method (the scientific method).... Generally speaking, the researcher's personality, likes and dislikes, and religious and political preferences are supposed to be as far removed as possible from the actual study....
In sharp contrast, criticism (one of many Humanistic methods of generating knowledge) actively involves the personality of the researcher. The very choices of what to study, and how and why to study a rhetorical artifact are heavily influenced by the personal qualities of the researcher.... In the Humanities, methods of research may also take many forms—criticism, ethnography, for example—but the personality of the researcher is an integral component of the study. Further personalizing criticism, we find that rhetorical critics use a variety of means when examining a particular rhetorical artifact, with some critics even developing their own unique perspective to better examine a rhetorical artifact.{{r|Jim A 2009|page=14}}
|author=Jim A. Kuypers}}

[[Edwin Black (rhetorician)|Edwin Black]] wrote on this point that, "Methods, then, admit of varying degrees of personality. And criticism, on the whole, is near the indeterminate, contingent, personal end of the methodological scale. In consequence of this placement, it is neither possible nor desirable for criticism to be fixed into a system, for critical techniques to be objectified, for critics to be interchangeable for purposes of replication, or for rhetorical criticism to serve as the handmaiden of quasi-scientific theory."<ref name=Black1978>{{cite book|author-link=Edwin Black (rhetorician)|first=Edwin|last=Black|title=Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method|location=Madison, Wisc.|publisher=[[University of Wisconsin Press]]|year=1978|orig-date=1965|isbn=0-299-07550-8}}</ref>{{rp|xi}}

Jim A. Kuypers sums this idea of criticism as art in the following manner: "In short, criticism is an art, not a science. It is not a scientific method; it uses subjective methods of argument; it exists on its own, not in conjunction with other methods of generating knowledge (i.e., social scientific or scientific)... [I]nsight and imagination top statistical applications when studying rhetorical action."{{r|Jim A 2009|page=14–15}}

===Strategies=== <!-- Anchor from redirect; caution. -->
''Rhetorical strategies'' are the efforts made by authors or speakers to persuade or inform their audiences. According to James W. Gray,{{Importance inline|reason=this source is a blog post by some guy with a website; has its categorization been more widely influential?|date=September 2023}} there are various argument strategies used in writing. He describes four of these as argument from analogy, argument from absurdity, thought experiments, and inference to the best explanation.<ref>{{cite web |last=Gray |first=James W. |title=Four Argument Strategies |website=Ethical Realism|url=https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/four-argument-strategies/ |access-date=19 February 2016 |date=June 2011}}</ref>

===Criticism===
Modern [[rhetorical criticism]] explores the relationship between text and context; that is, how an instance of rhetoric relates to circumstances. Since the aim of rhetoric is to be persuasive, the level to which the rhetoric in question persuades its audience is what must be analyzed, and later criticized. In determining the extent to which a text is persuasive, one may explore the text's relationship with its audience, purpose, ethics, argument, evidence, arrangement, delivery, and style.<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Speaking/Writing Connection |last=Ryan |first=David |publisher=Parthenon West Books |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-9765684-9-0 |location=Berkeley, Calif. |page=236}}</ref>

In his ''Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method'', Edwin Black states, "It is the task of criticism not to measure... discourses dogmatically against some parochial standard of rationality but, allowing for the immeasurable wide range of human experience, to see them as they really are."{{r|Black1978|page=131}} While "as they really are" is debatable, rhetorical critics explain texts and speeches by investigating their [[rhetorical situation]], typically placing them in a framework of speaker/audience exchange. The antithetical view places the rhetor at the center of creating that which is considered the extant situation; i.e., the agenda and spin.<ref>{{multiref2
|1={{cite journal|last=Bitzer|first=Lloyd F.|title=The Rhetorical Situation|journal=[[Philosophy & Rhetoric]]|year=1968|volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=1–14|jstor=40236733}}
|2={{cite journal|last=Vatz|first=Richard E.|title=The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation|journal=[[Philosophy & Rhetoric]]|year=1974|volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=154–161 |jstor=40236848}}
|3={{cite book | last=Vatz | first=Richard E. | title=The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion | year=2014 | publisher=Kendall Hunt Publishing Company | isbn=978-1-4652-5925-7}}
}}</ref>

====Additional theoretical approaches====
Following the [[Neo-Aristotelianism (literature)|neo-Aristotelian]] approaches to criticism, scholars began to derive methods from other disciplines, such as history, philosophy, and the social sciences.<ref name=Jansinski2001>{{cite journal |last1=Jansinski |first1=James |title=The Status of Theory and Method in Rhetorical Criticism |url=http://blog.umd.edu/tpg/files/2012/08/Jasinski-WJC1.pdf |journal=Western Journal of Communication|year=2001 |volume=65 |issue=3 |pages=249–270 |doi=10.1080/10570310109374705 |s2cid=151981343 |access-date=5 June 2017 |archive-date=29 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170329060528/http://blog.umd.edu/tpg/files/2012/08/Jasinski-WJC1.pdf }}</ref>{{rp|249}} The importance of critics' personal judgment {{clarify|reason=coverage of what by whom? explicit how?|text=decreased in explicit coverage|date=September 2023}} while the analytical dimension of criticism began to gain momentum. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, methodological pluralism replaced the singular neo-Aristotelian method. Methodological rhetorical criticism is typically done by deduction, in which {{Vague|reason=what's "a broad method"?|text=a broad method|date=September 2023}} is used to examine a specific case of rhetoric.<ref>{{cite book|last=Foss|first=Sonja|year=1989|title=Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice|location=Prospect Heights|publisher=Waveland Press, Inc.}}</ref> {{clarify|reason="these" isn't appropriate as this is the first mention of "types" in the section|text=These types|date=September 2023}} include:
; [[Ideological criticism]] : ''engages rhetoric as it suggests the beliefs, values, assumptions, and interpretations held by the rhetor or the larger culture''
: Ideological criticism also treats ideology as an artifact of discourse, one that is embedded in key terms (called "[[ideographs]]") as well as material resources and discursive embodiment.
; [[Cluster criticism]] : ''seeks to help the critic understand the rhetor's worldview'' (developed by [[Kenneth Burke]])
: This means identifying terms that are "clustered" around key symbols in the rhetorical artifact and the patterns in which they appear.
; [[Frame analysis]] : ''looks for how rhetors construct an interpretive lens in their discourse''
: In short, how they make certain facts more noticeable than others. It is particularly useful for analyzing products of the news media.
; [[Genre criticism]] : ''assumes certain situations call for similar needs and expectations within the audience, therefore calling for certain types of rhetoric''
: It studies rhetoric in different times and locations, looking at similarities in the rhetorical situation and the rhetoric that responds to them. Examples include eulogies, inaugural addresses, and declarations of war.
; [[Narrative criticism]] : ''narratives help organize experiences in order to endow meaning to historical events and transformations''
: Narrative criticism focuses on the story itself and how the construction of the narrative directs the interpretation of the situation.

By the mid-1980s the study of rhetorical criticism began to move away from precise methodology towards conceptual issues. Conceptually-driven criticism<ref>{{cite book|first=Stephanie Houston|last=Grey|chapter=Conceptually-Oriented Criticism|title=Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action|editor-link=Jim A. Kuypers|editor-first=Jim A.|editor-last=Kuypers|location=Lanham, Md.|publisher=[[Lexington Books]]|year=2009}}</ref> operates more through abduction, according to scholar James Jasinski, who argues that this type of criticism can be thought of as a back-and-forth between the text and the concepts{{Specify|reason=which concepts are these? those in the text or some other set?|date=September 2023}}, which are being explored at the same time. The concepts remain "works in progress", and understanding {{clarify|reason=Are "those terms" the same as "the concepts" or something different?|text=those terms|date=September 2023}} develops through the analysis of a text.{{r|Jansinski2001|page=256}}

Criticism is considered rhetorical when it focuses on the way some types of discourse react to situational exigencies—problems or demands—and constraints. Modern rhetorical criticism concerns how the rhetorical case or object persuades, defines, or constructs the audience. In modern terms, rhetoric includes, but it is not limited to, speeches, scientific discourse, pamphlets, literary work, works of art, and pictures. Contemporary rhetorical criticism has maintained aspects of early neo-Aristotelian thinking through close reading, which attempts to explore the organization and stylistic structure of a rhetorical object.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Leff |first=Michael |year=2001 |title=Lincoln at Cooper Union: Neo-Classical Criticism Revisited |journal=Western Journal of Communication |volume=65 |issue=3 |pages=232–48 |doi=10.1080/10570310109374704 |s2cid=157684635}}</ref> Using close textual analysis means rhetorical critics use the tools of classical rhetoric and literary analysis to evaluate the style and strategy used to communicate the argument.

====Purpose of criticism====
Rhetorical criticism serves several purposes. For one, it hopes to help form or improve public taste. It helps educate audiences and develops them into better judges of rhetorical situations by reinforcing ideas of value, morality, and suitability. Rhetorical criticism can thus contribute to the audience's understanding of themselves and society.

According to Jim A. Kuypers, a second purpose for performing criticism should be to enhance our appreciation and understanding. "[W]e wish to enhance both our own and others' understanding of the rhetorical act; we wish to share our insights with others, and to enhance their appreciation of the rhetorical act. These are not hollow goals, but quality of life issues. By improving understanding and appreciation, the critic can offer new and potentially exciting ways for others to see the world. Through understanding we also produce knowledge about human communication; in theory this should help us to better govern our interactions with others." Criticism is a humanizing activity in that it explores and highlights qualities that make us human.{{r|Jim A 2009|page=13}}

== Animal rhetoric ==
{{Essay-like|section|date=September 2023}}
Rhetoric is practiced by [[social]] animals in a variety of ways. For example, birds use [[Bird vocalization|song]], various animals warn members of their species of danger, [[Common chimpanzee|chimpanzees]] have the capacity to deceive through communicative keyboard systems, and deer stags compete for the attention of mates. While these might be understood as [[Animal communication|rhetorical actions]] (attempts at persuading through meaningful actions and [[utterance]]s), they can also be seen as rhetorical fundamentals shared by humans and animals.<ref>{{cite book |title=Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Cross-Cultural Introduction |last=Kennedy |first=George A. |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-19-510932-0 |location=New York |pages=11–28}}</ref> The study of animal rhetoric has been called "biorhetorics".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kull |first1=Kalevi |author-link=Kalevi Kull |year=2001 |title=A note on biorhetorics |url=https://www.academia.edu/6409666 |journal=[[Sign Systems Studies]] |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=693–704 |doi=10.12697/SSS.2001.29.2.16 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

The [[self-awareness]] required to practice rhetoric might be difficult to notice and acknowledge in some animals. However, some animals are capable of [[mirror test|acknowledging themselves in a mirror]], and therefore, they might be understood to be self-aware and therefore, argue philosophers such as Diane Davis, are able to engage with rhetoric when practicing some form of language.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Davis |first=Diane |year=2011 |title=Creaturely Rhetorics |journal=Philosophy and Rhetoric |volume=44 |issue=1 |pages=88–94 |doi=10.5325/philrhet.44.1.0088 |jstor=10.5325/philrhet.44.1.0088 |quote=[Mirror self-recognition] has long been used to test self-awareness in human children: researchers place a mark on the child’s face, and if the child spontaneously uses the mirror to touch this otherwise imperceptible mark, she is considered self-aware. But these nonhuman creatures passed the test, too—as if such scientific evidence were necessary to confirm that certain animals represent themselves to themselves and others. . . . Any creature capable of even minimal self-reference is already in language, already responding; that is to say, it is both defined by its irreducible rhetoricity and, more importantly for our purposes, already practicing rhetoric .}}</ref>

Anthropocentrism plays a significant role in human-animal relationships, reflecting and perpetuating binaries in which humans assume they are beings that have extraordinary qualities while they regard animals as beings that lack those qualities. This dualism is manifested in other forms as well, such as reason and sense, mind and body, ideal and phenomenal in which the first category of each pair ([[reason]], [[mind]], and [[Platonic ideal|ideal]]) represents and belongs to only humans. By becoming aware of and overcoming these dualistic conceptions including the one between humans and animals, humans will be able to more easily engage with and communicate with animals, with the understanding that animals are capable of reciprocating communication.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Segeerdahl|first=Pär|year=2015|title=The rhetoric and prose of the human/animal contrast|journal=Language & Communication|volume=42|pages=36–49|doi=10.1016/j.langcom.2015.03.001}}</ref> The relationship between humans and animals (as well as the rest of the natural world) is often defined by the human rhetorical act of naming and categorizing animals through [[Taxonomy (biology)|scientific]] and [[Folk taxonomy|folk]] labeling. The act of naming partially defines the rhetorical relationships between humans and animals, though both may engage in rhetoric beyond human naming and categorizing.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Melzow|first=Candice Chovanec|date=Spring 2012|title=Identification, Naming, and Rhetoric in The Sky, the Stars, the Wilderness and The Maine Woods|journal=Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment|volume=19|issue=2|pages=356–74|doi=10.1093/isle/iss084}}</ref>

Some animals have a sort of {{transliteration|grc|[[Phronesis|phrónēsis]]}} which enables them to "learn and receive instruction" with rudimentary understanding of some significant signs. Those animals practice deliberative, judicial, and [[epideictic]] rhetoric deploying {{transliteration|grc|ethos}}, {{transliteration|grc|logos}}, and {{transliteration|grc|pathos}} with gesture and preen, sing and growl.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kennedy|first=George|year=1992|title=A Hoot in the Dark The evolution of general rhetoric|jstor=40238276|journal=Philosophy & Rhetoric|volume=25|number=1|pages=1–21}}</ref> Since animals offer models of rhetorical behavior and interaction that are physical, even instinctual, but perhaps no less artful, transcending our accustomed focus on verbal language and consciousness concepts will help people interested in rhetoric and communication to promote human-animal rhetoric.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hawhee|first=D.|year=2011|title=Toward a Bestial Rhetoric|journal=Philosophy and Rhetoric|volume=44|number=1|pages=81–87|doi=10.5325/philrhet.44.1.0081|jstor=10.5325/philrhet.44.1.0081}}</ref>

== Comparative rhetoric ==
Comparative rhetoric is a practice and methodology that developed in the late twentieth century to broaden the study of rhetoric beyond the dominant rhetorical tradition that has been constructed and shaped in western Europe and the U.S.<ref name=":3">{{Citation |last=Mao |first=LuMing |chapter=Redefining Comparative Rhetoric |date=2020-06-10 |title=The Routledge Handbook of Comparative World Rhetorics |pages=15–33 |publisher=Routledge |doi=10.4324/9780367809768-3 |isbn=978-0-367-80976-8 |s2cid=225672002}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Sharma |first=Shyam |chapter=Teaching World Rhetorics |date=2020-06-10 |title=The Routledge Handbook of Comparative World Rhetorics |pages=353–362 |publisher=Routledge |doi=10.4324/9780367809768-39 |isbn=978-0-367-80976-8 |s2cid=225769076}}</ref> As a research practice, comparative rhetoric studies past and present cultures across the globe to reveal diversity in the uses of rhetoric and to uncover rhetorical perspectives, practices, and traditions that have been historically underrepresented or dismissed.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last=Mao |first=Luming |year=2015 |title=Thinking beyond Aristotle: The Turn to How in Comparative Rhetoric |journal=Publications of the Modern Language Association of America |volume=129 |issue=3 |pages=448–455 |doi=10.1632/pmla.2014.129.3.448 |s2cid=161874901 |issn=0030-8129}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last1=Mao |first1=LuMing |last2=Wang |first2=Bo |last3=Lyon |first3=Arabella |last4=Jarratt |first4=Susan C. |last5=Swearingen |first5=C. Jan |last6=Romano |first6=Susan |last7=Simonson |first7=Peter |last8=Mailloux |first8=Steven |last9=Lu |first9=Xing |date=2015-06-15 |title=Manifesting a Future for Comparative Rhetoric |journal=Rhetoric Review |volume=34 |issue=3 |pages=239–274 |doi=10.1080/07350198.2015.1040105 |s2cid=142944901 |issn=0735-0198}}</ref> As a methodology, comparative rhetoric constructs a culture's rhetorical perspectives, practices, and traditions on their own terms, in their own contexts, as opposed to using European or American theories, terminology, or framing.<ref name=":3" />

Comparative rhetoric is comparative in that it illuminates how rhetorical traditions relate to one another, while seeking to avoid binary depictions or value judgments.<ref name=":3" /> This can reveal issues of power within and between cultures as well as new or under-recognized ways of thinking, doing, and being that challenge or enrich the dominant Euro-American tradition and provide a fuller account of rhetorical studies.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mao |first=LuMing |year=2003 |title=Reflective Encounters: Illustrating Comparative Rhetoric |journal=Style |volume=37 |issue=4 |pages=401–24 |jstor=10.5325/style.37.4.401}}</ref>

[[Robert T. Oliver]] is credited as the first scholar who recognized the need to study non-Western rhetorics in his 1971 publication ''Communication and Culture in Ancient India and China''.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":5">{{cite book |last=Lloyd |first=Keith |title=The Routledge handbook of comparative world rhetorics: studies in the history, application, and teaching of rhetoric beyond traditional Greco-Roman contexts |location=New York |publisher=Routledge |year=2021 |isbn=978-1-000-06623-4 |oclc=1162596431}}</ref> [[George A. Kennedy (classicist)|George A. Kennedy]] has been credited for the first cross-cultural overview of rhetoric in his 1998 publication ''Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Cross-cultural Introduction''.<ref name=":5" /> Though Oliver's and Kennedy's works contributed to the birth of comparative rhetoric, given the newness of the field, they both used Euro-American terms and theories to interpret non-Euro-American cultures' practices.<ref name=":5" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Garrett |first1=Mary |last2=Sharon-Zisser |first2=Shirley |last3=Swearingen |first3=C. Jan |last4=Schiappa |first4=Edward |last5=Lares |first5=Jameela |last6=Skretkowicz |first6=Victor |last7=Abbott |first7=Don Paul |last8=Bator |first8=Paul |last9=Miller |first9=Thomas |title=Short Reviews |journal=Rhetorica |publisher=Project Muse |volume=16 |issue=4 |year=1998 |issn=0734-8584 |doi=10.1525/rh.1998.16.4.431 |pages=431–454}}</ref>

LuMing Mao, Xing Lu, Mary Garrett, Arabella Lyon, Bo Wang, Hui Wu, and Keith Lloyd have published extensively on comparative rhetoric, helping to shape and define the field.<ref name=":5" /> In 2013, LuMing Mao edited a special issue on comparative rhetoric in ''Rhetoric Society Quarterly'',<ref>{{cite journal|title=Beyond Bias, Binary, and Border: Mapping out the Future of Comparative Rhetoric|journal=Rhetoric Society Quarterly|volume=43|issue=3|year=2013}}</ref> focusing on comparative methodologies in the age of globalization. In 2015, LuMing Mao and Bo Wang coedited a symposium<ref name=MaoWang>{{cite journal|first1=LuMing|last1=Mao|first2=Bo|last2=Wang|journal=Rhetoric Review|title=Manifesting a Future for Comparative Rhetoric|doi=10.1080/07350198.2015.1040105|volume=34|number=3|year=2015|pages=239–274|s2cid=142944901 }}</ref> featuring position essays by a group of leading scholars in the field. In their introduction, Mao and Wang emphasize the fluid and cross-cultural nature of rhetoric, "Rhetorical knowledge, like any other knowledge, is heterogeneous, multidimentional, and always in the process of being created."{{r|MaoWang|page=241}} The symposium includes "A Manifesto: The What and How of Comparative Rhetoric", demonstrating the first collective effort to identify and articulate comparative rhetoric's definition, goals, and methodologies.<ref name=":6" /> The tenets of this manifesto are engaged within many later works that study or utilize comparative rhetoric.<ref name=":5" />

== Automatic detection of rhetorical figures ==
As [[natural language processing]] has developed, so has interest in automatically detecting [[Rhetorical device|rhetorical figures]]. The major focus has been to detect specific figures, such as [[chiasmus]], [[Anaphora (rhetoric)|epanaphora]], and [[epistrophe|epiphora]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dubremetz |first=Marie |date=May 2018 |title=Rhetorical Figure Detection: Chiasmus, Epanaphora, Epiphora |journal=[[Frontiers in Digital Humanities]] |volume=5 |article-number=10 |doi=10.3389/fdigh.2018.00010 |doi-access=free}}</ref> using [[Statistical classification|classifiers]] trained with [[labeled data]]. A major shortcoming to achieving high accuracy with these systems is the shortage of labeled data for these tasks, but with recent advances in [[language modeling]], such as [[Few-shot learning (natural language processing)|few-shot learning]], it may be possible to detect more rhetorical figures with less data.<ref>{{cite arXiv |last=Madotto |first=Marie |date=August 2020 |title=Language Models as Few-Shot Learner for Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems |class=cs.CL |eprint=2008.06239}}</ref>

== See also ==
{{Portal|Philosophy|Psychology}}
{{Div col|colwidth=15em}}
* [[Artes liberales]]
* [[Civic humanism]]
* [[Composition studies]]
* [[Conversation theory]]
* [[Demagogy]]
* [[Discourse analysis]]
* [[Glossary of rhetoric]]
* [[Grammarian (Greco-Roman world)]]
* [[Kishōtenketsu]]
* [[Language and thought]]
* [[List of political slogans]]
* [[List of speeches]]
* [[Multimodality]]
* [[New rhetoric]]
* [[Pedagogy]]
* [[Persuasion technology]]
* [[Propaganda]]
* [[Speechwriting]]
* [[Technical communication]]
{{Div col end}}

== Notes ==
{{NoteFoot}}

== References ==
=== Citations ===
{{Reflist}}

=== Sources ===
==== Primary sources ====
{{refbegin}}
The {{lang|la|locus classicus}} for Greek and Latin primary texts on rhetoric is the [[Loeb Classical Library]] of the [[Harvard University Press]], published with an English translation on the facing page.
* {{cite book|author=[[Aristotle]]|url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Aristot.+Rh.+1.1.1|title=Rhetoric|year=1926|orig-date={{circa|{{BCE|322}}}} }}
* {{cite book|author=[[Cicero]]|url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.+de+Orat.+1.1|title=De Oratore |language=la |orig-date={{BCE|55}}|year=1902}}
* {{cite book|author=[[Cicero]]|url=https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/inventione.shtml|title=De Inventione |language=la |orig-date={{BCE|84}}|year=1984}}
* {{cite book|author=[[Demosthenes]]|title=Orations|url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Dem.+21+1|year=1939|orig-date={{circa|{{BCE|322}}}} }}
* {{cite book|author-link=Rhetorica ad Herennium|author=disputed|url=http://dobc.unipv.it/scrineum/wight/herm1.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050227094426/http://dobc.unipv.it/scrineum/wight/herm1.htm|archive-date=2005-02-27|title=Rhetorica ad Herennium |language=la |year=1999|orig-date={{circa|{{BCE|86}}}} }}
* {{cite book|author=[[Isocrates]]|url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Isoc.+13+1|title=Against the Sophists|year=1980|orig-date={{circa|{{BCE|392}}}} }}
* {{cite book|author-link=Henry Peacham (born 1546)|first=Henry|last=Peacham|url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.03.0096|title=The Garden of Eloquence|year=1593}}
* {{cite book|author-link=George Puttenham|first=George|last=Puttenham|title=The Arte of English Poesie|url=https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16420|year=1589}}
* {{cite book|author=[[Quintilian]]|url=https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Quintilian/Institutio_Oratoria/home.html|title=Institutio oratoria|year=1868|orig-date={{circa|{{CE|95}}}} }}
* {{cite book|author-link=Johannes Susenbrotus|first=Johannes|last=Susenbrotus|url=http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?Destination=Gallica&O=NUMM-83897|title=Epitome troporum|year=c. 1540}}
* {{cite book|author-link=Thomas Wilson (rhetorician)|first=Thomas|last=Wilson|url=http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/arte/arte.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060830092739/http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/arte/arte.htm|archive-date=2006-08-30|title=The Arte of Rhetorique|year=1553}}
{{refend}}

==== Secondary sources ====
{{Refbegin}}
* {{cite book |last=de Rommill |first=Jacqueliney |author-link=Jacqueline de Romilly|title=The Great Sophists in Periclean Athens|orig-date=1988|year=1992|publisher=Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press}}
* {{cite book |last1=Duffy | first1=Bernard K. | last2=Jacobi | first2=Martin | title=The Politics of Rhetoric: Richard Weaver and the Conservative Tradition | publisher=[[Greenwood Press]] | location=Westport, Conn. | year=1993 | isbn=0-313-25713-2}}
* {{cite book |last=Jardine | first=Lisa |author-link=Lisa Jardine | title=Francis Bacon: Discovery and the Art of Discourse | publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] | year=1975}}
* {{cite book |last=Larson |first=Charles U. | title=Persuasion Reception and Responsibility|edition=Twelfth|publisher=Wadsworth Cengage Learning|year=2012}}
* {{cite book |last=Rorty |first=Amelie Oksenberg |year=1996 |title=Aristotle's Rhetoric |series=Philosophical Traditions 6 |location=Los Angeles |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=9780520202276 |oclc=32313023}}
* {{cite book |author-last=Ross |author-first=Jill |year=2013 |chapter=The Dazzling Sword of Language: Masculinity and Persuasion in Classical and Medieval Rhetoric |editor1-last=Ross |editor1-first=Jill |editor2-last=Conklin-Akbari |editor2-first=Suzanne |title=The Ends of the Body: Identity and Community in Medieval Culture |edition=1st |location=Toronto; Buffalo, New York; London |publisher=University of Toronto Press |pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Y3tKu7qc8NMC&pg=PA153 153]–174 |doi=10.3138/9781442661387 |isbn=978-1-4426-6138-7 |jstor=10.3138/9781442661387.11}}
* {{cite book |last=Safire |first=William |author-link=William Safire |year=2004 |title=Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History |publisher=W. W. Norton & Company |isbn=978-0-393-05931-1}}
* {{cite book |last=van Bühren |first=Ralf |author-link=Ralf van Bühren |year=1998 |title=Die Werke der Barmherzigkeit in der Kunst des 12.–18. Jahrhunderts. Zum Wandel eines Bildmotivs vor dem Hintergrund neuzeitlicher Rhetorikrezeption |series=Studien zur Kunstgeschichte |volume=115 |location=Hildesheim; Zürich; New York |publisher=Verlag Georg Olms |isbn=3-487-10319-2}}
{{Refend}}

==Further reading==
{{Library resources box |by=no |onlinebooks=yes |others=yes |about=yes |label=Rhetoric |viaf= |lccn= |lcheading= |wikititle= }}
* {{cite book | last=Andresen | first=Volker | title=Speak Well in Public: 10 Steps to Succeed | year=2010 | publisher=CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform | isbn=978-1-4563-1026-4}}
* {{cite book|editor-last1=Connors|editor-first1=Robert|editor-first2=Lisa S.|editor-last2=Ede|editor-first3=Andrea|editor-last3=Lunsford|title=Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse|series=Festschrift in Honor of Edward P. J. Corbett|location=Carbondale, Ill.|publisher=[[Southern Illinois University Press]]|year=1984}}
* {{gutenberg|no=25612|name=The Art or Crafte of Rhetoryke|author=[[Leonard Cox|Cox, Leonard]]}}.
* {{cite book | editor-last1=Duffy | editor-first1=Bernard K. | editor-last2=Leeman | editor-first2=Richard | title=American Voices: An Encyclopedia of Contemporary Orators | publisher=Greenwood | location=Westport, Conn. | year=2005 | isbn=0-313-32790-4}}
* {{cite book | last=Farnsworth | first=Ward | title=Farnsworth's Classical English Rhetoric | publisher=David R. Godine| year=2010 | isbn=978-1-56792-552-4}}
* {{cite book|last=Garver|first=Eugene|title=Aristotle's Rhetoric: On Art of Character|location=Chicago|publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]]|year=1995|isbn=978-0-226-28425-5}}
* {{cite book|last=Gunderson|first=Erik|title=The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rhetoric|location=Cambridge, U.K.|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|year=2009}}
* {{cite book|last=Howell|first=Wilbur Samuel|title=Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric|location=Princeton, N.J.|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]|year=1971}} 
* {{cite book|last=Jansinski|first=James|title=Sourcebook on Rhetoric|publisher=[[SAGE Publications]], Inc.|year=2001}}
* {{cite EB1911 |wstitle=Rhetoric |volume=22 |pages=233–237 |first=Richard Claverhouse |last=Jebb |short=1}}
* {{cite book | editor-last=Kuypers | editor-first=Jim A. | title=Purpose, Practice, and Pedagogy in Rhetorical Criticism | location=Lanham, Md.|publisher=[[Lexington Books]] | year=2014 | isbn=978-0-7391-8018-1}}
* {{cite book|editor-last=MacDonald|editor-first=Michael|title=The Oxford Handbook of Rhetorical Studies|series=Oxford Handbooks|location=New York|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|year=2017}}
* {{cite book|last=Mateus|first=Samuel|title=Introdução à Retórica no Séc. XXI|location=Covilhã|publisher=Livros Labcom|language=pt|year=2018|isbn=978-989-654-438-6}}
* {{cite web|last=Newall|first=Paul|url=http://www.galilean-library.org/int21.html|url-status=usurped|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051118202303/http://www.galilean-library.org/int21.html|archive-date=2005-11-18|title=An introduction to Rhetoric and Rhetorical Figures|website=The Galilean Library}}
* {{cite book|last=Pernot|first=Laurent|title=Rhetoric in Antiquity|location=Washington, D.C.|publisher=Catholic Univ. of America Press|year=2005}}
* {{gutenberg|no=26056|name=A booke called the Foundacion of Rhetorike|author=Rainolde (or Rainholde), Richard}}.
* {{cite book |last=Reames |first=Robin |title=The Ancient Art of Thinking For Yourself: The Power of Rhetoric in Polarized Times |year=2024 |location=New York |publisher=Basic Books |isbn=978-1-541-60397-4}}
* {{cite book | editor-last=Rorty | editor-first=Amélie Oksenberg | title=Essays on Aristotle's Rhetoric | publisher=[[University of California Press]] | location=Berkeley, Calif. | year=1996 | isbn=978-0-520-20228-3}}
* {{cite book|last=Sloane|first=Thomas O.|title=Encyclopedia of Rhetoric|location=Oxford|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2001}}
* {{cite book|last=Steel|first=Catherine|title=Roman Oratory|series=Greece & Rome New Surveys in the Classics|volume=36|location=Cambridge, U.K.|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|year=2006}}
* {{cite book|last=Vickers|first=Brian|title=In Defence of Rhetoric|location=Oxford|publisher=[[Clarendon Press]]|year=1998}}
* {{cite book|author-link=Brian Vickers (academic)|first=Brian|last=Vickers|chapter=Rhetoric|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PtE47BvHZCwC&pg=PA101|chapter-url-access=limited|title=Cambridge Companion to English Poetry|editor-first=Thomas N.|editor-last=Corns|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2003|isbn=978-0-521-42309-0 |orig-date=1997}}

=== Academic journals ===
* ''[https://www.americanforensicsassoc.org/argumentation-and-advocacy/ Argumentation and Advocacy]''
* ''[https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/ccc College Composition and Communication]''
* ''[https://ncte.org/resources/journals/college-english/ College English]''
* ''[https://enculturation.net/ Enculturation]''
* ''[https://harlotofthearts.org/ Harlot]''
* ''[https://kairos.technorhetoric.net Kairos]''
* ''[https://cfshrc.org/peitho-journal/ Peitho]''
* ''[https://www.presenttensejournal.org/ Present Tense]''
* ''[http://relevantrhetoric.com/ Relevant Rhetoric]''
* ''[https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hrhr20 Rhetoric Review]''
* ''[https://associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/pt/sp/rsq Rhetoric Society Quarterly (RSQ)]''
* ''[https://xchanges.org XChanges]''

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
{{Wiktionary|rhetoric|wordcraft}}
{{Wikibooks|Rhetoric and Composition}}
* {{Cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004y263|title=Rhetoric|website=[[In Our Time (radio series)|In Our Time]] |publisher=[[BBC Radio 4]] |year=2004}}
* {{Librivox book | title=Rhetoric}}

{{Narrative modes}}
{{Humanities}}
{{Communication studies}}
{{Philosophical logic}}
{{Philosophy of language}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Rhetoric| ]]
[[Category:Applied linguistics]]
[[Category:Communication studies]]
[[Category:Critical thinking skills]]
[[Category:History of logic]]
[[Category:Intellectual history]]
[[Category:Narratology]]
[[Category:Philosophical logic]]
[[Category:Philosophy of logic]]
[[Category:Philosophy of language]]