Opción, Año 33, No. 85 (2018): 374-393
ISSN 1012-1587 / ISSNe: 2477-9385
Rhetoric as art of eloquence in
the ancient greek culture
Saken Seiilbek
Kazakh State Women's Teacher Training University,
Almaty, Kazakhstan seilbeksaken2207@mail.ru Maira Zhunissova
AbayKazakh National Pedagogical University,
Almaty, Kazakhstan
zhmaira_71@mail.ru
Ainur Koshekova
Kazakh State Women's Teacher Training University,
Almaty, Kazakhstan koshekova71@mail.ru Zhanbai Kadyrov
North Kazakhstan State University named after
ManashKozybayev, Petropavlovsk, Kazakhstan zhkadyrov_777@mail.ru
Zhainagul Duisebekova SuleymanDemirel University, Almaty, Kazakhstan zhainagul.duisebekova@sdu.edu.kz
Abstract
Throughout the period
of the ancient culture,
rhetoric predetermined not only the style of speech, but also substantially views
and
behavior as life philosophy. Works of ancient speakers on rhetoric
exerted huge impact on all further development of the theory of oratory; they made a significant contribution
on development of practical
eloquence. Speakers in the works open the problems relevant today. They were interested in a question: what is necessary for the good speaker, and drawn a conclusion that the perfect speaker must have natural talent, memory, to have skill and knowledge, to be an educated person and actor.
Keywords: rhetoric, oratory, art of eloquence, the sophistical
rhetoric, the syllogistic conclusions, polemics, episteme,
enthymemes.
Recibido: 10-01-2018 Aceptado: 09-03-2018
La retórica
como arte de la
elocuencia en la
antigua cultura griega
Resumen
A lo largo del período
de la
cultura antigua, la retórica
predeterminó
no solo el estilo del habla, sino también sustancialmente las visiones y el comportamiento, como filosofía de vida. Los trabajos de los
oradores antiguos sobre la retórica ejercieron
un
gran impacto en todo desarrollo adicional de la teoría de la oratoria; hicieron una contribución significativa en el desarrollo de la elocuencia práctica. Los oradores en las
obras abren hoy los problemas relevantes. Estaban interesados en una
pregunta: qué es necesario para el buen orador, y llegaron a la conclusión de que el orador perfecto debe tener talento natural, memoria, habilidad y
conocimiento, ser una persona educada y actor.
Palabras clave: retórica, oratoria, arte de la elocuencia, la retórica
sofística, las conclusiones silogísticas,
polémicas, episteme, entimemas.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Rhetoric is the art of persuasion and is based on the systematic
analysis of natural or non-artistic eloquence. Eighteenth-century rhetoric is characterized above all by its urge to observe the natural sources of eloquence, to describe
the
phenomenon of untaught excellence in
speaking and writing. A philosophical rhetoric is one that identifies the
general causes of eloquence (SHINER, 2001).
The doctrine of eloquence was arisen from generalization and systematization
of those methods of
conducting polemics, disputes and debates which were widely adopted in
antique Greece with its
developed political life and fight of different
parties for influence on masses. In these conditions the ability to convince people, to adduce convincing arguments against the opponents, to
substantiate them with evidence, to affect not only the mind, but also feelings and emotions of the listeners, is
gained extremely important value. That is why in antique Greece elaboration
of rhetoric problems began long before when
there were created the reliable logical-
methodological, psychological and moral bases and principles on which
the
convincing dispute, dialogue, a debate or polemics should be based. More precisely, these principles and methods were formed gradually in the course of generalization and systematization of those methods,
arguments and ways
of
conducting polemic or a debate which practiced in the public speech.
Analyzing these speeches, ancient Greeks aimed to explain among
the
first what is the convincing power of speech: why do we agree with one speech, and with another — we do not do it, why
does one of them convince us and force to recognize arguments
of the speaker, and in
another we find shortcomings both in arguments, and in the creation of the
speech? Sophists began to investigate these problems the first, many of
them were also
teachers of rhetoric as special art
of
eloquence, though this
art
arose long before appearance
of
the sophists. Attractive features of
sophistic rhetoric were the democratic spirit, aspiration to help anyone who wants to learn the art of eloquence, ability to argue convincingly and
reasonably with their opponents. Sophists also paid attention to the
upbringing of their students, the desire for freedom
of expression of their opinions and the ability to protect them, regardless of any authority. They
dealt with special questions of utterance and speech construction as well
(WINTERER, 2004). The sophistic rhetoric, especially in
days of its decline, was not guided entirely by search of the truth and knowledge (―episteme‖), but it was aimed on the protection of opinions (―Doksa‖), claiming that such opinions constantly change at the same person over
time and furthermore they are various at different
people. This orientation was based on the principles of philosophical
relativism, which was put forward by such prominent sophists as Kratil, Gorgas, and Protagoras. Relativists consider that as our knowledge is constantly changed, then they have nothing authentic and absolute. They
try
to justify such conclusion with references to
dialectics. So, for example, one of
the founders of sophistical rhetoric - Protagoras, incorrectly
interpreting
Heraclitus’s dialectics, so exaggerates the moment relative and transient in
human knowledge that the last absolutely loses objective contents and
turns
into subjective representation of the
human. ―The person
is
a
measure of all things existing that they exist, nonexistent
that they do not
exist‖ (REINCHENBACH, 1978). In the history of rhetoric Protagoras
was remembered
as the resourceful sophist, capable ―to do the weaker
argument into stronger‖.
2. DISCUSSION
Socrates was one of the first Greek philosophers
who opposed sophistry and the rhetoric based on it, we can judge his
views on dialogues of his student - Plato as he preferred
to state the doctrine in oral conversations and did not leave any written compositions. As for Plato,
his
relation to sophistry
and
even to former rhetoric was very negative.
Therefore it is necessary to be limited only to achievement of the practical
purposes and first of all to try to obtain a victory over the opponent by means of the dexterous and estimated on outer effect persuasion techniques. According to Plato, ―art of convincing
people is much higher than all arts as it makes everyone to be the slaves voluntarily,
but not on coercion‖ (MURPHY,
1981). Plato in the first part of dialogue ―gorgy‖ convincingly shows that such claims of sophistical rhetoric are not based
on anything and those definitions of rhetoric, which are given by sophists,
do not endure criticism. First, the rhetoric, or art of eloquence,
does
not come down to creation
of
the speeches which power is found in a word. Socrates’s
lips
Plato says that there are other art forms or activity in
general which use a word as well. It is impossible to call, for example, by eloquence the account art and furthermore
doctoring or gymnastics
(KENNEDY, 1998). Secondly, it is impossible to consider eloquence as
―ability to convince a word and judges in the court and councilors in the council,
and the people in people’s assembly
and at meeting – citizens‖.
According to gorgy, owning such power, you will keep the doctor in
slavery, and teachers of gymnastics and concerning to our operator, it will
turn out that
he
does not acquire money for himself, and for another — for
you, possessing a word and ability to convince crowd‖ (Ruzavin g.i.,1985,
452). Difference between belief and knowledge, plausibility and
knowledge plays an essential role in the doctrine of Plato where only the
truth (―episteme‖), but not opinion
(―Doksa‖) gives original persuasion. Plato considers sophistical rhetoric not as art and as ―skill and knack‖
which is according to the destination similar to cooking. All skills of this
sort, though give pleasure, but represent kinds of servility and serve not fine, but low passions. Therefore he characterizes sophistical eloquence as
―cooking for soul‖ (CHANKONG and HAIMES, 2008).
After reading of this dialogue, there can be made an impression
that plato transfers the negative attitude to all rhetoric existing before and does not notice that positive
actual material which was saved up in development of oratory. But from the dialogue text it is impossible to receive the clear answer to this question. Apparently, plato’s position in
relation to the previous rhetoric was not entirely negative, but he considered its theoretical bases quite unsteady and sophistical approach – unacceptable. Plato expressed the constructive position about the plan of creation and substantiation of new rhetoric in dialogue ―Fedr‖. According
to Isocrates, the rhetoric was only practical art which has to rely on
opinion, advantage and expediency but not so much on knowledge and the truth. It is no accident, therefore, speakers at his school were taught not to pursue some unattainable truth and justice, but to try to obtain benefit and to please listeners. Such
approach in principle was unacceptable for Plato. Moreover, he does not allow in rhetoric of probable arguments and blames
gorgy
and
Tisiy, ―who saw that probable has to prefer true and which,
thanks to word power, force to seem small - great, great
- small, new - old,
old
– new‖ (RIEKE and SILLARS, 1984). As for logical means and the
rhetorical technique, it is possible to find in Plato’s compositions only
the
recommendations of general character. So, in ―Fedr‖ he lists the main parts of the speaker speech, namely the introduction, statement, where the assumptions
have to be provided, and they are supported with the
corresponding evidence, the
facts and other types of confirmation. In addition, in the accusatory and defensive speech it is necessary to give
detailed denials and also collateral explanations. First of all, Plato tried to make a firm foundation for a new rhetoric by means of such philosophy in which instead of opinions and the probable assumptions the truth and reliability entirely would dominate. Though from the modern point of
view, it seems absolutely unrealistic not to consider roles of the
assumptions, plausible or probabilistic judgments in the course of
persuasion and comprehension
of
the truth in general, nevertheless, it is
worth to remember that such approach to Plato’s rhetoric was dictated by
criticism of relativistic philosophy of sophists, absolutized
the meaning of
opinion,
relative and subjective nature of knowledge. Thanks to the criticism of sophistical rhetoric, Plato promoted to raising of level of oratorical skill, appearance of the brilliant group of outstanding
speakers
among whom there was the greatest speaker of antiquity - Demosthenes
who was a diligent
listener of Plato. However the main merit of Plato
consists in development and improvement of that method of conversation, polemic and a debate which was widely practiced by his teacher Socrates. On
this basis this method is often called Socratic, or dialogical. Many
believe that the dialectics originates exactly from there, if to be guided by etymological origin of the ancient Greek word ―Dialego‖ meaning - to dialog, polemic, and a dispute. But Plato uses this term in ―Fedr‖ in other sense, and Aristotle means the theory of the non-syllogistic conclusions.
Socrates,
as it is
possible
to
judge
by
Plato’s
illustration, considered dialogue as a question-answer method of search of the truth in
which, at least, two people participate, one of whom asks questions, as a
matter of fact, directs
dialogue, and another answers on them.
It is
possible by systematic statement of questions to come finally
or to the
decision of a question
or
as much as possible to pull together positions of
participants
of
dialogue. That is why art of purposeful statement of
questions to lead the interlocutor to a contradiction with
earlier suggested, Socrates calls Mayevtikaor art of the midwife, as the Mayevtika helps the
truth birth. In this case, we are not talking about how to expose the
opponent disparagingly
and to win in a dispute, but aspiration to find the truth by joint efforts. Such method of search of the truth made the
stimulating impact not only on traditional rhetoric but on development
of the
corresponding style for argument which we
are met
today, for example, in judicial dialogues of the accuser and lawyer, at activization of
training at school when pupils not just passively
perceive knowledge, but they enter live dialogue with the teacher. Fruitful dialogue
appears also at
holding various discussions and debates. Here it was important
to pay attention to dialogue as a specific form
of the argument, the most approximate to real practice
of communication, polemic, a dispute between people (RIEKE and SILLARS, 1984).
Plato, being Socrates’s student, contributed in the most cases the
development and promotion
of
dialogue as new method of the argument,
which to a great extent corresponded to the searching, creative spirit of an antique thought. As
a matter
of fact, we are also obliged to him by
acquaintance to this method of the argument which Socrates widely used.
All
works of Plato, except for ―the apology of Socrates‖, are written in the
form of dialogues where the position of the author is expressed by Socrates. Live exchange of opinions on controversial
issues, the careful analysis of pros and cons, identification of contradictions and refusal of the former assumptions and generalizations, the detailed
analysis of the facts and continuous search of the truth – exactly it wins the experienced
modern reader in skillfully written Plato’s dialogues which throughout nearly
two and a half millennia are considered as brilliant samples of intellectual
art
prose. The relation to rhetoric did not remain at Plato invariable.
If
in ―gorgy‖ he identifies
it with skill and knack like cooking then in ―Fedr‖ it has already been considered as the certain art, needing
however in reforming on the basis of the philosophical and psychological principles. It is necessary to pay attention that Plato considers acceptable in rhetoric only true arguments
though it is possible in dialogues to meet
both
analogies and plausible generalizations. He almost does not concern
the
logical party of the argument in the compositions. Rhetoric problems
from the logical point of view were especially carefully investigated by
Plato’s student Aristotle who devoted a number of compositions from them it is necessary to mark out his well-known ―rhetoric‖. In this one the rhetoric is defined as the doctrine promoting ―to find possible ways of
persuasion
concerning each given subject‖. According to Aristotle, ―it doesn’t make a task of any other art because each other science
can
teach and convince only concerning that it belongs of its area‖ (ANDERSON,
1987). The general character of rhetoric as
persuasion arts, by the nature is similar to dialectics which, according
to Stagirite, also ―deals with all sciences, but not with any
one
certain sort‖.
Both in rhetoric,
and dialectics it is necessary
to convince people both to understand and to
support some opinion, both to justify, and to accuse (ANDERSON, 1987).
For the
correct
understanding of
Aristotle’s views
it
is
necessary to consider that distinction which he carries out between analytics and
dialectics. The analytics is
identical
to
formal
logic
for
him, more precisely, than the theory the syllogistic conclusions.
It
is analyzed the creation ways of the correct syllogisms and mistakes which meet in such conclusions. The dialectics is considered the general questions connected
with use the non- syllogistic conclusions, namely reasoning’s on analogies
and inductive generalizations. As the
conclusions of such reasoning’s have only probabilistic or plausible character, they represent opinions, but
not proofs. The rhetoric is differed from analytics and dialectics first of all in the
applied character
as
it
is
intended
to
convince people during
polemic, of the public speech
or
lawsuit.
But as the proof has the best power of persuasion which is studied in analytics, Aristotle considers
the last theoretical fundamentals
of
rhetoric. However, it was difficult to use the developed syllogisms
in oral speech therefore instead of them there is addressed to the reduced syllogisms or enthymemes. The
dialectics acts as
theoretical fundamentals of rhetoric and there are studied such non- syllogistic forms of reasoning’s as induction and analogy. Speakers most
often use the examples for brevity speeches instead of full transfer of cases on which inductive generalization is based. Thus, enthymemes and examples
are
the main ways on which the speaker forms the logic of persuasion.
As for
the process
of persuasion,
the
author of
―rhetoric‖
distinguishes, on the one hand, ways or methods of persuasions which
―are invented not by us‖ and calls them ―nontechnical‖, and with another
– ―technical‖ methods which ―can be created by us by means of a method and our own means‖. The various facts, data, evidences,
etc.
Premises on
which are based in evidential and plausible reasoning’s belong to the first
type. Aristotle ranks to them eyewitness
account, written contracts, oaths
and
even evidences given under torture. In modern logic they most often are called premises, the proof bases, and often as arguments. In order to
avoid misunderstanding we will notice what further we will understand as the argument not only the analysis
of
arguments,
but all process of persuasion
including also discussion of the conclusion ways of the
conclusions from these arguments.
Aristotle carries to technical means of persuasion just these ways of a conclusion by means of which arguments, i.e. Nontechnical
ways of persuasion on his terminology,
which are
contacted with conclusions
made from them. The most common forms of a logical conclusion
are deductive conclusions
in which the conclusion with logical need follows
from premises
as arguments. Aristotle investigated most often the found syllogistic conclusions
or if to
be shorter, syllogisms. They are
investigated in detail in ―analysts‖. But except them he addresses also
to plausible or probabilistic reasoning’s which he calls dialectic, and opposes them evidential. ―proof, –
we read in ―Topeka‖, –
is available when conclusion is based of true and the first (provisions), i.e. From such
where knowledge
of which originates from these or those first and true
(provisions).
Dialectic conclusion is that, which is created from plausible (provisions)‖. It is interesting
to note that he defines probable
as ―what happens mostly, and not just what happens, as define some, but what can be happened and differently‖. In this definition
we can notice similarity to modern frequency interpretation of probability. Thus, the persuasiveness
of
any speech, a position in a dispute, a public statement is based, according to Aristotle, first, on the validity or at least plausibility
of
the adduced arguments,
premises which he calls nontechnical, not created by us
the means of persuasion. Secondly, it depends also on those methods or
logical rules by means of which of the available arguments are removed or, more precisely, the decisions are received. There can be spoken about
a conclusion only in deductive, evidential conclusions. In not deductive
reasoning’s, in particular inductive, it is necessary to be limited to the
term
―targeting‖.
As,
however, the obvious and developed use of deductive and
inductive conclusions extremely would complicate the speech, in rhetoric
Aristotle recommends to use more flexible and weakened their variants,
namely instead of syllogisms – enthymemes, and induction — examples.
As it was
already noted
above,
an
enthymeme
means
the reduced syllogism in
which this or that premise is passed, though it easily is
meant,
and
in case of need it is easy to restore
it. In a real reasoning, people do it practically constantly and for this reason Aristotle
recommends
to approach to rhetoric as well. It is enough to refer to a typical example which can guide at inductive generalization
in the same way in the usual speech. Therefore induction
is called targeting. Accurate
difference between the basic concepts and methods of logic and dialectics, on the one hand, and rhetoricians, with another, Aristotle carries out it in the main work
on rhetoric. ―as for ways to prove
in valid or seeming way,
– he
writes, – then as
in dialectics is targeting, a syllogism and
the seeming
syllogism,
in the same way is here, because the example is no
other than targeting, an enthymeme – is a syllogism, the seeming enthymeme – is the seeming syllogism. I call enthymeme – a rhetorical
syllogism, and an example – rhetorical targeting: because all speakers state the arguments, or giving examples, or created enthymemes, and in
addition they do not use any ways of the proof‖ (ANDERSON,
1987). Enthymeme, according to stag rite, has to play a crucial
role
in rhetoric as they convince stronger,
than examples. ―examples, – he writes, – it is
necessary to use in that case when you have no evidence, so in order to
convince, it is required proof (some); when enthymemes are, examples
should use as evidences, placing them after enthymemes in the form of the epilog. If to put them at the beginning, then they resemble targeting, and
targeting
is not peculiar to rhetorical
speeches,
except for the few cases;
when they are
placed
at
the
end,
they resemble
as evidences, and
evidences always excite trust. The
author of ―rhetoric‖ pays special
attention to difference between enthymeme of two types: dialectic and
rhetorical in which premises have the general, universal character, on the
one hand, and with another, enthymeme of private character. For the characteristic
of
the first Aristotle uses a concept of ―top‖, or a commonplace (PRIGOGINE and STENGERS, 2018). ―In them we speak
commonplaces – tops‖.
In the
enthymemes
of private
character as premises serve the judgments relating to separate types of the phenomena and concrete events. Though knowledge
of
the last promotes the best understanding concrete,
special sciences, nevertheless
knowledge of
―tops‖ and the syllogisms
based on them allows to reveal, first, relation between the general and private, secondly, was able to use them as the conventional means of persuasion.
Such is Aristotle’s
concept of rhetoric
in general, which is based, as we saw, it is rather on logic, than on philosophy and a dialectic method in Socratic-platonic
understanding
of this term. Unlike Plato for Aristotle the dialectics means the analysis of all
the
non-syllogistic forms of reasoning,
in particular
analogy and induction. His merit consists that he has considerably expanded those
ways and methods
of the argument which are based on plausible
conclusions and which were widely used in public
speeches, disputes over
judicial and other questions though earlier they were often ignored by philosophers as simple opinions.
In spite of the fact that Aristotle remained the highest authority on the field of rhetoric for antique Rome, nevertheless
romans gave much valuable and deserving attention in this science and especially practice of
oratory. First of all their merit consists in development of methods of
drawing up speeches, the analysis of those arguments which satirize called
nontechnical, and improvement of style and beauty of the speech. Here the
roman speakers followed that tradition which was arisen in works of Aristotle’s student - Theophrastus than him. They considered what his
―rhetoric‖, despite indisputable advantages,
is suitable for the analysis of ready speeches than for their drawing up. Therefore for the roman
rhetoricians and speakers the much bigger value had the manual ―about a syllable‖,
written by Theophrastus – and not evaluable to us now, in which he, based on the principles of the teacher, generalized the enormous
experience accumulated by the predecessors in the
field of
style and
pronouncing the speech. The roman judicial speakers were attracted by the
scheme of the data of all diverse cases and motives to the uniform system
of
difficult and branched types and versions
– the so-called statuses. Bases of such system
were developed in the middle of the ii century be by Herm agoras who is considered as transitional
figure from
the
Hellenistic rhetoric to the roman. The roman speakers
refused also from Aristotelian
division
of
premises
on the general and private. Instead they began to characterize them as categories of a certain type, such as cause and effect, valid
and
possible, etc. Thanks to it they managed to carry out more subtle difference between premises rather on their quality, than quantity
or volume (the general and private judgments). Under the influence of Herm
agoras
the roman judicial
speakers began to use in
the
speeches in advance prepared forms, or structures,
arguments which could be used in
future speeches. However subsequently
Cicero and quintillions opposed
such dogmatic schemes, fairly emphasizing that the creation and finding
of suitable
arguments and schemes of
reasoning represents creative process and demands
broad and free education.
Efforts of ancient roman
speakers were concentrated mainly around problems of political struggle
in the senate, at national forums and also judicial proceedings of civil and criminal cases. Therefore they were not thought
about
theoretical questions
of the argument and rhetoric in general.
Perhaps, the
outstanding speaker of antique Rome mark Julius Cicero was the only
exception from them who was permanently
emphasizing in the compositions about need
of
a combination of eloquence to persuasiveness, rhetoric with philosophy.
Cicero regards pithiness and persuasiveness
of
the speech as of paramount importance, but not its external form and beauty. ―Really,
what can be as ridiculous
as an empty ring of phrases though the most perfect
and
magnificent,
but behind which there is neither knowledge, nor own
thoughts‖. An ideal of the speaker for him was not the handicraftsman who is well-spoken, and the wise man knowing science about beauty of
expression. Therefore training and education of the speaker has to be
based so that to develop his natural qualities because without natural talent, quick-wittedness and feeling it is impossible to influence listeners,
to convince them of something. ―Therefore, it is necessary to remember,
first, that the purpose of the speaker
is convincing to speak; secondly, that for any speech as a subject serves either the question uncertain
… or a case‖. The speaker has to concentrate the proofs and denials on such
questions. Controversial points can be very various and therefore they
demand special ways of the proof in each case. Characterizing structure of
the
public speech, cicero pays attention that ―all
forces and abilities of the
speaker serve performance of the following five tasks:
first, he has to seek
contents
for the speech; secondly, to arrange found one after another,
having weighed and having estimated each argument; thirdly, to invest and decorate all this with words; fourthly,
to strengthen the speech in
memory;
fifthly, to deliver it with dignity and pleasantness‖. But before starting to do it, Cicero warns, it is necessary
to win listeners favor at the beginning of the speech, then to establish a subject of a dispute and only
after it to begin to prove
what
the speaker insists
on and
what
he
disproves. At the end of the speech it is necessary to sum up the results of
talking, namely ―to develop and glorify what speaks for us and to shake
and
deprive of value what speaks for opponents.
More detailed
discussion of the listed five tasks is given in the
treatise ―speaker‖ where he pays the main attention to what to tell, where
to tell and how to tell. In this triad the main role is played, according to his
opinion,
a process
of finding of what needs to be told and with what arguments to confirm told. ―Really, it is a great cause to find and choose what to tell: it is like a soul in a body‖. As in the judicial and political
speech it was necessary
to concentrate efforts first of all on a dispute
subject so far as were subjected to examination, ―first, whether the act
took
place, secondly, how it determines and, thirdly, how it estimates‖. The solution of the first question is reached by means of the proof. As
premises
of
such proofs Cicero considers not only the facts, but also
judgments
of the general character which Aristotle calls ―tops‖. On their
basis ―it is possible to develop the speech and pros and cons‖, but they should be used not thoughtlessly, but it is necessary to weigh everything
and
make a choice before applying to a particular case. Determination and
assessment of an act is carried out by correlation to the corresponding type
on the
basis
of concepts and definitions.
At permission of the
third
question there are used concepts of correctness and a wrongfulness, justice
and
injustice. It is remarkable that in the treatise ―speaker‖, Cicero for the
first time clearly
points to relation of the main ideas with the logical principles of Aristotle rhetoric. Really, when he speaks about proofs in the
judicial speech, then he pays attention to value of commonplaces, or
―tops‖, and at the same time specifies
as premises
of a reasoning - what large role is played the private judgments which act as evidences, the
facts, contracts, legal norms, etc. Nontechnical means of persuasion.
Moreover, such concrete arguments convince also judges
at meetings, and
listeners of people’s
assembly, and legislators in the senate more, than the
abstract principles and the general reasoning’s. But it does not mean that Cicero did
not
recognize
a role
of logic and
philosophy in
rhetoric. However, he
was
skeptical, for example, to the
logic
of the
stoic
chrysippus as too artificial and therefore as little use in oratory art, where,
according to him,
it
is
necessary
to
rely
on Aristotelian logic
and
dialectics. Though Cicero was busier with applied rhetoric, with success
making public speeches
at first in people’s
assembly,
and then in the
senate, but in the written works he steadily
adhered to high models of the theoretical
analysis
of the
great predecessors Plato
and
Aristotle. Therefore his treatises about oratory
are
written not in the form of traditional handicraft manuals and directions, which were widespread at rhetorical
schools of that time, but in the form of free dialogue in which
thoughts of the author are expressed by the best-known speakers
in the
past. Some western researchers consider an
original contribution of Cicero to rhetoric, first, development of a concept about a duty of the speaker, secondly, underlining of a role of style and execution of the speech.
However, it is easy to show that tasks which are set for the speaker by cicero were clearly
and are accurately formulated still by Aristotle, and
partially and Plato. Really, the requirement to prove the discussed case
was developed
in detail and found out by Aristotle not only in ―rhetoric‖,
but also in ―analytics‖ and ―Topeka‖. It is slightly more difficultly the
situation with a duty
of the speaker to achieve consent with audience and
also to put some idea to listeners
about action and to induce them to such
action. There is Cicero, relying on the experience and practice of that
time, stated a
number of the
original ideas which at Aristotle act
as
appeals to morality and to emotions.
As for the roman rhetoric after Cicero, the need
for public speeches was considerably
fallen after falling of the republic and emergence of monarchy, except for
judicial oratorical skill. But
even the
nature of
judicial eloquence was considerably changed. The official style began to
prevail in it and instead of verbose and long reasoning’s there is began to be used the short, precise formulates which are better approached to the nature of judicial proceedings. Short rise of oratory
and
rhetoric after
Cicero was connected with a name of mark fabiusquintilian who was considered as the best-known speaker in the last quarter
of
the century ad. Though Quintilian was also a great admirer of Cicero, but he was guided in the rhetoric not so much for the people and general democratic
public, but the
coterie
of connoisseurs of style and beauty of
the speech. Therefore he wanted to see in the speaker not so much the thinker, then the stylist. It is characteristic that he defines also rhetoric as art to speak
well.
3.
CONCLUSION
Concluding
the
brief review of Aristotle’s views on rhetoric, it should be noted that all
major principles on which the substantiality, emotional and psychological and stylistic adequacy of the public speech is based have found reflection in his compositions. It is possible to tell with
full confidence that
Aristotle’s ―rhetoric‖ the most in-depth and systematic
study of the major problems of oratory, in particular represents those
which are connected with
the
argument. On this basis
in the ancient world
the
Aristotle tradition was created which, unlike Plato’s, transfers the
center of gravity from dialogue to the public speech, whether it was a speech
at forum, or at people’s assembly,
in court session, etc. In this
regard there were considerably extended and were enriched the methods
and
ways of an argumentation, and together with
them and possibilities of the rhetoric. Therefore,
it is possible to tell that Aristotle laid the foundation
for rhetorical system which was received the name ―classical‖
and which throughout over two and a half millennia was accepted as a model for training in art of the public speech. Moreover, Aristotle’s
ideas
formed a basis for emergence of one of the modern directions in the theory of the argumentation, and ancestor
–Belgian philosopher kHz.
Perelman called it
―new rhetoric‖.
It demonstrates that the Aristotle’s rhetoric was guided first of all by the logical principles of persuasion
that
gave
to
it
the strong,
reliable bases and
provided symmetry and the
sequence in the course of the argumentation.
Withdrawal from antique tradition
in rhetoric, though was designated
in the latest roman rhetoric, nevertheless was not expressed in obvious and moreover in a sharp form. Therefore this
stage
of rhetoric development can be
characterized as transitional from antiquity to the Middle Ages when belief was come to the place of persuasion, which, according
to fathers of the church, had to
replace also all earlier created means of persuasion. The rhetorical culture of antiquity is the cornerstone of Europe humanitarian education since the renaissance up to the xviii century. It is not a coincidence that today the remained texts of speeches of antique speakers have historical interest,
and
moreover they exert powerful impact on the present events, keep huge
cultural value, being the role models of convincing logic, inspired feeling
and
truly creative style.
REFERENCES
Anderson, James Arthur, 1987. Communication
research: Issues and
methods, McGraw-Hill College,
Chankong, Vira and Haimes, Yacov Y, 2008. Multiobjective
decision making: theory and methodology, Courier Dover Publications,
Kennedy, George Alexander, 1998. Comparative rhetoric: An historical
and
cross-cultural introduction, Oxford University Press, USA,
Murphy, James Jerome, 1981. Rhetoric in
the Middle Ages: a history of rhetorical theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance, Univ of
California Press,
Prigogine, Ilya and Stengers, Isabelle, 2018. Order out of Chaos, Verso
Books,
Reinchenbach,
Hans, 1978. The present state of the discussion on relativity, Springer,
Rieke, Richard D and Sillars, Malcolm Osgood, 1984. Argumentation
and
the decision making process, Addison-Wesley Longman,
Shiner, Larry, 2001. The invention of art: A cultural history, University of Chicago Press,
Winterer, Caroline, 2004. The culture of classicism: Ancient Greece
and Rome in American intellectual life, 1780-1910, JHU Press,