characterized by iiorid antithesis, expressed in short jerky
sentences. But he has no definite place in the development of
rhetoric as a system. It is doubtful whether he left a written
“ art ”; and his mode of teaching was based on learning
prepared passages by heart, -diction (Mics), not invention or
arrangement, being his great object.
The first extant Greek author who combined the theory with the practice of rhetoric is the Athenian Arkiphon (q.'v.), the first of the Attic orators, and the earliest representative Ann' at Athens of a new profession created by the new art of rhetoric-that of the)o'yo'yp&¢os, the writer of forensic speeches for other men to speak in court. His speeches show the art of rhetoric in its transition from the technical to the practical stage, from the school to the law court and the assembly. The organic lines of the rhetorical pleader's thought stand out in bold relief, and we are enabled to form a clear notion of the logographer's method. We find a striking illustration of the fact that the topic of “ probability ” is the staple of this early forensic rhetoric. Viewed generally, the works of Antiphon are of great interest for the history of Attic prose, as marking how far it had then been influenced by a theory of style. The movement of Antiphon's prose has a certain grave dignity, “impressing by its weight and grandeur, ” as a Greek critic in the Augustan age says, “not charming by its life and How.” Verbal antithesis is used, not in a diffuse or Horid way, but with a certain sledge-hammer force, as sometimes in the speeches of Thucydides. The imagery, too, though bold, is not fiorid. The structure of the periods is still crude; and the general effect of the whole, though often powerful and impressive, is somewhat rigid.
Antiphon represents what was afterwards named the “ austere ” or “rugged ” style (abofrnpd dp, uoz/ia), Lysias was the model of an artistic and versatile simplicity. But while Antiphon has a place in the history of rhetoric as an art, Lysias, with his more attractive gifts, belongs only to the history of oratory. Ancient writers quote an “ art ” of rhetoric by Isocrates, but its authenticity was questioned. It is certain, however, that Isocrates taught the art as such. He is said to have defined rhetoric “ as the science of persuasion ” (Sext. Empir. Adv. M athem.ii. § 62, p. 301 seq.). Many of his particular precepts, both on arrangement and on diction, are cited, but they do not give a complete view of his method. The ¢c)o¢1o¢ia (“ theory of culture ”) which Isocrates expounds in his discourses Against the Sophists and on the Arilidosis, was in fact rhetoric applied to politics. First came technical expositions: the pupil was introduced to all the artificial resources which prose composition employs (rds Zééas drrriaas ai; 6 }»6'yos rn/'yxcil/ei xpdgpevos, Antid. § 183). The same term (iééat) is also used by Isocrates in a narrower sense, with reference to the “ figures ” of rhetoric, properly called axhpzara. (Panath. § 2); sometimes, again, in a sense still more general, to the several branches or styles of literary composition (Arztid. § rr). When the technical elements of the subject had been learned, the pupil was required to apply abstract rules in actual composition, and his essay was revised by the master. Isocrates was unquestionably successful in forming speakers and writers. His school was famous during a period of some fifty years (390 to 340 B.C.). Among the statesmen whom it trained were Timotheus, Leodamas of Acharnae, Lycurgus and Hyperides; among the philosophers or rhetoricians were Speusippus, Plato's successor in the Academy, and Isaeus; among the historians, Ephorus and Theopompus. Cicero and through him all subsequent oratory owed much to the ample prose of the Isocratean school.
In the person of Isocrates the art of rhetoric is thus thoroughly established, not merely as a technical method, but also as a practical discipline of life. If Plato's mildly ironical reference in the Euthydemus to 'a critic “on the borderland between philosophy and statesmanship ” was meant, as is probable, for Isocrates, at least there was awide difference between the measure of acceptance accorded to the earlier Sophists, such as Protagoras, and the influence which the school of Isocrates exerted through the men whom it had trained. Rhetoric had won its place in phon
Isocrates.
education. It kept that place through varying fortunes to the fall of the Roman empire, and resumed it, for a while, at the revival of learning.
Plato in the Gorgias and the Phaedrus satirized the ordinary textbooks of rhetoric, and himself gave directions for a higher standard of work; but the detailed study of the art A, ., s begins with Aristotle. Aristotle's Rhetoric belongs to forms the generation after Isocrates, having been composed “Rhe(but see ARISTOTLE) between 330 and 322 B.c. As '°"”°" controversial allusions sometimes hint it holds Isocrates for one of the foremost exponents of the subject. From a purely literary point of view Aristotle's Rhetoric (with the partial exception of book iii.) is one of the driest works in the world. From the historical or scientific point of view it is one of the most interesting. If we would seize the true significance of the treatise it is better to compare rhetoric with grammar than with its obvious analogue, logic. A method of grammar was the conception of the Alexandrian age, which had lying before it the standard masterpieces of Greek literature, a11d deduced the “rules ” of grammar from the actual practice of the best writers. Aristotle in the latter years of the 4th century B.C. held the same position relatively to the monuments of Greek oratory which the Alexandrian methodizers of grammar held relatively to Greek literature at large. Abtmdant material lay before him, illustrating how speakers had been able to persuade the reason or to move the feelings. He therefore sought thence to deduce rules and so construct a true art. Aristotle's practical purpose was undoubtedly real. If we are to make persuasive speakers, he believed, this is the only sound way to set about it. But the enduring interest of his Rhetoric is mainly retrospective. It attracts us as a feat in analysis by an acute mind-a feat highly characteristic of that mind itself, and at the same time strikingly illustrative of the field over which the materials have been gathered.
The Rhetoric is divided into three books. It deals in great detail with the minutiae of the rhetorical craft. Book i. discusses the nature and object of rhetoric. The means of persuasion (irioffis) are classified into “ in artificial " (6.reXx/oz), i.e. the facts of the case external to the art, documents, laws, depositions, -and “artificial ” (Zv-rexvoi), the latter subdivided into logical (the popular syllogism or “enthymeme, ” the “example, " &c.), ethical, and emotional. Aristotle next deals with the “topics " (-ré-/roi), i.e. the commonplaces of rhetoric, general or particular arguments which the rhetorician must have ready for immediate use. Rhetoric is then broadly divided into:-(1) deliberative <UUHBOU}EUTLK'f]), concerned with exhortation or dissuasion, and with future time, its end (réhas) being the advantage or detriment of the persons addressed; (2) forensic (5u<avu<r;), concerned with accusation and defence, and with time past, its standard being justice; (3) epideictic, the ornamental rhetoric of display, concerned with praise and blame, usually with the present time, its standard being honour and shame. Each of these kinds is discussed, and the book ends with a brief analysis of the “in artificial proofs." In book ii. Aristotle returns to the “ artificial ” proofs-those which rhetoric itself provides. The “logical” proof having been discussed in book i., he turns to the “ ethical.” He shows how the speaker may so indicate his own character and the goodness of his motive as to prepossess the audience in his favour, and proceeds to furnish materials to this end. The “emotional ” proof is then discussed, and an analysis is given of the emotions on which the speaker may play. A consideration follows of the “ universal commonplaces " (Kon/at T6-frm) which are suitable to all subjects. The book ends with an appendix dealing with the “example” (irapdéevypa), the general moral sentiments (vvéaai) and the enthymeme. In book iii. Aristotle considers expression (Min), including the art of delivery (1511-6/<pim.s), and arrangement (-rdgis). Composition, the use of prose rhythm, the periodic style (the “ periodic" style, Karearpa/mévq, being contrasted with the “ running ' (6l:P0[.béV'l])) are all anal sed, and the types of style literary ('ypa/d>u<'l7) and oral (&'ywvw1'1.xi;)]are differentiated. Under “arrangement ” he concludes with the parts of a speech, proem, narrative, proofs and epilogue. It is necessary briefiy to consider Aristotles general view of rhetoric as set forth in book i. Rhetoric is properly an art. This is the proposition from which Aristotle sets out. It is so because when a speaker persuades, it is ossible to find out why he succeeds in doing so. Rhetoric is, in Fact, the popular branch of logic. Hitherto, Aristotle says, the essence of rhetoric has been neglected for the accidents. Writers on rhetoric have hitherto concerned themselves mainly with “the exciting of prejudice, of pity, of anger, and such-like emotions of the soul." All this is very well, but “ it has nothing to do with the matter in hand; it has regard
