Aristotle's Poetics (Greek: , c.

335 BCE (BC)[1]) is the earliest

surviving work of dramatic theory and the first extant philosophical treatise to focus
on literary theory.[2] In it, Aristotle offers an account of what he calls "poetry" (a
term which in Greek literally means "making" and in this context includes drama
comedy, tragedy, and the satyr playas well as lyric poetry, epic poetry, and the
dithyramb-A song sung to praise Dionysus, the God of wine and fertility). They are
similar in the fact that they are all imitations but different in the three ways that
Aristotle describes. 1. They differ in the music rhythm, harmony, meter and melody.
2. The difference of goodness in the characters. 3. They way the characters are
presented in which they stay in the role that they are describing as a narrative or
acting as if they are doing the things that the characters are doing.
He examines its "first principles" Aristotle says there are two causes for the origin of
poetry. 1. Is imitation because we learn imitation and helps with learning. 2. To have
an easier time of seeing truths. and identifies its genres and basic elements. His
analysis of tragedy constitutes the core of the discussion.[3] Although Aristotle's
Poetics is universally acknowledged in the Western critical tradition, Marvin Carlson
explains, "almost every detail about his seminal work has aroused divergent
opinions."[4]
The work was lost to the Western world and often misrepresented for a long time. It
was available through the Middle Ages and early Renaissance only through a Latin
translation of an Arabic version written by Averroes.[5]
Aristotle's work on aesthetics consists of the Poetics and Rhetoric. The Poetics is
specifically concerned with drama. At some point, Aristotle's original work was
divided in two, each "book" written on a separate roll of papyrus.[6] Only the first
partthat which focuses on tragedysurvives. The lost second part addressed
comedy.[6] Scholars speculate that the Tractatus coislinianus summarises the
contents of the lost second book.[7]

Form[edit]

The table of contents page of the Poetics found in Modern Library's Basic Works of
Aristotle (2001) identifies five basic parts within it.[8]
A. Preliminary discourse on tragedy, epic poetry, and comedy, as the chief forms of
imitative poetry.
B. Definition of a tragedy, and the rules for its construction. Definition and analysis
into qualitative parts.
C. Rules for the construction of an epic: Tragic pleasure, or catharsis experienced by
fear and pity should be produced in the spectator. The characters must be four
things: good, appropriate, realistic, and consistent. Discovery must occur within the
plot. It is important for the poet to visualize all of the scenes when creating the plot.
The poet should incorporate Complication and Denouement within the story, as well
as combine all of the elements of Tragedy. The poet must express Thought through
the characters' words and actions, while paying close attention to Diction and how a
 character's spoken words express a specific idea. Aristotle believed that all of these
different elements had to be present in order for the poetry to be well-done.
D. Possible criticisms of an epic or tragedy, and the answers to them.
E. Tragedy as artistically superior to epic poetry: Tragedy has everything that the
Epic has even the epic meter being admissible. The reality of presentation is felt in
the play as read, as well as in the play as acted. The tragic imitation requires less
space for the attainment of it's end. If it has more concentrated effect, it is more
pleasurable than one with a large admixture of time to dilute it. There is less unity
in the imitation of the epic poets (plurality of actions) and this is proved by any work
of their supplies matter for several tragedies. Considers tragedy a higher form of
art.

Content[edit]

Aristotle distinguishes between the genres of "poetry" in three ways:

Matter
language, rhythm, and melody, for Aristotle, make up the matter of poetic creation.
Where the epic poem makes use of language alone, the playing of the lyre involves
rhythm and melody. Some poetic forms include a blending of all materials; for
example, Greek tragic drama included a singing chorus, and so music and language
were all part of the performance.Subjects
Also "agents" in some translations. Aristotle differentiates between tragedy and
comedy throughout the work by distinguishing between the nature of the human
characters that populate either form. Aristotle finds that tragedy treats of serious,
important, and virtuous people. Comedy, on the other hand, treats of people who
are less virtuous, who are unimportant, undignified, laughable.[citation needed]
Aristotle introduces here the influential tripartite division of characters in superior
() to the audience, inferior (), or at the same level ().
[9][10][11]Method
One may imitate the agents through use of a narrator throughout, or only
occasionally (using direct speech in parts and a narrator in parts, as Homer does),
or only through direct speech (without a narrator), using actors to speak the lines
directly. This latter is the method of tragedy (and comedy): without use of any
narrator.
Having examined briefly the field of "poetry" in general, Aristotle proceeds to his
definition of tragedy:

Tragedy is a representation of a serious, complete action which has magnitude, in

embellished speech, with each of its elements [used] separately in the [various]
parts [of the play] and [represented] by people acting and not by narration,
accomplishing by means of pity and terror the catharsis of such emotions.
By "embellished speech", I mean that which has rhythm and melody, i.e. song. By
"with its elements separately", I mean that some [parts of it] are accomplished only
by means of spoken verses, and others again by means of song (1449b25-30).[12]

Tragedy consists of six parts which Aristotle enumerates in order of importance,

beginning with the most essential and ending with the least: Aristotle considers
Tragedy superior to Epics and considers them higher forms of art. Tragedies are said
to be an "imitation of an action that is serious." Tragedies are written in a dramatic
form with dialogue between multiple character, and not in traditional narrative form.
Tragedy should make the viewer feel fear and pity. Tragedy arouses the emotions of
pity and fear in order to purge away their excess, to reduce these passions to a
healthy. Aristotle also talks about pleasure that is proper to tragedy, apparently
meaning the aesthetic pleasure one gets from contemplating the pity and fear that
are aroused through the play. Tragedy is rooted in the fundamental order of the
universe; it creates a cause-and-effect chain that clearly reveals what may happen
at any time or place because that is the way the world operates.
plot (mythos)
Refers to the "structure of incidents" (actions). Key elements of the plot are
reversals, recognition, and suffering. The best plot should be "complex" (i.e. involve
a change of fortune). It should imitate actions arousing fear and pity. Thus it should
proceed from good fortune to bad and involve a high degree of suffering for the
protagonist, usually involving physical harm or death. Actions should be logical and
follow naturally from actions that precede them. They will be more satisfying to the
audience if they come about by surprise or seeming coincidence and are only
afterward seen as plausible, even necessary. When a character is unfortunate by
reversal(s) of fortune (peripeteia known today in pop culture as a plot twist), at
first he suffers (pathos) and then he can realize (anagnorisis) the cause of his
misery or a way to be released from the misery.character (ethos)
It is much better if a tragical accident happens to a hero because of a mistake he
makes (hamartia) instead of things that might happen anyway. That is because the
audience is more likely to be "moved" by it. A hero may have made it knowingly (in
Medea) or unknowingly (Oedipus). A hero may leave a deed undone (due to timely
discovery, knowledge present at the point of doing deed ...). Character is the moral
or ethical character in tragic play. In a perfect tragedy, the character will support
the plot, which means personal motivations will somehow connect parts of the
cause-and-effect chain of actions producing pity and fear.Main character should be
good - Aristotle explains that audiences do not like, for example, villains "making
fortune from misery" in the end. It might happen though, and might make the play
interesting. Nevertheless, the moral is at stake here and morals are important to
make people happy (people can, for example, see tragedy because they want to
release their anger)
appropriateif a character is supposed to be wise, it is unlikely he is young
(supposing wisdom is gained with age)
consistentif a person is a soldier, he is unlikely to be scared of blood (if this soldier
is scared of blood it must be explained and play some role in the story to avoid
confusing the audience); it is also "good" if a character doesn't change opinion "that
much" if the play is not "driven" by who characters are, but by what they do
(audience is confused in case of unexpected shifts in behaviour [and its reasons,
morals ...] of characters)
"consistently inconsistent"if a character always behaves foolishly it is strange if he
suddenly becomes smart. In this case it would be good to explain such change,
otherwise the audience may be confused. If character changes opinion a lot it
should be clear he is a character who has this trait, not a real life person - this is
also to avoid confusion
thought (dianoia)spoken (usually) reasoning of human characters can explain the
characters or story background ...
diction (lexis)
Refers to the quality of speech in tragedy. Speeches should reflect character, the
moral qualities of those on the stage. The expression of the meaning of the
words.melody (melos)
The Chorus too should be regarded as one of the actors. It should be an integral
part of the whole, and share in the action. Should be contributed to the unity of the
plot. It is a very real factor in the pleasure of the drama.
spectacle (opsis)
Refers to the visual apparatus of the play, including set, costumes and props
(anything you can see). Aristotle calls spectacle the "least artistic" element of
tragedy, and the "least connected with the work of the poet (playwright).
For example: if the play has "beautiful" costumes and "bad" acting and "bad"
story, there is "something wrong" with it. Even though that "beauty" may save the
play it is "not a nice thing". Spectacle is like a suspenseful horror film.
He offers the earliest-surviving explanation for the origins of tragedy and comedy:

Anyway, arising from an improvisatory beginning (both tragedy and comedy

tragedy from the leaders of the dithyramb, and comedy from the leaders of the
phallic processions which even now continue as a custom in many of our cities) [...]
(1449a10-13)[13]

Influence[edit]

Poetics is considered to have been less influential in its time compared with what is
generally understood to be its more famous contemporary, Rhetoric. This is
probably because in Aristotle's time rhetoric and poetics were classified as sort of
siblings in the pantheon of ideal things. Because of rhetoric's direct importance for
law and politics, it evolved to become, to a large degree, distinct from poetics, in
spite of both themes being classified under aesthetics in the Aristotelian system of
metaphysics. In this sense, rhetoric and poetics are two sides of the same thing
the aesthetic dimension. In Aristotelian philosophy, this is regarded as one of the
metaphysical aspects of things; in the Kantian view of the pure aesthetic, it is
understood as something non-conceptual that frees the mind.

The Arabic version of Aristotles Poetics that influenced the Middle Ages was
translated from a Greek manuscript dated to sometime prior to the year 700. This
manuscript was translated from Greek to Syriac and is independent of the currently-
accepted 11th-century source designated Paris 1741. The Syriac language source
used for the Arabic translations departed widely in vocabulary from the original
Poetics and it initiated a misinterpretation of Aristotelian thought that continued
through the Middle Ages.[14]

There are two different Arabic interpretations of Aristotles Poetics in commentaries

by Abu Nasr al-Farabi and Averroes (i.e., Abu al-Walid Ibn Rushd).

Al-Farabis treatise endeavors to establish poetry as a logical faculty of expression,

giving it validity in the Islamic world. Averroes commentary attempts to harmonize
his assessment of the Poetics with al-Farabis, but he is ultimately unable to
reconcile his ascription of moral purpose to poetry with al-Farabis logical
interpretation.

Averroes' interpretation of the Poetics was accepted by the West because of its
relevance to their humanistic viewpoints. Occasionally the philosophers of the
Middle Ages even preferred Averroes commentary to Aristotle's stated sense. This
resulted in the survival of Aristotles Poetics through the Arabic literary tradition.

Core terms[edit]
Mimesis or "imitation", "representation"
Catharsis or, variously, "purgation", "purification", "clarification"
Peripeteia or "reversal"
Anagnorisis or "recognition", "identification"
Hamartia or "miscalculation" (understood in Romanticism as "tragic flaw")
Mythos or "plot"
Ethos or "character"
Dianoia or "thought", "theme"
Lexis or "diction", "speech"
Melos, or "melody"
Opsis or "spectacle"

English translations[edit]
Thomas Twining, 1789
Samuel Henry Butcher, 1902: full text
Ingram Bywater, 1909: full text
William Hamilton Fyfe, 1926: full text
L. J. Potts, 1953
G. M. A. Grube, 1958
Richard Janko, 1987
Stephen Halliwell, 1987
Stephen Halliwell, 1995 (Loeb Classical Library)
Malcolm Heath, 1996 (Penguin Classics)
Seth Benardete and Michael Davis, 2002 (St. Augustine's Press)
Joe Sachs, 2006 (Focus Publishing)
Anthony Kenny, 2013 (Oxford World's Classics)

Cultural references[edit]

The Poeticsboth the extant first book and the lost second bookfigure
prominently in Umberto Eco's novel The Name of the Rose.

Aristotle's Rhetoric (Greek: ; Latin: Rhetorica) is an ancient Greek

treatise on the art of persuasion, dating from the 4th century BC. The English title
varies: typically it is titled Rhetoric, the Art of Rhetoric, or a Treatise on
Rhetoric.
Aristotle is generally credited with developing the basics of the system of rhetoric
that "thereafter served as its touchstone",[1] influencing the development of
rhetorical theory from ancient through modern times. The Rhetoric is regarded by
most rhetoricians as "the most important single work on persuasion ever
written."[2] Gross & Walzer concur, indicating that, just as Alfred North Whitehead
considered all Western philosophy a footnote to Plato, "all subsequent rhetorical
theory is but a series of responses to issues raised" by Aristotle's Rhetoric.[3] This is
largely a reflection of disciplinary divisions, dating back to Peter Ramus' attacks on
Aristotlean rhetoric in the late 16th century[4] and continuing to the present.

Like the other works of Aristotle that have survived from antiquity, the Rhetoric
seems not to have been intended for publication, being instead a collection of his
students' notes in response to his lectures. The treatise shows the development of
Aristotle's thought through two different periods while he was in Athens, and
illustrates Aristotle's expansion of the study of rhetoric beyond Plato's early criticism
of it in the Gorgias (ca. 386 BC) as immoral, dangerous, and unworthy of serious
study.[6][7] Plato's final dialogue on rhetoric, the Phaedrus (ca.370 BC), offered a
more moderate view of rhetoric, acknowledging its value in the hands of a true
philosopher (the "midwife of the soul") for "winning the soul through discourse."
This dialogue offered Aristotle, first a student and then a teacher at Plato's
Academy, a more positive starting point for the development of rhetoric as an art
worthy of systematic, scientific study.

The Rhetoric was developed by Aristotle during two periods when he was in Athens,
the first, from 367 to 347 BC (when he was seconded to Plato in the Academy), and
the second, from 335 to 322 BC (when he was running his own school, the Lyceum)

The study of rhetoric was contested in classical Greece: on the one side were the
Sophists, and on the other side were Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. The trio saw
rhetoric and poetry as tools that were too often used to manipulate others by
manipulating emotion and omitting facts. They particularly accused the sophists,
including Gorgias and Isocrates, of this manipulation. Plato, particularly, laid the
blame for the arrest and the death of Socrates at the feet of sophistical rhetoric. In
stark contrast to the emotional rhetoric and poetry of the sophists was a rhetoric
grounded in philosophy and the pursuit of enlightenment. One of the most
important contributions of Aristotle's approach was that he identified rhetoric as one
of the three key elementsalong with logic and dialecticof philosophy. Indeed, the
first line of the Rhetoric is "Rhetoric is a counterpart (antistrophe) of
dialectic."[8] According to Aristotle, logic is concerned with reasoning to
reach scientific certainty while dialectic and rhetoric are concerned with
probability and, thus, are the branches of philosophy that are best suited
to human affairs. Dialectic is a tool for philosophical debate; it is a means for
skilled audiences to test probable knowledge in order to learn. Conversely, rhetoric
is a tool for practical debate; it is a means for persuading a general audience
using probable knowledge to resolve practical issues. Dialectic and rhetoric
create a partnership for a system of persuasion based on knowledge
instead of upon manipulation and omission.

English translation[edit]

Most English readers in the 20th century relied on four translations of the Rhetoric.
The first, by Richard C. Jebb, was published in 1909.[9] The next two translations
were published in 1924. John H. Freese's translation was published as a part of the
Loeb Classical Library[10] while W. Rhys Roberts' was published as a part of the
Oxford University series of works in the Classics. Roberts' translation was edited and
republished in 1954.[11] The 1954 edition is widely considered the most readable of
these translations and is widely available online. The fourth standard translation, by
Lane Cooper, came out in 1932.[12]

Not until the 1990s did another major translation of the Rhetoric appear. Published
in 1991 and translated by George A. Kennedy, a leading classicist and rhetorician,
[13] this work is notable for the precision of its translation and for its extensive
commentary, notes, and references to modern scholarship on Aristotle and the
Rhetoric. It is generally regarded today as the standard scholarly resource on the
Rhetoric.[14]

Neo-Aristotelian theory[edit]

Main article: Neo-Aristotelianism (rhetorical criticism)

Rhetorical theory and criticism in the first half of the 20th century was dominated
by neo-Aristotelian criticism, the tenets of which were grounded in the Rhetoric and
were traditionally considered to have been summed up most clearly in 1925 by
Herbert Wichelns.[15] However, Forbes I. Hill argues that while Wichelns
traditionally gets the credit for summing up Neo-Aristotelian theory, that instead
Hoyt Hopewell Hudson is more deserving of this credit.[16] The dominance of neo-
Aristotelian criticism was "virtually unchallenged until the 1960s" and even now is
considered not only as one of many approaches to criticism, but as fundamental for
understanding other theoretical and critical approaches as they "developed largely
in response to [its] strengths and weaknesses."[17]

Overview of Book I[edit]

The Rhetoric consists of three books. Book I offers a general overview, presenting
the purposes of rhetoric and a working definition; it also offers a detailed discussion
of the major contexts and types of rhetoric. Book II discusses in detail the three
means of persuasion that an orator must rely on: those grounded in credibility
(ethos), in the emotions and psychology of the audience (pathos), and in patterns
of reasoning (logos). Book III introduces the elements of style (word choice,
metaphor, and sentence structure) and arrangement (organization). Some
attention is paid to delivery, but generally the reader is referred to the Poetics for
more information in that area.[18]

Many chapters in Book I of Aristotle's Rhetoric cover the various typical deliberative
arguments in Athenian culture.
Chapter One Aristotle first defines rhetoric as the counterpart (antistrophos)
of dialectic (Bk. 1:1:1-2). He explains the similarities between the two but fails to
comment on the differences. Here he introduces the term enthymeme (Bk.
1:1:3).Chapter Two Aristotle's famous definition of rhetoric is viewed as the ability
in any particular case to see the available means of persuasion. He defines pisteis
as atechnic (inartistic) and entechnic (artistic). Of the pisteis(means of persuasion)
provided through speech there are three parts: ethos, pathos, and logos. He
introduces paradigms and syllogisms(verbal reasoning deductice reasoning) as
means of persuasion.Chapter Three Introduces the three genres of rhetoric:
deliberative, forensic, and epideictic rhetoric. Here he also touches on the
ends the orators of each of these genres hope to reach with their persuasions
which are discussed in further detail in later chapters (Bk. 1:3:5-7). Aristotle
introduces these three genres by saying, "The kinds of rhetoric are three in number,
corresponding to the three kinds of hearers." [19][20]Chapter Four Aristotle
discusses the types of political topics of deliberative rhetoric. The five most
common are finance, war and peace, national defense, imports and
exports, and the framing of laws.Chapter Five Aristotle discusses the different
ethical topics of deliberative rhetoric. Aristotle identifies the goal of human action
with happiness and describes the many factors contributing to it (Bk. 1:5:5-
18).Chapter Six This is a continuation of Chapter Five, explaining in greater detail
the stoikhea (elements) of the good described in the previous chapter.Chapter
Seven Introduces the term koinon of degree. Discusses the 'ends' of deliberative
rhetoric in relation to the greater good or more advantageous.Chapter Eight
Aristotle defines and discusses the four forms of politeia (constitution) useful
in deliberative rhetoric: democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and
monarchy.Chapter Nine This chapter discusses the virtues and concepts of to
kalon (the honorable) included in epideictic rhetoric. Aristotle describes what makes
certain topics appropriate or worthy for praise or blame. He also states that it is
important to highlight certain traits of the subject of praise.Chapter Ten Discusses
what syllogisms should be derived from kategoria (accusations) and apologia
(defenses) for judicial rhetoric. Also introduces the wrongdoing, which is useful for
judicial rhetoric.Chapter Eleven This chapter discusses the many different types of
hedone (pleasure) useful for judicial rhetoric. Aristotle states these as the reasons
for people doing wrong.Chapter Twelve This chapter, also about judicial rhetoric,
discusses people's dispositions of mind and whom people wrong from the hedone
discussed in the previous chapter. Aristotle emphasizes the importance of
willingness, or intentions, of wrongdoings.Chapter Thirteen Aristotle classifies all
acts that are just and unjust defined in judicial rhetoric. He also distinguishes what
kinds of actions are fair and unfair with being just.Chapter Fourteen This chapter
parallels the koinon described in Chapter Seven. Aristotle is clarifying the
magnitude in relation to questions of wrongdoing meant for judicial
rhetoric.Chapter Fifteen Aristotle summarises the arguments available to a speaker
in dealing with evidence that supports or weakens a case. These atechnic pisteis
contain laws, witnesses, contracts, tortures, and oaths.
Overview of Book II[edit]

Book II of Aristotles Rhetoric generally concentrates on ethos and pathos, and as

noted by Aristotle, both affect judgment. Specifically, Aristotle refers to the effect of
ethos and pathos on an audience since a speaker needs to exhibit these modes of
persuasion before that audience.

Chapter 1: Introduction

In Chapter 1, Aristotle notes that emotions cause men to change their opinion in
regard to their judgments. As such, emotions have specific causes and effects (Book
2.1.2-3). Thus, a speaker can employ his understanding as a stimulus for the sought
emotion from an audience. However, Aristotle states that along with pathos, the
speaker must also exhibit ethos, which for Aristotle encompasses wisdom
(phronesis), virtue (arete), and good will (eunoia) (Book 2.1.5-9).

Chapters 2-11: Efficacious Emotions for Speakers in All Genres of Rhetoric

Chapters 2-11 explore those emotions useful to a rhetorical speaker. Aristotle

provides an account on how to arouse these emotions in an audience so that a
speaker might be able to produce the desired action successfully (Book 2.2.27).
Aristotle arranges the discussion of the emotions in opposing pairs, such as anger
and calmness or friendliness and enmity. For each emotion, Aristotle discusses the
persons state of mind, against whom one directs the emotion, and for what reasons
(Book 2.1.9). It is pertinent to understand all the components in order to stimulate a
certain emotion within another person. For example, to Aristotle, anger results from
the feeling of belittlement (Book 2.2.3-4). Those who become angry are in a state of
distress due to a foiling of their desires (Book 2.2.9). The angry direct their emotion
towards those who insult the latter or that which the latter values. These insults are
the reasoning behind the anger (Book 2.2.12-27). In this way, Aristotle proceeds to
define each emotion, assess the state of mind for those experiencing the emotion,
determine to whom people direct the emotion, and reveal their reasoning behind
the emotion. The significance of Aristotles analysis stems from his idea that
emotions have logical grounding and material sources.

Chapters 12-17: Ethos: Adapting the Character of the Speech to the Character of
the Audience

George A. Kennedy in On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse remarks that ethos

predominantly refers to the moral character of actions and mind. On page 148,
Kennedy reveals the purpose of chapters 12-17 as a demonstration to the speaker
of how his ethos must attend and adjust to the ethos of varied types of auditor if
he is to address them successfully.[21] As seen in the chapters explaining the
various emotions, in chapters 12-17 Aristotle focuses on the necessary means of
successfully persuading an audience. Yet, in these chapters, Aristotle analyzes the
character of different groups of people so that a speaker might adjust his portrayed
ethos in order to influence the audience. First, he describes the young as creatures
of desire, easily changeable and swiftly satisfied. The young hate to be belittled
because they long for superiority (Book 2.12.1-15). According to Aristotle, the old
are distrustful, cynical, and small-minded for unlike the young their past is long and
their future short (Book 2.13.1-5). The old do not act on a basis of desire but rather
act for profit (Book 2.13.13-14). Those in the prime of life represent the mean to
Aristotle, possessing the advantages of both old and young without excess or
deficiency (Book 2.14.1). One of good birth, wealth, or power has the character of a
lucky fool, a character in which insolence and arrogance breed if these good
fortunes are not used to ones advantage (Book 2.15-17).
Chapters 18-26: Dialectical Features of Rhetoric Common to All Three Genres

Although Book II primarily focuses on ethos and pathos, Aristotle discusses

paradigm and enthymeme as two common modes of persuasion. There exist two
kinds of paradigm: comparisons, referencing that which has happened before, and
fables, inventing an illustration (Book 2.20.2-3). Maxims, or succinct, clever
statements about actions, serve as the conclusion of enthymemes (Book 2.1-2). In
choosing a maxim, one should assess the audience views and employ a fitting
maxim (Book 2.21.15-16). Amplification and deprecation, although not elements of
an enthymeme, can contribute to refuting an opponents enthymeme or revealing a
falsehood by exposing it as just or unjust, good or evil, etc. Aristotle also mentions
the koina, fallacious enthymemes, and lysis (the refutation of an opponents
enthymeme). In all of these techniques, Aristotle considers popular wisdom and
audiences as a central guide. Thus, the speakers effect on the audience serves as a
key theme throughout Book II.

Book II ends with a transition to Book III. The transition concludes the discussion of
pathos, ethos, paradigms, enthymemes, and maxims so that Book III may focus on
delivery, style, and arrangement.

Overview of Book III[edit]

Book III of Aristotles Rhetoric is often overshadowed by the first two books. While
Books I and II are more systematic and address ethos, logos, and pathos, Book III is
often considered a conglomeration of Greek stylistic devices on rhetoric. However,
Book III contains informative material on lexis (style) which refers to the way of
saying (in Chapters 1-12) and taxis, which refers to the arrangement of words (in
Chapters 13-19).

Chapters 112: Style (lexis)[edit]

Chapter 1 Summarizes Aristotle's Book I and Book II and introduces the term
hypokrisis (pronuntiatio). Aristotle argues that voice should be used to most
accurately represent the given situation as exemplified by poets (Bk. 3 1:3-
4).Chapter 2 Highlights arte, which is defined as virtue or excellence. When applied
to rhetoric, arte means natural rather than forced or artificial (Bk. 3 2:1-4).
Metaphors are also addressed as a skill that cannot be taught and should bestow
verbal beauty (Bk. 3 2:6-13).Chapter 3 Deals with "frigid" language. This occurs
when one uses elaborate double words, archaic, and rare words, added descriptive
words or phrases, and inappropriate metaphors (Bk. 3 3:1-4).Chapter 4 Discusses
another figurative part of speech, the simile (also known as an eikon). Similes
are only occasionally useful in speech due to their poetic nature and similarity to
metaphor.Chapter 5 Addresses how to speak properly by using connectives, calling
things by their specific name, avoiding terms with ambiguous meanings, observing
the gender of nouns, and correctly using singular and plural words (Bk. 3 5:1-
6).Chapter 6 Gives practical advice on how to amplify language by using Onkos
(expansiveness) and syntomia (conciseness). Not using the term circle, but giving
its definition, would exemplify onkos, and using the word as the definition would
exemplify syntomia (Bk.3 5:1-3).Chapter 7 Aristotle expands on the use of
appropriate style in addressing the subject. "Lexis will be appropriate if it expresses
emotion and character and is proportional to the subject matter". Aristotle stresses
emotion, credibility, genus (like age), and moral state as important considerations
(Bk. 3 7:1-6).Chapter 8 Rhythm should be incorporated into prose to make it well
"rhythmed" but not to the extent of a poem (Bk.3 8:3-7).Chapter 9 Looks at periodic
style and how it should be seen as a rhythmical unit and used to complete a
thought to help understand meaning (Bk.3 9:3-4).Chapter 10 Aristotle further
highlights the metaphor and addresses how it brings about learning and enables
visualization (Bk. 3 10:1-6).Chapter 11 Explains why devices of style can
defamiliarize language. Aristotle warns that it is inappropriate to speak in hyperbole
(Bk. 3 11:15).Chapter 12 The three genres of oral and written language are
deliberative, judicial, and epideictic, all of which are written by logographoi (speech
writers) who are each skilled at different types of speeches. This transitions into the
next section of chapters on taxis.
Chapters 1319: Taxis[edit]
Chapter 13 Covers the necessary parts of a speech which include the prosthesis
(which is the statement of the proposition) and then the pistis (which is the proof of
the statement), along with the prooemium (introduction) and epilogue (Bk.3 13:1-
4).Chapter 14 Discusses the prooemiun (introduction), which demonstrates how the
introduction should be used in both epideictic and judicial speeches. Both have the
main goal of signaling the end of the speech (Bk. 3 14:1-11).Chapter 15 Handles
prejudicial attacks according to Aristotle which later on became part of Stasis
(argumentation theory) which is "determining the question at issue in a
trial".Chapter 16 Digsis or narration is discussed and demonstrates how one must
work through an argument by using logos. Narration differs in epideictic, judicial,
and deliberative narratives.Chapter 17 Looks at the pistis or the proof in an oration,
and how it varies in each type of speech.Chapter 18 Erotsis, also known as
interrogation referred to asking and demanding responses in trials during Aristotle's
time. It is seen as, "most opportune when an opponent has said one thing and when
if the right question is asked, an absurdity results" (Bk. 3 19:1).Chapter 19
Aristotle's final chapter in Book III discusses epilogues, which are the conclusion of
speeches and must include four things: "disposing the hearer favorably toward the
speaker and unfavorably to the opponent, amplifying and minimizing, moving the
hearer into emotional reactions, and giving reminder of the speech's main points"
(Bk. 3 19:1-4).
Scholars are turning to Book III once again to develop theories about Greek style
and its contemporary relevance.[22]

Importance of deliberative rhetoric[edit]

Amlie Oksenberg Rorty discusses the structure and characteristics of deliberative
rhetoric in her research. She cites Aristotle to persuade her audience of the
characteristics of deliberative rhetoric's influential nature. "Aristotle marks as
central to deliberative rhetoric: considerations of prudence and justice, the
projected political and psychological consequences of the decision and the
likelihood of encouragingor entrenchingsimilar rebellious attitudes amongst
allies." [23] The outstanding characteristic of deliberative rhetoric is practicality.
Rorty argues, "the deliberative rhetorician who wishes to retain his reputation as
trustworthy must pay attention to what is, in fact, actually likely to happen." [24]
Additionally, Aristotle focuses on deliberative rhetoric so heavily because "it most
clearly reveals the primary importance of truth as it functions within the craft of
rhetoric itself." [25] A path to action is determined through deliberative rhetoric,
since an individual following practical means is likely to foresee likely events and act
accordingly.

In interpreting Aristotle's work on use of rhetoric, Bernard Yack discusses the vast
need for public discourse and public reasoning. He states: "We deliberate together
in political communities by making and listening to each other's attempts to
persuade us that some future action will best serve the end that citizens share with
each otherIt is this shared goal that distinguishes deliberative rhetoric, and
therefore public reasoning, from the other forms of rhetoric and political judgment
that Aristotle examines." [26] Shared goals are of utmost importance when
deliberating on an issue that affects the common good. Without such a version of
deliberative rhetoric, arguments would unfairly favor the interests of power and
neglect the rights of the common people.