Rhetoric is defined as, “The art of using language effectively so as to persuade or influence others…” (OED) Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC), the Greek philosopher’s seminal work on the subject, appropriately titled Rhetoric exists as the standard guidebook for those concerned with the written or spoken word. Aristotle begins by describing the similarities between rhetoric and dialectics, defined as, “The art of critical examination into the truth of an opinion…” (OED) He continues to state similarities between the two arts.

It is clear, then, that rhetoric is not bound up with a single definite class of subjects, but is as universal as dialectic; it is clear, also, that it is useful. It is clear, further, that its function is not simply to succeed in persuading, but rather to discover the means of coming as near such success as the circumstances of each particular case allow.

Yet perhaps the most widely regarded contribution Rhetoric has bestowed on us are Aristotle’s use of Ethos, Pathos and Logos. Here, Aristotle elaborates:

Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible.

These three aspects of persuasion have become commonplace among orators and writers alike since their creation. By breaking down exactly what makes a persuasive speaker, Aristotle was able to put into words a set of criterion for which any speaker/writer should follow.

I find it difficult to argue with Aristotle’s claims made in Rhetoric. The author simply lays out what makes strong persuasion possible and how to avoid fallacy in arguments. In Book II, Aristotle emphasizes the importance of emotion and connecting with one’s audience in rhetoric. I find this to be a self-evident truth and one that will last forever and will always be at the heart of strong speaking and writing. Throughout history, the best speeches, written works and rhetoric in general have made an emotional connection on some level with its audience, as is necessary to evoke a strong response.

Closely linked to this idea is the focus of Plato’s (242 BC – 348 BC) famed Dialogue Phaedrus. While much of the work centers on the idea of love, rhetoric is discussed as well (and is related in its own way.)

Oratory is the art of enchanting the soul, and therefore the orator must learn the differences of human souls by reflection and experience—they are so many and of such a nature, and from them come the differences between man and man.

Like Aristotle’s emphasized importance on emotion, Plato’s idea of oratory being an “enchanting” art give rhetoric and persuasion the credit it deserves. What makes oratory enchanting and what Plato describes in the above quotation is the emotion Aristotle was describing. The connection between speaker and audience through emotion is something enchanting and worthy of consideration.

Considering the fact that both of these texts came several centuries BC, their impact and relevance are still as great as ever. If I had any remarks to make on the works it would be that Aristotle could have better described exactly how rhetoric differs from dialectic. Yet their deep look into what makes someone persuasive and convincing in speech and writing is highly interesting and important to be aware of.