Ancient Greek Rhetorical Analysis

In ancient Greek society scholars and sophists dedicated much of their time to the investigation of the nature of the mind, finding that one way to enlarge our awareness of ideas, is to enlarge our awareness of words.1 Much of what we know today we owe to ancient societies, and though much of that knowledge is “of little practical use… we should strive to catch their spirit, and imitate their mode of thinking.”2 Rhetorical theories are precisely dated back to the ancient Greek society where rhetoric was defined as “the art of persuasion.”3 Initially, rhetoric dwelt “on the practical consequences of human relations implicit in and generated by orality.”4 It was emphasized that oral person-to-person interactions were much more powerful than written-read
Following Socrates we meet Plato (427-347 BC), a disciple of the first. His general notions on the subjects of logic and rhetoric follow the idea that “the art of conviction is very closely connected with the art of persuasion.”7 Plato passed on this way of thinking to his student Aristotle (384-322 BC), considered to be the father of “syllogism” and “rhetoric” itself.8 Aristotle defines the art of rhetoric, not as the mere ability to persuade, but as “the ability to see the possible means of persuasion in particular cases.”9 In essence, the rhetoric that Aristotle managed was political and practical10, which is to some extent the rhetoric we deal with today. After Aristotle we encounter some important rhetoricians who developed their own viewpoints upon the topic. For example, George Campbell in the 18th century who argued that rhetoric should be done “to enlighten the understanding, please the imagination, move the passions, or influence the will.”11 And also Lloyd Bitzer, in contemporary times, who claims that there is such thing as a “rhetorical situation” and that it requires exigencies, audiences, and