Classical Rhetoric

Classical texts were assumed to be the ultimate repository of all knowledge. Wisdom ended there. Like sacred texts, they formed a body of learning and truth that was to be studied and learned as absolute. The same books were read, discussed and commented on generation after generation, so creating an intellectual tradition that was almost impossible to break. Educated men might study the small rage of works. They thus share a common frame of reference, so that their own writings and reflections are often reworkings of these same texts and are full of allusions and half-quotations to these basic books. It is impossible to understand the prevailing ideas about acting up to our own era without a proper recognition of the strength of the classical tradition.

The tradition of classical rhetoric is of central importance. All early discussions were made in terms of the precepts of rhetorical delivery laid down in Greece and Rome. 

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, of convincing other people that what you are saying is true. You can always persuade in two ways: by perfect logical argument, or by attracting a sympathetic emotional response. The best rhetorical work does both.

Most authors agree that the power to influence, to sway, is what matters most. And who better capture and control someone else’s sympathy than an actor in theater (drama) or character in the fiction? This was recognized by Aristotle, one of the most renowned Greek philosophers, the first thinker to make a serious study of characters. He laid the foundations for the study of theater and performance. He also provided the first comprehensive study of human natures—emotion and social behavior, which remained the dominant statement employed by the later authors in both theater and work of writing.

Aristotle’s comprehensive study of life is impressive. Life is universally known as tragedy. Life tragedy has been cleverly employed by the authors with an order of priorities. First and foremost, there is a plot, the action. This is defined as an imitation—not a copy, a replica, but a structure that resembles a set of life events, one that is self-contained, with a begging, a middle, and an end, and which is, therefore, intelligible.

Second come the characters whose function is to carry the action, who are its agents. Each person is conceived as having a deposition, an ethos, which has been given to him and which inclines him to certain actions. The primary concern is with what people do, what decisions, given their natural disposition, they take in the circumstances in which they are placed, and with the ethical and moral validity of those decisions. Often, the conflict in life tragedy is not between individual interests but between the sets of values, the conflicting moralities which the individuals represent.

Third, there is the writing, which must be consistent, and which rounds out the action in human terms. In theater, the actor’s function is to live out the dilemma in which the character is placed in the terms the writer has given, and to move the audience in a process of moral education.

Inspired by the Aristotle’s rhetoric, I feel extremely compelled to share you an excerpt to deeply understand human natures. The literary masterpiece, such as those written by Shakespeare, finds its way to exist until present because of one timeless asset that it embraces: human nature.  So I think if you could have a better understanding of human natures, you would become more insightful, more analytical, and more knowledgeable. Stay tune with the next blog titled “Human Nature.”


Inspired by my old lecture notes and "The Art of Actors"