Aristotle, "Rhetoric" 3.2-7:an Analysis TARÃ#N, SONYA LIDA Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1974; 15, 1; ProQuest pg. 65

Aristotle, Rhetoric 3.2-7: an Analysis 
Sonya Lida Taran 

THE AIM of this essay is to show by means of a detailed analysis 
that the doctrine of chapters 2 to 4 on the one hand and 5 to 7 
on the other of Book 3 of Aristotle's Rhetoric are comple­

mentary and necessary parts of Aristotle's treatment of style.! This 
has recently been denied by Professor George Kennedy, who attempts 
to prove that chapter 2 is a later and more detailed version of the 
material included in chapter 5.2 Taking as his point of departure 
Solmsen's theory of the two stages of development in the Rhetoric 
and of the two introductions to its third book,3 Kennedy thinks it 
probable that Book 3 itself, and hence also the discussion of style in it, 
may have seen some development. A comparison of chapters 2 to 4 
with 5 to 7 leads him to the conclusion that the latter chapters cannot 
be considered a more detailed discussion of the matters outlined in 
chapter 2, which is essentially a later version of chapter 5, written 
after Aristotle had developed the theory of metaphor in the Poetics. 

It seems, however, that though in chapters 5 to 7 Aristotle is dis­
cussing the same matters as in chapters 2 to 4, he does so from a 
different point of view: in chapters 2 to 4 he discusses them from the 
point of view of Qv6fLcx-rcx, in chapters 5 to 7 from the point of view of 
cVV8ECLC or composition. Therefore, the two treatments are not 

1 My quotations from Aristotle's Rhetoric are from the edition by Sir William David Ross 
(Oxford 1959); the lines are those of Bekker's text in the Prussian Academy Edition except 
in the case of the end of ch.4 and the beginning of ch.5, where I follow Ross' distribution of 
the lines. 

2 George A. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton 1963) 103ff. 
3 Friedrich Solmsen, Die Entwicklung der aristotelischen Logik und Rhetorik (Neue philo­

logische Untersuchungen 4, Berlin 1929) 31ff. Solmsen thinks that the two introductions to 
Book 3 are not totally independent of one another, while at the same time neither origi­
nated in the other: even the shorter one has something of its own and agrees with the 
longer one only in the first sentence. The earlier in composition is, according to him, the 
one now found at the beginning of Book 3; it contains the division of the enthymeme in 
T67Tot and e'l87/, which the later one (i.e. the one now found at the end of Book 2) lacks; but 
it does not contain, although it is much more detailed, the 7Tapa8Etyp.a, which is mentioned 
in the later one. The earlier introduction would belong to the topical-dialectical period, 
while the later one could be ascribed to the last period of the development of Aristotle's 
theory of logic, i.e. after he had developed his mature doctrine of the syllogism. 

65 



66 ARISTOTLE, RHETORIC 3.2-7: AN ANALYSIS 

essentially identical, and neither could have been an earlier version of 
the other. If this is so, it is unnecessary to enter here into the question 
of the two introductions to Book 3 and of the alleged earlier and later 
versions of the first two books; and so Kennedy's theory will have 
been refuted regardless of the question whether Solmsen is right or 
not.4 

In fact, what I have just stated is what Kennedy calls "the usual 
explanation"; but though Cope5 and others have so interpreted these 
chapters, there is room, I think, for a detailed analysis of them and for 
a critical examination of Kennedy's interpretation.6 I shall also include 
a brief analysis of chapters 8, 9 and 10 because it contributes to the 
elucidation of the point at issue, although these chapters are not 
directly involved in Kennedy's theory. 

At the end of chapter 1 we are referred to the Poetics, and at the 
beginning of chapter 2 Aristotle gives another cross-reference to the 
Poetics,7 which is repeated a few lines below in words which we should 
bear in mind.8 The cross-reference is repeated a third time in chapter 
2,9 and it seems clear, therefore, that Aristotle wants us to keep in 
mind the classification of words given in chapters 21 and 22 of the 
Poetics. The OVOILCXTCX and PfJILCXTCX will be the subject matter of chapters 
2, 3 and 4, i.e. nouns as such, independently of the arrangement of 
them in sentences. When at the beginning of chapter 5 Aristotle turns 
to something new-the arrangement of words in composition-he 
does not give a list of the types of nouns, as Kennedy would wish him 
to do,lo because, having already alluded to them by means of the 

, For similar reasons there is no need to discuss other theories concerning the com­
positional problems of Book 3, cf. e.g. Ingemar DUring, Aristoteles (Heidelberg 1966) 121ff 
and 149fT. For a recent reassertion of the basic unity of Rhet. 3 and its essential relation to 
Books 1 and 2 cf. W. M. A. Grimaldi, Studies in the Philosophy of Aristotle's Rhetoric (Hermes 
Einzelschr. 25, 1972) 49-52. 

6 Cf. E. M. Cope, An Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric (London 1867) 292. 
6 In his review of Kennedy's book Ulrich Schindel (Gnomon 37 [1965] 7) rejects Kennedy's 

interpretation but does not enter into details. 
7 1404b7-8: Tllia dvolWTa oca firfYT}Tat lv TOic 7TfiP~ 7TOtTJT"CfjC. 

8 1404b26-27: OVTWV 1)' dVOp.O.TWV Ka~ /rrJP.d.TWV 19 ~v 0 A&"OC UUV'UTTJKfV, TWV 1)£ dVOp.O.TWV 

rouaVT' lxOVTWV fiZ1lTJ oca Tfi8fiwPTJTat lv TO«: 7TfiP~ 7TOtTjCfiWC, cf. chs init.: 0 p.€v oOv AOYOC UllVTl-

8fiTW lK TOV"TWV. 

8 1405a3-6: Tl p.€v ow TOV"TWV (KaeTOV leTt, Kal7Toea fil1)TJ p.£Taq,opac, Kalon TOVTO 7TAfieTov 

1)waTat Ka~ lv 7T0111C'" Ka~ lv ,\01'0", [at p.fTa.popa{], firpTJTat, Ka8d.7Tfip lMyoP.fiV, lv TOic 7Tfipl 

7TOt TJTtKfje. 
10 Cf Kennedy, op.cit. (supra n.2) 106. 



, 
SONYA LlDA TAR AN 67 

cross-references to the Poetics, he assumes that we have that treatment 
in mind. Nor is it the case, as Kennedy thinks it is, that the kinds of 
words mentioned in chapters 5 to 7 H do not correspond very well to 

the list in the Poetics"; in fact they do correspond, but those in the 
Rhetoric are fewer: of the eight kinds of words mentioned in the 
Poetics the first four appear also in chapters 5 to 7 of the Rhetoric. l1 

Therefore, chapter 5 as we have it presupposes chapter 2 of the 
Rhetoric with its cross-references to the Poetics. 

After giving his definition of good style at the beginning of chapter 2 
Aristotle deals with some of the words mentioned in the Poetics: 
gEVLKa (ef Dt(J DEL 7TOLELV gEVT)V T~V DLaAEKTov 1404blO-ll), yAwTTaL, 

DmAa and 7TE7ToLT)fLEva DvofLaTa (1404b28-29), KVPLOV, OlKELOV, fLETacpopa 
(1404b31-32). Then, although the cross-reference to the Poetics tells us 
to look there for a classification of metaphor, we find in Rhetoric 
1405alff an extensive treatment of metaphor as a means of achieving 
Kat TO cacp€c Kat TO ~DV Kat TO gEVLKOV (1405a8). All this, metaphor 
included, is presented as part of the elements of speech and has 
nothing to do with composition. What interests Aristotle here are the 
elements themselves; and the argument against the sophist Bryson 
(1405b9ff) points out once more the importance of words, regardless 
of their arrangement: it is untrue, Aristotle says, that whatever 

11 All the kinds of words mentioned in Rhet. 5-7 (proper words, metaphors, epithets and 
strange words, besides simple and double words) are mentioned also in Poet. 1457blff, 
either with the same or with an equivalent name (e.g. Rhet. 1407a31 'i5ta=Poet. 1457bl 
KVPLOV; Rhet. 1407b31-32 e7Tl8£Tov=Poet. 1457b2 K6cjLoc; Rhet. 140sbll g€va=Poet. 1457bl 
yAwTTa=Rhet. 1404b28 and 141Ob12 yAWT"Ta). The four kinds of words that are mentioned 
in Poet. and not in Rhet. are 7T£7TO'7JjL€VOV or coined, e.Tr£KnTajL€VOV or lengthened, v<PTlP7JjL€VOV 
or curtailed, and eg7JMaYjL€vov or altered, and they are not mentioned in Rhet. probably 
because Aristotle does not need to deal with them in his treatment of composition in prose. 
This seems to be corroborated by Poet.1459all-14, where Aristotle says that only proper 
words, metaphors and ornamental words (TO KVP'OV Ka~ jL£Ta<popa Ka~ K6cjLoc)-precisely 
those words one could employ in prose (oco,c KaV ev [oco,c] '\6yotc TtC XP7)catTo)-should be 
used in iambic verse, which is the metre that most resembles prose. Strange words (S€lIa), 
which appear both in the long list given at Poet. 1457bl (y'\wTTa) and also in Rhet. 5-7, are 
not mentioned by Aristotle in connection with iambic verse. It may be that Aristotle did 
not think them fit for iambic verse; and we should note that they are among those kinds of 
words which in Rhet. 2 Aristotle recommends to use sparingly, while adding that only 
metaphors and proper words are fit for prose (1404b28-33). Whatever the reason for the 
omission, what is Significant is that the same kinds of words mentioned in Poet. in con­
nection with iambic verse and incidentally with prose are the ones found in Rhet. 5-7; and 
that the four kinds not mentioned in Rhet. 5-7 are not mentioned either in Poet. 1457a31ff in 
connection with iambic verse. 



68 ARISTOTLE, RHETORIC 3.2-7: AN ANALYSIS 

words one uses the meaning is the same. The ovofLaTCx are the im­
portant thing so far. 

From this point of view chapters 3 and 4 are also illuminating. The 
vices of style (chapter 3) are here vices caused by the ovofLaTa per se, 
not by composition, as is made clear by the example of Gorgias' 
calling the swallow Philomela (1406b14ff), or by the very enumeration 
of the four vices: misuse of compound words (1405b35), employment 
of strange words (1406a7), inappropriate epithets (1406alO-13), and 
inappropriate metaphors (1406b5). Moreover, in chapter 4 the simile 
is also discussed as an DvofLa, regardless of its effect on the different 
parts of the sentence. 

The oV0I-LaTa, then, are the subject matter of chapters 2, 3 and 4, and 
this is the reason why they are referred to when Aristotle enters into a 
new subject matter. At the beginning of chapter 5 (1407a19) he says: 
< , ... " '0' I " c;:,>' , ~ "l: ,<'" o fLEV OVV I\oyoc CVVTL ETaL EK TOVTWV, ECTL 0 apX7J T7JC I\E~ EWC TO EI\I\7JVL-

~ELV. The important words here are EK 'TOllTWV; they point backwards 
to the ovofLaTa and p~fLaTa Eg cnv 0 AOYOC CVV€CT7JKEV in 1404b26ff and to 
the TOVTWV €KaCTOV KTA. in 1405a3. The particles fLEV •.. OE contrast the 
two parts of the sentence, and in the second part the new topic, 
clarity in composition, is announced.12 

There is nothing surprising in the fact that Aristotle should discuss 
the connection and arrangement of words in sentences only after he 
has established and analysed the different kinds of 6Vo(.LaTa. Thus, 
chapter 5 is devoted to clarity (TO EAA7JV{~ELV meaning cacp~vELa, 
'clarity'), but to clarity from the point of view of composition. It may 
be, as Kennedy says, clarity "of diction and composition," but in any 
case it is now to composition that the requirements of good style refer 
and not any more to single words as the ornament of speech. Aristotle 
gives five rules to achieve TO EAA7JV{~ELV. The first consists in the proper 
use of connectives, which should be arranged WC 7TEcpvKan 7TpO'TEpOL 

Kat. VCTEPOL Y{YVEcOaL aAA~Awv (1407a21) and should not be too widely 
separated from one another. The example given by Aristotle is a 
whole sentence abounding in connectives, and it is clear that this 
first rule aims at clarity from the point of view of the arrangement of 
words. The second rule recommends to call things by their own 

12 Cf J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles! (Oxford 1954) 472: "Often the P.€II clause sums 
up and rounds off the old topic, while the S€ clause introduces the new one." Denniston 
quotes Arist. Pol.I255b39-40: 7rfPI. P.€II OVII SOVAOV Kat /)fG7rOTOV TOVTOII /)twp{c8w TOil Tp07rOll. 
OAWC S€ 7rfPI. 1Ta.CT}C K7'7jCfWC •.• See also Rhet. 1405a3 TllL€II oW TOVTWV ••• and Rhet. 1404bl 
lCTW oW ~K£illa T£8£wPTJlLtlla ••• 



SONYA LIDA TARAN 69 

special names (1407a31: TO TOLC lstoLc OV0t-taCL '\e'YELV Kat t-t~ TOLC 
7TEpte'XOVCLV). In this case Aristotle deals with oV0t-taTa per se and not 
from the point of view of composition. Kennedy could argue that, 
since oV0t-taTa are also dealt with in chapter 2, chapter 5 is an earlier 
version of chapter 2. We see, however, that in chapter 5 Aristotle does 
not expand this rule as he does in the case of the other four but that he 

simply mentions it, perhaps because he assumes that the reader is 
acquainted with the discussion of oll0t-taTa in the previous chapters. 
The third rule (1407a32) is to avoid long circumlocutions and amphi­
bology, and it is a rule of composition, as is proved by the description 
of Empedocles' way of writing (cpEvaK[{EL yap TO KVK'\<p 7TO'\V Oll 
1407a35-36). The fourth rule is to observe Protagoras' classification of 
gender, and the fifth rule is to observe number. In both cases whole 
sentences are used by Aristotle to show how composition is improved 
by the observance of these rules (1407b7 and 9-10). Finally, Aristotle 
tells us what a YEypat-tt-te'vov (written composition) should avoid in 
order to be, as it ought to be, dall&yvwcTOll Kat EvcppacTov: it should 
avoid uncertainties of punctuation, as we find in Heraclitus, and long 
parenthetical explanations (1407bll-25). The chapter ends with the 
rewriting by Aristotle of an unclear sentence, and this underlines the 
fact that composition is the important thing here: the words are the 
same in the first and in the second sentence, but the meaning is not 
clear until they are correctly arranged. It follows, then, that having 
dealt in chapters 2 to 4 with the words Eg (DV 0 ,\oyoc CVVe'CTYJKEV, in 
chapters 5 to 7 Aristotle has turned to the arrangement of them in 
composition; therefore, it is not the case that "the five rules of clear 
hellenism have been rendered obsolete by the simple statement that 
clarity is best achieved by the use of proper words."13 

Chapter 6 is devoted to the OyKOC TfjC '\e'gEWC. Aristotle gives six 
ways of achieving weight or impressiveness in composition: to des­
cribe a thing instead of naming it, to use metaphors and epithets 
while at the same time avoiding poetic effects, to use plural for 
singular, to use one article for each noun instead of one article for two 
nouns, to abound in connectives, and to describe things by the attri­
butes they lack. Kennedy compares this chapter with the discussion 
of ornament in chapter 2 and seems to think that both discussions 
deal with the same topic. In chapter 2, however, Aristotle speaks of 
the adornment produced by certain words, and in 1404b6-8, where he 

13 Cf Kennedy, op.cit. (supra n.2) 106. 



70 ARISTOTLE, RHETORIC 3.2-7: AN ANALYSIS 

refers to the Poetics, he says: JL~ 'Ta7TEtV~V SJ aAAa KEKOCJL'rJJLEV'rJV 'T&AAa 

ov6JLa'Ta oca Etp'rJ'Tat iv 'Toic 7TEPl. 7TOt'rJ'TtK17C. In the Poetics (1458a31ff) we 
d ~ ~ It . ~ {} , I ", \,~ , I rea : on apa KEKpac a, 7TWC 'TOV'TOLC 'TO JLEV yap JL'rJ LOLW'TLKOV 7TOL'rJcn 

'" , ,,,. \ ~ , • .J.. \ ,., \ "'\ \ \ 
JL'rJVE 'Ta7TELVOV, OLOV 'rJ Y/\W'T'Ta Kat 'rJ JLE'Ta'f'Opa Kat 0 KOCJLOC Kat 'TC1.I\/\a 'Ta 

, I "'" , "" I , .J.. I I 1 1 h 'd ELp'rJJLEva ELO'rJ, 'TO OE KVPLOV 'T'rJV ca'f''rJVEtaV. n t Ie atter passage tel ea 
is different from that conveyed in chapter 6, for, although the words 
OYKOC and K6cJLoC have a similar meaning, OYKOC is applied to com­
position but K6cJLoC is not. In chapter 2 it is the Jv6JLa'Ta which make 
style KEKOCJL'rJJLEV'Y} (1404b7), whereas in chapter 6 OYKOC is something 
different: to achieve it Aristotle recommends not types of words but 
rules of composition. 

Appropriateness, a necessary condition of cacp-/jvELa14 according to 
chapter 2 (1404bl-4), reappears, as Kennedy says, in chapter 7.15 But 
this notion of appropriateness or correspondence to the subject 
matter is only briefly mentioned in chapter 2, and to achieve it 
Aristotle recommends the kinds of words indicated by means of the 
cross-references to the Poetics, whereas in chapter 7 this characteristic 
refers to composition, is treated more at length, and is explained 
with an example. Furthermore, propriety is not mentioned alone in 
chapter 7: we find also the notion that AEgtc should be 7Ta{}'rJ'TtK-/j 'TE Ka2 

~{}tK-/j (1408alO-ll), characteristics which were not mentioned in 
chapter 2. 

Chapter 8 deals with rhythm and chapter 9 with the periodic style. 
Both clearly are in the domain of composition, and their being placed 
precisely after chapters 5 to 7 reinforces the argument that 5 to 7 
already deal with composition. At the beginning of chapter 8 (1408b21) 
Aristotle speaks of the cX17JLa 'T17C A€gEwc, the 'form' of a composition. 
The word cX17JLa here refers to the form of composition as is shown by 
a passage in chapter 10 (141Ob28 and 31), where cX17JLa is opposed to 
• I \ '" \ , \ I i:. ~" ~ "'. • , H' ovoJLa'Ta: Ka'Ta OE 'T'rJV /\E~ tV 'T~ JLEV cX'rJJLa'Tt •.• 'TOtC 0 ovoJLactv. ere In 
chapter 8 Aristotle opposes prose to poetry not in the same way as 
when he talked of poetic and prosaic words in chapter 1 but on 
account of the arrangement of words, an arrangement for the purpose 
of achieving prose rhythm, not metre (1408b30). He has whole 

14 Appropriateness is not the "third characteristic of good style" as Kennedy, op.cit. 
(supra n.2) 107, says, nor a separate virtue of style at all but a necessary condition of ca4>ii 
£l"cu or "a kind of corollary," as Kennedy himself calls it on p.l04. 

15 Style must be /LVr£ Ta1T£wr/" /L'l/T£ WrEP T6 &gtw/La, ilia 1Tpl1Tovca" (1404b3-4) or 'TOLC 
WroK£I/LI"olc 1TpaY/LaUI" &"&'\oyo,, (1408all). 



SONYA LIDA TARAN 71 

sentences in mind, for he recommends the use of the two kinds of 
paeon for the beginning and the end of sentences respectively (OEt oJ 
owcPl.PELV 7'~V 7'EAEV7'~V 7'ijc &pxijc 1409alO-11); it is by its rhythm that 
the end of sentences should be marked. Composition is still the point 
of view in chapter 9, where Aristotle considers "the structure of the 
sentence itself, in respect of the arrangement of its words and sub­
ordinate c1auses."16 

In chapter 10, although still with composition in mind, Aristotle 
turns to a new topic, figures of speech; and the fact that he has 
finished a part of the discussion is indicated in the text, for at the 
beginning of the chapter (141Ob6) we read: €1TEL oJ OUOpLC7'aL 1TEpL 

, 'f) \ , \' ~ \ \ , '" - \ , h 7'OV7'WV, 1TO EV I\EYE7'aL 7'a aC7'ELa Kat 7'a EVOOKLf.J,OVV7'a I\EK7'EOV, were 
1TEP;' 7'Othwv refers to the matters treated in chapters 5 to 9. Similar 
devices had been used by Aristotle on two other occasions in this 
book to indicate the end of one topic and the beginning of anotherP 
Moreover, to each of the different parts of the definition of the virtue 
of style given by Aristotle at the beginning of the discussion (chapter 
2, 1404bl-4) correspond one by one the topics discussed in the chapters 
that follow. Thus, f.J,~7'E 7'a1TELV~v (1404b3), in so far as it is the vice of 
excessive cacP~vELa, corresponds to chapter 5; f.J,7]7'E 1mEp 7'() &gtwf.J,a 

(1404b3-4), to the characteristic called 6YKOC in chapter 6, and a>"Aa 
1Tpl.1Tovcav (1404b4) to that called 7'0 1Tpl.1Tov in chapter 7. Therefore, 
we can see that Aristotle has himself divided his analysis. Since the 
modern chapter division does not go back to Aristotle nor to the 
ancients, we ought to pay attention to the text itself; it presents us 
with a division of the subject matter which in all probability goes 
back to Aristotle himself. The three sentences at the beginnings of 
chapters 2,5 and 10 perform the function of reviewing or summing up 
what has been said previously, and simultaneously they announce a 
new subject; they indicate three turning points in the treatment of 
style-the beginning of the discussion from the point of view of 
ov6f.J,a7'a, the beginning of the discussion from the point of view of 
composition, and the beginning of the discussion of the figures of 
speech. 

Kennedy says that "if chapters five to seven merely developed 
16 Cf. Cope. op.cit. (supra n.5) 306. 
17 At the beginning of ch.z (1404bl-Z) we read: lCTW ow £K£'iva T£O£WPTJf.J.1va Kal wplcOw 

Ut£wc &p£T~ .•. (where £K£'iva points to the Poetics referred to in ch.I). and at the beginning 
of ch.5 (1407aI9) we read: 0 f.J.€V oov AOYOC cVVTlO£Tat £K TOVrWV. lCTt S' ... , where £K TOVrWV 
refers to the kinds of words mentioned in chs. 2 to 4 and in the Poetics. 



72 ARISTOTLE RHETORIC 3.2-7: AN ANALYSIS 

chapter two we should expect the discussions to be more detailed. 
But in fact they are more detailed only in the discussion of points 
inconsistent with chapter two, like the five rules of hellenism, and 
much less detailed in matters like the metaphor."18 There is nothing 
surprising, however, in the fact that Aristotle felt the necessity of 
being more detailed precisely in points which had not been discussed 
before, such as the rules of composition, instead of insisting on what 
he had already said. The two treatments are different but not incon­
sistent. They appear to Kennedy to be inconsistent with one another 
only because he assumes that chapter 2 and chapter 5 are discussions 
of the same subject matter and from the same point of view. There 
are in chapter 2, moreover, cross-references to matters discussed later 
on; in 1404b30 Aristotle is explaining that certain kinds of words 
(yAOJTTCU, OL1TAci, 7TE7TO£7jp.€Va ovop.aTa) should be used sparingly, and he 
adds, 07TOV O€, VCTEpOV EpofJP.EV. This refers to chapters 3 and 7: in 
chapter 3 (1406a7) he mentions TO xpf}cOCt£ yAwTTaLc, and in chapter 7 
(140SblD-12)weread: TU o€ ovop.aTu TU O£7TA& Kat [TU]E7TtOETa 7TAEtWKUt 
TU g€VU P.&ALCTU app.OTTE£ A€YOVTL 7TU07jTLKWC. These cross-references 
show how Aristotle, when writing chapter 2, mentioned topics 
which he was planning to develop in later chapters, as he actually did. 
One could argue, as Kennedy probably would, that Aristotle inserted 
the cross-references when he wrote the "later version" (chapter 2) 
because he intended it to be read before the Hearlier version" (chap­
ters 5 to 7); but then this would mean that he considered both treat­
ments different and necessary, in which case it is of no importance for 
us which one is earlier and which one later. What is important is to 
understand the different points of view of the two discussions. In 
short, Kennedy's interpretation does not explain the text of chapters 2 
to 7 as we have them.19 

NEW YORK CITY 

October, 1973 

18 Cf op.cit. (supra n.2) 108. 
19 I wish to thank Professor James Coulter of Columbia University and the anonymous 

reader for their helpful comments.