Antithesis (Rhetorical Devices) - EssayScam
Intertwined with syntax, rhetoric exerts another powerful influence on Elizabethan writing. Rhetoric in its original sense means "the art or study of using language effectively and persuasively." While I won't be getting into some of the more obscure terms (is there anyone who isn't frightened by a mouthful of syllables like "paraprosdokian"?), a healthy understanding of poetry's debt to rhetoric is in order. Below is a table of some of the more common devices employed for emphasis in Shakespeare:
Stylistic and Rhetorical Devices | Metaphor | Irony
Writing with Clarity and Style: AGuide toRhetorical Devices for Contemporary Writers takes you farbeyond thematerialhere, with full discussions of 60 devices, what they are, and how tousethem effectively in modern writing.
Aristotelian rhetoric as such is a neutral tool that can be used by persons of virtuous or depraved character. This capacity can be used for good or bad purposes; it can cause great benefits as well as great harms. There is no doubt that Aristotle himself regards his system of rhetoric as something useful, but the good purposes for which rhetoric is useful do not define the rhetorical capacity as such. Thus, Aristotle does not hesitate to concede on the one hand that his art of rhetoric can be misused. But on the other hand he tones down the risk of misuse by stressing several factors: Generally, it is true of all goods, except virtue, that they can be misused. Secondly, using rhetoric of the Aristotelian style, it is easier to convince of the just and good than of their opposites. Finally, the risk of misuse is compensated by the benefits that can be accomplished by rhetoric of the Aristotelian style.
Antithesis - Examples and Definition of Antithesis
The more connectionsbetweenideas you can make in an essay, whether those connections are simpletransitionaldevices or more elaborate rhetorical ones, the fewer your reader willhaveto guess at, and therefore the clearer your points will be.
Repetition - Examples and Definition of Repetition
How is it possible for the orator to bring the audience to a certain emotion? Aristotle's technique essentially rests on the knowledge of the definition of every significant emotion. Let, for example, anger be defined as “desire, accompanied with pain, for conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight that was directed against oneself orthose near to one, when such a slight is undeserved.” (Rhet. II.2 1378a31–33). According to such a definition, someone who believes that he has suffered a slight from a person who is not entitled to do so, etc., will become angry. If we take such a definition for granted, it is possible to deduce circumstances in which a person will most probably be angry; for example, we can deduce (i) in what state of mind people are angry and (ii) against whom they are angry and (iii) for what sorts of reason. Aristotle deduces these three factors for several emotions in the chapters II.2–11. With this equipment, the orator will be able, for example, to highlight such characteristics of a case as are likely toprovoke anger in the audience. In comparison with the tricks of former rhetoricians, this method of arousing emotions has a striking advantage: The orator who wants to arouse emotions must not even speak outside the subject; it is sufficient to detect aspects of a given subject that are causally connected with the intended emotion.
Shakespeare's Grammar: Rhetorical Devices
The chronological fixing of the Rhetoric has turned out to be a delicate matter. At least the core of Rhet. I & II seems to be an early work, written during Aristotle's first stay in Athens (it is unclear, however, which chapters belong to that core; regularly mentioned are the chapters I.4–15 and II.1–17).It is true that the Rhetoric refers to historical events that fall in the time of Aristotle's exile and his second stay in Athens, but most of them can be found in the chapters II.23–24,and besides this, examples could have been updated, which is especially plausible if we assume that the Rhetoric formed the basis of a lecture held several times. Most striking are the affinities to the (also early) Topics; if, as it is widely agreed, the Topics represents a pre-syllogistic state of Aristotelian logic, the same is true of the Rhetoric: we actually find no hints of syllogistic inventory in it.