A comparison of Greek and Chinese rhetoric and their influence on later rhetoric

In the turn of the twenty-first century, some western scholars still hold that no classical rhetoric exists except classical Greek rhetoric. This paper presents the evidence to show that classical Chinese rhetoric is not only a natural practice but also a study of effective discourse like classical Greek rhetoric. In addition, the factors that contribute to the differences between two rhetorics are explored. Moreover, subsequent rhetorics that were influenced by classical rhetorics are discussed and compared.; Chapter I explains the reason why this study must be done and introduces what are going to be addressed in the following chapters. Chapter II describes the Greek geographical features that led to the liberal types of politics, economy, and rhetoric. The emergence of the Greek Sophists followed the practice of the democratic system. Aristotle's Rhetoric is used as a model for Chinese rhetoric that is discussed in the second chapter. Rhetoric after the classical period is summarized so that the influence of classical Greek rhetoric on later western rhetoric can be understood. Chapter III explicates the Chinese geographical features that gave rise to the conservative type of politics, economy, and rhetoric. This chapter emphasizes classical Chinese rhetoric that occurred in the period of Spring-Autumn and Warring States (from the eighth to the third centuries B.C.). The classical Chinese thinkers whose speeches and theories influenced the later generations are introduced one by one. Rhetoric after the unification of the Chin (Qin) dynasty (221 B.C.) is also summarized in order to show the influence of classical Chinese rhetoric on later Chinese rhetoric. Chapter IV deals with the contrastive study between two ancient countries from the geographical, political, economical, social, and rhetorical perspectives. The reasons why Western rhetoric and Chinese rhetoric after the classical periods had their own emphases is explained. Chapter V concludes the causes, the development, and the suppression of both rhetorics and makes some suggestions.