There is a thesis with which I completely agree:

A successful person is a speaker.

• Because speech is an important tool of a MODERN SUCCESSFUL person.
• Each of you is sure buys a mobile phone With the maximum number of useful functions: so he can not only call, but also take pictures, shoot videos. So? And it doesn't feel like overkill anymore.
• Every employer wants to hire employees with the maximum number of useful features . Skill protrude, do presentations, reports – useful employee function, agree?

Is public speaking easy to learn?

There are different types of people enrolling in my Public Speaking courses. Both confident people and insecure people. But after a while, they are already good speakers.

And absolutely.

That's why I know that speaking is easy to learn. Any person with any data.

Do not believe those people who will tell you that it is difficult to learn rhetoric.

• It's as hard and easy as learning how to ride a bike, swim or cook in the kitchen.
• For a long time he believed his friends that only a select few can learn to play the guitar. I believed until I was 18. And then I bought a guitar and a month later I was playing quite tolerably. After another half a year, he was one of the best in his hostel.

And I also heard that the orator needs some kind of innate data and abilities. For example, charisma or self confidence…

Yes, they won't interfere.

It's all good. But most often people come to me without these qualities. But... they do their homework, do the exercises... And they get excellent results in oratory.

Acquiring at the same time and charisma and confidence…

Need data. But others. At least a slight sense of pride and a little self-discipline.

It is also useful to remember that laziness is not the most important thing in life.

Is it possible to learn oratory from a self-instruction manual?

A famous proverb says that a donkey can be led to water, but no shaitan will make him drink.

No matter who teaches us, no matter how they teach, we learn ourselves. And from how much we need knowledge, so we learn.

In any training there are two main elements: theory and practice

Without theories You can learn, but it's difficult. Theory helps to acquire knowledge faster, and to master faster practice. Without practices(without lessons and exercises) learning is even more difficult. Knowledge without practices- simply rumors, which gradually are forgotten. alternately receiving knowledge and fixing them on practice, we learn any skills.

Later, when the skill is acquired, we do not remember the knowledge, and we do not control our actions - we just do it.

Public speaking is not an easy skill.

Mastering rhetoric requires practical exercises related to speaking in front of other people.

• Can do exercises alone, in front of a mirror.
• You can - exercises before video camera.

But in this case, it is useful to periodically find the practice of speaking, at work, at meetings, at parties.

One way to organize a practice is to gather a group of friends who are also interested in mastering public speaking for free and learning together.

So often it happens. Friends or colleagues who want to learn public speaking lessons for free are being interviewed. There are always those who want to learn rhetoric. And after the first meeting, rumors about useful leisure bring unfamiliar people. And all the lessons and exercises in this book can be done together.

Can be trained together with a friend.

Do practice exercises together.
And, alternately, to be a demanding teacher and a talented student.

Very welcome to collect family evenings and exercise with the family.

This is an interesting and useful family leisure activity. You will see - lessons in public speaking will appeal to all members of your family.

But if you, nevertheless, will be rhetoric do it yourself- it's also good. After all, many practical exercises can be done independently.

So where do you start?

1. Theory.

2. Practice.

Lesson #1

Let's start with a simple exercise. Read any of these parables:

Stand in front of a mirror and say any of them in your own words.

If you are already doing well in front of the mirror, turn on the camcorder.

A webcam, for example, or a video camera on a smartphone.

When it turns out well, tell this parable to one of your friends.

Next time you can do the same with any story(news) from the Internet.

Here is an example.

• The most ordinary story told by the most ordinary person:

I think it is useful to learn oratory once, so that you can use it all your life.

However, the preface dragged on - it's time to move on to the next chapters.

© AST Publishing House LLC, 2017

* * *

Foreword

Aristotle is the greatest scientist of his time, philosopher and practitioner, whose works became the basis for the development of philosophical thought in subsequent centuries. The student of the great Plato, the author of "Metaphysics", "Logic", "Politics", "Poetics", "Analytics", left to posterity works that remain modern, despite the layer of time that separates Aristotle from our contemporaries.

"Rhetoric" is a work that considers the role of speech as an important tool for social interaction and government. Oratory as a way to resolve contradictions and come to agreements, as well as to change public opinion through the skillful use of speech.

Rhetoric ( others - Greek.ρητωρικη - "oratory" from ρητωρ - "orator") - the theory of oratory, techniques and methods of constructing expressive, public speech.

"Rhetoric" of Aristotle, without exaggeration, is the basis and beginning for all works on the theory and practice of the art of persuasion, polemics, management through verbal communication.

The three books of Rhetoric contain all the basic theoretical and practical components of a successful speech.

“Speech is made up of three elements: from the speaker himself, from the subject he speaks about, and from the person to whom he refers; the audience is the ultimate goal of the speech. The ability to speak, according to Aristotle, distinguishes man from animals, it creates both a family and a state. Thanks to it, a person acquires a unique opportunity to transfer knowledge and develop it together with other people. Aristotle also considers the qualities of the orator to be important, given the power of the impact of the word on the minds and responsibility for the result. Thus, rhetoric, according to Aristotle, is not so much a philological discipline as a social one.

Types of speech, rhetorical argumentation, targeted argumentation, tools and techniques of persuasiveness, as well as the need to prepare a speaker are the topics of the second book.

In the third book, speech is considered as an art, since it has style, composition, rhythm, emotional coloring and periodicity.

Rhetoric is not only a treatise for someone who aspires to be a persuasive orator. Aristotle expresses his understanding of the nature of speech in a laconic way, but in a truly succinct way. It is in Rhetoric that he first gives his understanding of style, which in Poetics develops and becomes canonical.

The treatise has not lost its relevance. Today, it may well and even should be studied by those who need the art of persuasion, the science of communication and the means of clearly expounding their thoughts in life.

The excellent translation by N. N. Platonova preserved for the reader the style of the author himself, with clarity, consistency, clarity and humor. The text seems to retain the imprint of the personality of the great thinker of antiquity, who has been giving lessons to hundreds of generations.

Book I

Chapter I

The relation of rhetoric in dialectics. - The universality of rhetoric. – Ability to build a system of oratory. - The insufficiency of earlier systems of oratory. What should the speaker prove? - The law should, if possible, determine everything itself; the reasons for this. - Issues to be decided by the judge. – Why do researchers prefer to talk about court speeches? - Relationship between syllogism and enthymeme. - Usefulness of rhetoric, its purpose and scope.

Rhetoric is an art corresponding to dialectics, since both of them concern such subjects, acquaintance with which can in some way be considered the common property of all and everyone and which do not belong to the field of any particular science. As a result of this, all people participate in some way in both arts, since everyone, to a certain extent, has to both analyze and support some opinion, both justify and accuse. In these cases, some act by chance, others act in accordance with their abilities, developed by habit.

Since both of these paths are possible, it is obviously possible to build them into a system, since we can consider, as a result of which both those people who are guided by habit and those who act accidentally reach their goals, and that such an investigation is a matter of art, everyone will probably agree with this. So far, those who have built systems of oratory have fulfilled only a small part of their task, since in the field of oratory, only proofs have the characteristics of oratory, and everything else is nothing more than accessories. Meanwhile, the authors of the systems do not say a word about the enthymemes that constitute the essence of the proof, while at the same time spreading a lot about things that are not relevant to the case; in fact: slander, compassion, anger and other similar movements of the soul do not refer to the case before the judge, but to the judge himself. Thus, if legal proceedings were everywhere organized as they are now in some states, and mainly in those that are distinguished by a good state system, these theoreticians could not say a word. Everyone approves of such a setting of legal proceedings, but some believe that it is the business of the law to pronounce this prohibition, while others really use such a law, not allowing anything irrelevant to be said (this is also done in the Areopagus). Such an order is correct, since one should not, arousing anger, envy and compassion in the judge, embarrass him: this would mean the same as if someone distorted the ruler that he needs to use.

Moreover, it is obvious that the case of the litigant lies in nothing else than in the proof of the fact itself: that he has or does not have, did or did not take place; As for the questions whether it is important or not important, fair or not fair, that is, everything about which the legislator has not spoken, then the judge himself, of course, should have his own opinion about this, and not borrow it from the litigants.

Therefore, well-drafted laws should in the main, as far as possible, determine everything themselves and leave as little as possible to the discretion of judges, firstly, because it is easier to find one or a few than many such people who are of the right mind and are able to legislate and pronounce sentences. Moreover, laws are drawn up with people on the basis of long-term considerations, while judicial sentences are pronounced in haste, so that it is difficult for people who administer justice to distinguish well between the just and the useful.

The most important reason is that the decision of the legislator does not apply to individual cases, but concerns the future and has the character of a generality, while juries and judges pronounce sentences regarding the present, regarding individual cases, with which the feeling of love or hatred is often connected. and the consciousness of their own benefit, so that they [judges and juries] cannot see the truth with sufficient clarity: considerations of their own pleasure and displeasure interfere with the right decision of the case.

So, as we say, as far as everything else is concerned, the judge should be given as little latitude as possible; As for the questions whether a known fact has happened or not, whether it will happen or not, whether it exists or not, then the decision of these questions must be left entirely to the judges, since the legislator cannot foresee particular cases.

Since this is so, it is obvious that those who [in their reasoning] deal with other questions, for example, the question of what should be the content of the preface, or the narrative, or each of the other parts [of the speech], deal with matters that are not relevant to the case. , because [the authors of these works] discuss in this case only how to put the judge in a certain mood, without saying anything about technical proofs, while only in this way can one become capable of enthymemes. As a result of all this, although there is one and the same method for speeches addressed to the people, and for speeches of a judicial nature, and although the first kind of speeches is more beautiful and from the state point of view than speeches relating to the relations of individuals among themselves, nevertheless less scholars say nothing about the first kind of speeches, while each of them tries to reason about court speeches.

The reason for this is that in speeches of the first kind it seems less useful to say things that are not relevant to the case, and also this, that the first kind of speeches offers less scope for insidious sophistry and has more general interest, here the judge judges cases that closely concern him. so that it is only necessary to prove that the matter is exactly as the speaker says. In judicial speeches, this is not enough, but it is still useful to place the listener in your favor, because here the judge’s decision concerns cases that are alien to him, so that the judges, in essence, do not judge, but leave the matter to the litigants themselves, while observing their own benefit. and listening biasedly [to the testimony of the litigants].

As a result, in many states, as we have said before, the law forbids saying irrelevant things, but there the judges themselves take sufficient care of this.

Since it is obvious that the correct method concerns the methods of persuasion, and the method of persuasion is a kind of proof (for then we are most convinced of something when it seems to us that something has been proven), rhetorical proof is an enthymeme, and this, generally speaking, there is the most important of the methods of persuasion, and since it is obvious that the enthymeme is a kind of syllogism and that the consideration of all kinds of syllogisms belongs to the field of dialectics - either in its entirety, or some part of it - it is clear that he who has the greatest ability to understand what and how a syllogism is composed of, he can also be the most capable of enthymemes, if he adds to the knowledge of syllogisms the knowledge of what enthymemes concern, and of how they differ from purely logical syllogisms, because with the help of the same faculty we know the truth and the likeness of the truth. At the same time, people by nature are sufficiently capable of finding the truth, and for the most part find it; consequently, the one who is also resourceful in finding the truth itself must be resourceful in finding the plausible.

Rhetoric is useful because truth and justice are inherently stronger than their opposites, and if decisions are not made properly, then truth and justice are usually defeated by their opposites, which is reprehensible. Moreover, if we have even the most accurate knowledge, it is still not easy to convince some people on the basis of this knowledge, because [to evaluate] speech based on knowledge is a matter of education, but here [in front of the crowd] it is an impossible thing. Here we must certainly conduct proofs and reasonings in a public way, as we said in the Topeka regarding the appeal to the crowd. In addition, it is necessary to be able to prove the opposite, just as in syllogisms, not in order to really prove both, because one should not prove anything bad, but in order to know how it is done, and also to be able to refute if someone uses evidence that does not correspond to the truth.

None of the other arts is concerned with inferences from opposite premises; only dialectic and rhetoric do this, since both deal equally with opposites. These opposites are by nature not the same, but always the truth and that which is better, by the nature of things, is more amenable to inference and, so to speak, has a greater power of persuasiveness.

Moreover, if it is shameful not to be able to help oneself with one's body, then it cannot but be shameful to be powerless to help oneself with the word, since the use of the word is more characteristic of human nature than the use of the body. But if anyone says that a person who unjustly uses such a power of speech can do much harm, then this remark can be [to some extent] equally applied to all goods, excluding virtues, and mainly to those that are most beneficial, as, for example, to strength, health, wealth, military leadership: a person, using these benefits properly, can bring many benefits, but unjustly [using them] can do a lot of harm.

So it is obvious that rhetoric does not concern any particular class of objects, but, like dialectics [is related to all areas], and also that it is useful and that its business is not to convince, but in each given case to find ways of persuading ; the same can be observed with regard to all other arts, for the business of medical art, for example, is not to make [every person] healthy, but to approach this goal as far as possible, because it is quite possible to treat and people who can no longer recover.

In addition, it is obvious that the study of both really convincing and seemingly convincing belongs to the field of one and the same art, just as the study of both real and apparent syllogism belongs to the field of dialectics: a person does not become a sophist due to any special abilities, but because of the intention with which he uses his talent. However, here [in rhetoric] the name of the rhetor will be given according to both knowledge and intention [which induces a person to speak]. In the same place [in logic], a person is called a sophist according to his intentions, and a dialectician - not according to his intentions, but according to his abilities.

Now let's try to talk about the method itself - how and with what help we can achieve our goal. So, having defined again, as in the beginning, what rhetoric is, let's move on to a further presentation.

Chapter II

The place of rhetoric among other sciences and arts. – Technical and non-technical methods of persuasion. – Three types of technical methods of persuasion. – Rhetoric is a branch of dialectics and politics. – Example and enthymeme. – Persuasive analysis. - Issues that rhetoric deals with. What are enthymemes derived from? – Definition of probable. - Types of signs. – Example: rhetorical induction. - Common places and private enthymemes.

So, let's define rhetoric as the ability to find possible ways of persuading about any given subject. This is not the task of any other art, because every other science can teach and convince only about what belongs to its field, as, for example, the art of medicine about what promotes health or leads to illness, geometry about possible between magnitudes of change, arithmetic - relative to numbers; so are the rest of the arts and sciences; rhetoric, on the other hand, seems to be able to find ways of persuading about any given subject, which is why we say that it does not concern any particular, definite class of subjects.

Of the methods of persuasion, some are non-technical, while others are technical. Non-technical I call those methods of persuasion that are not invented by us, but existed before [besides us]; this includes: witnesses, testimony given under torture, written contracts, etc.; technical [I call] those that can be created by us with the help of the method and our own means, so that the first of the proofs need only be used, the second must be [previously] found.

As for the methods of persuasion delivered by speech, there are three types: some of them depend on the character of the speaker, others - on one or another mood of the listener, and others - on the speech itself. These latter consist in actual or apparent proof.

[The proof is achieved] with the help of the moral character [of the speaker] in the case when the speech is pronounced in such a way that it inspires confidence in the person who delivers it, because in general we more and more likely believe good people, in those cases where there is nothing clear and where there is room for hesitation, and even more so; and this must not be the result of a pre-existing belief that the speaker has certain moral qualities, but a consequence of the speech itself, since it is unjust to think, as some of the people who deal with this subject, that the honesty of the speaker also lies in art, as if it represents is, so to speak, the strongest evidence.

The proof depends on the listeners themselves, when the latter become excited under the influence of speech, because we make different decisions under the influence of pleasure and displeasure, love or hate. These methods of persuasion, we repeat, are exclusively concerned with the current theoreticians of verbal art. We will deal with each of these methods separately when we talk about passions.

Finally, the speech itself convinces us when the speaker deduces real or apparent truth from the arguments that are available for each given question.

Since it is possible to convince by such ways, it is obvious that they can only be used by a person capable of reasoning and researching characters, virtues and passions - what each of the passions is, what it is by its nature and how and how it appears - so that rhetoric turns out to be, as it were, a branch of dialectics and of that science of morals, which it is fair to call politics. As a result, rhetoric takes the form of politics, and people who consider rhetoric to be their property pass themselves off as politicians, whether due to ignorance, or charlatanism, or due to other reasons inherent in human nature. In fact, as we said at the beginning, rhetoric is a certain part and semblance of dialectics: both are not a science about any particular subject, about what its nature is, but both of them are only methods for finding evidence. So, perhaps, we have said enough about the essence of these sciences and about their mutual relationship.

As for ways of proving in a real or apparent way, just as in dialectics there is an induction, a syllogism and an apparent syllogism, so it is here too, because an example is nothing but an induction, an enthymeme is a syllogism, an apparent enthymeme is an apparent syllogism. I call rhetorical syllogism an enthymeme, and rhetorical induction as an example: after all, all speakers state their arguments either by giving examples or building enthymemes, and apart from this they do not use any methods of proof.

So, if at all it is necessary to prove anything, either by syllogism or induction (and this is obvious to us from the "Analytics"), then each of these methods of proof will necessarily coincide with each of the above.

As for the difference between an example and an enthymeme, it is obvious from the Topics, since it was said earlier about syllogism and induction: when, on the basis of many similar cases, a conclusion is drawn regarding the presence of some fact, then such a conclusion is called induction there, here - an example. If, on the other hand, it is concluded from the presence of some fact that the presence of another fact, different from it, is always or mostly a consequence of the presence of this fact, then such a conclusion is called there a syllogism, but here an enthymeme.

Obviously, both types of rhetorical argumentation have their merits. What we said in the Method, we also find here: some speeches are rich in examples, others in enthymemes; in the same way, among speakers, some are inclined to examples, others to enthymemes. Speeches filled with examples are no less persuasive, but speeches rich in enthymemes are more impressive. We shall later speak of the reason for this, and also of the manner in which each of these two kinds of arguments is to be used. Now let us define more precisely their very essence.

What is persuasive must be so for some famous person, and moreover, one kind of persuasive immediately convinces and inspires confidence in itself, and another kind achieves this because it seems to be proved through the medium of the persuasive first kind; but not a single art considers particular cases: for example, medicine does not talk about what is healthy for Socrates or for Callias, but about what is healthy for a person of such and such properties or for people of such and such; questions of this kind enter the realm of art, while particular cases are innumerable and inaccessible to knowledge. Therefore, rhetoric does not consider what is plausible for an individual, for example, for Socrates or Callias, but has in mind what is convincing for all people, as they are. Dialectics does exactly the same; this art does not draw conclusions from anything (after all, some things seem convincing to madmen), but only from what needs to be discussed; likewise, rhetoric deals with questions that are usually the subject of discussion for people.

It deals with those questions about which we deliberate, but for which we have no strictly defined rules, and has in mind those listeners who are not able to grasp at once a long thread of reasoning, nor to draw conclusions from afar. We confer on what apparently admits the possibility of a twofold solution, which is why no one confers on those things that cannot, could not, and in the future cannot be different, since we understand them as such - we do not confer because it leads nowhere.

It is possible to draw conclusions and deduce a consequence, firstly, from what has already been proved before by syllogistic means, and secondly, from such provisions that, having not been previously proved by means of syllogism, need a similar proof, as not appearing without it. believable; in the first case, the reasoning is incomprehensible due to its length, because the judge is supposed to be an ordinary person, and in the second they are not convincing, because they have as their starting point positions that are not generally recognized or implausible. Thus, the enthymeme and the example must necessarily be: the first a syllogism, the second an induction about something that can have a different outcome altogether. Both the enthymeme and the example are derived from few propositions; often there are fewer of them than in the derivation of the first syllogism, because if any of them is well known, it does not need to be quoted, since the listener himself adds it, for example, in order to express the idea that Doria won the competition, the reward for which serves as a wreath, it is enough to say that he won the Olympic Games, and that a wreath serves as a reward for victory, this does not need to be added, because everyone knows this.

There are few necessary propositions from which rhetorical syllogisms are derived, because most of the things that are disputed and reasoned about can be different [compared to what they are], because people reason and reflect on what is the object of their activity, and all their activity is precisely this: nothing in it has the character of necessity, and what happens and happens for the most part must necessarily be deduced from other propositions of this kind, just as what is necessary by its nature must be deduced from the necessary (all this is also known to us from "Analytics"). From this it is clear that from among those provisions from which enthymemes are derived, some have the character of necessity, others - and such are the majority of them - the character of chance; thus enthymemes are derived from the probable or from the signs, so that each of these two concepts necessarily coincides with each other of them.

Probable is what happens for the most part, and not just what happens, as some define it, but what can happen otherwise; it is related to that in relation to which it is probable, as the general is to the particular.

As for the signs, some of them have the meaning of the general in relation to the particular, others - of the particular in relation to the general; of these, those that necessarily lead to a conclusion are called omens; those that do not necessarily lead to a conclusion do not have a name that would correspond to their distinctive feature.

Necessarily leading to the conclusion, I call those signs from which a syllogism is formed. Hence this kind of sign is called a necessary sign, for when people think that what they say cannot be refuted, then they think that they have brought the proof as something "proved" and "finished", because in the ancient language tecmar and peras mean the same thing.

Of the signs, some have the meaning of the particular in relation to the general, as, for example, if someone called the sign that the wise men are just that Socrates was wise and just. This is a sign, but it can be refuted even if what is said is true, because it cannot be reduced to a syllogism. Another kind of signs, for example, if someone says that such and such a person is sick because he has a fever, or that such and such a woman has given birth because she has milk - this kind of signs has the character of necessity. Of the signs, only this kind is a proof, because it alone cannot be refuted, since [the premise] is true. A sign going from the general to the particular [would be], for example, if someone considers proof that such and such a person suffers from a fever, the fact that this person breathes rapidly; this can be refuted, even if this statement is true, because sometimes a person who does not suffer from fever has to breathe quickly.

So, we said what a sign and a sign are, and how they differ from each other; in more detail, we analyzed the question of both this and why some proofs were not deduced, while others were deduced according to the rules of the syllogism - in the "Analytics". We have also said that an example is an induction, and we have explained what this induction concerns: an example signifies neither the relation of part to whole, nor of whole to part, nor of whole to whole, but of part to part, like to like, when both of these cases fit. under the same category of cases, one of them being better known than the other; for example, [we assume] that Dionysius, asking for an armed guard, is plotting to become a tyrant, on the grounds that earlier this Pisistratus, planning to become a tyrant, demanded a guard for himself and, having received it, became a tyrant; Theagenes of Megara and other people well known to us did the same; all of them in this case become examples in relation to Dionysius, about whom we do not know for sure whether he asks for a guard precisely for this purpose. All the cases cited fit under the general proposition that, since a man asks for a guard, he plans to become a tyrant. We have thus said of what modes of persuasion that seem apodictic are composed. There is one huge difference between enthymemes, which is completely forgotten by almost all researchers, it is the same as with respect to the dialectical method of syllogisms; it consists in the fact that some of the enthymemes are formed in accordance with the rhetorical and also with the dialectical method of syllogisms, while others are formed in accordance with other arts and possibilities, some of which already exist in a finished form, while others have not yet received complete completion. As a result, people who use them, imperceptibly using them more than they should, go beyond their role as mere speakers. What we have said will become clearer if we develop our thought in more detail. I say that dialectical and rhetorical syllogisms concern what we talk about in general places (tops); they are common to arguments about justice, about natural phenomena, and about many other subjects that are different from one another; such, for example, is the top of greater and lesser, because it is equally convenient to construct a syllogism or enthymeme on the basis of it both with respect to justice and natural phenomena, and with respect to any other object, even if these objects are completely different in nature. I call particular enthymemes that are derived from premises relating to certain kinds and types of phenomena, for example, there are premises of physics from which it is impossible to derive an enthymeme or a syllogism regarding ethics, and in the field of ethics there are other premises from which it is impossible to make any conclusion for physics, just the same in the field of all [other sciences]. Those [enthymemes of the first kind, that is, tops] will not make a person versed in the field of any particular science, because they do not concern any particular subject. As for enthymemes of the second kind, the better we choose our premises, the sooner we imperceptibly form a field of science that is different from dialectics and rhetoric, and if we get to the basic provisions, we will no longer have before us dialectics and rhetoric, but that science, the basic provisions of which we have mastered. Most of the enthymemes are derived from these particular special provisions; less of them are taken out of the tops.

Now, just like in the topic, we need to consider the types of enthymemes, as well as the tops from which they need to be derived. By types I mean the premises that are characteristic of each separate kind of objects, and by tops - the premises that are equally common to all objects.

So let's talk about types first. Let us first consider the types of rhetoric, in order, having determined their number, to analyze the elements and premises of each of them separately.

But it is also the key to success in life. After all, a person who has the skills of oratory, a priori, has a much greater chance of becoming an outstanding personality, a famous figure, an influential person, a celebrity, etc. And if this does not interest you, then, in any case, the ability to express yourself eloquently and convincingly will always serve you well and come in handy in any life situation.

Of course, today there is a very large number of various materials on the topic of oratory, such as video and audio lessons, lectures and courses, Internet portals (for example, a website), etc., and rhetoric in general is one of the compulsory subjects in educational programs of some educational institutions. But, be that as it may, the most common way to obtain any information are books, even if in electronic form. And the article presented to your attention is devoted specifically to books on the subject we are studying in this course. Below we look at some of the most interesting, most popular and effective public speaking books that are sure to please anyone interested in developing their public speaking skills.

This book on rhetoric was written by the German professor of Bremen University X. Lemmermann almost in the middle of the last century. The book is intended as a systematic introduction to modern rhetoric for the unenlightened reader without special philological and linguistic education. Heinz Lemmermann is trying to popularize the key concepts and principles of rhetoric that are necessary for each of us. The textbook is suitable for both adults and schoolchildren, and in it everyone can master the course of rhetoric offered by the author and learn how to speak clearly and convincingly in public.

As we can see, a fairly large number of books are devoted to the topic of oratory, rhetoric and other related issues today, each of which is interesting and unique in its own way, and each of which provides the most useful information necessary for study. This speaks to the importance of how important it is to have a good theoretical base and knowledge. And this is really important. But, along with this, we must not forget that, in addition to theory, there is practice, which also plays a crucial role.

Therefore, study books on public speaking and absorb new knowledge, but remember that all this knowledge must be confirmed by experience. So, use everything you learn in your daily life.

We wish you success in mastering the skills of public speaking!

The impression that a person makes on others, already in the first minutes of acquaintance, can completely change his future. Career, financial situation, relationships with friends and personal life depend on the ability to clearly and distinctly express one's thoughts, the ability to hear and listen, to convince and negotiate.

Rhetoric and oratory

Oratory is not just the ability to speak a lot and beautifully. A good speaker must master the basics of psychology and acting, philosophy and analytics. Its main goal is not just to convey certain information to the interlocutor, but also to arouse interest among the audience, to encourage listeners to perform certain actions.

10 basic rules of rhetoric

In rhetoric, 10 components are distinguished that affect the quality of speech and underlie oratory.

Objectivity

You should not present your own beliefs as an indisputable truth. The speech of the speaker must be unbiased, and the information truthful;

Conciseness

Clarity

Clarity is the ability to explain complex things in simple terms, to present information in a form understandable to the interlocutor;

Imagery

Using as examples of real life situations, comparisons and comparisons, causes the listener to associate with familiar, well-known things. The feelings and emotions that arise at the same time simplify the perception of information and make speech more memorable;

Expediency

The main idea of ​​what was said should be easily caught and quickly remembered;

Voltage

The interlocutor needs to be captivated, interested, and, while maintaining intrigue and increasing the degree of tension, gradually bring him to the climax of the story;

Surprise

A non-standard approach and a fresh look at the situation increase the audience's interest in the speaker and his speech;

Saturation

The listener should not be loaded with an abundance of difficult-to-perceive terms and formulations, they must be alternated with simple and understandable information;

comic effect

Humor smooths out sharp corners, evokes the audience's disposition, and performances diluted with a good joke or appropriate witticism are better remembered;

Style

You should not make pathos and lofty speeches, but at the same time, what has been said should not seem vulgar or vulgar. The choice of storytelling style depends on its content and the target audience for which the speech is intended.