Rhetoric in Ancient China, Fifth to Third Century B.C.E: A Comparison with Classical Greek Rhetoric

Studies in Rhetoric & Communication

by Xing Lu

In Rhetoric in Ancient China, Fifth to Third Century B.C.E., Xing Lu examines language art, persuasion, and argumentation in ancient China and offers a detailed and authentic account of ancient Chinese rhetorical theories and practices in the society's philosophical, political, cultural, and linguistic contexts. She focuses on the works of ten well-known Chinese thinkers from Confucius to Han Feizi as well as on the Later Mohists, a group that represents five schools of thought - Mingjia, Confucianism, Daoism, Mohism, and Legalism. Lu identifies seven key Chinese terms pertaining to speech, language, persuasion, and argumentation as they appeared in these original texts, selecting ming bian as the linchpin for the Chinese conceptual term of rhetorical studies.

350 pages, Hardcover

First published August 1, 1998

Reviews

[Brent Pinkall · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, Lu disproves the common assumption that ancient China had no rhetorical tradition and that it was in fact hostile to rhetoric. She presents the five major schools of thought (Confucianism, Mohism, Daoism, the School of Logicians, and Legalism) and shows how each addressed rhetoric, which Lu identifies primarily with the terms ming (名) and bian (辩). One strength of this book is that Lu recognizes that the ancient conceptualization of rhetoric is not uniform but differs across various schools. Another strength is that Lu does not only use pinyin when referring to Chinese terms, but often gives the Chinese characters along with the pinyin. Lu points out that although the ancient Chinese never systematized rhetoric, as did the ancient Greeks, they clearly conceptualized it and valued it. Lu cites a vast number of ancient texts to prove her point. The title suggests an in-depth comparison of the Chinese and Greek rhetorical traditions, but she primarily focuses on the Chinese tradition with only a handful of comparisons to the Greek tradition. If you're not already familiar with the Greek tradition you will likely not understand her few references to it. I do, however, wish this book covered a longer time period, showing how these earlier conceptions of rhetoric influenced later developments like the Imperial Examinations.