Rhetoric is a powerful tool that has been used for centuries as a way to argue and defend one’s ideas. During the lifespan of rhetoric, a Macedonian man named Aristotle played an important role in its development. Aristotle’s teachings in Ancient Greece helped shape and define the multiple parts that rhetoric has to offer. Of these parts, he makes an effort to explain how rhetoric is split into three different groups dealing with setting. According to Aristotelian rhetoric, the three settings are: deliberative, judicial, and epideictic. Generating these subgroups allows observers to understand the type of arguments taking place. Eugene Garver states a rhetoric’s setting is imperative because “sometimes an audience needs to know what sort of argument it is hearing in order to receive it properly, just as audiences need to know what genre of literature they might be reading”(2). By creating this concept of setting, rhetoricians are more capable of thoroughly dissecting rhetoric. It made sense for Aristotle to go about defining rhetoric in groups since he was a biologist, and discovered natural things came in kinds(Garver 2). That being said, not every situation of rhetoric is subjected to only a single setting.  Overall, in Ancient Greece rhetorical settings simply serves as a way for arguments to lead to a judgement. Through each of Aristotle’s three settings, the audience is able to effectively apply their judgements which creates action.  

The first setting of rhetoric that Aristotle discussed was deliberative. This deliberative oratory focuses on the future and influences action about what should be done. Since an action needs to be determined, it is necessary for a judgement to be made. Richard Mezo explains “I further submit that any kind of deliberative discourse could be represented as being at a point on a continuum ranging from a ‘calling to understanding’ to a ‘call to action’”(164). This essentially means being able to comprehend a situation leading to a judgement that will eventually cause an action. Judgements associating with this setting were used in speeches during legislative debates regarding laws. “Deliberative rhetoric is about the particular things Greek assemblies had to worry about”(Garver 8). At this time in history, the polis, made of rich male landowners, were the people that would be using rhetoric in assemblies. This setting of rhetoric can also be seen at the most simple. Yameng Liu says, “Aristotle holds that deliberative speech should be the norm for rhetorical invention. Since in deliberative oratory, the only thing necessary is to prove the truth of the statement of one who recommends a measure”(56). This also causes judgement since an audience must determine whether the rhetor is accurate. We can see deliberative as having the least amount of moving factors of the three settings or rhetoric. That being said, it can in some situations be more difficult than the other two settings. Yameng Liu states, “and among the reasons Aristotle has given reason for passing judgement, we have deliberative speaking that does not allow many opportunities for lingering”(56). Furthermore, in this deliberative rhetoric judgements are made in shorter periods of time. 

Deliberative rhetoric in the time of Aristotle applied to more political issues with a wider use of rational. Being able to use reason within political debates calls for the use of judgements from opposing views. Eugene Garver explains, “deliberative rhetoric is based on means/ends reasoning that not only characterizes deliberation in the Ethics but also characterizes techne, the rational power of making”(16). The general purpose of using this setting of rhetoric is to use judgements that will create an end or outcome for the future. Now as time has passed, there are some differences between today’s use and Ancient Greece. Richard Mezo states, “ however, some points of emphasis might be changed to good advantage. For example, in ancient Greece deliberative oratory may have been synonymous with political oratory, but our society is not the same as the one in which Aristotle lived and worked”(164). This meant that back then it was more used for politics and determining powers. On the other hand, today it is associated with creating a public idea in front of an audience. Evidence from the current point in time is weighed and discussed in order to determine an effective public plan for the future. Through all of this, we can recognize how the concepts of deliberative rhetoric has evolved, but that the use of judgments have stayed consistent.

The second setting of rhetoric that Aristotle discussed is epideictic or the rhetoric of the past. This type of rhetoric can be considered ceremonial since it often times recognized honorable people or ideas from the past. Richard Mezo explains, “The latter is intended to be, to a great extent, ceremonial, that is, praise for a person, group, or an institution. This kind of oratory may of course contain blame rather than praise”(165). By Mezo bringing up this point of praise and blame, it goes to show how varying judgements can decide how things of the past are viewed and handled. Gerard Hauser comments, “ Commemorating a specific excellence makes it virtuously intelligible to the community. The shared testimony of audience members both certifies the reality of this excellence as a civic virtue while joining community members with bonds of affiliation to the celebrated values and deeds”(19). An audience being able to come together and discuss a value or individual that is well known allows room for judgements to be made and altered based on each other. The public spaces at the time of Aristotle were mainly used by the polis to commemorate those of their social class. Additionally, it contributed to the ongoing political education of the polis(Hauser 14). There were many times that epideictic oratory was used in a knowledgeable manner. “Although speeches of display were common at that time, the contents of the epideictic address were not necessarily frivolous. When juxtaposed with the requirements for an audience competent to understand Aristotle’s model rhetor, epideictic subject matter suggests that this genre served an important educative function”(Hauser 10). Being able to use history and create a judgement from it, allows the audience to further understand the topic at hand. 

What separates epideictic rhetoric from the other settings is the capability of affecting large communities rather and just a few of an audience. Techniques such as storytelling are keen in that they are easily understood and can generate judgments. Gerard Hauser says, “Aristotle also enhances the role of epideictic by assigning its practitioners the responsibilities for telling the story of lived virtue” (14). The way Aristotle chose to use epideictic oratory, it influenced nobility and morality. By choosing virtues that were of the highest kinds and most useful to others, it created more of a benefit for the community. He made sure to explain that he was using past people as platforms to spread a virtue, not only as praise. “Aristotle says ‘praise is the expression in the words of the eminence of a man’s good qualities, and therefore we must display his actions as the product of such qualities”(Hauser 15). Judging a man by his actions, and taking away the virtues behind those actions was his ultimate goal. Today, this setting of rhetoric is used as a source of inspiration to certain audiences with predetermined expectations. Some examples of epideictic rhetoric today may be church sermons, political speeches, and sports teams discussion(Mezo 165). These types of audiences share common judgements and viewpoint which makes the job of the rhetor easier. 

The last setting of rhetoric that Aristotle created was judicial rhetoric, further known as the rhetoric of the present. This type of oratory is used in legal environments such as courtrooms. Richard Mezo states, “such oratory is primarily the officially sanctioned language used in a court of law or its equivalent. Its hallmarks are traditionally legal jargon, including many Latinate terms; common terms used in special or limited senses; and particular formats that are not designed for communication with general audiences(165). This type of rhetoric may be considered as the most demanding of judgement. Jury members and judges are assigned with the tasks of analyzing the rhetoric of lawyers.  Gerard Hauser says, “Judicial rhetoric relying on enthymemes of argument, emotion, and character requires an audience attuned to a more temperate norm of shaping society’s course by weighing alternatives”(17). The audience is needed to make decisions regarding situations of the present. With such demand for judgement, the rhetor can sometimes be unreliable due to them conforming truths to persuade the audience. Pathos, logos, and ethos are applied within lawyers rhetoric to strengthen their arguments. Aristotle and the Ancient Greece use of this setting for the most part aligns with the contemporary use today. Morality and character are the main traits affected by a person interacting with this form of rhetoric. The only notable difference is, judicial rhetoric is partly shaped by the peculiarities of greek legal procedures(Garver8). Today we handle judicial affairs in a different manner than Ancient Greece. During that time, citizens would normally represent and defend themselves so it was imperative to have some sort of rhetoric skills. Those who didn’t possess these qualities were at an extreme disadvantage. In today’s society we have professionally trained rhetoricians that are readily able to represent us. Nonetheless, judgements play a major factor in judicial rhetoric since the rhetor is directly attempting to fix the ideas of the audience. 

The three setting of rhetoric overall categorizes oratory into similar kinds in which rhetors use them, and ways audiences make judgments off of them. It is important to note that while there are three kinds of rhetoric, the audience is usually made up of different types of interpreters. This implies that individuals think in certain ways, so all judgments aren’t made in the exact same manner. Aristotle being in a different environment of Ancient Greece explains why there are variances in today’s use of deliberative, epediectic, and forensic rhetoric. Regardless, the overarching goal is to have these judgements result in some sort of action. Judgement is what rhetors are seeking to effect, so this makes it one of the fundamental aspects of Aristotle’s rhetorical setting.