The readings on Chinese rhetoric cast a new light onto the whole history of the art. Xing Lu says that “A true sense of fidelity may never be reached in translation, since in many ways translation is an interpretation and re-creation by the translator of the author’s original meaning” (p.37). And although the traditions of sophistry and rhetoric were passed down through generations of Latin-speakers, we have still been faced with the “re-creation” of the letters, essays and speeches produced well over two-thousand years ago. Perhaps this is why the concept of rhetoric remains today under so much scrutiny and debate.

We rely upon translations to study the Greek sophists, Chinese rhetoricians, and the writings and speeches of a number of other cultures. Thus far in our readings, the study of rhetoric in history has more closely resembled a sort of anthropology. We not only study the worldwide concept of all aspects of speech, persuasion, philosophical questions, disputations, storytelling, etc., but to understand the concept of rhetoric historically we also need to study the people of the time. Xing Lu says in his Introduction to “Rhetoric in Ancient China”, “The task of a rhetorician scholar, then, is to remain open to the universal sense of rhetoric, as well as to the transformative power of a particular culture on the practice of rhetoric” (p.3).  Hence the need not only to translate what has been recorded in other languages, but also to take an in-depth look at the politics, epistemology, ethics, and society of that given culture.

The study of rhetorics is extensive and seemingly endless. It will never be exhausted because changing generations will interpret differently all of the theories that have come before their time. We will always find new ways to apply the concepts that arise from study and discourse.