Classical Rhetoric traces its roots back to ancient Greece, where “rhetoric” referred to the art of public speaking as it evolved under the constitutional government, notably in the fourth and fifth century Athenian democracy. As rhetoric came to be treated as an art, it began to be discussed, according to George Alexander Kennedy, in “handbooks, speeches, dialogues, treatises, and lectures and was expanded and developed by teachers of public speaking, philosophers, and practicing orators to produce what we call ‘classical rhetoric,’ social and political practices and a body of texts that describe or illustrate that practice” (1980, 1).  Classical rhetoric was inherited in the middle ages, and new teachings focused on classical sources, primarily the writings of Cicero, as well as Plato, Aristotle, Quintilian, and other Greek and Latin sources. All communication involves rhetoric, as rhetoric refers to the means by which the speaker or writer attempts to accomplish the purpose of the communication. In classical rhetoric, the purpose was considered to be persuasion, manifesting in many different forms, such as converting the beliefs of the audience, imparting them with a particular emotion or idea, teaching or professing, and even pure entertainment. There are two types of persuasion: direct, which involves force, bribes, or threats, and symbolic, which employs signs, most often in the forms of words and gestures. Classical rhetoric also considers the idea of primary rhetoric, which is relative to the culture in which the rhetoric takes place. As Kennedy says of the Greeks, “Rhetoric was primarily an art of persuasion; it was primarily something used in civic life; it was primarily oral. Primary rhetoric involves utterance on a specific occasion; it is an act not a text, though subsequently it can be treated as a text” (1980, 2).  Conversely, secondary rhetoric refers to techniques found in art, literature, and discourse that do not attempt to achieve persuasion. While secondary rhetoric does not necessarily work towards the act of persuasion, it can advance the purpose of the communicator indirectly. It may not work to persuade the audience for a particular idea, but it might enhance, elucidate, or emphasize the idea (Kennedy, 1980).