Now, if this be taken as granted, and if, further, we keep in mind Aristotle’s habit of sticking to the facts before him, we [Sidenote: _The contents of the book._] shall not be in the least surprised to find that the _Rhetoric_ contains a great deal of matter which has either the faintest connection with literary criticism, or else no connection with it at all. It is true that of the three subjects which the _Rhetoric_ treats, _pistis_ (means of persuasion), _lexis_ (style), and _taxis_ (arrangement), the second belongs wholly and the third very mainly to our subject, while it would be by no means impossible for an ingenious arguer to make good the position that _pistis_, with no extraordinary violence of transition, may be laid at least under contribution for that _attractive_ quality which all literature as a pleasure-giving art must have. But in actual handling _Pistis_ has two out of the three books, and is treated, as a rule, from a point of view which leaves matters purely literary out of consideration altogether—"The Characteristics of Audiences," “The Colours of Good and Evil,” “The Passions as likely to exist in an Audience,” “The Material of Enthymeme” (the special rhetorical syllogism), and so forth. Only in the third book (which, by the way, is shorter than either of the other two) do we get beyond these counsels to the advocate and the public speaker, into the Higher Rhetoric which concerns all prose literature and even some poetry. And even then we meet with a sort of _douche_ of cold water which may not a little dash those who have not given careful heed to the circumstances of the case.