Neo-Aristotelianism is a view of literature and rhetorical criticism propagated by the Chicago School[1] — Ronald S. Crane, Elder Olson, Richard McKeon, Wayne Booth, and others — which means: "A view of literature and criticism which takes a pluralistic attitude toward the history of literature and seeks to view literary works and critical theories intrinsically.
[3] [4] The first mention of using Aristotle's concepts for criticism was in Hoyt Hopewell Hudson's 1921 essay, “Can We Modernize the Study of Invention?” where Hudson implied the use of topoi for “speech or argument.”[5] Its central features were more fully explicated in Herbert A. Wichelns's "The Literary Criticism of Oratory" in 1925.
It focused on analyzing the methodology behind a speaker's ability to convey an idea to its audience.
[7] Unlike rhetorical criticism, which concentrates on the study of speeches and the immediate effect of rhetoric on an audience,[8] Neo-Aristotelianism "led to the study of a single speaker because the sheer number of topics to cover relating to the rhetor and the speech made dealing with more than a single speaker virtually impossible.
"[11] Thus regardless of the lack of detail on these topics, it provided a modern structure of critiquing and analyzing speech via Neo-Aristotelianism, according to Donald C.