Rhetoric has been commonly defined as "The power of persuading." This
opinion originated with Isocrates, if the work ascribed to him be really
his; not that he intended to dishonor his profession, tho he gives us a
generous idea of rhetoric by calling it the workmanship of persuasion.
We find almost the same thing in the Gorgias of Plato, but this is the
opinion of that rhetorician, and not of Plato. Cicero has written in
many places that the duty of an orator is to speak in "a manner proper
to persuade"; and in his books of rhetoric, of which undoubtedly he does
not approve himself, he makes the end of eloquence to consist in
persuasion.
But does not money likewise persuade? Is not credit, the authority of
the speaker, the dignity of a respectable person, attended with the same
effect? Even without speaking a word, the remembrance of past services,
the appearance of distress, a beautiful aspect, make deep impressions on
minds and are decisive in their favor.
Did Antonius, pleading the cause of M. Aquilius, trust to the force of
his reasons when he abruptly tore open his garment and exposed to view
the honorable wounds he received fighting for his country? This act of
his forced streams of tears from the eyes of the Roman people, who, not
able to resist so moving a spectacle, acquitted the criminal. Sergius
Galba escaped the severity of the laws by appearing in court with his
own little children, and the son of Gallus Sulpitius, in his arms. The
sight of so many wretched objects melted the judges into compassion.
This we find equally attested by some of our historians and by a speech
of Cato. What shall I say of the example of Phryne, whose beauty was of
more service in her cause than all the eloquence of Hyperides; for tho
his pleading was admirable in her defense, yet perceiving it to be
without effect, by suddenly laying open her tunic he disclosed the naked
beauty of her bosom, and made the judges sensible that she had as many
charms for them as for others. Now, if all these instances persuade,
persuasion, then, can not be the end of rhetoric.
Some, therefore, have seemed to themselves rather more exact who, in the
main of the same way of thinking, define rhetoric as the "Power of
persuading by speaking." It is to this that Gorgias, in the book above
cited, is at last reduced by Socrates. Theodectes does not much differ
from them, if the work ascribed to him be his, or Aristotle's. In this
book the end of rhetoric is supposed to be "The leading of men wherever
one pleases by the faculty of speaking." But this definition is not
sufficiently comprehensive. Many others besides the orator persuade by
their words and lead minds in whatever direction they please.
Some, therefore, as Aristotle, setting aside the consideration of the
end, have defined rhetoric to be "The power of inventing whatever is
persuasive in a discourse." This definition is equally as faulty as that
just mentioned, and is likewise defective in another respect, as
including only invention, which, separate from elocution, can not
constitute a speech.
It appears from Plato's Gorgias that he was far from regarding rhetoric
as an art of ill tendency, but that, rather it is, or ought to be, if
we were to conceive an adequate idea of it inseparable from virtue. This
he explains more clearly in his Phædrus, where he says that "The art can
never be perfect without an exact knowledge and strict observance of
justice." I join him in this opinion, and if these were not his real
sentiments, would he have written an apology for Socrates and the
eulogium of those brave citizens who lost their lives in the defense of
their country? This is certainly acting the part of an orator, and if in
any respect he attacks the profession, it is on account of those who
make ill use of eloquence. Socrates, animated with the same spirit,
thought it unworthy of him to pronounce the speech Lysias had composed
for his defense, it being the custom of the orators of those times to
write speeches for arraigned criminals, which the latter pronounced in
their own defense; thus eluding the law that prohibited pleading for
another. Plato, likewise, in his Phædrus, condemns the masters that
separated rhetoric from justice, and preferred probabilities to truth.
Such are the definitions of rhetoric which have been principally set
forth. To go through all of them is not my purpose, nor do I think it
possible, as most writers on arts have shown a perverse dislike for
defining things as others do or in the same terms as those who wrote
before them. I am far from being influenced by a like spirit of
ambition, and far from flattering myself with the glory of invention,
and I shall rest content with that which seems most rational, that
rhetoric is properly defined as "The science of speaking well." Having
found what is best, it is useless to seek further.
Accepting this definition, therefore, it will be no difficult matter to
ascertain its end, for if it be "The science of speaking well," then "to
speak well" will be the end it proposes to itself.