Classical Rhetoric
1. Definitions
The importance of rhetoric in ancient education and public life is
reflected in the wealth of rhetorical treatises composed by classical
orators and teachers of oratory. An understanding of classical rhetoric
can be gained only by a study of its purpose, subject-matter, and content.
The _Rhetoric_ of Aristotle has sometimes been called the first rhetoric.
In two senses this is not true. Aristotle's contribution to rhetorical
theory is not a text-book, but a philosophical treatise, a part of his
whole philosophical system. In the second place, even in his day there
were many text-books of rhetoric with which Aristotle finds fault for
their incomplete and unphilosophical treatment. If the _Rhetoric ad
Alexandrum_, at one time falsely attributed to Aristotle and incorporated
in early editions of his works, is typical of the earliest Greek
text-books, the failure of the others to survive is fortunate. Aristotle's
rhetorical theories superseded those of the early text-books, and through
the influence of his _Rhetoric_ and the teaching of his pupil Theophrastus
set their seal on subsequent rhetorical theory. In practice as distinct
from theory, Isocrates probably had an influence more direct and intense,
but briefer.
Definitions
"Rhetoric," says Aristotle, "may be defined as a faculty of discovering
all the possible means of persuasion in any subject."[37]
He compares rhetoric with medicine; for the purpose of medicine, he
believes, is not "to restore a person to perfect health but only to bring
him to as high a point of health as possible."[38] Neither medicine nor
rhetoric can promise achievement, for in either case there is always
something incalculable.
Although Aristotle, with philosophical caution, was careful to state that
the function of rhetoric is not to persuade but to discover the available
means of persuasion,[39] his successors were more direct, if less
accurate. Hermagoras affirms that the purpose of rhetoric is
persuasion,[40] and Dionysius of Halicarnassus defines rhetoric as the
artistic mastery of persuasive speech in communal affairs.[41] But the
anonymous author of the Latin rhetorical treatise addressed to C.
Herennius, long believed to be the work of Cicero, qualifies this by
defining the purpose of rhetoric as "so to speak as to gain the assent of
the audience as far as possible."[42] And the sum of Cicero's opinion is
that the office of the orator is to speak in a way adapted to win the
assent of his audience.[43] In his definition of rhetoric Quintilian makes
a departure from the habits of his predecessors by defining rhetoric as
the _ars bene dicendi_, or good public speech.[44] Here the _bene_ implies
not only effectiveness, but moral worth; for in Quintilian's conception
the orator is a good man skilled in public speech, and there are times
when, as in the case of Socrates, who refused to defend himself, to
persuade would be dishonorable.[45] Quintilian's precepts, however, are
more in line with Aristotle than his definition. He busies himself
throughout twelve books in teaching his students how to use all possible
means to persuasion. The consensus of classical opinion, then, agrees that
the purpose of rhetoric is persuasive public speaking.
2. Subject Matter
If then the purpose of classical rhetoric was to come as near persuasion
as it could, what was its subject matter? Aristotle, following Plato,[46]
says in his definition "any subject," for any subject can be made
persuasive. But this was too philosophical for his contemporaries and
successors, who saw in their own environment that in practice rhetoric was
almost entirely concerned with persuading a jury that certain things were
or were not so, or persuading a deliberative assembly that this or that
should or should not be done. Consequently Hermagoras defines the subject
matter of rhetoric as "public questions," Dionysius of Halicarnassus, as
"communal affairs," and the _Ad Herennium_ as "whatever in customs or laws
is to the public benefit."[47] The same influence caused Cicero in his
youthful _De inventione_ to classify rhetoric as part of political
science,[48] and in the _De oratore_ to make Antonius restrict rhetoric to
public and communal affairs,[49] although in another section he returns to
Aristotle's "any subject" as the material of rhetoric[50] as does
Quintilian later.[51]
Although Aristotle did state in his definition that any subject was the
material of rhetoric, in his classification of the varieties of speeches
he practically restricts rhetoric as did Hermagoras, Dionysius, and the
_Ad Herennium_; for here he finds but three kinds of oratory: the
deliberative, the forensic, and the occasional, ἐπιδεικτικός. Forensic
oratory he defines as that of the law court; deliberative, of the senate
or public assembly; and occasional, of eulogy and congratulation. Perhaps
the most illustrative modern examples of the third would be Fourth-of-July
addresses, funeral sermons, and appreciative articles or lectures. Aristotle
suggests that exaggeration is most appropriate to the style of occasional
oratory; for as the facts are taken for granted, it remains only to invest
them with grandeur and dignity.[52]
Occasional oratory seems to have given no little concern to the classical
rhetoricians. Since it existed to adorn an occasion, it had to be
considered; but unlike the oratory of the forum or of the council chamber
it was not primarily practical. Quintilian comments on this; for it seems
to aim almost exclusively at gratifying its hearers,[53] in this respect
resembling poetry, which to Quintilian, seems to have no visible aim but
pleasure.[54] Occasional speeches relied much more on style than did those
of the law court and senate, thus meriting Aristotle's adjective
"literary," that is written to be read instead of spoken to be heard.[55]
Cicero, like Quintilian, considers these less practical, as remote from
the conflict of the forum, written to be read, "to be looked at, as it
were, like a picture, for the sake of giving pleasure." Consequently he
declines to classify this form of oratory separately, reducing
Aristotle's three kinds of oratory to two. It is valuable, to his mind, as
the wet-nurse of the young orator, who enlarges his vocabulary and learns
composition from its practice.[56] Aristotle includes it in rhetoric; for
in its field of eulogy, panegyric, felicitation, and congratulation, it
too uses the available means of persuasion to prove some person or thing
praiseworthy or the reverse.[57]
3. Content of Classical Rhetoric
Classical rhetoricians commonly divided their subject into five parts.
This analysis of rhetoric into _inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria_,
and _pronuntiatio_ is to all intents and purposes universal in classical
rhetoric and must be understood to give one a valid idea of its
content.[58] _Inventio_, so often lazily mistranslated as "invention," is
the art of exploring the material to discover all the arguments which may
be brought to bear in support of a proposition and in refutation of the
opposing arguments. It includes the study of arguments and fallacies; and
is that part of rhetoric which is closest neighbor to logic. The kinds of
argument treated in the classical rhetoric were two: the enthymeme, or
rhetorical syllogism; and the rhetorical induction or example. In the
practice of rhetoric _inventio_ was thus the solidest and most important
element. It included all of what to-day we might call "working up the
case." _Dispositio_ is the art of arranging the material gathered for
presentation to an audience. Aristotle insists that the essential parts of
a speech are but two: the statement and the proof. At most it may have
four: the _ex ordium_, or introduction; the _narratio_, or statement of
facts; the _confirmatio_, or proof proper, both direct and refutative; and
the _peroratio_, or conclusion.[59] This is the characteristic movement of
rhetoric, which, as is readily seen, is quite different from the plot
movement of poetic.[60] The parts are capable of further analysis.
Consequently most writers of the classical period subdivide the proof
proper into _probatio_, or affirmative proof, and _refutatio_, or
refutation.[61] And the _Ad Herennium_ adds a _divisio_, which defines the
issues, between the statement of facts and the proof.[62] Cassiodorus
divides the speech into six parts[63] and so does Martianus Capella.[64]
Thomas Wilson (1553) offers seven.[65]
The third part of rhetoric is _elocutio_, or style, the choice and
arrangement of words in a sentence. Quintilian's treatment of style is
typical. Words should be chosen which are in good use, clear, elegant, and
appropriate. The sentences should be grammatically correct, artistically
arranged, and adorned with such figures as antithesis, irony, and
metaphor.[66] Correctness is usually presupposed by the rhetoricians. To
the sound of sentences all classical treatises give an attention that
seems amazing if we forget that in Greece and Rome all literature was
spoken or read aloud. The sentence or period was considered more
rhythmically than logically, and subdivided in speech into rhythmical
parts called commas and cola. The end of the sentence was to be marked not
by a printer's sign, but by the falling cadence of the rhythm itself.
Furthermore, great care should be taken to avoid hiatus between words, as
when the first word ends and the word following begins with a vowel. But
the glory of style to the classical rhetorician lay in its use of figures.
Here rhetoric vindicated its practicality by a preoccupation with the
impractical; and here, as in analysis, rhetoric bore the seeds of its own
decay. Although Aristotle devoted relatively little space to the
rhetorical figures, later treatises emphasized them more and more until in
post-classical and in mediaeval rhetoric little else is discussed. The
figures of course had to be classified. First there were the _figurae
verborum_, or figures of language, which sought agreeable sounds alone or
in combination, such as antitheses, rhymes, and assonances. Then the
_figurae sententiarum_, or figures of thought, such as rhetorical
questions, hints, and exclamations.[67] Quintilian classifies as tropes
words or phrases converted from their proper signification to another.
Among these are metaphor, irony, and allegory. In our day we consider as
figures of speech only the classical tropes, and indeed Aristotle pays
little attention to the others. He says that in prose one should use only
literal names of things, and metaphors, or tropes[68]--which therefore are
not literal names but substituted names. For instance in this metaphor,
which Aristotle quotes from Homer, "The arrow flew,"[69] "flew" is not the
literal word to express the idea. Only birds fly, reminds the practical
person. Max Eastman has pertinently called attention to the fact that it
is only to rhetoric, which is a practical activity, that these figures are
indirect expressions, or substituted names. Apostrophe is not a turning
away in poetic, because in poetic there is no argument to turn away from.
Rather in poetic it is a turning toward the essential images of
realization, as metaphor in poetic is direct, not indirect, because in
poetic a word that suggests the salient parts or qualities of things will
always stand out over the general names of things.[70]
The last two parts of rhetoric, _memoria_ and _pronuntiatio_, are really
not permanent parts of rhetoric, but only of the rhetoric of spoken
address. _Memoria_, the art of memory, did not mean to the Greeks and
Romans the art of learning by heart a written speech, but rather the art
of keeping ready for use a fund of argumentative material, together with
the features of the case which the speaker might be pleading. The
discussion of it in the treatises is usually an exposition of the mnemonic
system of visual association, the discovery of which is ascribed to
Simonides. Cicero deliberately leaves a discussion of _memoria_ out of his
_Orator_, because as he says, it is common to many arts;[71] and the Dutch
scholar Vossius in the renaissance denied that it was a part of
rhetoric.[72] _Pronuntiatio_, or delivery, has also been found hardly an
integral part of rhetoric. It is concerned with the use both of the voice
and of gesture. Quintilian, for instance, records the effectiveness of
clinging to the judge's knees, or of bringing into the court room the
weeping child of the accused.[73] Aristotle discusses only the use of the
voice.[74]
Thus classical rhetoric was almost exclusively restricted to the
practical oratory of persuasion. In the republics of Greece and Rome a
mastery of rhetoric gave its possessor political power; for by persuasive
public speech a public man could gain a following by defending his clients
in the law courts, and influence the destinies of the state by his
deliberations in the legislative assembly. As long as these republican
institutions prevailed, the theory and practice of rhetoric continued to
be sound and practical.
4. Rhetoric as Part of Poetic
Implicit in Aristotle and throughout classical literary criticism there is
a clear-cut distinction between poetic and rhetoric. Aside from the
metrical form of poetic, accepted by all but Aristotle as a distinguishing
characteristic, and the non-metrical form of rhetoric, the essentially
practical nature of rhetoric marked it off to the Greeks and Romans as
something quite different from poetic and infinitely more important in
education and public life. But however clear-cut this distinction may be
in principle, in practical application there is rarely to be found such
ideal isolation.
Aristotle, for instance, carries rhetoric bodily over into poetic by
including Thought, διάνοιᾰ, as the third in importance of the constituent
elements of tragedy.[75] This Thought is the intellectual element in
conduct, and in drama is embodied not in action, but in speech.[76]
Aristotle says,
It is the faculty of saying what is possible and pertinent in given
circumstances. In the case of oratory, this is the function of the
political art and of the art of rhetoric. Concerning thought, we may
assume what is said in the _Rhetoric_, to which inquiry the subject more
properly belongs. Under thought is included every effect which has to be
produced by speech, the subdivisions being--proof and refutation; the
excitation of the feelings, such as pity, fear, anger and the like; the
suggestion of importance or its opposite.[77]
This is a transfer of the content of rhetoric to poetic, but poetic
remains an art of imitation. Imaginative realization of the life of man
would be incomplete if the characters in a narrative or in a drama did not
use the same rhetorical art as do the characters of actual life. The poets
justly carry over rhetoric when the scene demands it, and have often
proved themselves excellent rhetoricians. Quintilian praises the
peroration of Priam's speech begging Achilles for the body of Hector,[78]
and Cicero gives a rhetorical analysis of the speech of the old man in the
_Andria_ of Terence, where the arrangement is especially appropriate to
the character of the speaker.[79] Norden, therefore, seems to go too far
in giving this as an example of contamination of poetic by rhetoric.[80]
Dante remains an excellent poet when he puts into the mouth of Virgil that
persuasive speech to Cato in the first canto of the _Purgatorio_. Antony's
speech in _Julius Caesar_ is the best known modern example of the
legitimate place of rhetoric in poetic.
5. Poetic as Part of Rhetoric
Just as rhetoric is justly carried over into poetic when in the
realization of a character or situation a speech must be made or conduct
rationalized, so poetic is constantly utilized by the orator. Public
speech would be less persuasive if the characteristic imaginative
qualities of poetic were excluded. The ideas and propositions of rhetoric
would most ineffectually reach an audience if they were not made vivid.
That rhetoric is not thus made synonymous with poetic is due to the fact
that in rhetoric the images exist to illuminate the concept, while in
poetic they are woven into the movement of the plot. Oratory, like poetry,
is emotional, as Longinus asserts.[81] Cicero phrases the aim of the
orator as "docere, delectare, et movere," to prove, to delight, to move
emotionally.[82] The vividness and emotion, as well as the charm, of
poetic are indispensable in attaining the ultimate aim of rhetoric--
persuasion. The orator must be himself moved, according to Quintilian,[83]
just as the poet, according to Aristotle.[84] That essential quality,
indeed, of poetic, the realization of character and situation which
presents vividly a situation or event to the mind's eye of the reader or
hearer so that he seems to participate in the action and vicariously live
through it, was incorporated into rhetoric as ἐνέγεια, a figure of speech.
There petrified in an alien substance, this characteristic quality of
poetic was transmitted to another age which knew of it through no other
source.[85] Thus a successful orator narrated with descriptive vividness
the circumstances, for instance, of a cruel murder, and even dramatized,
speaking now in the person of one actor, now of another, the situation
which he was endeavoring to realize for his audience. He was thus enabled
better to carry his audience with him to his ultimate goal of persuasion.
But though rhetoric might for the moment thus borrow poetic, and though
poetic might borrow rhetoric, the two remained distinct in the large, each
conceived as having its own movement, its composition, distinct from that
of the other.