Rhetoric Overview Flashcards
What is Rhetoric?
Rhetoric is the study of effective speaking and writing. And the art of persuasion. And many other things.
In its long and vigorous history rhetoric has enjoyed many definitions, accommodated differing purposes, and varied widely in what it included. And yet, for most of its history it has maintained its fundamental character as a discipline for training students 1) to perceive how language is at work orally and in writing, and 2) to become proficient in applying the resources of language in their own speaking and writing.
Discerning how language is working in others’ or one’s own writing and speaking, one must (artificially) divide form and content, what is being said and how this is said. Because rhetoric examines so attentively the how of language, the methods and means of communication, it has sometimes been discounted as something only concerned with style or appearances, and not with the quality or content of communication. For many (such as Plato) rhetoric deals with the superficial at best, the deceptive at worst (“mere rhetoric”), when one might better attend to matters of substance, truth, or reason as attempted in dialectic or philosophy or religion.
Rhetoric has sometimes lived down to its critics, but as set forth from antiquity, rhetoric was a comprehensive art just as much concerned with what one could say as how one might say it. Indeed, a basic premise for rhetoric is the indivisibility of means from meaning; how one says something conveys meaning as much as what one says. Rhetoric studies the effectiveness of language comprehensively, including its emotional impact (see pathos), as much as its propositional content ( see logos).
What is Content and Form in relation to Rhetoric?
Rhetoric requires understanding a fundamental division between what is communicated through language and how this is communicated.
Aristotle phrased this as the difference between logos (the logical content of a speech) and lexis (the style and delivery of a speech). Roman authors such as Quintilian would make the same distinction by dividing consideration of things or substance, res, from consideration of verbal expression, verba.
In the Renaissance, Erasmus of Rotterdam reiterated this foundational dichotomy for rhetorical analysis by titling his most famous textbook “On the Abundance of Verbal Expression and Ideas” (De copia verborum ac rerum). This division has been one that has been codified within rhetorical pedagogy, reinforced, for example, by students being required in the Renaissance (according to Juan Luis Vives) to keep notebooks divided into form and content.
Within rhetorical pedagogy it was the practice of imitation that most required students to analyze form and content. They were asked to observe a model closely and then to copy the form but supply new content; or to copy the content but supply a new form. Such imitations occurred on every level of speech and language, and forced students to assess what exactly a given form did to bring about a given meaning or effect (see Imitation).
The divide between form and content is always an artificial and conditional one, since ultimately attempting to make this division reveals the fundamentally indivisible nature of verbal expression and ideas. For example, when students were asked to perform translations as rhetorical exercises, they analyzed their compositions in terms of approximations, since it is impossible to completely capture the meaning and effect of a thought expressed in any terms other than its original words.
This division is based on a view of language as something more than simply a mechanistic device for transcribing or delivering thought. With the sophists of ancient Greece rhetoricians have shared a profound respect for how language affects not just audiences, but thought processes.
Within the Forest of Rhetoric the close proximity between what is said and how this is said can be observed in the continuity between topics of invention (concerned with what is said) and figures of speech (ways of speaking). The figures (often disregarded as superficial concerns) turn out to be microcosms of the more substantive topics of invention (concerned with what someone says). For example, a figure of speech such as “synecdoche” (in which a part represents a whole, such as referring to one’s car as one’s “wheels”) turns out to be microcosm of the topic of invention Division, which includes looking at how parts relate to wholes.
One way to understand the overlapping nature of logos and lexis, res and verba, invention and style, is through the word “ornament.” To our modern sensibilities this suggests a superficial, inessential decoration–something that might be pleasing but which is not truly necessary. The etymology of this word is ornare, a Latin verb meaning “to equip.” The ornaments of war, for example, are weapons and soldiers. The ornaments of rhetoric are not extraneous; they are the equipment required to achieve the intended meaning or effect.
Thus, rhetoricians divided form and content not to place content above form, but to highlight the interdependence of language and meaning, argument and ornament, thought and its expression. It means that linguistic forms are not merely instrumental, but fundamental—not only to persuasion, but to thought itself.
This division is highly problematic, since thought and ideas (res) have been prioritized over language (verba) since at least the time of Plato in the west. Indeed, language is a fundamentally social and contingent creature, subject to change and development in ways that metaphysical absolutes are not. For rhetoricians to insist that words and their expression are on par with the ideals and ideas of abstract philosophy has put rhetoric at odds with religion, philosophy, and science at times.
Nevertheless, rhetoric requires attending to the contingencies and contexts of specific moments in time and the dynamics of human belief and interaction within those settings. This rhetorical orientation to social and temporal conditions can be understood better with respect to three encompassing terms within rhetoric that are fundamental to the rhetorical view of the world: kairos, audience, and decorum.
What are the 3 encompassing terms in Rhetoric?
Among so many terms in rhetoric, three serve as a compass, even among the larger terms (“trees”) in the forest of rhetoric:
- kairos (the opportune moment);
- audience
- decorum (fitting one’s speech to the context and audience)
Together, these terms invoke the rhetorical worldview in which, sensitive to the contingencies of the moment, a speaker or writer tailors words to contexts and audiences towards some discernible result or effect.
What is Kairos?
The opportune occasion for speech. The term kairos has a rich and varied history, but generally refers to the way a given context for communication both calls for and constrains one’s speech. Thus, sensitive to kairos, a speaker or writer takes into account the contingencies of a given place and time, and considers the opportunities within this specific context for words to be effective and appropriate to that moment. As such, this concept is tightly linked to considerations of audience (the most significant variable in a communicative context) and to decorum (the principle of apt speech).
Rhetorical Analysis in terms of KAIROS:
Rhetorical analysis of any sort begins with some orientation to the kairos. Whether or not a rhetorical critic employs the term kairos, he or she will examine the exigencies and constraints of place, time, culture, and audience that affect choices made by speakers and authors to influence that moment:
Germany of post-World War I was demoralized and disorganized. Adolph Hitler’s rhetoric was successful not only because of his personal charisma and his mastery of delivery, but because he spoke at the right time: the German people wanted a way out of its economic morass and its cultural shame, and Hitler provided them both with his strong, nationalistic oratory. Had Germany been doing better economically, Hitler’s words would have bounced harmlessly off the air.
What is Audience?
All rhetorically oriented discourse is composed in light of those who will hear or read that discourse. Or, in other words, rhetorical analysis always takes into account how an audience shapes the composition of a text or responds to it.
In classical times, the audience had to do with the settings or occasions in which genres of oratory were practiced (See branches of oratory). Later theorists have taken into account the multiple audiences to which discourse is presented, intentionally or not (for example, the secondary audiences that the printed version of a speech reaches across place and time, or the multiple audiences present in the theater: those onstage who hear a given character’s speech, and those in the public audience observing all of this).
Rhetoric’s preoccupation with audience can be seen in direct contrast to philosophical discourse that prefers orienting itself to truth rather than to the doxa or opinion, of the unlearned public. See Plato’s Gorgias.
What is Decorum?
A central rhetorical principle requiring one’s words and subject matter be aptly fit to each other, to the circumstances and occasion (kairos), the audience, and the speaker.
Though initially just one of several virtues of style (“aptum”), decorum has become a governing concept for all of rhetoric. Essentially, if one’s ideas are appropriately embodied and presented (thereby observing decorum), then one’s speech will be effective. Conversely, rhetorical vices are breaches of some sort of decorum.
Decorum invokes a range of social, linguistic, aesthetic, and ethical proprieties for both the creators and critics of speech or writing. Each of these must be balanced against each other strategically in order to be successful in understanding or creating discourse.
Besides being an overarching principle of moderation and aptness, decorum has been a controlling principle in correlating certain rhetorical genres or strategies to certain circumstances. Aristotle describes each of the branches of oratory as being appropriate to judicial, legislative, or epideictic occasions and to specific time periods (past, future, and present, respectively). The concept of stasis included a procedure for discovering and developing arguments appropriate to given circumstances. Cicero followed the principle of decorum in assigning an appropriate level of style to distinct rhetorical purposes. Throughout rhetoric, decorum structures the pedagogy and procedures of this discipline as much as it governs the overall uses of language.
What are the 3 Persuasive Appeals?
Persuasion, according to Aristotle and the many authorities that would echo him, is brought about through three kinds of proof (pistis) or persuasive appeal:
Logos - The appeal to reason.
Pathos - The appeal to emotion.
Ethos - The persuasive appeal of one’s character.
Although they can be analyzed separately, these three appeals work together in combination toward persuasive ends.
Aristotle calls these “artistic” or “intrinsic” proofs—those that could be found by means of the art of rhetoric—in contrast to “nonartistic” or “extrinsic” proofs such as witnesses or contracts that are simply used by the speaker, not found through rhetoric.
What is an example of Logos?
Logos names the appeal to reason. Aristotle wished that all communication could be transacted only through this appeal, but given the weaknesses of humanity, he laments, we must resort to the use of the other two appeals. The Greek term logos is laden with many more meanings than simply “reason,” and is in fact the term used for “oration.”
Sample Rhetorical Analysis: LOGOS:
When Descartes said, “I think; therefore, I am,” his statement reflected in its pure concision and simple logical arrangment the kind of thought and being he believed to be most real. He did not claim, as Pascal would later do, that our being has as much to do with feeling as it does thinking. Descartes here equates pure rationality and pure being, persuading us of the accuracy of this equation by the simplicity of his statement. There is no room for the clouds of emotion in this straightforward formula; it makes a purely logical appeal.
What is an example of Pathos?
Pathos names the appeal to emotion. Cicero encouraged the use of pathos at the conclusion of an oration, but emotional appeals are of course more widely viable. Aristotle’s Rhetoric contains a great deal of discussion of affecting the emotions, categorizing the kinds of responses of different demographic groups. Thus, we see the close relations between assessment of pathos and of audience. Pathos is also the category by which we can understand the psychological aspects of rhetoric. Criticism of rhetoric tends to focus on the overemphasis of pathos, emotion, at the expense of logos, the message.
Sample Rhetorical Analysis: PATHOS:
Antony, addressing the crowd after Caesar’s murder in Shakespeare’s play, manages to stir them up to anger against the conspirators by drawing upon their pity. He does this by calling their attention to each of Caesar’s dagger wounds, accomplishing this pathetic appeal through vivid descriptions combined with allusions to the betrayal of friendship made by Brutus, who made “the most unkindest cut of all”:
Look, in this place ran Cassius’ dagger through;
See what a rent the envious Casca made;
Through this the well-beloved Brutus stabb’d,
And as he pluck’d his cursed steel away,
Mark how the blood of Caesar followed it,
As rushing out of doors to be resolv’d
If Brutus so unkindly knock’d or no;
For Brutus, as you know, was Caesar’s angel.
Judge, O you gods, how dearly Caesar lov’d him!
This was the most unkindest cut of all;
—Shakespeare, Julius Caesar 3.2.174-183
What is an example of Ethos?
Ethos names the persuasive appeal of one’s character, especially how this character is established by means of the speech or discourse. Aristotle claimed that one needs to appear both knowledgeable about one’s subject and benevolent. Cicero said that in classical oratory the initial portion of a speech (its exordium or introduction) was the place to establish one’s credibility with the audience.
Sample Rhetorical Analysis: ETHOS:
In Cicero’s speech defending the poet Archias, he begins his speech by referring to his own expertise in oratory, for which he was famous in Rome. While lacking modesty, this tactic still established his ethos because the audience was forced to acknowledge that Cicero’s public service gave him a certain right to speak, and his success in oratory gave him special authority to speak about another author. In effect, his entire speech is an attempt to increase the respectability of the ethos of literature, largely accomplished by tying it to Cicero’s own, already established, public character.
What are the Branches of Oratory?
What is Judicial Oratory?
Sometimes called “forensic” oratory, judical oratory originally had to do exclusively with the law courts and was oriented around the purposes of defending or accusing. The judicial orator made arguments about past events, and did so with respect to the two special topics of invention described by Aristotle as appropriate for this branch of oratory, the just and the injust (or the right and the wrong).
Sample Rhetorical Analysis: JUDICIAL ORATORY:
In his famous speeches against Catiline, Cicero blatantly and forcefully accused Catiline of forming a conspiracy that would undermine republican Rome. Although speaking to the senate, he might as well have been speaking in a legal court, for he employed the methods and topics of judicial oratory, as though he were the prosecutor and Catiline the hapless defendant. Although Cicero lacked the solid evidence we would expect in today’s courtroom, his dynamic summoning of witnesses (including the personified Rome herself!) secured popular sentiment against Catiline, and the conspirator fled the city.
What is Deliberative Oratory?
Sometimes called “legislative” oratory, deliberative oratory originally had to do exclusively with that sort of speaking typical of political legislatures. This sort of oratory was oriented towards policy and thus considered the future and whether given laws would benefit or harm society. Aristotle considered four special topics of invention, grouped in pairs, to pertain to deliberative oratory:
- The good and the unworthy
- The advantageous, and the disadvantageous.
- Deliberative oratory has come to encompass any communication for or against given future action.
Sample Rhetorical Analysis: DELIBERATIVE ORATORY:
When Sir Thomas More was faced with the dilemma of deciding whether to sign the oath of loyalty to Henry VIII or to abstain and be charged with treason, he must have considered deeply the effects of either choice. Should he sign, he would save his life and his influential position as Lord Chancellor, thus saving himself to further influence his sovereign and his nation for good. Should he refuse to sign, he would probably die, but his death would serve the purpose of inspiring fidelity to the Church. His martyrdom would have the advantage of increasing piety. More must have so argued within himself, deliberating as though his mind were the parliament house, divided as to the best policy for his country. In the end he persuaded himself to allow himself to be martyred, and we are left to judge whether this did indeed prove to be an advantage or not. His example of moral backbone is generally regarded as his having succeeded in making the right choice. Still, we cannot know what More could have done should he have remained in the king’s service longer.
What is Epideictic Oratory?
The Greek epideictic means “fit for display.” Thus, this branch of oratory is sometimes called “ceremonial” or “demonstrative” oratory. Epideictic oratory was oriented to public occasions calling for speech or writing in the here and now. Funeral orations are a typical example of epideictic oratory. The ends of epideictic included praise or blame, and thus the long history of encomia and invectives, in their various manifestations, can be understood in the tradition of epideictic oratory. Aristotle assigned “virtue (the noble)” and “vice (the base)” as those special topics of invention that pertained to epideictic oratory.
Epideictic oratory was trained for in rhetorical pedagogy by way of progymnasmata exercises including the encomium and the vituperation.
Sample Rhetorical Analysis: EPIDEICTIC ORATORY
We can understand the dedicatory prefaces to early books and manuscripts as a species of epideictic oratory. Given the system of patronage that for so long made publication possible, one can understand the sometimes long-winded flattery of dedicatory epistles and prefaces. To praise a patron was to effect the possibility of obtaining sponsorship. One Renaissance entrepreneur inserted some 30 different dedicatory epistles into the front of different copies of his work, attempting to hedge his chances that this epideictic oratory would move at least one of his potential patrons, to whom he presented the copy.
What are the 5 Canons of Rhetoric?
Rhetoric, as an art, has long been divided into five major categories or “canons”:
- Invention
- Arrangement
- Style
- Memory
- Delivery
These categories have served both analytical and generative purposes. That is to say, they provide a template for the criticism of discourse (and orations in particular), and they give a pattern for rhetorical education. Rhetorical treatises through the centuries have been set up in light of these five categories, although memory and delivery consistently have received less attention. Rhetoric shares with another longstanding discipline, dialectic, training in invention and arrangement. When these disciplines competed, rhetoric was sometimes reduced to style alone.
Although the five canons of rhetoric describe areas of attention in rhetorical pedagogy, these should not be taken as the only educational template for the discipline of rhetoric. Treatises on rhetoric also discuss at some length the roots or sources of rhetorical ability, and specific kinds of rhetorical exercises intended to promote linguistic facility.
Sample Rhetorical Analysis: CANONS OF RHETORIC:
Martin Luther King, Jr. was not the first to claim he had a dream. Some, such as Clayborne Carson and Keith D. Miller have recently shown that the civil rights leader’s most famous speech is in fact largely lifted from the sermons of others. If King is not responsible for inventing the subject matter of this address, he can be credited with ordering and delivering it in a style appropriate to his very mixed audience. Speaking to a huge crowd both in Washington, D.C. and across television, King drew upon commonplaces of our country that lie deep in our cultural memory, and did so with a kind of sober charisma that made his own words memorable and above all, effective.
Sources:Cic. De Inv. 1.7; Cic. De Or. 1.31.142; Quint. 3.3; Melx A8v (“officia”)
What is Invention?
Invention concerns finding something to say (its name derives from the Latin invenire, “to find.”). Certain common categories of thought became conventional to use in order to brainstorm for material. These common places (places = topoi in Greek) are called the “topics of invention.” They include, for example, cause and effect, comparison, and various relationships.
Invention is tied to the rhetorical appeal of logos, being oriented to what an author would say rather than how this might be said. Invention describes the argumentative, persusive core of rhetoric. Aristotle, in fact, defines rhetoric primarily as invention, “discovering the best available means of persuasion.” An important procedure that formed part of this finding process was stasis.
Sample Rhetorical Analysis: INVENTION:
In describing the state of humanity, Blaise Pascal aphoristically states:
We desire truth, and find within ourselves only uncertainty. We seek happiness, and find only misery and death. We cannot but desire truth and happiness, and are incapable of certainty or happiness.
In these nicely parallel claims, Pascal follows a similar pattern of development based on the identification of an antecedent and its inevitable consequence. [antecedent/consequence is a common topic of invention]. We must ask ourselves, Are these the necessary antecdents to the stated consequences? Does his concision betray a larger complexity? Aren’t these consequences the causes themselves for pursuing what he refers to as antecedents?
What is Arrangement?
What is Style?
Style concerns the artful expression of ideas. If invention addresses what is to be said; style addresses how this will be said. From a rhetorical perspective style is not incidental, superficial, or supplementary: style names how ideas are embodied in language and customized to communicative contexts (see Content / Form).
Because of the centrality of style, rhetoricians have given great attention to every aspect of linguistic form—so much so that rhetoric has at times been equated with (or reduced to) “mere style,” as though rhetoric were concerned only with superficial ornamentation.
But ornamentation was not at all superficial in classical and renaissance rhetoric, for to ornament (ornare = “to equip, fit out, or supply”) meant to equip one’s thoughts with verbal expression appropriate for accomplishing one’s intentions.
Upon this basic principle of style there has been agreement, but less so respecting how matters of style have been mapped within the rhetorical tradition, especially with respect to categorizing the figures of speech. These are the major groupings of stylistic concerns within the rhetorical tradition:
- Virtues of Style
Five encompassing concerns of style which relate style to grammar, audience, effective and affective appeals, the guiding principle of decorum, and the importance of ornamenting language through figurative speech. A comparable mapping of seven virtues of style has been laid out by Hermogenes. - Levels of Style
From the Roman tradition three levels of style have been laid out, each suited to one of three distinct rhetorical purposes. - Qualities of Style
A large descriptive terminology has been developed to critique the qualities of style. These are interpretive in nature, and overlap broadly with figures of speech or the virtues and levels of style. - Figures of Speech
Sometimes considered part of “ornateness” (one of the Virtues of Style), and sometimes taken to represent the whole of rhetoric, the rhetorical figures constitute a vast technical vocabulary naming ways that both ideas and language have been configured.
Style is often aligned with pathos, since its figures of speech are often employed to persuade through emotional appeals (see Figures of pathos). However, style has just as much to do with ethos, for one’s style often establishes or mitigates one’s authority and credibility (see Figures of ethos). But it should not be assumed, either, that style simply adds on a pathetic or ethical appeal to the core, logical content. Style is very much part of the appeal through logos, especially considering the fact that schemes of repetition serve to produce coherence and clarity, obvious attributes of the appeal to reason. There are also specific figures of speech that are based upon logical structures such as the syllogism (See Figures of Reasoning).
Style is not an optional aspect of discourse, although those who take issue with rhetorical excesses maintain the fiction that there is a “plain” method of speech. Style is essential to rhetoric in that its guiding assumption is that the form or linguistic means in which something is communicated is as much part of the message as is the content (as MacLuhan has said, “the medium is the message”).
Stylistic Analysis
The analysis of discourse in terms of style has a long history, one that stretches back long before the modern-day field of stylistics or contemporary linguistics came into being. Analysis in terms of style has taken two broad paths in the period from antiquity through the Renaissance. The first of these was stylistic analysis in a pedagogical setting, a process continuous with and often identical to grammatical parsing. The second of these, an approach closer to the general literary sense of style in use today, involved identifying general characteristics of the prose involved, for which there was a technical vocabulary. Certainly these two approaches were not all-encompassing with respect to stylistic analysis up to the Renaissance, but they give a fair sense of the breadth of attention to style.
Sample Rhetorical Analysis: STYLE:
When Julius Caesar said “Veni, vidi, vici” (“I came; I saw; I conquered”) he communicated a lot with a little. In fact, the efficiency of this statement about his military conquest seems to mirror the efficiency of his campaign itself. Nothing is wasted in accomplishing the intended task. Through his use of asyndeton (the lack of conjunctions between independent clauses) he demonstrates that he is direct and to the point. We can only assume that this forthright characteristic of speech reflects his leadership as a general. Caesar’s short saying also constitutes a perfect tricolon (three parallel clauses of identical length—at least in the Latin!). One can almost visualize the orderliness of a phalanx of soldiers, marching rank and file to battle, in the smooth orderliness of these parallel statements. The rhythm of the words in Latin, also, drums out a marching cadence that seems inescapable: VEni; VIdi; VIci. Caesar certainly reflected and probably augmented his credibility, or “ethos,” in making this statement, one that seems completely appropriate for the report of a successful military campaign.
What is Memory?
At first, Memory seemed to have to do solely with mnemonics (memory aids) that would assist a budding orator in retaining his speech. However, it clearly had to do with more than simply learning how to memorize an already composed speech for re-presentation. The Ad Herennium author calls memory the “treasury of things invented,” thus linking Memory with the first canon of rhetoric, Invention. This alludes to the practice of storing up commonplaces or other material arrived at through the topics of invention for use as called for in a given occasion. See copia.
Thus, Memory is as much tied to the improvisational necessities of a speaker as to the need to memorize a complete speech for delivery. In this sense Memory is related to kairos (sensitivity to the context in which one may communicate) as well as to the concepts of copia and amplification.
Memory, it can be seen has had to do with much more than just memorization. It was a requisite for becoming peritus dicendi, well-versed in speaking, something only possible if one had a vast deal of information on hand to be brought forth appropriately and effectively given the circumstances and the audience.
The canon of Memory also suggests that one consider the psychological aspects of preparing to communicate and the performance of communicating itself, especially in an oral or impromptu setting. Typically Memory has to do only with the orator, but invites consideration of how the audience will retain things in mind. To this end, certain figures of speech are available to help the memory, including the use of vivid description (ecphrasis) and enumeration. Along with Delivery, Memory has often been excluded from rhetoric. However, it was a vital component in the training of orators in antiquity.
Example
Orators were encouraged to envision where they would be speaking as a preparation for memorizing their speech. Then, having completed the speech’s composition, they were to divide it into manageable portions, each of which they would assign, in turn, to a different part of the room where the speech was to occur. Thus, by casting their eyes about during their speech, they would be reminded of the next part of their speech to give.
Rhetorical analysis in terms of MEMORY:
Because Memory differs widely in what it can mean as an aspect of rhetoric, rhetorical criticism in terms of Memory has equally broad possibilities.
- The degree to which a speaker successfully remembers a memorized oration
- The facility with which a speaker calls upon his memory of apt quotations and thoughts that effectively meet the rhetorical intention
- An analysis of the methods a speaker uses in order for the message to be retained in the memory of those hearing (mnemonics)
- Assessment of direct appeals to memory or the mention of it or related terms
What is Delivery?
Delivery, the last of the five canons of rhetoric, concerns itself (as does style) with how something is said, rather than what is said (the province of Invention). The Greek word for delivery is “hypokrisis” or “acting,” and rhetoric has borrowed from that art a studied attention to vocal training and to the use of gestures.
In antiquity the way a speech was delivered was considered a crucial determinant of its meaning or effect, especially since delivery made use of the powerful persuasive appeal of pathos.
Delivery (along with Memory) has often been omitted from rhetorical texts; however, it has retained a strong place in rhetorical pedagogy . The importance of delivery was emphasized in discussions of exercitatio (practice exercises) and has been manifested in the progymnasmata and practice speeches (declamations) of a rhetorical education.
Delivery originally referred to oral rhetoric at use in a public context, but can be viewed more broadly as that aspect of rhetoric that concerns the public presentation of discourse, oral or written. In either case Delivery obviously has much to do with how one establishes ethos and appeals through pathos, and in this sense is complementary to Invention, which is more strictly concerend with logos.
The oral nature of rhetorical training and performance in antiquity made a closer association between rhetoric and literature than exists today. Aristotle identifies commonalities between the recitation of poetry and the delivery of speeches. Both involved matters of style and emotion in vocalizing words.
Sample Rhetorical Analysis: DELIVERY
Winston Churchill could never have stirred the British public as he did were it not for the grave, serious, and controlled tone of voice that he employed in his radio speeches. His faith in the allied powers rang out in stentorian cadences that by their very vibrations instilled belief in the masses. His message was often cliche, but his delivery was never anything but spell-binding. Had he had a feeble voice, perhaps Germany would have fared better.
What is Rhetorical Ability?
How rhetorical ability comes about has been an area of attention in rhetoric from the beginning. In De oratore, Cicero’s characters debate which of three areas contribute more to one having rhetorical ability:
- Natural Ability or Talent (“natura” “ingenium”)
- Theory or Art (“doctrina” “ars”)
- Practice (“exercitatio” “imitatio”)
The significance of the debate is relevant to rhetorical pedagogy, since the kind and amount of rhetorical theory and practice must always be negotiated, and will always relate to the natural ability students come with.
Sample Rhetorical Analysis: RHETORICAL ABILITY:
While it is easy to attribute to Abraham Lincoln a kind of homespun genius, especially since his schooling was of a limited and unsophisticated nature, we would be better justified to attribute the success of “The Gettysburg Address” or his eloquent inaugural address to his long years of public oratory. Lincoln knew how to speak to a crowd because he’d been doing it for so long, and this practical experience taught him what would work in a given situation, and what would not.
What is Rhetorical Pedagogy?
From antiquity to the present day, rhetoric has always been closely associated with schooling. As a discipline within classical Greek and Roman curricula, in the medieval trivium, and within renaissance humanist education, rhetoric occupied a central place. Rhetorical pedagogy has not always been consistent, of course. However, certain basic assumptions and methods have persisted, particularly from the classical and renaissance periods when rhetorical education was most codified.
A primary assumption within rhetorical pedagogy has been the idea that speaking and writing ability is not merely a product of inborn talent, but that instruction in theory, coupled with practice, can complement native ability and lead one to excellence in speaking and writing (see Rhetorical Ability).
Next, rhetorical pedagogy is built upon the assumption that the careful observation and analysis of successful communication is required (See Rhetorical Analysis). Indeed, the many rhetorical handbooks began not as abstract prescriptions for how to speak or write, but as descriptive accounts of best practices. As the habits of successful speakers and writers have been observed over time, these strategies have been named and placed within a theoretical system and have thus become the “art” (or tekhne) of rhetoric
Rhetorical pedagogy has maintained this emphasis upon observing and analyzing best practices by remaining a profoundly literary endeavor. The speeches and writings of the best orators and authors have remained a principal focus for rhetorical instruction; rhetorical manuals do not substitute for, but become an aid to, rhetorical analysis of literary models. Literature was read both for its content, as part of producing what Quintilian described as the vir bonus peritus dicendi, “a good man who speaks well,” and for its exemplary form and rhetorical techniques.
Rhetorical pedagogy relied upon a very close relationship between reading and writing, observing and composing. One rhetorician, Peter Ramus, accordingly divided rhetorical pedagogy into two overarching activities: analysis and genesis. The observation of successful speaking or writing (“analysis”) precedes and improves one’s own speaking or writing (“genesis”).
Students were taught to listen and to read not merely for ideas, but for finding useful strategies and techniques (See details under Rhetorical Analysis). Such techniques could be adopted and adapted into their own speaking and writing through various kinds of imitation (See Imitation). Finally, specific rhetorical exercises have been assigned to students to train them to move from analysis, through imitation, to genesis—composing for themselves (see Rhetorical Exercises).
Sources: The classical and Renaissance sources for each aspect of rhetorical pedagogy can be found in Burton.
