Classical Rhetoric Overview Reading Assignment (for October 16th)

Classical Rhetoric: an Introduction and Overview

Rhetoric: the art of using language effectively to persuade, convince, or affect an

audience.

Why are some writers or speakers so memorable or, in many cases, forgettable?

Effective language comes down to choice: what choices does an author or speaker

make and how do those choices affect the audience? Make people your slave with

language!

Res-verba: what is said and how it being said

Three branches of rhetoric:

I. Deliberative (legislative: to exhort/persuade or dissuade)

II. Judicial (forensic: to accuse or defend)

III. Epideictic or Panegyric (ceremonial: to praise or blame)

Aristotle, father of classical rhetoric:

Rhetoric falls into three divisions, determined by the three classes

of listeners to speeches. For of the three elements in speech-making

– speaker, subject, and person addressed – it is the last one, the

hearer, that determines the speech’s end and object. The hearer

must be either be a judge, with a decision to make about things past

or future, or an observer. A member of the assembly decides about

future events, a juryman about past events: while those who merely

decide on the orator’s skill are observers. From this it follows that

there are three divisions of oratory – (1) political, (2) forensic, (3) the

ceremonial oratory of display. (Rhetoric, I 1358a)

Five main principles or tenets of classical rhetoric:

I. Inventio (invention, discovery, modes of appeal (logos, pathos, and ethos),

topics)

II. Dispositio (disposition/arrangement/structure)

III. Elocutio (elocution, stylistic devices, schemes and tropes)

IV. Memoria (memorization, preparation, knowledge of topic)

V. Pronunciatio (pronunciation, delivery of information, presentation)

General terms derived from the Greeks. Cicero wrote about the importance of

oration, too:

…since all the activity and ability of an orator falls into five

divisions,…he must first hit upon what to say; then manage and

marshal his discoveries, not merely in orderly fashion, but with a

discriminating eye for the exact weight as it were of each argument;

next go on to array them in the adornments of style; after that keep

them guarded in his memory; and in the end deliver them with effect

and charm. (De oratore, I.xxxi. 142-143)

Really, though, all of these terms go back to our original term: res-verba, that is

what is said and how it is being said. We must think of the choices that each author

makes and how those choices affect the overall message and effectiveness of the

message to the audience.

Inventio

Invention deals with proof, topics, and modes of appeal. How will you discuss your

topic? How will you prove it? What will your thesis be? How will you appeal to

your reader? As you can see, these questions all center, once again, around choice.

Proof (based on Aristotle’s model)

1. Inartificial proof: sworn testimony, documents, scientific analysis, laws

2. Artificial proof through modes of appeal:

a. Ethos: establishing the persuader’s good character and credibility

through ethics. (“Hi there, friends. I’m Morgan Freeman. I’ve played

God in many movies, but I would never play God with my health

insurance. I trust Blue Cross Blue Shield, and so should you.” – plays

on his celebrity and credibility to sell insurance)

b. Pathos: Putting the audience in an appropriate mood, by playing

on it’s feelings or emotions (“Should we allocate our national budget

to send more of our young men to die on the battlefields in foreign

lands, when we have children starving at home? No! We shall not!” –

playing on people’s emotions to get reduced defense spending in the

budget)

c. Logos: Proving, or seeming to prove, the case through rational

argument or logic. (“We are dependent on foreign oil for the majority

of our energy. Doesn’t it just make sense to explore other, alternative

forms of energy? Solar, wind, thermal: there are so many options!” –

playing on people’s sense of logic and rationality)

Truth vs. Validity vs. Effectiveness

Types of logical proof:

1. Deductive (moving from the general to the specific): everyone has this, and

so this particular person does, too.

a. If the premises are scientifically demonstrated or valid, then the

conclusion is proven. This is called a Syllogism.

b. If the premises are only probably true, the term for this argument is

called an Enthymeme.

2. Inductive (moving from the specific to the general): if it can happen in this

one instance, it can happen in many instances.

a. If all instances of a phenomenon are proven, then the proof is

scientific.

b. If only some instances of a phenomenon are proven, then the

argument is from example (most common form of rhetoric).

These sound perhaps a bit confusing, but it will perhaps make more sense with

an example. Let’s use a syllogism, which in the traditional sense employs two

premises and a conclusion. If you prove the premises, then the conclusion holds

true. Through all of this discussion of logic, we want to look at the premises, that

is the claim being made. We must always distinguish between truth, validity, and

effectiveness. Just because something seems valid doesn’t mean that it’s true, but

that doesn’t necessarily affect the effectiveness of that claim. For instance, examine

this syllogism:

Premise One: All frogs are green.

Premise Two: I have a frog.

Conclusion: Therefore, my frog is green.

This syllogism seems like a true statement, and it’s certainly valid from a logical

standpoint, but is it, in fact, true? If all frogs are green, and you have a frog, then

it seems logical that your frog is green, right? What’s wrong with this claim? Are

all frogs green? It’s a valid statement, but is it true? If it’s valid but not true, it’s an

Enthymeme. This argument is an enthymeme.

What if we tried a similar syllogism?

P1: All men are human.

P2: I am a man.

C: Therefore, I am human.

Is this valid and/or true? All men are, in fact, human, and if you’re a man, then you

are human. This syllogism is valid and true. This argument is a syllogism.

Just because the form of the argument works and is valid, though, it doesn’t mean

that it’s true. The frog example proved that. How about if we substituted “green”

for “human” for this second example? Is it still valid and true?

P1: All men are green.

P2: I am a man.

C: Therefore, I am green.

It’s not very true anymore, is it? Therefore, it’s an enthymeme.

The idea with syllogisms, or enthymemes, or with any argument for that matter, is

to examine the argument, the claim. In this case, if we look at that first premise, “All

men are green,” we see that the first premise isn’t true. If one of the two premises

isn’t true, the conclusion isn’t true. It’s that simple.

When you examine any argument that someone makes, you should look for the truth

and validity of the claims. How about if we move on to something more normal,

something you might see on t.v.?

P1: Everywhere you look, kids are killing other kids with guns.

P2: Senator Smith wants to lower the age to own a gun.

C: Therefore, more kids will die from gun-related deaths.

It’s not frogs or green men, but it’s the same thing, essentially. Look at the premises

and then evaluate the validity and truth of the conclusion. Is Premise One true or

valid? It’s very much a generalization, isn’t it? Have we looked at the statistics?

Do we know if there’s been an increase in gun-related deaths among children? Do

we know why? Premise Two may be true, and let’s assume it is. Ultimately, the

conclusion is not necessarily valid or true, because one of the premises isn’t true.

Does this mean that it’s not effective, though? We’ll see later that sometimes, even

though something isn’t true or valid, it can still be effective. If you have an effective

speaker, they can be pretty convincing, even if what they’re saying is total hooey.

Most rhetoric and argument is based around enthymemes, that is, trying to convince

an audience of something that cannot definitively be proven.