Rhetorica ad Herennium
Anonymous
De Oratore
Cicero
From Orator
Cicero
Rhetoric in the European Tradition
Chapter 2: “Hellenistic and Roman Rhetorics”
Thomas Conley
Rhetorica ad Herennium
Anonymous
The work is broken into four books: I and II, on invention, principally stasis theory as applied to forensic oratory; III, on invention in deliberative and ceremonial oratory and on arrangement, delivery, and memory; and IV on style (this is also the longest) (241).
The writer attacks Greek rhetoric, trying in different way to show it deficient to Roman rhetoric. This, many scholars posit, is a display of Roman pride. It seems it was en vogue during this time to champion the newer, younger, Roman culture over its obvious influence and more prestigious neighbor–Greece and Greek culture.
Examples of Book IV:
For example, at the beginning of Book IV, he attacks as “Greek” the practice of borrowing examples to illustrateterhetorical principles. Rather, he argues, the rhetorician should create examples, because they will ratify his skill and suit the lesson more aptly than anything borrowed. Yet in this very passage the author himself appears to borrow from a Greek source. (Bizzel and Herzberg 241)
When they have descended into the racecourse of our art, they accuse of immodesty those who put in practice the essence of our ar; they praise some ancient orator, poet, or literary work, but without themselves daring to come forth into the stadium of rhetoric. (244)
“First and foremost, examples are set forth not to confirm or bear witness, but to clarify” (245).
“Their appearance is at variance with what they seem to promise; for when they undertake to write the rules of their art, they appear to say that they have themselves invented what they are teaching to others, but when they actually write, they show us what others have invented” (245).
Here’s the affect on the student, says the anonymous rhetorician, when the examples also come from several sources:
“For if the student believes that all qualities can exist in one man, he himself will strive for a mastery of them all. But if he despairs of this achievement he will occupy himself in acquiring a few qualities, and with these be content.” (246)
The anonymous rhetorician breaks style into three kinds: Grand, Middle, and Simple.
A discourse will be composed in the Grand style if to each idea are applied the most ornate words that can be found for it, whether literal or figurative; if impressive thoughts are chosen, such as are used in Amplification and Appeal to Pity; and if we employ figures of through and figures of diction which have grandeur. (248)
Example of Grand Style on 248-249.
“Our discourse will belong to the Middle type if we, as I have said above, we have somewhat relaxed our style, and yet have not descended to the most ordinary prose” (249).
Example of Middle Style 249-250.
Simple style is covered on 250 and it’s everyday speech, and the subject is about everyday matters and musings; storytelling about a day’s adventures. It seems the subject matter and the audience (one may dictate the other or vice versa) decide which style should be used. Kairos.
The anonymous rhetor then calls out the styles to be avoided; these seem to all be on the border of the styles just delineated. They are Swollen (a bad facsimile of Grand) (250), Slack or Drifting (a failed attempt at Middle), and Meager (a bad version of Simple; it misses the point of Simple, that is, straightforward speech “composed of correct and well chosen words” [251]).
Style should have three qualities: Taste, Artistic Composition, and Distinction (252)
Under the quality of Taste are two subheadings, Correct Lantinity and Clarity.
- Correct Latinity–keeps the language pure and free of fault. There are only two faults: Solecism and Barbarism.
- Solecism–this occurs if the concord between a word and one before it in a group of words is faulty.
- Barbarism–this occurs if a verbal expression is incorrect.
- Clarity renders language plain and intelligible. It is achieved by using current terms and proper terms.
- Current terms are such as are habitually sed in everyday speech
- Proper terms are te designations specially characteristic of the subject of discourse.
Artistic composition consists in an arrangement of words which gives uniform finish to the discouse in every part. This seems doable by avoiding the collision of vowels in the beginnings of words (remember, the anon rhetorician speaks Latin, not English) (252).
Distinction is to render style ornate, embellishing it by variety. ”The divisions under Distinction are Figures of Diction and the Figures of Thought. It is a figure of distinction if the adornment is comprised in the fine polish of the langauge itself. A figure of through derives a certain distinction from the idea, not from the words.” (253)
Figures of distinction seem to be what I’d call turns of phrases; see 60 Ways to Turn a Phrase for are more full description (253-265).
Figures of Diction. There are ten and these are the turns that use words in ways that aren’t part of their ordinary meanings (265).
Figures of Thought are from 268-until end. From my reading (albeit quick due to time and workload) figures of thought tend to be matters of style that also form ways of backing claims, that is, ways that one can present evidence in a pleasing style, and in turn, be persuasive through ornamentation.
De Oratore
Cicero
The opening is a nostalgic address to his brother, Quintus, and the setting is a replica of Plato’s Phaedrus. The text appears to be a riff on Plato’s Phaedrus, with Cicero using Crassus as his Socrates. Crassusarguesfor a broadly educated speaker withnatural ability is the way to create the best orator; Crassus also “indicts Socrates and Plato for separating philosophy and rhetoric” (Bizzell and Herzberg 287) since the we well-rounded orator who comes from such an education is denied the title “philosopher.” “[S]uch an orator has the wisdom of the Platonic philosophers, but they do not have his power” (288) within larger society.
Cicero asserts eminence in any field is rare, and then points out that it is even more rare within fields utilizing rhetoric. He find this strange since
the subjects of other arts are derived as a rule from hidden and remotesources, while the whole art of oratory lies open to the view, and is concerned in some measure with the common practice, custom, and speech of mankind, so that, whereas in all other arts that is most excellent which is farthest removed from the understanding and mental capacity of the untrained, in oratory the very cardinal sin is to depart from the language of everyday life, and the usage approved by the sense of the community. (291)
Support for the broad education claim:
“But the truth is that oratory is a greater thing, and has its sources in more arts and branches of study, than people suppose” (291).
“To begin with, a knowledge of a very many matters must be grasped, without which oratory is but an empty and ridiculous swirl of verbiage: and the distinctive style has to be formed” (291).
“For it is from knowledge that oratory must derive its beauty and fullness, and unless there is such knowledge, well-grasped and comprehended by the speaker, there must be something empty and almost childish in the utterance” (292).
The section titled : The orator must know the facts (297).
On page 293 Crassus begins his story and sings rhetoric’s praises. On 294 Scaevola makes his argument against rhetoric and oratory, citing that wisdom, and specifically wise men, can organize people and could be just as responsible for civilization (Crassus argued rhetoric and oratory was the impetus behind civilization). Scaevola also cites men who used oratory as a means to achieve their own ends, and consequently hurt the state.
Rhetoric is a science in and of itself since it deals with the study of ways to make things palatable to laymen.
And indeed when, while a man is speaking–as often happens–such commonplaces have cropped up as demand some mention of the immortal gods, of dutifulness, harmony, or friendship, of the rights shared by citizens…or virtue of any and every kind, all the academies and schools of philosophy will, I do believe, raise the cry that all these matters are their exclusive province, and in o way whateverthe concern of the orator. But when I have allowed that they may debatethesesubjects in their holes and corners, to pass an idle hour, it is to the orator none the less that I shall entrust and assign the task of developing with complete charm and cogency the same themse which they discuss in a sort of thin and bloodless style. (297)
Oratory style is important for the philosophy and science (298). A section which could be useful for Lois’ week six paper.
Orators, due to their broad education, can grasp any subject or field of study in the most general sense and speak well about said field since he is trained in the ways to speak so as to transmit knowledge in an understandable and pleasant manner. (The orator can get up technicalities, but he must be versed in political and moral science 298.)
Antonius makes his argument for natural ability on 302 (Real eloquence unknown).
Natural gifts are essential according to Crassus (305).
On 309 Crassus argues for the practice of writing speeches, of composing arguments and expository speeches so as to make speaking and writing voice sound the same; I assume he’s thinking composition engenders a more natural sounding Grand Style when the rhetor speaks in public. On 310 Crassus argues for a broad education in political science, philosophy, rhetoric, poetry, and history. Sounds like the type of education often idealized by the humanities.
When Anontius takes over, he argues against a broad education (317), against specialization in law (remember law was big in Rome) (318-319), and challenges Crassus’ claims that an orator can speak well about or on any subject when he points out the presence of lawyers in Roman courts as consultants to orators during trials (318). Antonius argues that all is needed is natural talent and a knowledge of general culture to win over audiences or juries. Training in rhetoric and oratory are unnecessary; training in suchmatters only provides the speaker with techniques in ornamentation.
Antonius begins book two talking about how to train for the Roman courts (odd, since he was arguing from the antithetical point earlier and seemed to be making the case that an orator needs no special training). Antonius explains that all court cases fall into these basic categories: “what has been done, or what is being done, or going to be done, or as to the nature of description of something” (322). Antonius posits persuasion is more important, not the arguing for something in a way built on theories and an education concerned with winning in a way that confirms rhetoric as a deliberate art (I’m sure the term art had quite a different meaning at this time–or at least a connotation akin to what we mean now when we say/hear the word “science”).
On 330 and 331 Antonius makes the case for an over-the-top style of pathetic appeal, one sure to affect the jury. It needs to be specific to the case and the jury in the court at them time. On 333 Rules and cautions for emotional oratory begins, and it’s quite the eye-opening articulation of rhetorical strategies still employed today, but never openly discussed. Most likely, this is the most enjoyable section of the entire text.
Book III is a delineation of how philosophy and rhetoric are connected. It appears to be Cicero speaking as Cicero (I could be wrong as De Oratore is only in excerpt form in The Rhetorical Tradition), and in this book he seems to be lamenting the split of oratory and rhetoric from philosophy. Cicero, as far as I can gather, is recalling a perfect time when
the old masters down to Socrates usedto combine with their theory of rhetoric the whole of the study of everything and the science of everything that concerns morals and conduct and ethics and politics. (337)
In the conclusion Cicero reluctantly admits to the continued division of rhetoric from everything else, but makes this parting shot:
whereas the contents of philosophy are discovered by the intellects of the keenest acumen in eliciting the probable answer to every problem…the results are elaborated with practiced eloquence (338)
In short, Cicero is arguing that without the maligned studies of rhetoric and oratory (which, by the way, includes written composition) the grandest of theories can not be made intelligible or knowable to others.
Also of note: Cicero asserts rhetoric is more than speaking well or being charming. At one point he tells the reader:
if you are content with these tulesand also the ones you have desired me to state, you are making the orator abandon a vast, immeasurable plain and confine himself to quite a narrow circle. (337)
Coupled with the quote above, “the old masters…,” I think Cicero is making the case that in confining rhetoric and oratory to the confines of the courtroom or the Senate floor a vast area of study that could be covered by rhetoric is being hidden by such a narrow definition. I’m going to go out on a limb and claim Cicero is simpatico with the New Rhetoricians of the 20th century; rhetoric is something more and could be something more to larger society if it is allowed to slip the confines of exercises in eloquence.
From Orator
Cicero
In this excerpt Cicero refers back to the three styles of rhetoric discussed in Rhetorica ad Herennium, ie, Grand, Middle, and Simple. The Simple, or Plain, he associates withthe Attic style of rhetoric, and is the style “for proof”, while the middle style is “for pleasure”, and the Grand, or vigorous, style is “for persuasion” (339). The perfect orator, in the Platonic sense, can always discern when it is appropriate to use each, and use each effectively when the moment arises (343).
Question for class: So where issues of identification and hierarchy of terms not discussed or considered relevant for analysis since Rome and Greece were homogeneous cultures–or at least two cultures where members of the ruling class only had to speak to each other?
Rhetoric in the European Tradition
Chapter 2: “Hellenistic and Roman Rhetorics”
Thomas Conley
The chapter opens by explaning the enkyklios paideia, or (roughly) “the rounded education” (30). This was based on the Greek model of education, and was introduced Greek culture and values to a large swath of the world–from “Sicily to Punjab” (29). This type of education introduced a type of “systematic rigor that had a permanent effect on the shape and contents of” (30) the arts covered within this program, which included rhetoric, grammar, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy.
Rhetoric was exceptionally rigid; for a full demonstration read pages 30-33.
This pedagogy lasted for centuries and still influences Western European and North American ideas about what constitutes a “good” education today.
The ideas about stasis theory begin on page 32. This seems, in my tired estimation, the ability to discern and agree upon arguable points in forensic or deliberative rhetoric. This method seems to see rhetoric only as argumentation since it allows parties to pick sides, define their sides, and prepare argumentative strategies to advance their position.
How is it apocryphal stories about Cicero’s death are included as “official” accounts of his death, and even though they are called out as hyperbolic, they still are usedto demonstratete his materiality and his skill as a rhetor/rhetorician?
Panegyrist
Pan”e*gyr`ist\, n. [L. panegyrista, Gr. ? one who attends a ?: cf. ? to celebrate or attend a public festival, to make a set speech, esp. a panegyric, in a public assembly. See Panegyric.] One who delivers a panegyric; a eulogist; one who extols or praises, either by writing or speaking.
This speech of praise summarizes those values around which good government must be built, values that need to be attended to by the ruler and the ruled alike. (42)
