The Rhetorical Tradition
Bizzell and Herzberg, eds.
“Richard Whately”
From Elements of Rhetoric
“Richard Whately”
Whatley retells the history of rhetoric and delineates specific rhetoricians as the key figures of rhetorical history. Specifically, he calls out Aristotle, Cicero, Quintillian, Bacon, Campbell, and Blair as the rhetoricians worth mentioning; the problem is that few have pushed rhetoric to new heights, meaning that rhetoric has stayed primarily the same since Aristotle.
Whatley sees rhetoric as the offspring of logic, and wants to make rhetoric more systematic. Rhetoric should have a theory that demonstrates each stage of conviction. To do this means understanding language and psychology, and Whately claims these are “the bases for rhetoric” (1000), and therefore, all rhetorical study should fully interrogate these subjects.
Whately is a defender of the faith, and he is molding rhetoric as a way for the faithful to counter sceptics. One way he does this is through using the methods of language and observation against science; the other is his orientation on what science does and what it should be doing. According to Whately, “[m]odern science has emphasized knowledge of facts and has neglected logic” (1000). Using logic as a way to compose and arrange arguments was Whately’s way of refuting science using the tools of science, but also it’s a way to prove there’s a position within logic for religious argumentation and that arguing against the very en vogue discipline of science was a rational, reasonable, and thoroughly normal activity sane men could take up (I say men since most of these rhetoricians in this time period spoke only of men in the public sphere).
“Like Campbell, he maintains that much scientific knowledge is based on the same kind of reasoning as moral knowledge and that linear demonstrations of causality do not constitute the whole of logic” (1001).
“Causal demonstration, moreover, is not appropriate to arguments about most of life’s affairs. Rather, a ‘progressive approach’ to the truth must be used. Rhetoric’s proper province is therefore to argue for truths found by other means–by science or revelation” (1001).
Part I is the Elements of rhetoric, mostly discussing how audiences react to different types of evidence, and specifically, testimony. Audiences do not always react to logic.
Part II focuses on appeals to emotion. It is necessary to “stimulate emotions such as hope, fear, and altruism because they lead to worthy aims” (1002).
Part III is a handbook on style which stresses clarity and correctness.
Part IV is made up of Whately’s advice on elocution. Whately follows Sheridan in stressing natural style (which means speaking habits which appear more natural).
From Elements of Rhetoric
In the intro Whately has several things going. First, that there needs to be a system of Rhetoric and Composition (and he is speaking overtly about composing written documents) that is based in observation of those who are successful in persuading using either mode. Second, he is taking what he wants from the history of Rhetoric and then using certain rhetoricians/rhetorics as a way to elevate his own system of rhetoric. Third, he is making the argument, towards the end, for the correct way to teach students.
All of this sounds strangely familiar. Not just the recent history of modern Rhet-Comp, but also some of the pedagogical warrants that undergird Whately’s claims. There is a belief in one dominant culture, and that a student’s understanding of said culture, along with her consent, is a given, and therefore, compositions created by such a student should be exercises in demonstrating profieicney of the pedagogy Whately is proposing. Because of this, student compositions can be “puerile” concerning certain subjects since this is to be expected of the young. I find problematic the lack of any qualifying statements which explain to what degree and in what ways a student composition can be naive.
Also, there is the idea that this pedagogy is founded in good intentions. The system is a way to make plain those things that appear mystical, a way to allow anyone who has access to understand how persuasion works and how they can make it work for them (1008-1009). While I assert this isn’t overtly articulated, I think this is the reasoning for the project; Whately is exceptionally concerned that new rules of rhetoric and composition b created which do not “cramp” the faculties of writer-speakers–they should, at all times, “assist” the writer-speaker as he argues for his claims (1008-1009) (claims by the way formed through Philosophy and Logic [1005]).
Part I, Chapter II is primarily about forms of evidence–specifically testimony. There are subsections naming each type of testimony, and the exposition following each heading explains how a speaker/writer could use each type to his advantage. They’re self-explanatory for the most part, but put in the light of the intro, the importance that Whately puts on each makes sense since he was explaining how to defend the faith against sceptics who were using science and philosophy to question the validity and usefulness of religion. Testimony, I figure, is important since Whately would be using the “testimony” recounted in the scriptures, or individuals claiming to have witnessed a miracle in Whately’s time.
Chapter III
Chapter three is concerned with Presumption and Burden of Proof.
“According to the most correct use of this term, a “Presumption” in favour [sic] of any supposition, means, not (as has been sometimes erroneously imagined) a preponderance of probability in its favour, but, such a preoccupation of the ground, as implies that it must stand good till some sufficient reason is adduced against it; in short that the Burden of proof lies on the of him who would dispute it” (1019).
Interestingly, Whately makes the argument for tradition and traditional institutions as in a position of strength in the first few pages of this chapter (1019-1020), and this claim colors the rest of the chapter. This returns to the concept of defending the faith. In 1022-1030 the Whately gives advice for the individual, with an emphasis on how to move through an argument so as to defend traditions and institutions. There is also a a few sections that explain how individuals can be led astray (Grounds of deference, deference as to particular points, presumptions for and against the learned, Fallacies). The rest of the topics are strategies or elements of arguments that should be emphasized or utilized to argue against those who have the Burden of Proof within the argument, ie, those who are attacking the concept of Christianity.
