Table of Contents
Preface 4
The System of This Book
The Hard Science of Rhetoric: Theory
The
Habit of Rhetoric: Imitation
The Creation of Rhetoric: Practice
A General Disclaimer
Chapter 1 Origin and
Definition of Rhetoric 10
Chapter
2 Parts of the
Definition: Rhetorical Situation 14
Chapter 3 Rhetorical
Situation Continued 17
Chapter
4 Parts of the
Definition: Means of Persuasion 20
The
Five Canons of Rhetoric
Chapter 5 Canons
of Rhetoric: Invention:
Parts of a Speech 23
Chapter 6 Parts
of a Speech: Introduction 26
Chapter 7 Introduction Continued 29
Chapter 8 Parts of a Speech: Statement of Facts 33
Chapter 9 Statement of Facts Continued 37
Chapter 10 Parts of a Speech: Division 39
Chapter 11 Parts
of a Speech: Proof and Refutation 42
Chapter 12 Proof
and Refutation Continued 45
Chapter 13 Parts of a Speech: Conclusion 49
Chapter 14 Conclusion Continued 52
Chapter 15 Canons of Rhetoric: Invention Reviewed 55
Chapter 16 Canons of Rhetoric: Arrangement 58
Chapter 17 Arrangement Continued 61
Chapter 18 Canons of Rhetoric: Style 66
Chapter 20 Style
Continued 72
Chapter 21 Canons
of Rhetoric: Memory 75
Chapter 22 Canons
of Rhetoric: Delivery 78
Chapter 23 Delivery Continued 81
Chapter 24 Review of the General Theory of Classical
Rhetoric 84
Chapter 25 Introduction
to the Practical Media of Communication 87
Chapter 26 Written Media: Papers and Essays 90
Chapter 27 Written Media: Letters and Articles 94
Chapter 28 Written Media: Stories 97
Chapter 29 Aural Media:
Speeches and Reading 101
Chapter 30 Aural Media:
Music and Rhetoric 105
Chapter 31 Visual Media:
Meaningful Images 110
Chapter 32 The Life of Rhetoric 112
Appendix I 114
Appendix
II 117
Glossary 120
Chapter 1: Origin and Definition of Rhetoric
Rhetoric is the counterpart of
Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with
such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong
to no definite science.
Aristotle, On Rhetoric
What, exactly, is the
study of rhetoric? This question has
been asked ever since the term was coined.
The literal meaning of the word in English is the art of speaking or
writing effectively. “Rhetoric” comes from the Greek word for “speech” or
“spoken.” It has not always been
considered a respectable academic discipline.
Plato was critical of the idea that rhetoric should be called an art,
while Aristotle argued in On Rhetoric that it was indeed an art. Plato’s perspective on rhetoric has not been
uncommon throughout the ages, namely, that rhetoric is no art at all but merely
practiced flattery. The “fantastical
banquet” of words is “mere cookery in words”; words that are plain and to the
point are all that are needed. Plato
puts forth this position in his dialogue Gorgias,
where rhetoric is called “the art of persuasion.” Through the character of Socrates he tears
this definition apart by showing that bare persuasion cannot be an art in the
proper sense of the word.
Plato’s
argument, through Socrates, goes something like this: He compares rhetoric to those things traditionally
considered art, such as medicine, politics, and warfare, and reveals that
rhetoric, unlike them, has no specific subject or any basic data to serve as
the foundation for those who practice it.
The subject of medicine is healing, which is accomplished by knowledge
of illnesses and medicines. The subject
of warfare is victory, which is accomplished by knowledge of troops and
tactics. But with rhetoric, there are
endless difficulties discovering a subject, especially since both the doctor
and the general must use persuasion—which is supposed to be the realm of
rhetoric—and since the ability to persuade can be considered a knack, not a
skill based on knowledge. Based on the
fact that rhetoric (as the art of persuasion) cannot meet the definition of an
art (a discipline with a specific subject and basic data), Socrates concludes
it is no art. He goes on at length to
explain that rhetoric is merely a form of flattery, and more comparable to
cookery than to medicine. He heaps shame
on rhetoric by employing, ironically, a number of rhetorical means. The gist of his argument is that when we
compare rhetoric to other “arts,” it doesn’t fit the description; hence we
shouldn’t even call it an art.
In answer to this
criticism, Aristotle in On Rhetoric defines rhetoric so that he can
explain its place as a counterpart to dialectic (logic). He says that rhetoric is like dialectic in
that its subject is all things. While
the subject of dialectic is logical thought and the subject of rhetoric is
effective communication, they differ from many of the lesser arts, such as
medicine and warfare, since the subjects of health and victory are
comparatively narrow. The definition of
rhetoric settled on, then, must take up this universal nature of its
referent. Aristotle proposes that we
call rhetoric “the art of finding the possible means of persuasion in reference
to any given situation.”
This definition may seem
somewhat clumsy at first, but as you begin to experience the everyday nature of
rhetoric you will have a greater appreciation for Aristotle’s insight. Aristotle strikes the balance by using a
definition that acknowledges the goal—persuasion—but grounds its use in the
“given situations.” Rhetoric, like
logic, has all things as its subject—every “given situation” is the subject for
either discipline. This definition also
goes a long way toward answering the age-old question about rhetoric: “What
makes rhetoric more than a base appeal to the emotions?” Many have answered like Plato—“not much”; but
those who delve a little further come to appreciate the important role of the
human will in communications. Every
message from human to human is laden with the will (emotions or desires) of the
speaker, and comes to a hearer who is full of his own emotions and predispositions. This fact makes the study of how words are
made persuasive both legitimate and necessary.
Although some philosophers dream wistfully of pure rational discourse,
in reality it is a comical pretense (and sometimes shows up in literature as
such—for instance, in Dickens’ Mr. Gradgrind—Hard
Times). Every person who is opposed
to rhetoric nevertheless participates in his very own rhetoric. More than likely he will attempt to persuade
you that rhetoric is no legitimate art.
He won’t just coolly let the “truth” of his position win out in the
end. No, he wants you to believe as he
does; and if or when you do, he expects you to want it to be believed just as
he did. Desires and predispositions are
part of the world as much as reason is, argues Aristotle’s definition.
One of the ways in which
Aristotle showed the legitimacy and necessity of rhetoric was by setting forth
three divisions of oratory that demonstrated its role in public life. These
categories illustrated that there was a system to the “situation” of
rhetoric. They are the Deliberative
(or Political), Forensic (or Judicial), and Epideictic (which
includes many different kinds of rhetoric).
These three have a more or less future, past, and present order to them.
Deliberative oratory is concerned with the
future and with persuading someone to take a certain course of action. With the
Athenian democracy probably in mind, Aristotle identifies the use of rhetoric
before the legislative assembly as Deliberative. The
Forensic oratory deals with events that
happened in the past—whether a certain man or institution did or did not do
something and what we ought to do consequently.
The proper sphere of Forensic oratory is generally considered to be the
judicial court. Although there are other
disciplines (history, for example) that fit the specific criteria given above
in some ways, Forensic causes are almost always courtroom situations.
Epideictic oratory is the broadest
category, and you need to remember two main branches. First, Epideictic oratory
deals with the present by recommending someone or something to the audience as
worthy of praise or blame. (This was the
understanding of Epideictic oratory in the classical world.) Second, today we call upon Epideictic
rhetoric to accomplish any ideologically driven persuasion—put another way, any
persuasion that persuades primarily to belief, although that belief may
result in action as a secondary effect.
These are the general
categories of oratory. The Deliberative
cause is concerned mainly with the wisdom or practical implications of a
certain course of action. In Forensic
oratory, you must show how the law speaks to the situation at hand, either in letter
or in spirit. Finally, in Epideictic
oratory you must convince the audience of the positive or negative value of a
certain person, place, thing, or idea.
None of these categories is completely exclusive. You will have some Forensic-like sections in
your Deliberative speech as you try to determine the judicial precedent for a
certain law and how it relates to the course of action being considered. You will also seek to persuade the audience
that the course of action is either good or bad, which are Epideictic
concerns. So you see that the categories
do overlap, but usually one type of oratory will define your situation better
than the others.
In the classical world,
and especially in the Athenian democracy, the power to persuade was a necessity
for any public citizen. Aristotle’s
arguments were potent because he showed that one of the proper ends of rhetoric
was to apply the means of persuasion to Deliberative and Forensic situations. This was not only acceptable but interesting
to citizens of the ancient world, who could be required to defend themselves in
court without the assistance of a lawyer.
The citizen of a democracy or a republic also had to vote for a
candidate, distinguishing the smooth talker from the honest man—a perennial
problem in politics. It was easy for
Aristotle’s audience to understand that there was a legitimate use for a
systematic study of the means of persuasion.
The comparison to logic was a stroke of genius that freed each man from
objections like Plato’s. Rhetoric was an
art, to be studied right alongside Logic.
Finally, there are
always those aforementioned smooth talkers, who give rhetoric a bad name. Such were the sophists, or philosophical
relativists, who were certain that persuasive power is a might that makes
right. They viewed rhetoric as a
legitimate means for gaining whatever they liked. The sophists were not so much mistaken in
their understanding of rhetoric as in their application of ethics. They correctly recognized rhetorical ability
as power. Aristotle also recognized that
rhetoric is power and, as such, can corrupt, and he warned his readers that
rhetoric must be used ethically or it will become sophistry. While it is used for good it is an art, but
it becomes base sophistry when corrupted.
He argued that the corruption of rhetoric is a man-based problem, that
rhetoric cannot be evil in itself. As
Summary: From the beginning, rhetoric has encountered
influential advocates and detractors.
While Plato questioned its legitimacy, Aristotle defended rhetoric by
comparing it to dialectic and calling it dialectic’s sister art. Among those in favor of it are those who use
it ethically (rhetoricians) for good and truth, and those who use it
dishonestly (sophists) for gain. Three
main divisions of oratory set forth by Aristotle—Deliberative, Forensic, and
Epideictic—illustrated the concrete and inescapable nature of rhetoric and
reinforced the correlation of rhetoric and dialectic.
Exercise 1:
Theory
a. Memorize both
definitions of rhetoric given in this lesson.
b. Describe and discuss the
reasons for Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric.
c.
What question has often been asked about rhetoric?
d. What does Aristotle
answer?
e. What role did the three
types of oratory play in the debate?
f.
What do sophists do with rhetoric, besides give it a bad
name?
Question for discussion:
Pure rational discourse is conversation or
discussion in which emotion and sense play no part—in other words, where a mind
speaks to a mind without the interference of desire or distraction. Is pure rational discourse really so
laughable? If so, how
and why?
Exercise 2:
Imitation
Read the first half of the book of Psalms. Notice particularly the beauty of the
language. Does Scripture condone the
idea that man is a “rational animal”?
Notice what the Psalms say about desires in man. Do you think it is good to be moved
emotionally by the Psalms? Why or why or
not?
Exercise 3:
Practice
Write the definition of rhetoric from memory and
then consider each part of it. “Finding
the means of persuasion ….” What does that mean? List a means of persuasion you can think of
right off the bat. “In any given situation .…” What
situation? List three situations in
which you might want to be persuasive.
Then consider the first section again.
What are the means of persuasion in reference to the situations you
thought of? Write a short paragraph
outlining your thought process.
For Example:
I am driving too fast, and my neighborhood policeman stops me to discuss it. (situation)
Means of Persuasion: I should do exactly what he asks now and ask
respectfully for pity. He has probably
heard every excuse under the sun, so unless my wife is having a baby I might
rather phrase my story as piteous than as
justification for my speed. I certainly
should not tell him that he’s nosy and ought to leave people like me
alone. (a
short paragraph explaining the means of persuasion)
Chapter 19: Style Continued
Now, I can’t tell you
how to be graceful and elegant in the same way I can tell you how to be clear
and direct. What I can do is describe a
few of the devices that some graceful writers use. But that advice is,
finally, about as useful as listing the ingredients in the bouillabaise
of a great cook and then expecting anyone to make it. Knowing ingredients and knowing how to use
them is the difference between reading cookbooks and cooking.
Joseph
Williams, Style: Toward Clarity and Grace
As we continue to discuss Style, let us look in more detail at
how language takes on Style. First we will consider one of the primary
methods of giving your speech the balance, texture, and contrast that make a
pleasant and tasteful Style. By this I
mean the ornaments or figures of speech, such as metaphor, simile, analogy,
etc. But before we get into the
details, let us consider a great rhetorician who used ornamentation and variety
to great effect.
If you go into a used bookstore
sometime, ask if there are any authors from the middle part of the last century
whose books move through the store quickly.
Then visit a library and try to check out a book by C.S. Lewis. You will quickly realize that although he’s
been dead for almost half a century, people still haven’t had enough. Everywhere you go, his writings are in
demand. Lewis was a great thinker, yes,
but by almost any account he was especially good at communicating complex and profound ideas in a clear and vivid
manner. The clarity of his writing is
remarkable, especially since he manages it in many cases apparently without
knowing or following any of the rules.
But by far the most remarkable thing about his writing is the way he
sets his ideas off with striking analogies and similes that help the reader
understand and remember the ideas he is communicating. His thoughts are connected, and he manages to
tell you how in such a way that you love and remember them. That is good rhetoric!
One of the things that Lewis does well is “put
handles” on the material he communicates. This means that he makes an explanation or
idea stand out from the surrounding writing in such a way that you naturally
pick it up with your mind and take it with you.
This illustrates one of the functions of ornaments in a speech. They give language texture. Without texture your speech will have no
access points, no contrast of parts or detail for your audience to follow. Without balance, however, the connections and
flow of ideas can be lost or obscured by the ornamentation. Using a figure of speech or an analogy will
set out one part of a speech in distinction from others. A speech has a natural texture as it is, of
course. Even so, a monotonous Style and
Delivery can make the textures of the topic that may be clear to you so obscure
to your audience that they become inattentive.
Ornamentation accentuates the best parts of a speech’s natural texture
by a tasteful interspersing and balanced intuition about when to use an analogy
or metaphor and when to abstain.
We will mention three basic kinds of
ornamentation here because they are the most common and, I think, the most
useful.
First,
we have the analogy or comparative
story. This type of ornamentation
serves as both an explanatory tool and a delightful bit of imagery to capture
the imagination. Everyone loves a
story, and most people like to hear things described. Analogy is simply using one system or story
common and understandable to the audience to explain something that is more
obscure or less obvious about the topic at hand.
Second
is the metaphor or simile, which is
basically a shorter analogy. This is so much the case that sometimes analogy is
called “extended metaphor.” With both we
use a commonly understood or recognized object or event and compare it to what
we are trying to convey, so that the first object becomes a sort of description
of the second. There is a technical
difference between a simile and a metaphor:
a simile contains the word “as” or “like,” while a metaphor makes a
comparison by saying that one thing is another, but without the use of
comparative words. “Our God is like a
consuming fire” is a simile. “Our God is
a consuming fire” is a metaphor. This
ornament is striking, and when used well it can be very lovely. It reminds me of the Apostle’s admonition to
“let your speech be seasoned with salt,” which is both an exhortation to
speaking well and an example of it (metaphor).
Third
are various “figures of speech.” Sometimes when we say “figure of speech”
today we think of idioms such as, “It is raining cats and dogs.” I am using the more traditional definition of
a “figure of speech” as adornment that brings distinction and balance to the
language, by using structures of language such as repeated use of a word or a
phrase, use of opposites, etc. Figures
of speech accentuate texture and balance, as I mentioned above, and in the
classical scheme of classification the two types of ornament (metaphor and
analogy) mentioned above would most likely fall under the heading of “figures
of speech” as well. But because metaphor
and analogy fill a more descriptive and artistic role, I am using “figure of
speech” to refer specifically to other kinds of ornamentation that make the
language of the speech seem polished and the argumentation balanced and sound
by using certain patterns or structures of language. For instance, Epanaphora
is a figure of speech in which the same word or words are repeated at the
beginnings of successive phrases in such a way as to tie them together. Like this:
“The
children of
Another
example is paralipsis, in which the speaker mentions
that he is passing over something as a way to mention it. Like this:
“Although it would be right and just for me to
mention the President’s moral laxity and his political scheming, I will pass by
without comment to the urgent matters of policy that concern us.”
For
more figures of speech, see Appendix I.
As with other forms of ornamentation, these must be used with taste and
good judgment.
Finally, learning what the tools are
and using them well are two different things.
This is why it is so important for every student of rhetoric to remember
the three methods for attaining proficiency—Theory, Imitation, and
Practice. Just learning that these kinds
of ornamentation exist is a big first step.
Now that you know they are there, notice when you can use them and learn
to use them well.
Summary: A truly successful
Style makes use of ornaments of speech.
There are three main kinds of ornamentation: (1)
analogy or comparative story—the practice of using the familiar or common
to explain or illustrate your rhetorical point; (2) metaphor or simile—which
is a shortened analogy and adds spice to the language; and (3) “figures of speech” (Appendix I),
under which I group the structures of language and methods of dialectic
considered to be “figures of speech” by the classical writers.
Exercise 1: Theory
a. What is the primary function of
ornamentation of style?
b. Give the three main types and their most
important features.
c. What is the difference between a simile
and a metaphor?
d. What are the three ways to attain
proficiency at rhetoric? How are those
related to ornaments of style?
Exercise
2: Imitation
Finish reading Style: Toward
Clarity and Grace. Read the first
third of That Hideous Strength by
C.S. Lewis. Notice his style and enjoy
the story. It is not an allegory.
Exercise
3: Practice
Write two or three segments of prose and
make use of at least one of each of the types of ornamentation listed
above. You must use at least one analogy
or comparing story, one metaphor or simile, and one figure of speech.
Example:
“As a cunning snake in the grass,
Julius Caesar has waited and watched. He
knew that there was little hope of victory if he was honest. He knew that if he was a man of principle he
would never achieve his ambition. He
knew that his was not so much a desire for justice but for greatness.
“So you see that his seeming
innocence—his apparent lack of guile—his strident appeals to his blamelessness
are without basis. The Trojan horse looked innocent, yes even honorable to
those in
Chapter 30: Aural Media:
Music and Rhetoric
We hear music as we hear the
voice: it is the very soul of another, a
‘coming forth’ of the hidden individual.
These descriptions may be metaphors but they seem to be forced upon us,
and invite us to treat the relation between music and language as something
more than a passing accident.
Roger Scruton, The Aesthetics of
Music
The next type of aural media I want to look into as a form of persuasive communication is music. You may doubt my sanity. You are probably thinking, “Oh, boy, this is a stretch.” After all, when was the last time any of us heard a “persuasive” piece of music? Nevertheless, I ask you to bear with me and hear me out. First of all, I will make it clear that rhetoric and music are separate disciplines. There are, however, striking similarities between rhetoric and music; in fact, music is a form of communication, as we will see. In effect, rhetoric and music shed light on each other. As I show some of the ways in which they do this, I hope you will come to agree with me that music does communicate, and in a sense we might even say persuasively.
First of all, music and rhetoric share a basic situation; there is always a maker of music, a hearer of music, and the music—much like the speaker, the audience, and the speech. Music is sometimes called the “international language.” A language without words, it communicates regardless of language barriers. This seems to be a strong indication that music is, in fact, communicative. But what does music communicate? Many theories have been postulated, such as the theory that music is an expression of the composer’s inner self, or the idea that music really has no meaning at all. Most feasible to me is the theory that music is like gestures or facial expressions. In other words, listening to music is like watching someone speak a foreign language. I may not understand the meaning of the words he uses, but insofar as human nature expresses itself similarly in all cultures, I can see by a smile that the man is expressing happiness or has found something funny, or by a grimace that he is expressing displeasure at something. I may even go further and tell by the tone of the speaker’s voice that his scowl expresses anger, or sadness, or injury. On a happier note, I might be able to tell from tone of voice and facial expression whether he is smiling at something humorous, or at something sublime. This example illustrates the fact that the specific meaning of music is not usually clear, but we can tell in general what it is gesturing or what attitude it expresses. I may not know the object of a piece of music’s expressed agitation, but I can at least tell that it is communicating agitation. Music can be seen as comparable to the gestures and range of expression that come through in the spoken word apart from explicit meaning. As I mentioned in the last chapter, the comparison goes the other way as well. Spoken words communicate both by means of the literal meaning of the words and by the inflected emphasis and tone of voice. Music, then, is of great interest to the serious rhetorician.
There is also a connection or similarity between music and rhetoric in the sense that they both require expressive Delivery. When studying the theory of Delivery for the first time, I was struck by the similarities between the advice from my violin instructor on creating dynamics when playing a piece of music and the theory of Delivery that I was learning in my rhetoric class. The similarities are real, and I recommend that you look into music lessons as a way to improve your oral Delivery. You will also learn an incredible amount about how sound gestures. Both music and rhetorical Delivery use rhythm, volume, and quality of tone to communicate. Finally, along with all the other points of similarity, both musical and oratorical performances provide opportunities for overcoming nervousness. This enemy of smooth Delivery in both arts is formidable and can really only be conquered finally in battle, no matter what other techniques can be used to reduce its strength. So take up an instrument; let your public speaking benefit from your recitals, and your recitals from your public speaking.
Third, and finally, music and rhetoric are both oriented toward the audience, with a strong emphasis on the aesthetic sense. That is to say, they both appeal to the human sense of beauty. Rhetoric can help us evaluate music. Today, almost every form of music is tacitly given the same status as being “beautiful” because it is beautiful in the eye of some beholder. But does every piece of music really have the same potential for aesthetic value? Many people actually think that the beauty of a piece of music is determined by each individual isolated from every other individual. While this may be part of the truth (in the sense that every person’s experience of music is unique), the fact still stands that people—collectively—know there is a difference between beauty and ugliness. The Theory involved in persuasion lends an interesting perspective to musical evaluation. The rhetorician is in the business of knowing what will be beautiful, in shape, balance, and texture. Even his voice is an instrument he uses much like the musician uses his horn or violin. He evaluates both his message and his situation based on certain principles. These principles of aesthetics and composition give at least a handhold on some standards in aesthetics. For example, the theory of rhetoric discusses the natural arrangement of beginning fact, middle action, and final conclusion that can shed light on the structure of a musical piece, which will either follow the pattern (beginning theme, middle tension, final resolution) or disrupt it. This of course doesn’t immediately answer the question whether a work of art is “good” or “bad,” but it gives the person interested in analyzing and evaluating music some tools for the task. It would take far too long for me to fully develop this kind of evaluation here. I have tried to begin laying the groundwork in this chapter. If music does communicate something, and if we can tell with at least some consistency what it is communicating and how well it does what it sets out to do, then we have a starting place from which to judge it.
How is music “persuasive”? This question still remains, and it is not an easy one. In order to formulate a basic answer to it, let me make a comparison. Consider the fact that music is like the gesture, tone, and tempo of spoken words without the specific meaning of the words. Can I take the comparison a step further? Can music be compared to connotations or aura in other media? For example, stories and poetry (whether considered textually or aurally) have flavors and tones. There are gestures in the sounds and shapes of the words chosen and in the organization of the writing. Sometimes the names of the characters even set a tone for the piece (as in Wodehouse and J.R.R. Tolkien). The comparison seems to work. So then, music tells the kind of story or involves the kind of tonal significance of a poem. In both the poem and the story these are persuasive factors, not so explicitly, but rather as a way to convince the reader or hearer that the secondary world of the author is interesting and enjoyable. The purpose (implicit or explicit) of the author can vary widely, sometimes conveying beauty and meaning and sometimes merely making the audience laugh. In any case, when you enjoy art, you are in this sense persuaded. In this way I claim that there is a kind of rhetorical or persuasive element to music.
Unfortunately, I only have the space to introduce you to the idea that music means. I mention this to show the similarities of rhetoric and music, and so that you will begin to reject aesthetic relativism. Music does mean, and we know its beauty, both by experience and by the testimony of Scripture, which encourages us to “make a joyful sound” and to “worship the Lord in the beauty of Holiness.” I want you to be able to firmly proclaim that there are standards for beauty and art, and yet to acknowledge that aesthetic standards are at times subtle. Beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder, yet none of us knows beauty apart from being a beholder. Remember that the Lord beholds all and that His “opinion” is our standard, and then seek to know His standard and how He communicates it to us.
Summary: This chapter is about the similarities between rhetoric and music and ways in which we can learn about each from the other. I outline three main areas of similarity: (1) the basic communication situation, (2) the importance of Delivery, and (3) the aesthetic emphasis of each. The persuasive element of music is like the persuasion of stories or poetry.
Exercise 1: Theory
a. Does music communicate?
b. What do rhetoric and music have in common?
c. Aesthetic consideration plays what role in
the art of rhetoric?
d. What kind of meaning or significance does
music express?
e. Does music persuade? Defend your answer.
f. Question for discussion: Beauty and the beholder are related to each
other and to God in what ways?
Exercise 2: Imitation
Listen to some music
from the baroque, classical, and romantic periods of musical history. Compare and consider the rhetorical and
especially historical societal setting of each piece of music. How does the music gesture?
Exercise 3: Practice
If you play an
instrument or sing, practice more. Write
a short story that follows the gestures of your favorite piece of classical
music. In other words, write a story to
which your favorite music would make a good soundtrack.
Exercise
Checklist:
1. Practice your musical instrument or sing.
2. Pick a favorite piece of classical music.
3. Write a story that follows the gesture of the favorite piece of music.
Glossary
Aristotle’s Definition of Rhetoric: The
art of finding the possible means of persuasion in reference to any given
situation. Contrast with Plato’s View of Rhetoric.
Attentive: One of the qualities the rhetorician is
supposed to cultivate in the audience, basically denoting a willingness on the
part of the audience to listen. (See Receptive and Well Disposed.)
Arrangement: See
Canons of Rhetoric.
Canons of Rhetoric: The five classically defined areas of
discipline or skill which the rhetorician must master in order to use the means
of persuasion effectively.
§
Invention:
Composing and compiling the material of a speech.
§
Arrangement: The effective ordering of the invented speech.
§
Style: The selection and implementation of a certain
type of language in a discourse. The
three basic styles are the Grand, the Middle, and the Simple. (See Grand Style, Middle Style,
and Simple Style.)
§
Memory:
Memorization
and recall.
§
Delivery:
The use of the elements of presentation, including (but not limited to)
gestures, tone and volume of voice, and facial expression.
Cause: A short-hand
way of referring to the rhetorical situation.
Causes, Four Types:
§
Honorable: A situation in which the audience views you
or your message, or both, with favor.
Use the Direct Opening (most common) or the Subtle Approach.
§
Discreditable: A situation in which the audience is actively
opposed to you or your message, or both.
Use the Subtle Approach.
§
Doubtful: A situation in which the audience is
undecided about you, your message, or both.
Use the Direct Opening or the Subtle Approach.
§
Petty: A situation in which the audience considers
you or your message not worth their time.
In the petty cause the audience is not so much opposed to you as they
are contemptuous. Use the Subtle
Approach.
Conclusion: See Parts
of a Speech.
Deliberative Oratory: See Divisions
of Rhetoric.
Delivery: See Canons
of Rhetoric.
Direct Opening: An opening in which the rhetorician states
clearly his position and what he hopes to accomplish. It is the first of two ways to begin a
discourse, the other of which is the Subtle Approach. The Direct Opening is only recommended for
use with the Honorable Cause and the Doubtful Cause. (See Causes,
Four Types, and Subtle Approach.)
Discreditable Cause: See Causes,
Four Types.
Division: See Parts
of a Speech.
Divisions of Rhetoric: Aristotle classified all speeches according to these three categories: Deliberative, Forensic, Epideictic. Deliberative oratory addresses issues that are yet in the future, for the purpose of persuading men to take one course of action or another for future benefit (e.g., legislative assemblies). Forensic oratory speaks of the past, debating whether or not an action was done by someone and why, or how; and finally what ought to be done in the light of what happened in the past. Criminal trials and court cases are examples of Forensic oratory. Epideictic oratory is less concerned with action and more concerned with belief. By Epideictic oratory we are persuaded to praise or blame someone or so