Teacher Training For Classical Teachers SAVING WESTERN CIVILIZATION ONE STUDENT AT A TIME RHETORIC What Is Classical Rhetoric? by Martin Cothran 1 ccording to Quintilian, the great Roman teacher of rhetoric, the purpose of education is to produce A the “good man speaking well.” This means that a student must not only study the rules and principles of eloquent expression, but he must know and do good; he must not only master certain techniques, he must be familiar with the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. The classical discipline that taught a man these things was called “rhetoric.” In modern times the word “rhetoric” has acquired a pejorative connotation. We hear people say things like, “Well, that’s just rhetoric.” The reason we think this way now is because many people who speak well are not good men— or at least they do not use their rhetorical talents for what we would consider a good purpose. This seems to be a particular problem in politics. 2 Classical thinkers such as Quintilian, as well as Aristotle and Cicero, knew that just because something is used badly is not a suffi cient reason to reject the thing itself. A good thing can be used for a bad purpose. One of the reasons for the negative modern view of rhetoric may have something to do with how we teach it. While modern books on speaking and writing have plenty of emphasis on technique, they are almost devoid of any treatment of those other things necessary for truly persuasive expression, one of which is the element of good moral character. To get a full understanding of what it is to be able to express yourself persuasively, you have to go back to the ancients. The three greatest ancient writers on rhetoric were the Greek philosopher Aristotle, the Roman orator Cicero, and the Roman teacher Quintilian. Aristotle was the greatest theoretician of rhetoric, Cicero its greatest practitioner, and Quintilian its greatest teacher. They believed that rhetoric was to be used for the Good. Classical rhetoric involves a study of the fundamental principles of political philosophy, ethics, and traditional psychology. Although the study of rhetoric truly begins at a young age with practice in imitating the writing of others, it extends in later years into the specifi c study of the principles of persuasive expression. There is no bett er place to begin this latt er kind of study than with Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Aristotle taught that there were three elements of communication: the speaker, the audience, and the speech itself. In fact, his book is broken down into three parts, one on each of these elements of rhetoric. Just because something is used badly is not a suffi cient reason to reject the thing itself. 3 Three Kinds of Persuasive Speech There are also, says Aristotle, three kinds of persuasive speech: political speech, legal speech, and ceremonial speech. In political speech, the audience is some body of decision- makers like a political assembly. Its subject is future action, and its object is to move the audience to pursue some action. A congressman, for example, may ask to be recognized by the House speaker or Senate president to commend a bill for his colleagues’ consideration because he thinks it would achieve a legitimate public purpose—or, conversely, he may wish to speak against a bill one of his colleagues has introduced because he thinks it would work against the common good. The end of this kind of speech is expediency, which is a kind of good, a good in the sense that it helps the political community he is sworn to support move closer to its ultimate purpose, which is the common good. Political rhetoric, therefore, is highly moral or ethical in character. A classical example of this kind of speech would be Odysseus’ appeal to Achilles to return to batt le in Homer’s Iliad. Odysseus argues for the expediency of Achilles’ return—for the Greeks and for Achilles himself. It is about the future good of both Achilles and the Greek army. In a legal speech, the subject is the past, and the object is the determination of what has or has not actually happened, what the nature of the act was, and whether it was warranted. A lawyer, for example, may argue before a jury that his client did not, in fact, commit the murder that he has been charged with committ ing. He is arguing about what did or did not happen in the past, and whether it was done (or not) for a just reason. Anyone who argues to an audience about past events (in this case who committ ed a past murder) would count as a legal speaker. A legal speaker (also called a forensic speaker) could also include someone addressing some past historical issue. A debate over whether the United States should have dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would involve legal or forensic rhetoric. The end of legal speech is the bringing about of justice through the determination of truth. 4 A classical example of this kind of speech would be Socrates’ defense against charges of atheism and the corruption of the youth of Athens in the trial in which he was condemned to death. He says that the past things he has been accused of saying and doing are not true, and therefore to convict him of doing these things would be unjust. A ceremonial speaker would address the present, and would concern himself with the present honor or dishonor of someone. He would engage in praise or blame to achieve his object. The person giving a eulogy, a graduation speech, and certain kinds of sermons would engage in this sort of rhetoric, as well as someone who engages in vituperation—the censure of someone for a wrong he has committ ed, when the focus is on the person’s present dishonor. Because of its ceremonial nature (which is why it is often referred to as the “rhetoric of display”), ceremonial rhetoric is considered to have an emphasis on the aesthetic, the aff ective, or the beautiful. In ceremonial speech, it is the style which is the most important consideration, since the goal is to make the point of the speaker att ractive to the audience. A classic (but not “classical,” which refers to the cultures of Greece and Rome) example of ceremonial speech would be Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address.” In this speech, although Lincoln refers to the past and future as well as the present, its focus is on the present honor of the dead and the hallowing of the place in which they died. It is about honoring those who gave their lives for their ideals. Lincoln’s object was to reach the hearts of his audience in order that they might see the sacrifi ce the dead had made for a great cause. The Three Modes of Rhetoric In addition to the three kinds of speech studied in rhetoric, there are also three modes of rhetoric—three ways in which persuasion is accomplished. The Greeks called them ethos, logos, and pathos. Ethos refers to the character of the speaker. We generally determine very early on whether a speaker or writer is worthy of our att ention. We ask the question, “Is this the sort of person we can believe?” And, “Can we trust him?” We might believe him 5 The Greeks called the three modes of rhetoric ethos, logos, and pathos. because he is an expert and therefore has special knowledge of that on which he speaks. We might believe him because he is humble, and therefore is unlikely to overstate his case and exaggerate the strength of his position. Or we might be inclined to believe him simply because he appears to be honest and trustworthy and would be unlikely to mislead us. When discussing this particular mode of persuasion, Aristotle considers what it is to be a good person by an analysis of the human virtues that constitute good character, and how a speaker can communicate that to his audience. Logos refers to the strengths and weaknesses of the speaker’s arguments. When we hear or read a persuasive appeal of some kind, we will judge it, in part, on the logical strength of the arguments. We the audience want to determine whether the arguments presented by the speaker are sound, which just means that the facts he presents are true and the reasoning he engages in is valid (that his conclusions logically follow from his premises). Logos is the answer to the question, “Does this presentation make intellectual sense?” In this mode of persuasion, the chief tools are enthymeme (the abbreviated form of a logical syllogism used in everyday argument and debate) and example (the historical or imaginary illustrations and real-life or proverbial examples the speaker uses to give his audience examples of what he is talking about). In his Rhetoric, Aristotle includes not just the formal kinds of reasoning included in formal logic, but what he calls “lines of argument” or 6 Aristotle emphasizes not only technique, but something relevant about human nature. “topics”—arguments that are not strictly formal, but which are rhetorically persuasive in their own right. Pathos refers to the appeal by the speaker to the emotions of the audience. When a speaker tries to persuade people of something, he has to take into account how they feel. To establish his point, he might want to elicit pity for someone or something from the audience—or possibly anger or enthusiasm or skepticism. This requires a knowledge of the kinds of emotions people are prone to, why they have them, and how they can be excited by the speaker.