Richard Weaver simple awareness of 1910-1963 theories; and on the the source of value jt metaphysical dream. "Rhetoric," says Richard Weaver, "is cognate with language." This terse formu­ and L(fe without Pn lation neatly characterizes the insight and dilemma of modem rhetorical theory. It and attributes that df is, Weaver remarks, "impossible and even ridiculous that the utterances of men Instead of a belief i1 could be neutral." Rhetoric, hence language, is not neutral; it is a positive act with proclaiming "fact,"" consequences in the world. Attempts to purify language, to raise it above rhetoric to Because rhetoric t a scientific standard of objectivity, are misguided. To the contrary, "every use of for the study of rhe speech, oral and written, exhibits attitude, and an attitude implies an act."' Even terms") on which th( statements of simple fact or logic "can be seen as enclosed in a rhetorical inten­ Kenneth Burke, who tion."2 Every utterance is an attempt to make others see the world in a particular politics. Weaver mai. way and to accept the values implicit in that point of view. For Weaver, language is tation: Argument fro1 always rhetorical, always sermonic. Ethics, therefore, is the central concern of his in the existence of id study of rhetoric. Weaver's elegant presentation of the scope and significance of because it uses the st; rhetoric in his 1963 essay "Language Is Sermonic" (included here) comes at the end is used in definition . of his life and summarizes his long and persistent attempt to show the link between scale because they fo values and rhetoric. Weaver made no secret of his own values; indeed, he supported be pragmatic, "devo them with his considerable rhetorical powers . ments from circumst, Weaver was born in Asheville, North Carolina. Until his father's death in 1916, orders of argument ai he lived in Weaverville, North Carolina, named after his family, who had first as topoi in his textbo settled there shortly after the Revolutionary War. After his father's death, his ing (1957) . Notably, mother moved with her four children to Lexington, Kentucky, where her family ran taught throughout his a prosperous millinery business. Weaver grew up in Lexington but spent the sum­ Weaver, like Arist mers in Weaverville. After graduating from the University of Kentucky in 1932, he abstract reasoning al joined the Socialist party, impressed by its meliorative spirit. In 1933, however, he truth . Dialectic thus le came under the influence of the extremely conservative Southern Agrarian move­ and "goodness." Dial ment while studying for his master's degree at Vanderbilt University with John For rhetoric to be eth Crowe Ransom. This experience, reinforced by a strong negative reaction to what cal rhetoric has the c Weaver saw as the philistine culture of modem technocrats, moved him to become themselves, links in t a committed conservative. He became an ardent supporter of the new conservative lect can apprehend an journals The National Review and Modern Age and of the Intercollegiate Society of Two complete ess Individualists. After taking his M.A. in 1936, Weaver taught at the college level for Weaver's own summ a few years before entering the Ph.D. program at Louisiana State University, where Nature of Rhetoric" he studied with Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren. He received his degree in Phaedrus but also est. 1943. In 1944 he took a position at the University of Chicago, where he taught for the rest of his career, living in rented rooms in the city during the school year and returning to a family farm in Weaverville in the summer. Selected Bibliograpli~ Weaver's conservatism and ethical orientation to rhetoric are reflected in his firm commitment to Platonic idealism. In Ideas Have Consequences (1948), he articu­ "Language rsSennonic lates the notion that there are three levels of knowledge: On the first level, we have and was published in D, "The Phaedrus and the l been reprint ed in Langu 1 For the previous three quotations, see p. r 359 in this book . Richard L Johannesen, r 2See p. I 359 in this book. thologies of rhetorical th

1348 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC simple awareness of brute facts; on the second level, we make generalizations and theories; and on the third, we find universals and first principles. This third level is the source of value judgments, which are necessarily based on a vision of reality: the metaphysical dream. In essays published posthumously in Visions of Order (1964) :uage." This terse fornm­ and Life without Prejudice (1965), Weaver laments the decline of Western culture ,dern rhetorical theory. It and attributes that decline to a general loss of faith in a proper hierarchy of values. 1t the utterances of men Instead of a belief in true ideals, modern culture fosters scientism and relativism, l; it is a positive act with proclaiming "fact," "progress," "science," and "efficiency" as cultural ideals. , raise it above rhetoric to Because rhetoric tries to orient the audience toward a worldview, it is imperative ! contrary, "every use of for the study of rhetoric to identify and evaluate the controlling ideas (or "god­ e implies an act."' Even terms") on which the ethics of any discourse is based. In this, Weaver agrees with sect in a rhetorical inten­ Kenneth Burke, whose influence on him was considerable, despite their opposing the world in a particular politics. Weaver maintains that the form of an argument represents an ethical orien­ . For Weaver, language is tation: Argument from definition is the most ethical form because it reflects a belief .he central concern of his in the existence of ideal orders of being. Argument by analogy is high on his scale ;cope and significance of because it uses the standard of comparison in much the same way as a class or genre led here) comes at the end is used in definition. Cause-and-effect arguments, however, are lower on Weaver's to show the link between scale because they focus on becoming rather than on being. Such arguments tend to lues; indeed, he supported be pragmatic, "devoid of reference to principle or defined ideas." Finally, argu­ ments from circumstance are lowest, because they have little or no regard for higher 1is father's death in 1916, orders of argument and higher ideals. Weaver treats these "ethical" argument forms 1is family, who had first as topoi in his textbook Rhetoric and Composition: A Course in Reading and Writ­ bo~':J 11..\..""­ !r his father's death, his ing (1957). Notably, Weaver was committed to freshman composition, which he cky, where her family ran taught throughout his long tenure at the University of Chicago. "\oh .,__.p...'1r..:_, ... '--"\ ,._j, ington but spent the sum­ Weaver, like Aristotle, distinguishes dialectic from rhetoric, defining dialectic as ~ ~ y of Kentucky in 1932, he abstract reasoning about doubtful propositions with the goal of establishing the ,irit. In 1933, however, he truth. Dialectic thus leads to knowledge of essences and principles, such as "justice" Southern Agrarian move­ and "goodness." Dialectic does not, however, produce commitment; rhetoric does. f,...,H"\ ~ bilt University with John For rhetoric to be ethical, it must be based on dialectically secured principles. Ethi­ v:-f:"4'1 negative reaction to what cal rhetoric has the capacity to "perfect men by showing them better versions of CA\l... h' J 1ts, moved him to become themselves, links in that chain extending up toward the ideal which only the intel­ ~fu,,~, J• !r of the new conservative lect can apprehend and only the soul have affection for." . : Intercollegiate Society of Two complete essays are reprinted here. "Language Is Sermonic" is, as noted, 'tbt,<,IA.) I" l 1 ght at the college level for Weaver's own summary of his theory of rhetoric. And in "The Phaedrus and the na State University, where Nature of Rhetoric" (r953), Weaver not only gives an insightful reading of the . He received his degree in Phaedrus but also establishes the terms of his own Platonic rhetoric. icago, where he taught for luring the school year and Selected Bibliography ,ric are reflected in his firm quences (1948), he articu­ "Language ls Sermonic" was delivered as a lecture at the University of Oklahoma in 1963 and was published in Dimensions of Rhetorical Scholarship, ed. Roger E. Nebergall(1963). On the first level, we have "The Plwedrus and the Nature of Rhetoric" is from The Ethics of Rhetoric ( I 953). Bothhave been reprinted in Language Is Sermonic: Richard M. Weaver 011 the Nature of Rhetoric, ed. Richard L Johannesen, Rennard Strickland, and Ralph T. Eubanks (1970), and in severalan­ thologiesof rhetorical theory.

RICHARD WEAVER 1349 Weaver 's doctoral dissertation was published posthumously as The Southern Tradition at Bay: A Histot)' of Postbel/11111Thought, ed . George Core and M . E. Bradford (1968). Other Language works include Ideas Have Consequences (1948), Rhetoric and Composition: A Course in Reading and Writing (1957; rev. as A Rhetoric and Handbook, with Richard S. Beal, 1967), Visions of Order: The Cullural Crisis of Our Time (1964), and Life withow Prejudice and Our age has witm Other Essays (1965). of subjects that one Among Weaver's uncollected essays are "To Write the Truth " (College English 10 [Octo­ era! esteem, but no ber 1948]: 25-30), "Concealed Rhetoric in Scientistic Sociology" (Georgia Review 13 fered more amazi1 [spring 1959]: 19-32), and "Relativism and the Use of Language ," in Relativism and the rhetoric . When one Study of Man, ed. H. Schoeck and J. W . Wiggins ( 1961) . rhetoric was regarde A good short biography of Weaver is Fred Douglas Young' s Richard Weaver, manistic discipline ta 1910-1963 : A Life of the Mind (1995). The chapter on Weaver in S. Foss, K. Foss, and one recalls this fact r R. Trapp's Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric (1985) summarizes his life and ideas, different situation pn both political and rhetorical. It includes a discussion of critical responses and an excellent to see that a great ~ bibliography . A collection of mostly earlier assessments of Weaver both as rhetor and as place. In those days, Southern conservative, The Vision of Richard Weaver, ed. Joseph Scotchie (1995), also in­ teenth Century, to be cludes a chronology of Weaver's life and his essay "Up from Liberalism,' ' which summarizes had to be somebody his political views. that was thought to c Johannesen, Strickland, and Eubanks give an admiring account of Weaver's contribution sources, and it was 1 to rhetoric in "Richard M . Weaver on the Nature of Rhetoric: An Interpretation," in their an­ self to the most imp thology of Weaver's work, Language Is Sermonic (rpt. in Contemporat) ' Theories of suading of human be Rhetoric, ed. Richard L. Johannesen, 1971; also rpt. in The Vision of Richard Weaver). and act in response tc Johannesen discusses aspects of Weaver's theory in "Richard Weaver ' s View of Rhetoric ment for the plodding and Criticism" (Southern Speech Journal 3 [winter 1966): 133-45), "Richard M. Weaver on of teacher might do , Standards for Ethical Rhetoric" (Central States Speech Journal 29 [summer 1978]: 127-37). matter courses, when "Some Pedagogical Implications of Richard M . Weaver's Views on Rhetoric" (College Com­ part information, but position and Communication 29 [October 1978]: 272-79), and "Richard M. Weaver's Uses to be a person of gifts of Kenneth Burke" (Southern Speech Communication Journal [spring 1987): 3 I 2-30. illustrate, as the need Other helpful introductory essays include Donald Cushman and Gerard Hauser, even in prose take on "Weaver's Rhetorical Theory : Axiology and the Adjustment of Belief, Invention, and Judg­ chairs of rhetoric that ment" (Quarterly Journal of Speech 59 [October 1973]: 319-29); Robert Haskell and Gerard of our older universiti Hauser, "Rhetorical Structure : Truth and Method in Weaver's Epistemology" (Quarterly velop the full pictun Joumal of Speech 64 [October 1978]: 233-45); and Maurice Natanson, "The Limits of viewed as a subject Rhetoric" (Quarterly Journal of Speech 41 [April 1955]: 133-39; rpt. in Philosophy, could teach. No speci Rhetoric, and Argumentation, ed . M. Natanson and H. W. Johnstone Jr., 1965; also rpt. in ~ ~ industry, was needed 1 The Province of Rhetoric, ed. J. Schwartz and J. Rycenga, I 965). Walter 1-1. Beale puts and periods. That wa Weaver 's work in the context of the mid-twentieth-century revival of interest in classical trian work. But the in: rhetoric in "Richard M. Weaver: Philosophical Rhetoric, Cultural Criticism, and the First pected to be a man of Rhetorical Awakening" (College English 52 [October 1990): 626-40). A detailed account of need point out, the sit1 Weaver's political, cultural , and rhetorical theories that relates his work to late-twentieth­ versed. Today it is the century developments in composition studies and epistemic rhetoric is The Politics of passes through a Jong Rhetoric: Richard Weaver and the Conservative Tradition, by Bernard K. Duffy and Martin supposed to possess t Jacobi ( 1993). craft, and who is place a height of eminence. l cacies of Shakespeare sophistication in the c been developed bring h emy. We must recogn elaboration of critical 1

1350 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC r1zeSow/rem Tradition at Language Is Sermonic .. Bradford (1968). Other omposition: A Co11r.1e in h Richard S. Beal, 1967), fe withollf Prejudice and Our age has witnessed the decline of a number proaches has made the teaching of literature a of subjects that once enjoyed prestige and gen­ somewhat more demanding profession, although eral esteem, but no subject, I believe, has suf­ some think that it has gone in that direction be­ ~allege English 10 [Octo­ fered more amazingly in this respect than yond the point of diminishing returns. Still, this ;y" (Georgia Review 13 rhetoric. When one recalls that a century ago is not enough to account for the relegation of :," in Relativism mul the rhetoric was regarded as the most important hu­ rhetoric. The change has gone so far that now it manistic discipline taught in our colleges - when is discouraging to survey the handling of this 1ung's Ric/rare/ Weaver. one recalls this fact and contrasts it with the very study in our colleges and universities. With a few in S. Foss, K. Foss, and different situation prevailing today - he is forced honorable exceptions it is given to just about 1arizes his life and ideas, to see that a great shift of valuation has taken anybody who will take it. The "inferior, un­ :sponses and an excellent place. In those days, in the not-so-distant Nine­ learned, mechanical, merely instrumental mem­ ,er both as rhetor and as teenth Century, to be a professor of rhetoric, one bers of the profession" - to recall a phrase of a Scotchie ( 1995), also in- had to be somebody. This was a teaching task great master of rhetoric, Edmund Burke-have 11ism," which summarizes that was thought to call for ample and varied re­ in their keeping what was once assigned to the leaders. Beginners, part-time teachers, graduate of Weaver's contribution sources, and it was recognized as addressing it­ self to the most important of all ends, the per­ students, faculty wives, and various fringe nterpretation," in their an- suading of human beings to adopt right attitudes people, are now the instructional staff of an art 1nte111porary Theorie s of and act in response to them. That was no assign- which was once supposed to require outstanding ;ion of Richard Weaver). ment for the plodding sort of professor. That sort gifts and mature experience. (We must note that eaver's View of Rhetoric of teacher might do a middling job with subject at the same time the course itself has been al­ ), "Richard M. Weaver on matter courses, where the main object is to im­ lowed to decline from one dealing philosophi­ [summer 1978]: t27- 37), part information, but the teacher of rhetoric had cally with the problems of expression to one 1 Rhetoric" ( College Com ­ which tries to bring below-par students up to the .ichard M. Weaver's Uses to be a person of gifts and imagination who could illustrate, as the need arose, how to make words level of accepted usage.) Indeed, the wheel of mg 1987]: 312- 30. even in prose take on wings. I remind you of the fortune would seem to have turned for rhetoric; 1an and Gerard Hauser, :lief, Invention, and Judg ­ chairs of rhetoric that still survive in title in some what was once at the top is now at the bottom, {obert Haskell and Gerard of our older universities. And I should add, to de­ and because of its low estate, people begin to velop the full picture, that literature was then wonder on what terms it can survive at all. Epistemology" (Quarterly >Jatanson, "The Limits of viewed as a subject which practically anyone We are not faced here, however, with the could teach. No special gift, other than perhaps wheel of fortune; we are faced with something 1- 39; rpt. in Philosophy, [IAI_ industry, was needed to relate facts about authors that has come over the minds of men. Changes :one Jr., 1965; also rpt. in ,5). Walter H. Beale puts and periods. That was held to be rather pedes­ that come over the minds of men are not in­ trian work. But the instructor in rhetoric was ex­ scrutable, but have at some point their identifi­ val of interest in classical pected to be a man of stature. Today, I scarcely able causes. In this case we have to deal with the 11Criticism, and the First need point out, the situation has been exactly re- most potent of cultural causes, an alteration of -40). A detailed account of versed. Today it is the teacher of literature who man's image of man. Something has happened in 1is work to late-twentieth - the recent past to our concept of what man is; a 1etoric is The Politics of passes through a long period of training, who is ard K. Duffy and Martin supposed to possess the mysteries of a learned decision was made to look upon him in a new craft, and who is placed by his very speciality on light, and from this decision new bases of evalua­ a height of eminence. His knowledge of the intri­ tion have proceeded, which affect the public repu­ cacies of Shakespeare or Keats or Joyce and his tation of rhetoric. This changed concept of man is sophistication in the critical doctrines that have best described by the word "scientistic," a term been developed bring him the esteem of the acad- which denotes the application of scientific as­ emy. We must recognize in all fairness that the sumptions to subjects which are not wholly com­ elaboration of critical techniques and special ap- prised of naturalistic phenomena. Much of this is

WEAVER I LANGUAGE IS SERMONIC 1351 \J\lt.t:t\l{I' IS ht.Irr ...., b<..u;u,,.!t, IM.. L>t"o(.&-j{,f t..p

4.,,, c.Luu,, l\ l~t'l{. .f-.-...,_]>I 11,h -;,. e~,·~h~t111W\""'1- -) M"..,f,,.,.,...,H.SW'---> Sc.u-Vll.,L,

a familiar tale, but to understand the effect of the humanness had been a drag on his progress; Their audience has a change, we need to recall that the great success human qualities were weaknesses, except for that is but a way of poin of scientific or positivistic thinking in the Nine­ special quality of rationality, which might be ex­ tended for historical teenth Century induced a belief that nothing was pected to redeem him. tioned by history. It beyond the scope of its method. Science, and its However curious it may appear, this notion mana that we Jive ; off-spring applied science, were doing so much gained that man should live down his humanity particular places. The to alter and, it was thought, to improve the mater­ and make himself a more efficient source of or unique urgencies, v ial conditions of the world, that a next step with those logical inferences upon which a scientifi­ recognize and to esti the same process seemed in order. Why should cally accurate understanding of the world de­ from the point of viev not science tum its apparatus upon man, whom pends. As the impulse spread, it was the emo­ thinking machine, or a all the revelations of religion and the specula­ tional and subjective components of his being he is not a creature tions of philosophy seemed still to have left an that chiefly came under criticism, for reasons that place. If science deal: enigma, with the promise of much better result? have just been indicated. Emotion and logic or universal, rhetoric is 1 It came to be believed increasingly that to think science do not consort; the latter must be objec­ in significant part with validly was to think scientifically, and that sub­ tive, faithful to what is out there in the public do­ crete. It would be the ject matters made no difference. main and conformable to the processes of reason. to say that this ought n Now the method of scientific investigation is, Whenever emotion is allowed to put in an oar, it born into history, he \I as T. H. Huxley reminded us in a lecture which gets the boat off true course. Therefore emotion ing to historical press does great credit to him as a rhetorician, merely is a liability. combine to show why the method of logic. Induction and deduction and Under the force of this narrow reasoning, it ered the most humanii causal inference applied to the phenomena of na­ was natural that rhetoric should pass from a sta­ directed to that part < ture yielded the results with which science was tus in which it was regarded as of questionable merely rational, for ii changing the landscape and revolutionizing the worth to a still lower one in which it was posi­ approach . And it is di, modes of industry. From this datum it was an tively condemned . For tho most obvious truth 1\ their individual situati< easy inference that men ought increasingly to be­ about rhetoric is that its object is the whole man. \ finitions of the terms l come scientists, and again, it was a simple deriv­ It presents its arguments first to the rational part account what science ative from this notion that man at his best is a of man, because rhetorical discourses, if they are own purposes, leaves , logic machine, or at any rate an austerely unemo­ honestly conceived, always have a basis in rea­ no need for wonder th tional thinker. Furthermore, carried in the train of soning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, influenced to distrust a this conception was the thought, not often ex­ of any speech or composition that is designed to acteristically human, r pressed of course, that things would be better if persuade. Yet it is the very characterizing feature target of attack. If it is men did not give in so far to being human in the of rhetoric that it goes beyond this and appeals to ings, and if furthermo humanistic sense. In the shadow of the victories other parts of man's constitution, especially to caught up in historical of science, his humanism fell into progressive his nature as a pathetic being, that is, a being construable as a dealer disparagement. Just what comprises humanism is feeling and suffering. A speech intended to per­ is in this condition reli~ not a simple matter for analysis. Rationality is an suade achieves little unless it takes into account ature have been teachi1 indispensable part to be sure, yet humanity in­ how men are reacting subjectively to their hopes Criticism of it from the cludes emotionality, or the capacity to feel and and fears and their special circumstances . The Utopia is the new depa, suffer, to know pleasure, and it includes the ca­ fact that Aristotle devotes a large proportion of The incompleteness pacity for aesthetic satisfaction, and, what can be his Rhetoric to how men feel about different situ­ creature who should m, only suggested, a yearning to be in relation with ations and actions is an evidence of how promi­ be demonstrated in an something infinite. This last is his religious pas­ nently these consideration~ bulked even in the that logic is a subject sion, or his aspiration to feel significant and to eyes of a master theorist. That is to say, logic is have a sense of belonging in a world that is pro­ Yet there is one further fact, more decisive which are equally appl ductive of much frustration. These at least are the than any of these, to prove that rhetoric is ad­ As the science of the f properties of humanity. Well, man had been dressed to man in his humanity. Every speech means of interpreting human for some thousands of years, and where which is designed to move is directed to a ~pecial matters of the various t had it gotten him? Those who looked forward to audience in its unique situation. (We could not proper contents. Facts t a scientific Utopia were inclined to think that his except even those radio appeals to "the world." literature, for example,

1352 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC 1 drag on his progress; Their audience has a unique place in time.) Here lishment of an inductive generalization. Similar ~aknesses, except for that is but a way of pointing out that rhetoric is in­ facts may be fed into a syllogism. Logic is ality, which might be ex- tended for historical man, or for man as condi­ merely the mechanism for organizing the data of tioned by history. It is part of the conditio lm­ other provinces of knowledge. Now it follows may appear, this notion mana that we live at particular times and in from this truth that if a man could convert him­ Jive down his humanity particular places. These are productive of special self into a pure logic machine or thinking ma­ nore efficient source of or unique urgencies, which the speaker has got to chine, he would have no special relation to any : upon which a scientifi · recognize and to estimate. Hence, just as man body of knowledge. All would be grist for his :nding of the world de­ from the point of view of rhetoric is not purely a mill, as the phrase goes. He would have no incli­ spread, it was the emo ­ thinking machine, or a mere seat of rationality, so nation, no partiality, no particular affection. His omponents of his being he is not a creature abstracted from time and mind would work upon one thing as indifferently criticism, for reasons that place. lf science deals with the abstract and the as upon another. He would be an eviscerated d. Emotion and logic or universal, rhetoric is near the other end, dealing creature or a depassionated one, standing in the the latter must be objec­ in significant part with the particular and the con­ same relationship to the realities of the world as mt there in the public do­ crete. It would be the height of wishful thinking the thinking technique stands to the data on o the processes of reason. to say that this ought not be so. As Jong as man is which it is employed. He would be a thinking lowed to put in an oar, it born into history, he will be feeling and respond­ robot, a concept which horrifies us precisely be- \.\1,1.""· · ourse. Therefore emotion ing to historical pressures. All of these reasons cause the robot has nothing to think about. / combine to show why rhetoric should be consid­ A confirmation of this truth lies in the fact that /.'' r , this narrow reasoning, it ered the most humanistic of the humanities. It is rhetoric can never be reduced to symbology. \J t"l.l.,~t, c should pass from a sta­ directed to that part of our being which is not Logic is increasingly becoming "symbolic U :arded as of questionable merely rational, for it supplements the rational logic"; that is its tendency. But rhetoric always ...,¼\C.!! me in which it was posi- approach. And it is directed to individual men in comes to us in well-fleshed words, and that is be- ~ the most obvious truth r I their individual situations, so that by the very de­ cause it must deal with the world, the thickness, \ f•~ , object is the whole man. \ finitions of the terms here involved, it takes into stubbornness, and power of it.' ~ ~ s first to the rational part account what science deliberately, to satisfy its Everybody recognizes that there is thus a for- ~~ cal discourses, if they are own purposes, leaves out. There is consequently mal logic. A number of eminent authorities have vays have a basis in rea- no need for wonder that, in an age that has been written of rhetoric as if it were formal in the :nt is the plot, as it were, influenced to distrust and disregard what is char­ same sense and degree. Formal rhetoric would be Jsition that is designed to acteristically human, rhetoric should be a prime a set of rules and devices for persuading anybody ery characterizing feature target of attack . If it is a weakness to harbor feel­ about anything . If one desires a certain response, ,eyond this and appeals to ings, and if furthermore it is a weakness to be one uses a certain device, or "trick" as the ene- ·onstitution, especially to caught up in historical situations, then rhetoric is mies of the art would put it. The set of appeals c being, that is, a being construable as a dealer in weaknesses. That man that rhetoric provides is analogized with the \ speech intended to per- is in this condition religion, philosophy, and liter­ forms of thought that logic prescribes. Rhetoric 1Jess it takes into account ature have been teaching for thousands of years. conceived in this fashion has an adaptability and ubjectively to their hopes Criticism of it from the standpoint of a scientistic virtuosity equal to those of logic. ecial circumstances. The Utopia is the new departure. But the comparison overlooks something, for ,tes a large proportion of The incompleteness of the image of man as a at one point we encounter a significant differ­ n feel about different situ- creature who should make use of reason only can ence. Rhetoric has a relationship to the world 1 evidence of how promi­ be demonstrated in another way. It is a truism which logic does not have and which forces the 'l"'~ tions bulked even in the that logic is a subject without a subject matter. rhetorician to keep an eye upon reality as well as CJ t. That is to say, logic is a set of rules and devices upon the character and situation of his audience. . , rther fact, more decisive which are equally applicable whatever the data. ~l,W\t. Jrove that rhetoric is ad- As the science of the forms of reasoning, it is a 1 l might add that a number of years ago the Mathematic s IJ humanity. Every speech means of interpreting and utilizing the subject Staff of the College at the University of Chicago made a wager with the English Staff that they could write the Decla­ JVe is directed to a special matters of the various fields which do have their ration of Independence in mathematical language. They must situation. (We could not proper contents. Facts from science or history or have had later and belier thoughts about this, for we never o appeals to "the world." literature, for example, may serve in the estab- saw the mathematical rendition. [Au.J

WEA VER I LANGUAGE IS SERMON!C 1353 The truth of this is seen when we begin to exam­ can procure the deposition of some one who is, whole conspectus of i ine the nature of the traditional "topics." The top­ the deposition may become the substance of our phasis embodying an , ics were first formulated by Aristotle and were argument. We can slip it into a syllogism just as advisory; it has the ol later treated also by Cicero and Quintilian and by we would a defined term . The same is true of reference to an indepc many subsequent writers on the subject of per­ general statements which come from quarters of with reference to their suasion . They are a set of "places" or "regions" great authority or prestige. If a proposition is !ates to these. The he where one can go to find the substance for per­ backed by some weighty authority, like the has two things in mirn suasive argument. Cicero defines a topic as "the Bible, or can be associated with a great name, should go ideally and seat of an argument." In function they are people may be expected to respond to it in accor­ tion of the special circ sources of content for speeches that are designed dance with the veneration they have for these Toward both of these ~ to influence. Aristotle listed a considerable num­ sources. In this way evidence coming from the I shall take up first ber of them, but for our purposes they can be cat­ outside is used to influence attitudes or conduct. the order of the goods , egorized very broadly. In reading or interpreting Now we see that in all these cases the listener ties may determine his the world of reality, we make use of four very is being asked not simply to follow a valid rea- 1 When we think of rl general ideas. The first three are usually ex­ soning form but to respond to some presentation -d civil society (and it mt pressed, in the language of philosophy, as being, of reality. He is being asked to agree with the j the scope for rhetoric i cause, and relationship. The fourth, which stands speaker's interpretation of the world that is. If the ment of it constrained 1 apart from these because it is an external source, definition being offered is a true one, he is ex­ that the rhetorician is is testimony and authority. pected to recognize this and to say, at least in­ means in appealing to t l. One way to interpret a subject is to define its wardly, "Yes, that is the way the thing is." If the upon to listen to him. I nature - to describe the fixed features of its exposition of cause-and-effect relationship is it must occur to him , ~, ~., J ,- being. Definition is an attempt to capture true, he may be expected to concur that X is the ', . standard by which the essence . When we speak of the nature of a thing, cause of such a consequence or that such a conse­ be ranked. In a phrase, we speak of something we expect to persist. Def­ quence has its cause in X. And according to of them, so that, in a sc: initions accordingly deal with fundamental and whether this is a good or a bad cause or a good or \ make use of one sort of unchanging properties. L 0 ,..\-r<1 lt,(.."

1354 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC ''·~-t,s "; .\-t~ 11.\•• ', k *"'"-'-~ \k_, ""'- b ,.:.. \I\ OJI\ I>-"'\-cf tJ.M-t~i., -~ "'75 W<>v<..v : ~ ~c,... ~ c,,-M-v- .,,:.. ~1--C, ., ~\.t,. of- ~-I-~

ion of some one who is, whole conspectus of its function is an art of em-j order of appeal when he is basing his case on de- )me the substance of our phasis embodying an order of desire. Rhetoric is finition or the nature of the thing. I confess that b<.•1) it into a syllogism just as advisory; it has the office of advising men with this goes back to a very primitive metaphysics, "· rm. The same is true of reference to an independent order of goods and which holds that the highest reality is being, not bu.• ._:_ :h come from quarters of with reference to their particular situation as it re­ becoming. It is a quasi-religious metaphysics, if (h~ ( tige. If a proposition is lates to these. The honest rhetorician therefore you will, because it ascribes to the highest reality v .. ~hty authority, like the has two things in mind: a vision of how matters qualities of stasis, immutability, eternal perdu- '°"l\....'~ iated with a great name, should go ideally and ethically and a considera­ ranee-qualities that in Western civilization are . to respond to it in accor­ tion of the special circumstances of his auditors. usually expressed in the language of theism. That j-"lf tion they have for these Toward both of these he has a responsibility. which is perfect does not change; that which has 1idence coming from the I shall take up first how his responsibility to to change is less perfect. Therefore, if it is pos- l nee attitudes or conduct. the order of the goods or to the hierarchy of reali­ sible to determine unchanging essences or quali- 111these cases the listener ties may determine his use of the topics. ties and to speak in terms of these, one is appeal- )ly to follow a valid rea- \ When we think of rhetoric as one of the arts of ing to what is most real in so doing. From another 1 ond to some presentation -J civil society (and it must be a free society, since point of view, this is but getting people to see what asked to agree with the \ j . the scope for rhetoric is limited and the employ­ is most permanent in existence, or what transcends of the world that is. If the ment of it constrained under a despotism) we see the world of change and accident. The realm of l is a true one, he is ex- that the rhetorician is faced with a choice of essence is the realm above the flux of phenom- s and to say, at least in- means in appealing to those whom he can prevail ena, and definitions are of essences and genera. e way the thing is." If the upon to listen to him. If he is at all philosophical, I may have expressed this view in somewhat nd-effect relationship is it must occur to him to ask whether there is a abstruse language in order to place it philosophi­ :::dto concur that X is the standard by which the sources of persuasion can cally, yet the practice I am referring to is every­ ence or that such a conse- be ranked. In a phrase, is there a preferred order day enough, as a simple illustration will make in X. And according to of them, so that, in a scale of ethics, it is nobler to plain. If a speaker should define man as a crea­ r a bad cause or a good or make use of one sort of appeal than another? This ture with an indefeasible right to freedom and is disposed to preserve or , i:. is of course a question independent of circum­ should upon this base an argument that a certain ' so on. If he is impressed .~ ffi!j!, stantial matters, yet a fundamental one. We all man or group of men are entitled to freedom, he m between two things, he react to some rhetoric as "untruthful" or "unfair" would be arguing from definition. Freedom is an I ' ' y to accept a policy which I or "cheap," and this very feeling is evidence of unchanging attribute of his subject; it can accord­ thing in the same way in the truth that it is possible to use a better or a ingly be predicated of whatever falls within the eated. He has been influ­ worse style of appeal. What is the measure of the genus man. Stipulative definitions are of the of comparability. And fi- ' -r better style? Obviously this question cannot be ideal, and in this fact lies the reason for placing onfronted with testimony ¥ answered at all in the absence of some conviction them at the top of the hierarchy. If the real es he respects, he will re- ·- about the nature and destiny of man. Rhetoric in- progress of man is toward knowledge of ideal if secondary, kind of in­ , l evitably impinges upon morality and politics; truth, it follows that this is an appeal to his high- In these four ways he has and if it is one of the means by which we en­ est capacity - his capacity to apprehend what ex- I the world as the speaker deavor to improve the character and the lot of ists absolutely. men, we have to think of its methods and sources , The next ranking I offer tentatively, but it ver, I must anticipate an in relation to a scheme of values. seems to me to be relationship or similitude and tight be made: "These are To focus the problem a little more sharply, its subvarieties. I have a consistent impression gories you are enumerat- when one is asking men to cooperate with him in that the broad resource of analogy, metaphor, and 1ey are any Jess general or thinking this or doing that, when is he asking in figuration is favored by those of a poetic and :able than the formal cate­ the name of the highest reality, which is the same imaginative cast of mind. We make use of anal­ all, definitions and so on as saying, when is he asking in the name of their ogy or comparison when the available knowl­ thing . You still have not highest good? edge of the subject permits only probable proof. : rhetoric a substantive Naturally, when the speaker replies to this Analogy is reasoning from something we know question, he is going to express his philosophy, to something we do not know in one step; hence urn here to what should be or more precisely, his metaphysics. My personal there is no universal ground for predication. Yet toric. Rhetoric seen in the reply would be that he is making the highest behind every analogy lurks the possibility of a . . It • 11 'Mt""-~ ,s ~ to"""(c,\,~ WEAVER I LANGUAGE IS SERMONIC 1355 L,. ·.. ·.I.'. SGku. general term. The general term is never estab­ ideas. We rightly recognize these as sensational their ranking involve lished as such, for that would change the argu­ types of appeal. Those who are partial to argu­ of the status of autho ment to one of deductive reasoning with a uni- ments based on effect are under a temptation to spread notion that all .;,,.., versal or distributed middle. The user of analogy play too much upon the fears of their audience by ("Authority is authori is hinting at an essence which cannot at the mo­ stressing the awful nature of some consequence idea); consequently i ment be produced. Or, he may be using an indi­ or by exaggerating the power of some cause. influence anyone by rect approach for reason of tact; analogies not in­ Modern advertising is prolific in this kind of or of sanctioned pror frequently do lead to generalizations; and he may abuse. There is likewise a temptation to appeal to sumption itself, by wl be employing this approach because he is re­ prudential considerations only in a passage to be his own compet, spectful of his audience and desires them to use where things are featured as happening or threat­ since that is a manifo their insight. ening to happen . coming a greater imp• I mentioned a moment earlier that this type of An even less admirable subvariety of this world piles up bodie: argument seems to be preferred by those of a po­ source is the appeal to circumstance, which is the which no one person etic or non-literal sort of mind. That fact suggests least philosophical of all the topics of argument. guments based on a yet another possibility, which I offer still more Circumstance is an allowable source when we going to disappear. T diffidently, asking your indulgence if it seems to don't know anything else to plead, in which argument based on au border on the whimsical. The explanation would cases we say, "There is nothing else to be done thority. What we sho be that the cosmos is one vast system of analogy, about it." Of all the arguments, it admits of the discriminating attitud, so that our profoundest intuitions of it are made least perspicaciousness. An example of this tive, and I would like in the form of comparisons . To affirm that some­ which we hear nowadays with great regularity is: nized as having mora thing is like something else is to begin to talk "We must adapt ourselves to a fast-changing have to wait upon the about the unitariness of creation. Everything is world." This is pure argument from circum­ order of values and th• like everything else somehow, so that we have a stance. It does not pretend, even, to offer a cause­ in persons. Speaking ladder of similitude mounting up to the final one­ and-effect explanation. If it did, the first part [ from authority are et~ ness - to something like a unity in godhead. Fur- would tell us why we must adapt ourselves to a deferential toward real Utt"'-(,, thermore, there is about this source of argument a fast-changing world; and the second would tell With that we ma ~ kind of decent reticence, a recognition of the un- us the result of our doing so. The usually heard speaker's obligation tc ~ ~~ known along with the known. There is a recogni- formulation does neither. Such argument is pre­ particular determinatic pf- tion that the unknown may be continuous with eminently lacking in understanding, or what the sibility of this or any 0 Q1.1,~t - the known, so that man is moving about in a Greeks called dia11oia.It simply cites a brute cir­ concede that rhetoric ii ~"1\..~~ world only partly realized, yet real in all its parts. cumstance and says, "Step lively." Actually, this alistic. It is not playing This is the mood of poetry and mystery, but argument amounts to a surrender of reason. come from insights int further adumbration of it I leave to those more Maybe it expresses an instinctive feeling that in is existential, not hyp, gifted than I. this situation reason is powerless. Either you than mere demonstr ., Cause and effect appears in this scale to be a change fast or you get crushed. But surely it choice. Its assertions h: less exalted source of argument, though we all would be a counsel of desperation to try only this Now I return to 1 have to use it because we are historical men. argument in a world suffering from aimlessness which is imposed by t Here I must recall the metaphysical ground of and threatened with destruction. 'is concerned with def this organization and point out that it operates in Generally speaking, cause and effect is a questions having histo the realm of becoming. Causes are causes having lower-order source of argument because it deals concrete. This means effect and effects are resulting from causes. To in the realm of the phenomenal, and the phe­ has got to have a rhe1 associate this source of argument with its habit­ nomenal is easily converted into the sensational. his audience needs or ual users, I must note that it is heard most com­ Sensational excitements always run the risk of He takes into account monly from those who are characteristically arousing those excesses which we deplore as sen­ posite being and his t, pragmatic in their way of thinking. It is not un­ timentality or brutality. sentiment. He estimate usual today to find a lengthy piece of journalism Arguments based on testimony and authority, ticular situation in whi or an entire political speech which is nothing but utilizing external sources, have to be judged in a In the eyes of those wh a series of arguments from consequence-com­ different way. Actually, they are the other he is a man probing pletely devoid of reference to principle or defined sources seen through other eyes. The question of means to exploit.

MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC :e these as sensational their ranking involves the more general question But here we must recur to the principle that 10 are partial to argu ­ of the status of authority. Today there is a wide­ rhetoric comprehensively considered is an art of under a temptation to spread notion that all authority is presumptuous. emphasis. The definite situation confronts him irs of their audience by ("Authority is authoritarian" seems lo be the root with a second standard of choice. In view of the of some consequence idea); consequently it is held improper to try to receptivity of his audience, which of the topics ,ower of some cause. influence anyone by the prestige of great names shall he choose to stress, and how? If he con­ ·olific in this kind of or of sanctioned pronouncements. This is a pre­ cludes that definition should be the appeal, he temptation to appeal to sumption itself, by which every man is presumed tries to express the nature of the thing in a com­ only in a passage to be his own competent judge in all matters. But pelling way. If he feels that a cause-and-effect as happening or threat- since that is a manifest impossibility, and is be­ demonstration would stand the greatest chance to coming a greater impossibility all the time, as the impress, he tries to make this linkage so manifest ,le subvariety of this world piles up bodies of specialized knowledge that his hearers will see an inevitability in it. And :umstance, which is the which no one person can hope to command, ar­ so on with the other topics, which will be so em­ .he topics of argument. guments based on authority are certainly not phasized or magnified as to produce the response ,able source when we going to disappear. The sound maxim is that an of assent. :e to plead, in which argument based on authority is as good as the au­ Along with this process of amplification, the ,othing else to be done thority. What we should hope for is a new and ancients recognized two qualities of rhetorical ments, it admits of the discriminating attitude toward what is authorita­ discourse which have the effect of impressing an An example of this tive, and I would like to see some source recog­ audience with the reality or urgency of a topic. In with great regularity is: nized as having moral authority. This hope will Greek these appear as energia and enargia, both 1es to a fast-changing have to wait upon the recovery of a more stable of which may be translated "actuality," though ·gument from circum ­ order of values and the re-recognition of qualities the first has to do with liveliness or animation of ' even, to offer a cause­ in persons. Speaking most generally , arguments action and the second with vividness of scene. f it did, the first part from authority are ethically good when they are The speaker now indulges in actualization lo 1st adapt ourselves to a deferential toward real hierarchy. make what he is narrating or describing present the second would tell With that we may sum up the rhetorical to the minds' eyes of his hearers. i so. The usually heard speaker's obligation toward the ideal, apart from The practice itself has given rise to a good Such argument is pre­ particular determinations. If one accepts the pos­ deal of misunderstanding, which it would be well erstanding, or what the sibility of this or any other ranking, one has to to remove. We know that one of the conventional simply cites a brute cir­ concede that rhetoric is not merely formal; it is re­ criticisms of rhetoric is that the practitioner of it p lively." Actually, this alistic. It is not playing with counters; its impulses takes advantage of his hearers by playing upon . surrender of reason. come from insights into actuality. Its topic matter their feelings and imaginations. He overstresses stinctive feeling that in is existential, not hypothetical. It involves more the importance of his topics by puffing them up, gowerless. Either you than mere demonstration because it involves dwelling on them in great detail, using an excess crushed. But surely it choice . Its assertions have ontological claims. of imagery or of modifiers evoking the senses, :peration to try only this Now I return to the second responsibility, and so on. He goes beyond what is fair, the crit­ 'ering from aimlessness which is imposed by the fact that the rhetorician ics often allege, by this actualization of a scene uction. is concerned with definite questions. These are about which the audience ought to be thinking ra­ cause and effect is a questions having histories, and history is always tionally. Since this criticism has a serious basis, I ~ument because it deals concrete. This means that the speaker or writer am gqing to offer an illustration before making nomenal, and the phe­ has got to have a rhetorical perception of what the reply. Here is a passage from Daniel Web­ ted into the sensational. his audience needs or will receive or respond to. ster's famous speech for the prosecution in the always run the risk of He takes into account the reality of man's com­ trial of John Francis Knapp. Webster is actualiz­ vhich we deplore as sen- posite being and his tendency to be swayed by ing for the jury the scene of the murder as he has sentiment. He estimates the pressures of the par­ constructed it from circumstantial evidence. .estimony and authority, ticular situation in which his auditors are found . ., have to be judged in a In the eyes of those who look sourly upon the art, The deed was executed with a degree of steadi­ 1, they are the other he is a man probing for weaknesses which he ness and self-possession equal to the wickedness er eyes. The question of means to exploit. with which it was planned. The circumstances now

WEAVER I LANGUAGE IS SERMONJC 1357 h.\,~th h.wt, h 0. C ,I I\ ~ \- M 'oJrs~I\ \\~t,V'O.ll'c.,'vl"t' lvi QV'\ clearly in evidence spread out the scene before us. dieted Knapp deserved the conviction he got. guage to make one's p Deep sleep had fallen upon the destined victim and Suppose the audience had remained cold and un­ out of the nature of m. all beneath his roof. A healthful old man, to whom moved. There is the victim's side to consider and any past phase of soci, sleep was sweet, the first sound slumbers of the the interest of society in protecting life. We cial institution, or an: night held him in their soft but strong embrace. The should not forget that Webster's "actualization" vice. When all facton assassin enters, through a window already pre­ will be seen that m, pared, into an unoccupied apartment. With noise­ is in the service of these. Our attitude toward less foot he paces the lonely hall, half-lighted by what is just or right or noble and their opposites though some are bor the moon; he winds up the ru,cent of the stairs, and is not a bloodless calculation, but a feeling for greater, and some cu reaches the door of the chamber. Of this, he moves and against. As Whately indicates, the speaker study and training, wh the Jock by soft and continued pressure, till it turns who arouses feeling may only be arousing it to are such because they on its hinges without noise; and he enters, and be­ the right pitch and channeling it in the right di­ an endowment of pa holds the victim before him. The room is uncom­ rection. ought. There is ever s monly open to the admission of light. The face of To reaffirm the general contention: the slight, between the sitt the innocent sleeper is turned from the murderer, rhetorician who practices "amplification" is not uation he would like t and the beams of the moon, resting on the gray thereby misleading his audience, because we are fore characterized by Jocks of the aged temple, show him where to strike. all men of limited capacity and sensitivity and is largely the power o The fatal blow is given! and the victim passes, without a struggle or a motion, from the repose of imagination. We all need to have things pointed and governs that move sleep to the repose of death! It is the assassin's pur­ out to us, things stressed in our interest. The very For the same set c pose to make sure work; and he plies the dagger, task of the rhetorician is to determine what fea­ nate with language. E though it is obvious that life has been destroyed by ture of a question is most exigent and to use the idea mentioned seriou the blow of the bludgeon. He even raises the aged power of language to make it appear so. A possible and even rid arm, that he may not fail in his aim at the heart, and speaker who dwells insistently upon some aspect of men could be neu replaces it again over the wound of the poniard! To of a case may no more be hoodwinking me than a been able to give the finish the picture, he explores the wrist for the policeman or a doctor when he advises against a confirmed that feeling pulse! He feels for it, and ascertains that it beats no certain course of action by pointing out its nature that what is sometim longer! It is accomplished. The deed is done. He re­ or its consequences. He should be in a position to tum -expression pur treats, retraces his steps to the window, passes out through it as he came in, and escapes. He has done know somewhat better than I do. upon an initial miscc the murder. No eye has seen him, no ear has heard It is strongly to be suspected that this charge language. him. The secret is his own, and it is safe! against rhetoric comes not only from the dis­ The condition esse torted image that makes man a merely rationalis­ of speech, oral and ~ By depicting the scene in this fulness of detail, tic being, but also from that dogma of an uncriti­ and an attitude impli1 Webster is making it vivid, and "vivid" means cal equalitarianism. The notion of equality has wrayeth thee" is aphc "living." There are those who object on general insinuated itself so far that it appears sometimes as saying, "Your spc grounds to this sort of dramatization; it is too af­ as a feeling, to which I would apply the name tion," first by what yo fecting to the emotions. Beyond a doubt, when­ "sentimental plebeianism," that no man is better amount you decide ever the rhetorician actualizes an event in this or wiser than another, and hence that it is usurpa­ through the resource manner, he is making it mean something to the tion for one person to undertake or instruct or ad­ and intonation. All rl emotional part of us, but that part is involved monish another. This preposterous (and we could tives, as Kenneth Bur whenever we are deliberating about goodness add, wholly unscientific judgment, since our dif­ title of his book. At ti and badness. On this subject there is a very wise ferences are manifold and provable) is propa­ may be doing nothin1 reminder in Bishop Whately's Elements of gated in subtle ways by our institutions of public­ to express exuberancf Rhetoric: "When feelings are strongly excited, ity and the perverse art of demagogic politics. sits down to compose they are not necessarily over-excited; it may be Common sense replies that any individual who son, one has the mofr that they are only brought to the state which the advises a friend or speaks up in meeting is exer­ phers' account of the occasion fully justifies, or even that they fall cising a kind of leadership, which may be justi­ substituting one's ow short of this." Let us think of the situation in fied by superior virtue, knowledge, or personal be universal, but w which Webster was acting. After all, there is the insight. from the will to alter · possibility, or even the likelihood that the murder The fact that leadership is a human necessity Does this mean th was committed in this fashion, and that the in- is proof that rhetoric as the attempt through Ian- jective about anythin

MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC ' .,...... ,\, .. •..,) ..· ,t•; t'.: ~ • .."i•· ' N. ~th h.w(, ..\,. a. C\MW\ \i\l.c, ~\-'U.1.1 : , '.. " (U-yl.(. C, ~ ' ..~ . II (. r' f ...... \,,.,.\-'M ~,h ~ I IN\ fu.c.U,4\o\\ ,h . : r '"" . '< ;"· ...f.' \...... -tt,v-tl<,tA""fII h~c.v-o..,.c,\'1'1, ,Ji QI/\ IA.V\~rllA. oll\ f4s\,\\ort.. d the conviction he got. guage to make one's point of view prevail grows "rhetorical" in declaring that a straight line is the iad remained cold and un­ out of the nature of man. It is not a reflection of shortest distance between two points? Not in the "tim's side to consider and any past phase of social development, or any so­ sense in which the objection is usually raised. f in protecting life. We cial institution, or any fashion, or any passing There are degrees of objectivity, and there are Webster's "actualization" vice. When all factors have been considered, it various disciplines which have their own rules 1ese. Our attitude toward will be seen that men are born rhetoricians, for expressing their laws or their content in the noble and their opposites though some are born small ones and others most effective manner for their purpose. But ulation, but a feeling for greater, and some cultivate the native gift by even this expression can be seen as enclosed in a !ly indicates, the speaker study and training, whereas some neglect it. Men rhetorical intention. Put in another way, an utter- ay only be arousing it to are such because they are born into history, with ance is capable of rhetorical function and aspect. .'l~J-"J nneling it in the right di- an endowment of passion and a sense of the If one looks widely enough, one can discover its ought. There is ever some discrepancy, however rhetorical dimension, to put it in still another general contention: the slight, between the situation man is in and the sit­ way. The scientist has some interest in setting :es "amplification" is not uation he would like to realize. His life is there­ forth the formulation of some recurrent feature of audience, because we are fore characterized by movement toward goals. It the physical world, although his own sense of mcity and sensitivity and is largely the power of rhetoric which influences motive may be lost in a general feeling that sci- ed to have things pointed and governs that movement. ence is a good thing because it helps progress d in our interest. The very For the same set of reasons, rhetoric is cog­ along. 2 • ,,. ' is to determine what fea­ nate with language . Ever since I first heard the In short, as long as man is a creature responding b... \- . ost exigent and to use the idea mentioned seriously it impressed me as im­ to purpose, his linguistic expression will be a car- o~.,~ , make it appear so. A possible and even ridiculous that the utterances rier of tendency. Where the modem semanticists "\-1,\'s istently upon some aspect of men could be neutral. Such study as I have got off on the wrong foot in their effort to refurbish \ ~ istu: Je hoodwinking me than a been able to give the subject over the years has language lay in the curious supposition that Ian- 1 it _,, 1 when he advises against a confirmed that feeling and has led me to believe guage could and should be outwardly determined. t:;.Y"-SS"1(., by pointing out its nature that what is sometimes held up as a desidera­ They were positivists operating in the linguistic should be in a position to tum - expression purged of all tendency-rests field. Yet if there is anything that is going to keep than I do. upon an initial misconception of the nature of on defying positivistic correlation, it is this subjec- mspected that this charge language. tively born, intimate, and value-laden vehicle : not only from the dis­ The condition essential to see is that every use which we call language. Language is a system of s man a merely rationalis- of speech, oral and written, exhibits an attitude, imputation, by which values and precepts are first that dogma of an uncriti- and an attitude implies an act. "Thy speech be­ framed in the mind and are then imputed to things. 1e notion of equality has wrayeth thee" is aphoristically true if we take it This is not an irresponsible imputation; it does not that it appears sometimes as saying, "Your speech reveals your disposi­ imply, say, that no two people can look at the same I would apply the name tion," first by what you choose to say, then by the clock face and report the same time. The qualities m," that no man is better amount you decide to say, and so on down or properties have to be in the things, but they are nd hence that it is usurpa­ through the resources of linguistic elaboration not in the things in the form in which they are ndertake or instruct or ad­ and intonation. All rhetoric is a rhetoric of mo­ framed by the mind. This much I think we can ·eposterous (and we could tives, as Kenneth Burke saw fit to indicate in the : judgment, since our dif- title of his book. At the low end of the scale, one 2 1f I have risked confusion by referring to "rhetoricians" and provable) is propa ­ may be doing nothing more than making sounds and "rhetorical speakers," and to other men as if they were all our institutions of public­ to express exuberance. But if at the other end one nonrhetoricians, while insisting that all language has its rt of demagogic politics. sits down to compose a Critique of the Pure Rea­ rhetorical aspect, let me clarify the terms. By "rhetorician" I mean the deliberate rhetor : the man who understands the na­ that any individual who son, one has the motive of refuting other philoso­ ture and aim and requirements of persuasive expression and tks up in meeting is exer­ phers' account of the constitution of being and of who uses them more or less consciously according to the ap­ ;hip, which may be justi­ substituting one's own, for an interest which may proved rules of the art. The other, who by his membership in , knowledge, or personal be universal, but which nonetheless proceeds the family of language users, must be a rhetorician of sorts, is an empirical and adventitious one; he does not know enough from the will to alter something . to keep invention, arrangement, and style working for him. ;hip is a human necessity , Does this mean that it is impossible to be ob­ The rhetorician of my reference is thus the educated speaker; , the attempt through Ian- jective about anything? Does it mean that one is the other is an untaught amateur. [Au.]

WEAVER/ LANGUAGE JS SERMONJC 1359 th,s 1 -t- ~\n.•INI .J.- ~~Mwt . 1 t.,.c;~~ I I.S ~ llU\,\(111\flA\A,n.OV\,' ~s \\M..~b /"\_ · > learn from the great realist-nominalist controversy influence, we speak as rhetoricians affecting one of the Middle Ages and from the little that contem­ another for good or ill. That is why I must agree The Phaed porary semantics has been able to add to our with Quintilian that the true orator is the good knowledge. 3 Language was created by the imagi­ man, skilled in speaking-good in his formed nation for the purposes of man, but it may have ob­ character and right in his ethical philosophy. Our subject begi jective reference - just how we cannot say until When to this he adds fertility in invention and JI culty of defining t we are in possession of a more complete meta­ skill in the arts of language, he is entitled to that Phaedrus was meant physics and epistemology. leadership which tradition accords him. justly celebrated dia Now a system of imputation involves the use If rhetoric is to be saved from the neglect and its unity of theme, a of predicates, as when we say, "Sugar is sweet" even the disrepute which I was deploring at the be­ designate it broadly , or "Business is good." Modern positivism and ginning of this lecture, these primary truths will and the beautiful. n relativism, however, have gone virtually to the have to be recovered until they are a part of our ac­ Iogue are, in order: le point of denying the validity of all conceptual tive consciousness. They are, in summation, that and the spoken and v predication. Occasionally at Chicago I purposely man is not nor ever can be nor ever should be a de­ erally termed by us " needle a class by expressing a general concept in personalized thinking machine. His feeling is the ment looks random, a casual way, whereupon usually I am sternly re­ activity in him most closely related to what used to esting passages appea minded by some member brought up in the best be called his soul. To appeal to his feeling there­ of the literary art div relativist tradition that "You can't generalize that fore is not necessarily an insult; it can be a way to stance of the argumer way." The same view can be encountered in emi­ honor him, by recognizing him in the fulness of his But a work of art, nent quarters. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes being. Even in those situations where the appeal is found problems justi was fond of saying that the chief end of man is to a kind of strategy, it but recognizes that men-all reading. Our difficult frame general propositions and that no general men-are historically conditioned. that our interpretation proposition is worth a damn. In the first of these Rhetoric must be viewed formally as operating topical. If we will bri1 general propositions the Justice was right, in the at that point where literature and politics meet, or portion of that imagi sense that men cannot get along without catego­ where literary values and political urgencies can ally exercised, we she rizing their apprehensions of reality. In the sec­ be brought together. The rhetorician makes use of that it is consistently, ond he was wrong because, although a great ju­ the moving power of literary presentation to in­ about one thing, whic rist, he was not philosopher enough to think the duce in his hearers an attitude or decision which is Again, that point ma) matter through. Positivism and relativism may political in the very broadest sense. Perhaps this most readers conceive have rendered a certain service as devil's advo­ explains why the successful user of rhetoric is artifice rather than ai cates if they have caused us to be more careful sometimes in bad grace with both camps. For the for all its apparent di about our concepts and our predicates, yet their literary people he is too "practical"; and for the to a single idea. A st position in net form is untenable. The battle more practical political people he is too "flowery." ture, especially, may against general propositions was lost from the But there is nothing illegitimate about what he un­ has been withheld, "' beginning, for just as surely as man is a symbol­ dertakes to do, any more than it would be illegiti­ that Plato possessed using animal (and a symbol transcends the thing mate to make use of the timeless principles of aes­ among the ancients. symbolized), he is a classifying animal. The thetics in the constructing of a public building. For the imaginath morality lies in the application of the predicate. Finally, we must never lose sight of the order of shall now undertake, Language, which is thus predicative, is for the values as the ultimate sanction of rhetoric. No one ? specific warrant. First same cause sermonic. We are all of us preachers can live a life of direction and purpose without out that a Socratic d in private or public capacities. We have no some scheme of values. As rhetoric confronts us ample of transcenden Il sooner uttered words than we have given impulse with choices involving values, the rhetorician is a thing simple and topi1 to other people to look at the world, or some preacher to us, noble if he tries to direct our pas­ era! levels of applicati small part of it, in our way. Thus caught up in a sion toward noble ends and base if he uses our pas­ great web of inter-communication and inter- sion to confuse and degrade us. Since all utterance 'The Phaedru.1·is includ 2 influences us in one or the other of these direc­ Cf. A. E. Taylor, P/(1/1 York, 1936), 300. [Au.J tions, it is important that the direction be the right 1 1Realism holds that general properties really exist, while Cf. P. Albert Duhamel nominalism holds that generalizations are linguistic cate­ one, and it is better if this lay preacher is a master fectivc Expression ," Jounu; gories only . [Ed.] of his art. (v'llV!AM,h 1949), 344- 56 pa .Him. [Au .J +(}r4.l( 1360 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC :toricians affecting one 1at is why I must agree The Phaedrusand the Nature of Rhetoric rue orator is the good - good in his formed is ethical philosophy. Our subject begins with the threshold diffi­ must make the leap into allegory for the final ut­ tility in invention and JI culty of defining the question which Plato's terance. This means, of course, that a Socratic di­ ;e, he is entitled to that Phaedrus was meant to answer.• Students of this alogue may be about its subject implicitly as well accords hrm. justly celebrated dialogue have felt uncertain of as explicitly. The implicit rendering is usually d from the neglect and its unity of theme, and the tendency has been to through some kind of figuration because it is the was deploring at the be­ designate it broadly as a discussion of the ethical nature of this meaning to be ineffable in any ~se primary truths will and the beautiful. The explicit topics of the dia­ other way. It is necessary, therefore, to be alert hey are a part of our ac- logue are, in order: love, the soul, speechmaking, for what takes place through the analogical 1re, in summation, that and the spoken and written word, or what is gen­ mode. 1or ever should be a de­ erally termed by us "composition." The develop­ Second, it is a matter of curious interest that a hine. His feeling is the ment looks random, and some of the most inter­ warning against literal reading occurs at an early , related to what used to esting passages appear jeux d 'esprit. The richness stage of the Phaedrus. Here in the opening pages, !al to his feeling there- of the literary art diverts attention from the sub­ appearing as if to set the key of the theme, comes 1sult; it can be a way to stance of the argument. an allusion to the myth of Boreas and Oreithyia. him in the fulness of his But a work of art which touches on many pro­ On the very spot where the dialogue begins, ons where the appeal is found problems justifies more than one kind of Boreas is said to have carried off the maiden. :ognizes that men-all reading. Our difficulty with the Phaedrus may be Does Socrates believe that this tale is really true? ditioned. that our interpretation has been too literal and too Or is he in favor of a scientific explanation of d formally as operating topical. If we will bring to the reading of it even a what the myth alleges? Athens had scientific ex­ re and politics meet, or portion of that imagination which Plato habitu­ perts, and the scientific explanation was that the political urgencies can ally exercised, we should perceive surely enough north wind had pushed her off some rocks where 1etorician makes use of that it is consistently, and from beginning to end, she was playing with a companion. In this way ary presentation to in- about one thing, which is the nature of rhetoric.2 the poetical story is provided with a factual basis. 1deor decision which is Again, that point may have been missed because The answer of Socrates is that many tales are est sense. Perhaps this most readers conceive rhetoric to be a system of open to this kind of rationalization, but that the ful user of rhetoric is artifice rather than an idea,3 and the Plwedrus, result is tedious and actually irrelevant. It is irrel­ th both camps. For the for all its apparent divagation, keeps very close evant because our chief concern is with the na­ ·practical"; and for the to a single idea. A study of its rhetorical struc­ ture of the man, and it is beside the point to probe ,pie he is too "flowery." ture, especially, may give us the insight which into such matters while we are yet ignorant of mate about what he un- has been withheld, while making us feel anew ourselves. The scientific criticism of Greek mn it would be illegiti- that Plato possessed the deepest divining rod mythology, which may be likened to the scien­ 1eless principles of aes- among the ancients. tific criticism of the myths of the Bible in our l': : of a public building. For the imaginative interpretation which we own day, produces at best "a boorish sort of wis- ll ;e sight of the order of r shall now undertake, we have both general and dom (a-yeoi:Xl!lTLVL aocpC~)."It is a limitation to \ - tion of rhetoric. No one ') specific warrant. First, it scarcely needs pointing suppose that the truth of the story lies in its his­ . .• 1 and purpose without • out that a Socratic dialogue is in itself an ex­ toricity. The "boorish sort of wisdom" seeks to s rhetoric confronts us ample of transcendence. Beginning with some­ supplant poetic allegation with fact, just as an ar­ ues, the rhetorician is a thing simple and topical, it passes to more gen­ chaeologist might look for the foundations of the tries to direct our pas­ eral levels of application; and not infrequently, it Garden of Eden. But while this sort of search base ifhe uses our pas- goes on the truth flies off, on wings of imagina­ 'The Plwedrus is included in Part One, pp. 138-68. [Ed.] ~ us. Since all utterance tion, and is not recoverable until the searcher at­ ' Cf. A. E. Taylor, Plato: The Man and His Work (New tains a higher level of pursuit. Socrates is satis­ e other of these direc- York, 1936), 300. [Au.] 1e direction be the right Cf. P. Albert Duhamel, "The Concept of Rhetoric as Ef­ fied with the parable, and we infer from ay preacher is a master fective Expression," Journal of the History of Ideas, X (June, numerous other passages that he believed that 1949), 344-56 passim. [Au.] some things are best told by parable and some cvvit,IM•IW +vrdi ( WEAVER I THE PHAEDRUS AND THE NATURE OF RHETORIC 1361 perhaps discoverable only by parable. Real in­ something to language itself is one of the chief his beloved away from vestigation goes forward with the help of anal­ considerations of the Phaedrus, just as it is of so deprives him of im ogy. "Freud without Sophocles is unthinkable," a contemporary semantic theory. What Plato has argument is concluded modem writer has said.4 succeeded in doing in this dialogue, whether by a one ought to grant favc With these precepts in mind, we tum to that remarkably effaced design, or unconsciously importunate, but to tho part of the Phaedrus which has proved most puz­ through the formal pressure of his conception, is Such is the favorable zling: why is so much said about the absurd rela­ to give us embodiments of the three types of dis­ given by Lysias. tionship of the lover and the nonlover? Socrates course. These are respectively the nonlover, the We must now obsc encounters Phaedrus outside the city wall. The evil lover, and the noble lover. We shall take up superiority corresponc latter has just come from hearing a discourse by these figures in their sequence and show their rel­ cally purified" speech. Lysias which enchanted him with its eloquence. evance to the problem of language. speech" we mean the k He is prevailed upon to repeat this discourse, and The eulogy of the nonlover in the speech of pure notation in the m the two seek out a shady spot on the banks of the Lysias, as we hear it repeated to Socrates, abstract intelligence v Illissus. Now the discourse is remarkable because stresses the fact that the nonlover follows a pol­ simple instrumentality although it was "in a way, a love speech," its ar­ icy of enlightened self-interest. First of all, the the object of its symbo gument was that people should grant favors to nonlover does not neglect his affairs or commit ducing bias in the hear nonlovers rather than to lovers. "This is just the extreme acts under the influence of passion. it would have less po"' clever thing about it," Phaedrus remarks. People Since he acts from calculation, he never has oc­ since it is generally a, are in the habit of preferring their lovers, but it is casion for remorse. No one ever says of him that equations may have tt much more intelligent, as the argument of Lysias he is not in his right mind, because all of his acts hence are not above : runs, to prefer a nonlover. Accordingly, the first are within prudential bounds. The first point is, in suspect. But this neutt major topic of the dialogue is a eulogy of the sum, that the nonlover never sacrifices himself qualified medium of nonlover. The speech provides good subject mat­ and therefore never feels the vexation which from mind to mind, an ter for jesting on the part of Socrates, and looks overtakes lovers when they recover from their remain in an unpreju like another exhibition of the childlike ingenious­ passion and try to balance their pains with their world and also to othe, ness which gives the Greeks their charm. Is it profit. And the nonlover is constant whereas the Since the characteri merely a piece of literary trifling? Rather, it is lover is inconstant. The first argument then is that sence of anything like Plato's dramatistic presentation of a major thesis. the nonlover demonstrates his superiority ward the thing being r Beneath the surface of repartee and mock seri­ through prudence and objectivity. The second fidelity, like that of the ousness, he is asking whether we ought to prefer point of superiority found in nonlovers is that panion. Instead of pas a neuter form of speech to the kind which is ever there are many more of them. If one is limited in ability of objectivity. getting us aroused over things and provoking an one's choice to one's lovers, the range is small; est" takes the form of expense of spirit. but as there are always more nonlovers than regularity in its symbc ~ ... Sophistications of theory cannot obscure the lovers, one has a better chance in choosing all of which will be to Wt11.vw,truth that there are but three ways for language to among many of finding something worthy of mental world. Like a ti affect us. It can move us toward what is good; it one's affection. A third point of superiority is manticism about it; an ~NI , can move us toward what is evil; or it can, in hy­ that association with the nonlover does not excite r.,I). • from the literal and pr pothetical third place, fail to move us at all.5 Of public comment. If one is seen going about with feet on the ground; an course there are numberless degrees of effect the object of one's love, one is likely to provoke pure notation has its I l~,under the first two heads, and the third, as will be gossip; but when one is seen conversing with the t- .. objective reality. As shown, is an approximate rather than an absolute nonlover, people merely realize that "everybody modern proponents, zero of effect. But any utterance is a major as­ must converse with somebody." Therefore this Words: "If we wish to sumption of responsibility, and the assumption kind of relationship does not affect one's public • ourselves, it follows i that one can avoid that responsibility by doing standing, and one is not disturbed by what the guage whose structur neighbors are saying. Finally, nonlovers are not structure "6 (italics his •Jame s Blish, "Rituals on Ezra Pound," Sewanee Review, jealous of one's associates. Accordingly they do LVlll (spring, 1950), 223. [Au.] not try to keep one from companions of intellect ~The various aesthetic approaches to language offer re­ 6 or wealth for fear that they may be outshone Tl,e Tyranny of Words 1 finements of perception, but all of them can be finally sub­ Iey in u1y Sermons (New Y, sumed under the first head above . [Au.] themselves. The lover, by contrast, tries to draw ably similar ideal of scien

1362 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC itself is one of the chief his beloved away from such companionship and ried to the world, and its marital fidelity contrasts haedrus, just as it is of so deprives him of improving associations. The with the extravagances of other languages. theory. What Plato has argument is concluded with a generalization that In second place, this language is far more is dialogue, whether by a one ought to grant favors not to the needy or the "available." Whereas rhetorical language, or lan­ :sign, or unconsciously importunate, but to those who are able to repay. guage which would persuade, must always be mre of his conception, is Such is the favorable account of the nonlover particularized to suit the occasion, drawing its ef­ of the three types of dis­ given by Lysias. fectiveness from many small nuances, a "utility" ctively the nonlover, the We must now observe how these points of language is very general and one has no diffi­ : Jover. We shall take up superiority correspond to those of "semanti­ culty putting his meaning into it if he is satisfied uence and show their rel­ cally purified" speech. By "semantically purified with a paraphrase of that meaning. The 850 f language. speech" we mean the kind of speech approaching words recommended for Basic English, for ex­ onlover in the speech of pure notation in the respect that it communicates ample, are highly available in the sense that all t repeated to Socrates, abstract intelligence without impulsion. It is a native users of English have them instantly ready : nonlover follows a pol­ simple instrumentality, showing no affection for and learners of English can quickly acquire interest. First of all, the the object of its symbolizing and incapable of in­ them.7 It soon becomes apparent, however, that !Ct his affairs or commit ducing bias in the hearer. In its ideal conception, the availability is a heavy tax upon all other qual­ e influence of passion. it would have Jess power to move than 2 + 2 = 4, ities. Most of what we admire as energy and full­ ulation, he never has oc­ since it is generally admitted that mathematical ness tends to disappear when mere verbal coun­ one ever says of him that equations may have the beauty of elegance, and ters are used. The conventional or public aspect 1d, because all of his acts hence are not above suspicion where beauty is of language can encroach upon the suggestive or unds. The first point is, in suspect. But this neuter language will be an un­ symbolical aspect, until the naming is vague or never sacrifices himself qualified medium of transmission of meanings blurred. In proportion as the medium is conven­ :els the vexation which from mind to mind, and by virtue of it minds can tional in the widest sense and avoids all individu­ they recover from their remain in an unprejudiced relationship to the alizing, personalizing, and heightening terms, it 1ce their pains with their world and also to other minds. is common, and the commonness constitutes the r is constant whereas the Since the characteristic of this language is ab­ negative virtue ascribed to the nonlover. first argument then is that sence of anything like affection, if exhibits to­ Finally, with reference to the third qualifica­ strates his superiority ward the thing being represented merely a sober tion of the nonlover, it is true that neuter lan­ objectivity. The second fidelity, like that of the nonlover toward his com­ guage does not excite public opinion. This fact und in nonlovers is that panion. Instead of passion, it offers the service­ follows from its character outlined above. them. If one is limited in ability of objectivity. Its "enlightened self-inter­ Rhetorical language on the other hand, for what­ :ivers, the range is small; est" takes the form of an unvarying accuracy and ever purpose used, excites interest and with it ei­ ys more nonlovers than regularity in its symbolic references, most, if not ther pleasure or alarm. People listen instinctively :ter chance in choosing all of which will be to verifiable data in the extra­ to the man whose speech betrays inclination. It 1g something worthy of mental world. Like a thrifty burgher, it has no ro­ does not matter what the inclination is toward, d point of superiority is manticism about it; and it distrusts any departure but we may say that the greater the degree of in­ : nonlover does not excite from the literal and prosaic. The burgher has his clination, the greater the curiosity or response. is seen going about with feet on the ground; and similarly the language of Hence a "style" in speech always causes one to , one is likely to provoke pure notation has its point-by-point contact with be a marked man, and the public may not be so seen conversing with the objective reality. As Stuart Chase, one of its y realiz~ that "everybody modern proponents, says in The Tyranny of mebody." Therefore this Words: "If we wish to understand the world and :s not affect one's public the great business of the scientific teacher is, to imprint the ourselves, it follows that we should use a lan­ fundamental, irrefragable facts of his science, not only by Jt disturbed by what the guage whose structure corresponds to physical words upon the mind, but by sensible impressions upon the oinally, nonlovers are not structure "6 (italics his). So this language is mar- eye, and ear, and touch of the student in so complete a man­ 1tes. Accordingly they do ner, that every term used, or law enunciated should after­ n companions of intellect wards call up vivid images of the particular structural, or 6 The Tyranny of Words (New York, 1938), Bo. T. H. Hux­ other, facts which furnished the demonstration of the law, or t they may be outshone ley in Lay Sermons (New York, 1883), I 12, outlined a notice­ illustration of the term." [Au.] by contrast, tries to draw ably similar ideal of scientific communication: "Therefore, 1See the headnote on I. A. Richards, p. 1270. [Ed.]

WEA VER I THE PHAEDRUSAND THE NATURE OF RHETORIC much impressed-at least initially-by what the influences which might "make a man of him,'' out of sight, and th man is for or against as by the fact that he has and of course the greatest of these is divine phi­ rounds his "belove, a style. The way therefore to avoid public com­ losophy. While he is working to keep him intel­ immediately to desi1 ment is to avoid the speech of affection and to lectually immature, he works also to keep him culated in understar use that of business, since, to echo the original weak and effeminate, with such harmful result may have his way. proposition of Lysias, everybody knows that one that the beloved is unable to play a man's part in the selfish lover c, must do business with others. From another crises. The lover is, moreover, jealous of the pos­ beloved will be "mo standpoint, then, this is the language of prudence. session of property because this gives the harmful to himself." These are the features which give neuter dis­ beloved an independence which he does not wish Examples of this course an appeal to those who expect a scientific him to have. Thus the lover in exercising an un­ every hand in the in solution of human problems. remitting compulsion over the beloved deprives nalism and political In summing up the trend of meaning, we note him of all praiseworthy qualities, and this is the fairs which these se, that Lysias has been praising a disinterested kind price the beloved pays for accepting a lover who kept in a state of p, of relationship which avoids all excesses and ir­ is "necessarily without reason." In brief, the most docile to their rationalities, all the dementia of love. It is a cir­ lover is not motivated by benevolence toward the the base lover, espec cumspect kind of relationship, which is preferred beloved, but by selfish appetite; and Socrates can em journalism, woul by all men who wish to do well in the world and aptly close with the quotation: "As wolves love in general it is acct avoid tempestuous courses. We have compared lambs, so lovers love their loves." The speech is keep the understan, its detachment with the kind of abstraction to be on the single theme of exploitation. lt is impor­ never permitting an found in scientific notation. But as an earnest of tant for us to keep in mind the object of love as natives. Nothing is what is to come let us note, in taking leave of this here described, because another kind of love with true dialectic, for th, part, that Phaedrus expresses admiration for the a different object is later introduced into the dia­ vored alternative, bu eloquence, especially of diction, with which the logue, and we shall discuss the counterpart of how clearly here Socrates' figure-s suit of the nonlover has been urged. This is our each. warning of the dilemma of the nonlover. As we look now for the parallel in language, independence. What Now we turn to the second major speech of we find ourselves confronting the second of the one alternative in all ate hopes and fears, the dialogue, which is made by Socrates. three alternatives: speech which influences us in Notwithstanding Phaedrus' enthusiastic praise, the direction of what is evil. This we shall call prevent a masculine Socrates is dissatisfied with the speech of the base rhetoric because its end is the exploitation will, he can have his side of an issue, b) nonlover. He remembers having heard wiser which Socrates has been condemning. We find things on the subject and feels that he can make a that base rhetoric hates that which is opposed, or consequence or com without agents or : speech on the same theme "different from this is equal or better because all such things are im­ often successfully b and quite as good." After some playful exchange, pediments to its will, and in the last analysis it and-effect reasoning Socrates launches upon his own abuse of love, knows only its will. Truth is the stubborn, objec­ which centers on the point that the lover is an ex­ tive restraint which this will endeavors to over­ arrayed in such mere quickly infer the juv1 ploiter. Love (eew,;) is defined as the kind of de­ come. Base rhetoric is therefore always trying to sire which overcomes rational opinion and keep its objects from the support which personal attract. Of course the his vastly augmente, moves toward the enjoyment of personal or bod­ courage, noble associations, and divine philoso­ means of deluding \ ily beauty. The lover wishes to make the object phy provide a man. forum or market plac of his passion as pleasing to himself as possible; The base rhetorician, we may say, is a man but to those possessed by this frenzy, only that who has yielded to the wrong aspects of exis­ Because Socrate~ against love, reprei which is subject to their will is pleasant. Accord­ tence. He has allowed himself to succumb to the nonlover seems to st ingly, everything which is opposed, or is equal or sights and shows, to the physical pleasures which . 'l: serve, however, tha better, the lover views with hostility. He natu­ conspire against noble life. He knows that the i being celebrated, is rally therefore tries to make the beloved inferior only way he can get a following in his pursuits "So, in a word, I say to himself in every respect. He is pleased if the (and a following seems necessary to maximum ~~,sb~"'l''."1beloved has intellectual limitations because they enjoyment of the pursuits) is to work against the have the effect of making him manageable. For a true understanding of his followers. Conse­ RThat is, by mentioni, [Au .] ~"'-' .~similar reason he tries to keep him away from all quently the things which would elevate he keeps 11\....4-

MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC ,,

out of sight, and the things with which he sur­ all the advantages that are opposed to the disad­ "make a man of him," rounds his "beloved" are those which minister vantages we found in the lover." This is not with­ st of these is divine phi­ immediately to desire. The beloved is thus emas­ out bearing upon the subject matter of the impor­ >rking to keep him intel­ culated in understanding in order that the lover tant third speech, to which we now tum. works also to keep him may have his way. Or as Socrates expresses it, At this point in the dialogue, Socrates is vith such harmful result the selfish lover contrives things so that the warned by his monitory spirit that he has been le to play a man's part in beloved will be "most agreeable to him and most engaging in a defamation of love despite the fact eover, jealous of the pos­ harmful to himself." that love is a divinity. "If love is, as indeed he is, >ecause this gives the Examples of this kind of contrivance occur on a god or something divine, he can be nothing e which he does not wish every hand in the impassioned language of jour­ evil; but the two speeches just now said that he Jver in exercising an un­ nalism and political pleading . In the world of af­ was evil." These discourses were then an im­ ver the beloved deprives fairs which these seek to influence, the many are piety-one representing nonlove as admirable qualitie s, and this is the kept in a state of pupillage so that they will be and the other attacking love as base. Socrates ·or accepting a lover who most docile to their "lovers." The techniques of resolves to make amends, and the recantation t reason." In brief, the the base lover, especially as exemplified in mod­ which follows is one of the most elaborate devel­ y benevolence toward the em journalism, would make a long catalogue, but opments in the Platonic system. The account of Lppetite;and Socrates can in general it is accurate to say that he seeks to love which emerges from this new position may c>tation:"As wolves love keep the understanding in a passive state by be summarized as follows. 1eir loves." The speech is never permitting an honest examination of alter­ Love is often censured as a form of madness, exploitation. It is impor- natives. Nothing is more feared by him than a yet not all madness is evil. There is a madness 1ind the object of love as true dialectic, for this not only endangers his fa­ which is simple degeneracy, but on the other another kind of love with vored alternative, but also gives the "beloved"­ hand there are kinds of madness which are really r introduced into the dia­ how clearly here are these the "lambs" of forms of inspiration, from which come the great­ scuss the counterpart of Socrates' figure-some training in intellectual est gifts conferred on man. Prophecy is a kind of independence. What he does therefore is dress up madness, and so too is poetry. "The poetry of the the parallel in language, one alternative in all the cheap finery of immedi­ sane man vanishes into nothingness before that ·onting the second of the ate hope~ and fears, knowing ·that if he can thus of the inspired madman." Mere sanity, which is :h which influences us in prevent a masculine exercise of imagination and of human origin, is inferior to that madness ;; evil. This we shall call will, he can have his way. By discussing only one which is inspired by the gods and which is a con­ ts end is the exploitation side of an issue, by mentioning cause without dition for the highest kind of achievement. In this en condemning. We find consequence or consequence without cause, acts category goes the madness of the true lover. His that which is opposed, or without agents or agents without agency,8 he is a generous state which confers blessings to the se all such things are im­ often successfully blocks definition and cause­ ignoring of self, whereas the conduct of the md in the last analysis it and-effect reasoning. In this way his choices are nonlover displays all the selfishness of business: 1th is the stubborn, objec­ arrayed in such meretricious images that one can "the affection of the nonlover, which is alloyed s will endeavors to over­ quickly infer the juvenile mind which they would with mortal prudence and follows mortal and therefore always trying to attract. Of course the base rhetorician today, with parsimonious rules of conduct will beget in the 1e support which personal his vastly augmented power of propagation, has beloved soul the narrowness which common folk ions, and divine philoso- means of deluding which no ancient rhetoric in praise as virtue; it will cause the soul to be a forum or market place could have imagined. wanderer upon the earth for nine thousand years 1, we may say, is a man Because Socrates has now made a speech and a fool below the earth at last." It is the vulgar e wrong aspects of exis- against love, representing it as an evil, the who do not realize that the madness of the noble 1imself to succumb to the nonlover seems to survive in estimation. We ob­ lover is an inspired madness because he has his : physical pleasures which .1: serve, however, that the nonlover, instead of thoughts turned toward a beauty of divine origin. life. He knows that the i being celebrated, is disposed of dialectically. Now the attitude of the noble lover toward the following in his pursuits "So, in a word, I say that the nonlover possesses beloved is in direct contrast with that of the evil s necessary to maximum lover, who, as we have seen, strives to possess its) is to work against the 8 and victimize the object of his affections. For ' his followers . Conse­ That is, by mentioning only parts of the total situation. [Au .] once the noble lover has mastered the conflict ·h would elevate he keeps

WEAVER I THE PHAEDRUS AND THE NATURE OF RHETORIC 1365 ,, ¼ ..-l-,~ o.ol.C. -'....'' within his own soul by conquering appetite and therefore, to confine passion to quite narrow and knowledge, and tha fixing his attention upon the intelligible and the channels so that it will not upset the decent busi­ help to the solution of s1 divine, he conceives an exalted attitude toward ness arrangements of the world. But if the poet, as It must, moreover, be so the beloved. The noble lover now "follows the the chief transformer of our picture of the world, people hold no opinion t beloved in reverence and awe." So those who are is the peculiar enemy of this mentality, the hold a contrary opinion filled with this kind of love "exhibit no jealousy rhetorician is also hostile when practicing the the philosophers to the or meanness toward the loved one, but endeavor kind of love proper to him. The "passion" in his among themselves."' 2 P by every means in their power to lead him to the speech is revolutionary, and it has a practical end. about the distinction bet, likeness of the god whom they honor." Such is We have now indicated the significance of the tical terms. In one pm the conversion by which love turns from the ex­ three types of lovers; but the remainder of the "positive" terms "iron", ploitative to the creative. Phaedrus has much more to say about the nature alectical" terms 'justice · Here it becomes necessary to bring our con­ of rhetoric, and we must return to one or more other passages his "dialc cepts together and to think of all speech having points to place our subject in a wider context. elude categorizations of persuasive power as a kind of "love."9 Thus, The problem of rhetoric which occupied Plato Socrates indicates that rhetorical speech is madness to the extent that it persistently, not only in the Phaedrus but also in from the ass is a dialec departs from the line which mere sanity lays other dialogues where this art is reviewed, may tells us later that a good down. There is always in its statement a kind of be best stated as a question: if truth alone is not vide things by classes ' excess or deficiency which is immediately dis­ sufficient to persuade men, what else remains are" and will avoid bre: cernible when the test of simple realism is ap­ that can be legitimately added? In one of the ex­ manner of a bad carv, plied. Simple realism operates on a principle of changes with Phaedrus, Socrates puts the ques­ Aristotle's dialectic wh equation or correspondence; one thing must tion in the mouth of a personified Rhetoric: "I do and knowledge. match another, or, representation must tally with not compel anyone to learn to speak without But there is a brand thing represented, like items in a tradesman's ac­ knowing the truth, but if my advice is of any tributes to "choice or a· count. Any excess or deficiency on the part of the value, he learns that first and then acquires me. this that rhetoric is regu representation invokes the existence of the world So what I claim is this, that without my help the erally speaking, this is a of symbolism, which simple realism must deny. knowledge of the truth does not give the art of tions of policy, and the This explains why there is an immortal feud be­ persuasion." \v. ""' '-'4 .... \al.. ";'-'> '"'&I'--"'? it will determine not th tween men of business and the users of metaphor Now rhetoric as we have discussed it in rela­ terms but that of terms and metonymy, the poets and the rhetoricians. rn tion to the lovers consists of truth plus its artful contingency of evaluat The man of business, the narrow and parsimo­ presentation, and for this reason it becomes nec­ quiry will concern itsel1 nious soul in the allusion of Socrates, desires a essary to say something more about the natural but with what is "goo, world which is a reliable materiality. But this the order of dialectic and rhetoric. In any general what belongs in the cat< poet and rhetorician will never let him have, for characterization rhetoric will include dialectic, 11 than what belongs in th, each, with his own purpose, is trying to advance but for the study of method it is necessary to sep­ eral rule, simple object · the borders of the imaginative world. A primrose arate the two. Dialectic is a method of investiga­ "house" have no connot. by the river's brim will not remain that in the tion whose object is the establishment of truth it is frequently possit poet's account, but is promptly turned into some­ about doubtful propositions. Aristotle in the Top­ through speech situation thing very much larger and something highly im­ ics gives a concise statement of its nature. "A dia­ to their referential func plicative. He who is accustomed to record the lectical problem is a subject of inquiry that con­ We should have to inte11 world with an abacus cannot follow these trans­ tributes either to choice or avoidance, or to truth "Gold!" because these figurations; and indeed the very occurrence of through intonation and i 11 them subtly undermines the premise of his busi­ Cf. fPhaedrusl 227b: "A man must know the truth about all the particular things of which he speaks or writes, them in the class of eval ness. It is the historic tendency of the tradesman, and must be able to define everything separately; then when Any piece of persua he has defined them, he must know how to divide them by tain as its first process 9lt is worth recalling that in the Christian New Testament, classes until further division is impossible; and in the same with its heavy Platonic influence, God is identified both with way he must understand the nature of the soul, must find out logos, "word, speech" (John 1:1); and with agape, "Jove" (2 the class of speech adapted to each nature, and must arrange "[Aristotle, Topics] 104b. John 4:8). [Au.] and adorn his discourse accordingly, offering to the complex ' 3 [Phaedrus]263a. [Au.J 10 The users of metaphor and metonymy who are in the soul elaborate and harmonious discourses, and simple talks lo ' 4 [Phaedrus] 260b. [Au.] hire of businessmen of course constitute a special case. [Au.] the simple soul." [Au.] ·~[Phaedrus]265a. [Au.]

1366 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC ~·· 1ssion to quite narrow and knowledge, and that either by itself, or as a terms which have to do with policy. Now a term >t upset the decent busi­ help to the solution of some other such problem . of policy is essentially a term of motion, and here .vorld. But if the poet, as It must, moreover, be something on which either begins the congruence of rhetoric with the soul mr picture of the world, - · people hold no opinion either way, or the masses which underlies the speculation of the Phaedrus. of this mentality, the ~ I hold a contrary opinion to the philosophers, or In his myth of the charioteer, Socrates declares le when practicing the j the philosophers to the masses, or each of them that every soul is immortal because "that which n. The "passion" in his ' 1 among themselves." 12 Plato is not perfectly clear is ever moving is immortal." Motion, it would 1d it has a practical end. > about the distinction between positive and dialec­ appear from this definition, is part of the soul's j the significance of the 't tical terms. In one passage'J he contrasts the essence. And just because the soul is ever tend­ 1t the remainder of the 4- "positive" terms "iron" and "silver" with the "di­ ing, positive or indifferent terms cannot partake to say about the nature ~ alectical" terms 'justice" and "goodness"; yet in of this congruence. But terms of tendency­ return to one or more t other passages his "dialectical" terms seem to in­ goodness, justice, divinity, and the like-are !ct in a wider context. r) clude categorizations of the external world. Thus terms of motion and therefore may be said to which occupied Plato • ~ Socrates indicates that distinguishing the horse comport with the soul's essence. The soul's per­ 1e Phaedrus but also in f from the ass is a dialectical operation, '4 and he ception of goodness, justice, and divinity will de­ 1s art is reviewed, may .§ tells us later that a good dialectician is able to di­ pend upon its proper tendency, while at the same )n: if truth alone is not y vide things by classes "where the natural joints time contacts with these in discourse confirm and en, what else remains ~ are" and will avoid breaking any part "after the direct that tendency. The education of the soul is jded? In one of the ex­ manner of a bad carver."•s Such, perhaps, is not a process of bringing it into correspondence ;ocrates puts the ques­ Aristotle's dialectic which contributes to truth with a physical structure like the external world, mnified Rhetoric: "I do and knowledge. but rather a process of rightly affecting its mo­ !am to speak without But there is a branch of dialectic which con­ tion. By this conception, a soul which is rightly · my advice is of any tributes to "choice or avoidance," and it is with affected calls that good which is good; but a soul and then acquires me. this that rhetoric is regularly found joined. Gen­ which is wrongly turned calls that good which is at without my help the erally speaking, this is a rhetoric involving ques­ evil. What Plato has prepared us to see is that the Jes not give the art of tions of policy, and the dialectic which precedes virtuous rhetorician, who is a lover of truth, has a ·";;1 •• •\cl.":-k&pi.-c. ?' it will determine not the application of positive soul of each movement that its dialectical percep- ~ ve discussed it in rela- terms but that of terms which are subject to the tions are consonant with those of a divine mind. of truth plus its artful contingency of evaluation. Here dialectical in­ Or, in the language of more technical philosophy, reason it becomes nec­ quiry will concern itself not with what is "iron" this soul is aware of axiological systems which nore about the natural but with what is "good." It seeks to establish have ontic status. The good soul, consequently, etoric. In any general what belongs in the category of the 'just" rather will not urge a perversion of justice as justice in L... u.,_ till include dialectic 1 1 than what belongs in the genus Canis. As a gen­ order to impose upon the commonwealth. Insofar ''-wcv i it is necessary to s;p­ eral rule, simple object words such as "iron" and as the soul has its impulse in the right direction, 1~ '' a method of investiga­ "house" have no connotations of policy, although its definitions will agree with the true nature of ~ establishment of truth it is frequently possible to give them these intelligible things. s. Aristotle in the Top­ through speech situations in which there is added There is, then, no true rhetoric without dialectic, nt of its nature. "A dia­ to their referential function a kind of impulse. for the dialectic provides that basis of "high specu­ ct of inquiry that con­ We should have to interpret in this way "Fire!" or lation about nature" without which rhetoric in the avoidance, or to truth "Gold!" because these terms acquire something narrower sense has nothing to work upon. Yet, through intonation and relationship which places when the disputed terms have been established, we man must know the truth which he speaks or writes, them in the class of evaluative expressions. are at the limit of dialectic. How does the noble thing separately; then when Any piece of persuasion, therefore, will con­ rhetorician proceed from this point on? That the ,ow how to divide them by tain as its first process a dialectic establishing clearest demonstration in terms of logical inclusion mpossible; and in the same and exclusion often fails to win assent we hardly ·e of the soul, must find out need state; therefore, to what does the rhetorician :h nature, and must arrange "[Aristotle, Topics] 104b. [Au.] :ly, offering to the complex •J[Phaedrus] 263a. [Au.] resort at this critical passage? It is the stage at courses, and simple talks to '4[Phaedrns] 260b. [Au.J which he passes from the logical to the analogical, •s[Plwedrns] 265a. [Au.] or it is where figuration comes into rhetoric.

WEAVER I THE PHAEDRUS AND THE NATURE OF RHETORIC To look at this for a moment through a practi­ love as attractive as possible by bringing in the defend him in the abse1 cal illustration, let us suppose that a speaker has splendid figure of the charioteer. 16 In the nar­ given insight, he has th convinced his listeners that his position is "true" rower conception of this art, the allegory is the the as yet unactualized as far as dialectical inquiry may be pushed. Now rhetoric, for it excites and fills us with desire for example, a misrepresen he sets about moving the listeners toward that po­ this kind of love, depicted with many terms hav­ not of potential ones t sition, but there is no way to move them except ing tendency toward the good. But in the broader peace in a time of war. J through the operation of analogy. The analogy conception the art must include also the dialectic, War, at the depth of Br proceeds by showing that the position being which succeeded in placing love in the category tary disaster, Winston 1 urged resembles or partakes of something greater of divine things before filling our imaginations ture of Europe to "broa, and finer. It will be represented, in sum, as one of with attributes of divinity. 17 It is so regularly the one had regard only for the steps leading toward ultimate good. Let us method of Plato to follow a subtle analysis with a of mendacity such as further suppose our speaker to be arguing for the striking myth that it is not unreasonable to call found committing; but payment of a just debt. The payment of the just him the master rhetorician. This goes far to ex­ premises and then consi debt is not itself justice, but the payment of this plain why those who reject his philosophy some­ picture was within bou particular debt is one of the many things which times remark his literary art with mingled admi­ "exaggeration" was thal would have to be done before this could be a ration and annoyance. would place Europe in completely just world. It is just, then, because it The objection sometimes made that rhetoric peaceful progress. At th partakes of the ideal justice, or it is a small ana­ cannot be used by a lover of truth because it in­ ran the other way; the logue of all justice (in practice it will be found dulges in "exaggerations" can be answered as humiliation. Yet the ho1 that the rhetorician makes extensive use of synec­ follows. There is an exaggeration which is mere to "broad sunlit upland doche, whereby the small part is used as a vivid wantonness, and with this the true rhetorician and we conclude by sa suggestion of the grandeur of the whole). It is by has nothing to do. Such exaggeration is purely talks about both what e, bringing out these resemblances that the good impressionistic in aim. Like caricature, whose ists by favor of human i, rhetorician leads those who listen in the direction only object is to amuse, it seizes upon any trait or This interest in actu. of what is good . In effect, he performs a cure of aspect which could produce titillation and ex­ tinction between pure di souls by giving impulse, chiefly through figura­ ploits this without conscience. If all rhetoric were its forecast of the ac1 tion, toward an ideal good. like this, we should have to grant that rhetori­ passes from mere sci, We now see the true rhetorician as a noble cians are persons of very low responsibility and an idea to its relation 1 Jover of the good, who works through dialectic their art a disreputable one. But the rhetorician dialectic must take plac and through poetic or analogical association. we have now defined is not interested in sensa­ alone that it contains co However he is compelled to modulate by the pe­ tionalism. lectual thing. Rhetoric, c culiar features of an occasion, this is his method. The exaggeration which this rhetorician em­ espouses one of the co1 It may not be superfluous to draw attention to ploys is not caricature but prophecy; and it would followed by some atterr '.f the fact that what we have here outlined is the be a fair formulation to say that true rhetoric is actuality . That is why 1 ').-;, ,t ~... ··, method of the Phaedrus itself. The dialectic ap­ concerned with the potency of things. The literal­ pears in the dispute about Jove. The current thesis ist, like the anti-poet described earlier, is troubled 18Jndeed, in this particular that love is praiseworthy is countered by the an­ by its failure to conform to a present reality. types of lovers opposed as cle tithesis that love is blameworthy. This position is What he fails to appreciate is that potentiality is a More than this, we see the thi ting his ignominious failure. I fully developed in the speech of Lysias and in the mode of existence, and that all prophecy is about prefer as leaders the rhetori first speech of Socrates. But this position is coun­ the tendency of things. The discourse of the while they had thus emascula tered by a new thesis that after all love is praise­ noble rhetorician, accordingly, will be about real an evil Jover to whom Europe worthy because it is a divine thing. Of course, potentiality or possible actuality, whereas that of mistake was seen and rectifi, this is love on a higher level, or love redefined . the mere exaggerator is about unreal potentiality. move, evil rhetoric is of mon and Herr Hitler, employing ir This is the regular process of transcendence Naturally this distinction rests upon a supposal dialectic, had persuaded mull which we have noted before . Now, having res­ that the rhetorician has insight, and we could not "new order," i.e., the true pole cued love from the imputation of evil by exclud­ could only lose until, reachin she found a voice which could ing certain things from its definition, what does 16 In the passage extending from [Phaedrusl 264a to 256d. grasp of the potentiality of thin Socrates do? Quite in accordance with our analy­ [Au.] for passion fought a contest fo sis, he turns rhetorician. He tries to make this 17Cf. [Phaedrus] 263d ff. [Au.] But the contest could have bee,

1368 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC +\,-.,~ L!, n_ Sh·~ -rt>~~ • cJ. \vtt \,Of.ALL. Me.v\S<-ort"°'k.4.J.vn,v

ible by bringing in the defend him in the absence of that condition. But for the actual, is more complete than mere dialec- 16 1arioteer. In the nar­ given insight, he has the duty to represent to us tic with its dry understanding. It is more com­ art, the allegory is the the as yet unactualized future. It would be, for plete on the premise that man is a creature of pas- 1 fills us with desire for example, a misrepresentation of current facts but sion who must live out that passion in the world. l with many terms hav­ not of potential ones to talk about the joys of Pure contemplation does not suffice for this end. ;ood. But in the broader peace in a time of war. During the Second World As Jacques Maritain has expressed it: "love ... is elude also the dialectic, War, at the depth of Britain's political and mili­ not directed at possibilities or pure essences ; it is ng love in the category tary disaster, Winston Churchill likened the fu­ directed at what exists; one does not love possi­ illing our imaginations ture of Europe to "broad sunlit uplands." Now if bilities, one loves that which exists or is destined °'" 1 • 7 1 It is so regularly the one had regard only for the hour, this was a piece to exist." 9 The complete man, then, is the ~;\-t~ a subtle analysis with a of mendacity such as the worst charlatans are "lover" added to the scientist; the rhetorician to l ~ ot unreasonable to call found committing; but if one took Churchill's the dialectician. Understanding followed by actu- n. This goes far to ex­ premises and then considered the potentiality, the alization seems to be the order of creation, and '1.·~. ;t his philosophy some­ picture was within bounds of actualization. His there is no need for the role ofrhetoric to be mis- H\M,,nc., art with mingled admi- "exaggeration" was that the defeat of the enemy conceived. C.•rc:CA ..._ 'c.r 1' l>,u(,, would place Europe in a position for long and The pure dialectician is left in the theoretical rc.r.\4-~S nes made that rhetoric peaceful progress . At the time the surface trends position of the nonlover, who can attain under- cf.11ct.1V r of truth because it in­ ran the other way; the actuality was a valley of standing but who cannot add impulse to truth. ~­ ,, can be answered as humiliation. Yet the hope which transfigured this We are compelled to say "theoretical position" N,o(,~ ;geration which is mere to "broad sunlit uplands" was not irresponsible, because it is by no means certain that in the of-~ 1is the true rhetorician and we conclude by saying that the rhetorician world of actual speech the nonlover has more - exaggeration is purely talks about both what exists simply and what ex­ than a putative existence. We have seen previ- LL~- Like caricature, whose ists by favor of human imagination and effort . 18 ously that his speech would consist of strictly ref- seizes upon any trait or This interest in actualization is a further dis­ erential words which would serve only as desig- luce titillation and ex­ tinction between pure dialectic and rhetoric. With nata. Now the question arises at what point is :nce. If all rhetoric were its forecast of the actual possibility, rhetoric motive to come into such language? Kenneth e to grant that rhetori- passes from mere scientific demonstration of Burke in A Grammar of Motives has pointed to low responsibility and an idea to its relation to prudential conduct. A "the pattern of embarrassment behind the con­ ne. But the rhetorician dialectic must take place in vacuo, and the fact temporary ideal of a language that will best pro- not interested in sensa- alone that it contains contraries leaves it an intel­ mote good action by entirely eliminating the ele- lectual thing. Rhetoric, on the other hand, always ment of exhortation or command. Insofar as such ch this rhetorician em­ espouses one of the contraries. This espousal is a project succeeded, its terms would involve a prophecy; and it would followed by some attempt at impingement upon narrowing of circumference to a point where the ;ay that true rhetoric is actuality. That is why rhetoric, with its passion principle of personal action is eliminated from :y of things . The literal ­ language, so that an act would follow from it ribed earlier, is troubled 18Jndeed, in this particular rhetorical duel we see the two only as a non sequitur, a kind of humanitarian af­ n to a present reality. types of lovers opposed as clearly as illustration could desire . terthought."20 ~ is that potentiality is a More than this, we see the third type, the nonlover, commit­ ting his ignominious failure. Britain and France had come to The fault of this conception of language is that at all prophecy is about prefer as leaders the rhetoricless businessman type. And scientific intention turns out to be enclosed in The discourse of the while they had thus emasculated themselves, there appeared artistic intention and not vice versa. Let us test ·~ ·,·1 ngly, will be about real an evil lover to whom Europe all but succumbed before the this by taking as an example one of those "fact- ._.,.., ,,.. , mistake was seen and rectified. For while the world must 1 tuality, whereas that of finding committees" so favored by modem repre- , , .' ·.. iout unreal potentiality. move, evil rhetoric is of more force than no rhetoric at all; and Herr Hitler, employing images which rested on no true sentative governments. A language in which all rests upon a supposal dialectic, had persuaded multitudes that his order was the else ,is suppressed in favor of nuclear meanings ' \,1 : ".. ,ight, and we could not "new order," i.e., the true potentiality . Britain was losing and would be an ideal instrumentality for the report could only lose until, reaching back in her traditional past, she found a voice which could match his accents with a truer om [PhaedrusJ 264a to 256d . grasp of the potentiality of things . Thus two men conspicuous '9"Action: The Perfection of Human Life," Sewanee Re­ for passion fought a contest for souls, which the nobler won. view, LVI (winter, 1948), 3. [Au.] J.] But the contest could have been lost by default. [Au .] 20 A Grammar of Motives (New York, 1945), 90. [Au.]

WEA VER I THE PHAEDRUSAND THE NATURE OF RHETORIC > I

of such a committee. But this committee, if it mate good. All of the terms in a rhetorical vocab­ sponsibility introduces lived up to the ideal of its conception, would ulary are like links in a chain stretching up to osity into life, produce have to be followed by an "attitude-finding com­ some master link which transmits its influence "nothing is lost." Yet mittee" to tell us what its explorations really down through the linkages. It is impossible to desolation which proc mean. In real practice the fact-finding committee talk about rhetoric as effective expression with­ persion or feeling of , understands well enough that it is also an atti­ out having as a term giving intelligibility to the the choice between thf tude-finding committee, and where it cannot whole discourse, the Good . Of course, inferior we did not create the show inclination through language of tendency, it concepts of the Good may be and often are accountable for our ir usually manages to do so through selection and placed in this ultimate position; and there is noth­ be just. ,,.." I arrangement of the otherwise inarticulate facts. ing to keep a base lover from inverting the proper Thus when we final To recur here to the original situation in the dia- order and saying, "Evil, be thou my good ." Yet notions of artifice whi logue, we recall that the eloquent Lysias, posing the fact remains that in any piece of rhetorical it, we are left with s, as a nonlover, had concealed designs upon Phae­ discourse, one rhetorical term overcomes another Spinoza's "intellectual drus, so that his fine speech was really a sheep's rhetorical term only by being nearer to the term essence and the .fons E clothing. Socrates discerned in him a "peculiar which stands ultimate. There is some ground for "intellectual" because craftiness." One must suspect the same today of calling a rhetorical education necessarily an aris­ seen, there is no hone ,· many who ask us to place our faith in the neutral­ tocratic education in that the rhetorician has to ceding dialectic. The ,,, ity of their discourse. We cannot deny that there deal with an aristocracy of notions, to say noth­ justly condemned is ut1 ,.. are degrees of objectivity in the reference of ing of supplementing his logical and pathetic sition before that posi ,,. - ,, speech. But this is not the same as an assurance proofs with an ethical proof . with reference to 1 2 ~ ' i . that a vocabulary of reduced meanings will solve All things considered, rhetoric, noble or base, discourse 3- and of s, the problems of mankind. Many of those prob­ is a great power in the world; and we note ac­ duces more than enoug tl,i\~ 1i Q lems will have to be handled, as Socrates well cordingly that at the center of the public life of something in addition ~:~4-..:.)\knew, by the student of souls, who must princi­ every people there is a fierce struggle over who That element in additio °'o..,.,.,,,.,..;'fpally make use of the language of tendency. The shall control the means of rhetorical propagation. into a kind of existenc( soul is impulse, not simply cognition; and finally Today we set up "offices of information," which to which theory is indi, one's interest in rhetoric depends on how much like the sly lover in the dialogue, pose as said about our last exp1 ~npoignancy one senses in existence. 21 nonlovers while pushing their suits. But there is Rhetoric moves the soul with a movement no reason to despair over the fact that men will which cannot finally be justified logically. It can never give up seeking to influence one another. right only if, hie et mmc, th, only be valued analogically with reference to We would not desire it to be otherwise; neuter and tends toward~ the true go some supreme image. Therefore when the discourse is a false idol, to worship which is to "That is why practical wi rhetorician encounters some soul "sinking be­ commit the very offense for which Socrates visibly moral and intellectual neath the double load of forgetfulness and vice" made expiation in his second speech. the judgment of the conscien, he seeks to re-animate it by holding up to its Since we want not emancipation from impulse any sort of theoretical know le 21 Socrates' critic ism of ti sight the order of presumptive goods. This order but clarification of impulse, the duty of rhetoric that the latter defended a posi is necessarily a hierarchy leading up to the ulti- is to bring together action and understanding into to the discipline of dialectic . J a whole that is greater than scientific percep­ "Without rhetoric there seems no possibility of tragedy, tion. 22 The realization that just as no action is re­ and in tum, without the sense of tragedy, no possibility of ally indifferent, so no utterance is without its re- talcing an elevated view of life. The role of tragedy is to keep the human lot from being rendered as history. The cultivation of tragedy and a deep interest in the value-conferring power of 22 Cf. Maritain , op. cit., 3-4: "The truth of practical intel­ language always occur together. The Phaedrus, the Gorgias, lect is understood not as conformity to an extramental being and the Cratylus, not to mention the works of many teachers but as conformity to a right desire ; the end is no longer to of rhetoric, appear at the close of the great age of Greek know what is, but lo bring into existence that which is not tragedy. The Elizabethan age teemed with treatises on the use yet; further, the act of moral choice is so individualized, both of language. The essentially tragic Christian view of life be­ by the singularity of the person from which it proceeds and gins the long tradition of homiletics. Tragedy and the practice the context of the contingent circumstances in which it takes of rhetoric seem to find common sustenance in preoccupation place, that the practical judgment in which it is expressed and with value, and then rhetoric follows as an analyzed art. [Au.] by which I declare to myself: this is what I must do, can be

1370 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC r 5oy l..~~ ' l w;s.t~ n a rhetorical vocab­ sponsibility introduces, it is true, a certain strenu­ of theological warfare will cause many to desire ain stretching up to osity into life, produced by a consciousness that a substitute for this, and we should not object. As msmits its influence "nothing is lost." Yet this is preferable to that long as we have in ultimate place the highest It is impossible to desolation which proceeds from an infinite dis­ good man can intuit, the relationship is made per­ ive expression with- persion or feeling of unaccountability. Even so, fect. We shall be content with "intellectual-love the choice between them is hardly ours to make; of the Good." It is still the intellectual love of intelligibility to the '• . . Of course, inferior we did not create the order of things, but being good which causes the noble lover to desire not y be and often are accountable for our impulses, we wish these to to devour his beloved but to shape him according on; and there is noth- bejust. to the gods as far as mortal power allows. So 1 inverting the proper Thus when we finally divest rhetoric of all the rhetoric at its truest seeks to perfect men by "'""4.~·. thou my good." Yet notions of artifice which have grown up around showing them better versions of themselves, ~ y piece of rhetorical it, we are left with something very much like links in that chain extending up toward 'the ideal, ~e.u .. , m overcomes another Spinoza's "intellectual love of God." This is its which only the intellect can apprehend and only eo~_, 11gnearer to the term essence and the Jons et origo of its power. It is the soul have affection for. This is the justified ~ ..u.:. ·e is some ground for "intellectual" because, as we have previously affection of which no one can be ashamed, and ~ ..,., •f• in necessarily an aris­ seen, there is no honest rhetoric without a pre­ he who feels no influence of it is truly outside the he rhetorician has to ceding dialectic. The kind of rhetoric which is communion of minds. Rhetoric appears, finally, t(..'"~ notions, to say noth­ justly condemned is utterance in support of a po­ as a means by which the impulse of the soul to be · ~'. logical and pathetic sition before that position has been adjudicated ever moving is redeemed. '2..- with reference to the whole universe of It may be granted that in this essay we have 1etoric, noble or base, discourse 2 3-and of such the world always pro­ gone some distance from the banks of the Ilissus. )rid; and we note ac­ duces more than enough. It is "love" because it is What began as a simple account of passion be­ r of the public life of something in addition to bare theoretical truth. comes by transcendence an allegory of all rce struggle over who That element in addition is a desire to bring truth speech. No one would think of suggesting that ·hetorical propagation. into a kind of existence, or to give it an actuality Plato had in mind every application which has ,f information," which to which theory is indifferent. Now what is to be here been made, but that need not arise as an 1e dialogue, pose as said about our last expression, "of God"? Echoes issue. The structure of the dialogue, the way in heir suits. But there is which the judgments about speech concentrate, the fact that men will and especially the close association of the true, the beautiful, and the good, constitute a unity of influence one another. right only if, hie et mmc, the dynamism of my will is right, ) be otherwise; neuter and tends towards the true goods of human life. implication. The central idea is that all speech, o worship which is to "That is why practical wisdom, prudentia, is a virtue indi­ which is the means the gods have given man to ! for which Socrates visibly moral and intellectual at the same time, and why, like express his soul, is a form of eros, in the proper the judgment of the conscience itself, it cannot be replaced by nd speech. interpretation of the word. With that truth 'the any sort of theoretical knowledge or science." [Au.] rhetorician will always be brought face to face as ncipation from impulse ' 3Socrates' criticism of the speech of Lysias (263d ff) is ;e, the duty of rhetoric that the latter defended a position without having submitted it soon as he ventures beyond the consideration of and understanding into to the discipline of dialectic. [Au.] mere artifice and device. than scientific percep­ t just as no action is re­ :rance is without its re- Wt.a.u.e.v \.-4t +,_ (/\.,.....,!:,\"\

''The truth of practical intel­ d-a"'...._ Ovo"""'-~ 1"¼ mity to an extramental being sire; the end is no longer to q\4.t.t·ht.~ r.f v,i.Ln,'-< 1 existence that which is not ,ice is so individualized, both from which it proceeds and ·cumstances in which it takes C,..Ytv u,, u.a +i,...." h d ! or it in which it is expressed and his is what I must do, can be C &.vt OU. St.

WEAVER I THE PHAEDRUS AND THE NATURE OF RHETORIC 1371