INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of die original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North ZMb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 I I 76-17,969 CARSON, Michael Joseph, 1943- THE MORAL USE OF RHETORIC IN PARADISE REGAINED. The Ohio State University in cooperation with Miami (Ohio) University, Ph.D., 1976 Literature, English Xerox University Microfilmst Ann Arbor, Michigan 49106 © 1976 MICHAEL JOSEPH CARSON ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE MORAL USE OF RHETORIC IN PARADISE REGAINED DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Michael Joseph Carson, B. A., M. A. * tt * * * The Ohio State University 1975 Reading Committee: Approved by Edwin W. Robbins Edward P. J. Corbett Spiro Peterson Adviser Department of English For my wife 11 VITA February 27, 1 9 4 3.................... Bom - Indianapolis, Indiana 1966..................................................... B.A., University of Evansville, Evansville, Indiana 1966-1969 ....................................... N.D.E.A. Fellow, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1968..................................................... M.A., Miami U niversity, Oxford, Ohio 1969-1975 .................... .... Assistant Professor of English, University of Evansville, Evansville, Indiana FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Renaissance English Literature i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VITA................................................................................................................................... i i i Chapter I. THE MORAL PROBLEM OF RHETORIC .................................................. 1 I I. MILTONrS RHETORIC.................................................................................... 51 I I I . DIVINE AND DEMONIC RHETORIC ....... .......................... 161 LIST OF WORKS C I T E D ................................................................................................. 270 iv CHAPTER I THE MORAL PROBLEM OF RHETORIC In Paradise Regained Milton makes what is perhaps his final comment on the moral problems inherent in the use of rhetoric. The style of the poem, especially in the rhetoric used in the debate, thoroughly reveals Milton’s belief that good or evil is manifest in a person's speech, that clarity and straightforwardness are In direct proportion to the speaker's goodness and honesty. Moreover, Satan’s using a classical education to tempt Jesus elicits an explicit deval­ uation of the Greek art of rhetoric in favor of a Hebrew mode of discourse. Along with poetry and philosophy Satan offers the study of oratory as an aid to the Son's becoming the Messiah, the ruler of the restored Kingdom of Israel: Thence to the famous Orators re p a ir, Those antient, whose resistless eloquence Wielded at will that fierce Democratie, Shook the Arsenal and fulmin'd over Greece, To Macedon, and Artaxerxes Throne.* Even though there is no apparent irony in Satan's praises of ancient learning and art, Jesus' blunt response casts out the noble tvo-thousand-year-old tradition of eloquence and replaces it with the belief that only simple unadorned truth, as found in Scripture, can c e rta in ly move men to rig h t judgment and e th ic a l action: 1 2 Thir Orators thou then extoll’st, as those The top of Eloquence, Statists indeed, And lovers of thir Country, as may seem; But herein to our Prophets far beneath, As men divinely taught, and better teaching The so lid rules of C ivil Government In thir majestic unaffected stile Then all the Oratory of Greece and Rome. In them is plainest taught, and easiest learnt, What makes a Nation happy, and keeps i t so, What ruins Kingdoms, and lays C ities f la t. (IV, 353-63) It is, of course, possible to see the rejection by Christ as a poetic one and not Milton’s own conclusion on the arts; that is, the response to Satan may be simply dramatically correct. Yet when we consider Milton's own belief in both the actuality and the eternal meaning of most of the basic events in the poem, and when we remem­ ber that the temptation of classical learning was his addition to the gospel account, we may want to ask further what the full implica­ tions of the rejectio n are. In one sense the question becomes one of what is involved in the choice of Scripture over classical politi­ cal and rhetorical theory. And as soon as we ask, we are deep into the enduring debate over the conditions necessary for a morally respon­ sible use of rhetoric. A consideration of this moral problem posed by rhetoric does not require a detailed comparison of the Greek worldview to the Christian, but rather it asks a comparison of the effects on rhetori­ cal theory of two opposite views of truth: one which sees truth as eternally stable and visible to man and another which sees it as orderly yet growing and incomplete. Moreover, focusing on the es­ sential moral problem in rhetoric as that problem is related to the 3 two major opposing views of truth precludes the necessity for a histori­ cal survey of rhetorical theory. Even the large number of Renaissance handbooks of rhetoric do not demand attention since they are derived from classical material and do not in any way change the effects 2 that a belief in absolute Good has on rhetoric. A Milton who held to the certainty of the truth of Scripture was as aware as a Socrates with his knowledge of the Good that rhetoric must serve the Truth. On one side of the moral issue is the Aristotelian position that truth is not absolute in anv given situation and that because rhetoric is always in use it should be cultivated by those seeking the truth. On the other side is the position of Socrates and Plato that before persuading an audience the speaker must ask what he is persuading them to. He must establish the ultimate Good and a hierarchy of values descending from that, A. P. Duhamel states the conflict between the Aristotelian and Platonic positions as a general principle: The content of the idea "rhetoric," or of the conception of what constitutes effective expression, is dependent upon the epistemology, psychology, and metaphysic of the system in which it occurs. The rhetorical is determined by the epistemological. The rhetorician’s conception of the value of argument, the process of invention by which argu­ ments are to be discovered, the extent to which the devices of elocution are to be employed, is the result of his evalua­ tion of the reliability of the intellect, the nature and availability of truth, and the existence of certitude. Thus Aristotle’s idea of rhetoric, or of what constitutes effective expression, differs from Plato’s mainly because he conceived of probable truth as value ^n and fre­ quently the best human intelligence can expect.^ In Paradise Regained Jesus sta te s both a rh e to ric a l method and an ultimate Good in preferring to the Greek arts prophetic style and bib­ lical revelation on the basis of their absolute conformity to God's A truth, and in doing so he is aligning himself completely with one side (the ultimate Platonic) of the continuing debate over the morality of rhetoric. George Kennedy writes of this basic two-sided choice, essentially the one Hilton has Jesus faced with in the poem, and not only insists on the complete opposition of the two views of rhetoric and morality, but even offers Milton as a possible example of the Platonic side. As representative spokesmen for the two sides Kennedy offers Protagoras and Socrates and gives both full credit for honesty in their views. For Protagoras, as Kennedy sees i t , absolute truth was unknowable and perhaps nonexistent. Man is the measure and measurer of all things . and truth must be approximated in each individual time and place somewhat in the manner th at the ju s t is determined in a court of law.^ On the other hand, "if . one were to argue that absolute truth both exists and is knowable, then certain principles deducible from this truth ought to guide its activity." And this is, of course, Socrates’ position, that knowledge of the Good dictates a moral stan­ dard for the use of rhetoric.