Chapter III (5)

The Grounds and Functions of Rhetoric. Three Appendices which belong only to the Preparatory Part, viz., the Colors of Good and Evil, both simple and composed; the Antithesis of Things (the pro and con of General Questions); the Minor Forms of Speech (the Elaboration of Exordiums, Perorations, and Leading Arguments)

WE NEXT proceed to the doctrine of ornament in speech, called by the name of rhetoric or oratory. This in itself is certainly an excellent science, and has been laudably cultivated by writers. But to form a just estimate, eloquence is certainly inferior to wisdom. The great difference between them appears in the words of God to Moses upon his refusing, for want of elocution, the charge assigned him: “Aaron shall be thy speaker, and thou shalt be to him as God.” But for advantage and popular esteem, wisdom gives place to eloquence. “The wise in heart shall be called prudent, but the sweet of tongue shall find greater things,” says Solomon: clearly intimating that wisdom procures a name and admiration, but that eloquence is of greater efficacy in business and civil life. And for the cultivation of this art, the emulation between Aristotle and the rhetoricians of his time, the earnest study of Cicero, his long practice and utmost endeavor every way to dignify oratory, has made these authors even exceed themselves in their books upon the subject. Again, the great examples of eloquence found in the orations of Demosthenes and Cicero, added to the perfection and exactness of their precepts, have doubled its advancement. And therefore the deficiencies we find in it rather turn upon certain collections belonging to its train, than upon the doctrine and use of the art itself.

But in our manner to open and stir the earth a little about the roots of this science, certainly rhetoric is subservient to the imagination, as logic is to the understanding. And if the thing be well considered, the office and use of this art is but to apply and recommend the dictates of reason to the imagination, in order to excite the affections and will. For the administration of reason is disturbed three ways; viz., 1, either by the insnaring of sophistry, which belongs to logic; 2, the delusion of words, which belongs to rhetoric; or 3, by the violence of the affections, which belongs to ethics. For as in transacting business with others, men are commonly overreached, or drawn from their own purposes either by cunning, importunity, or vehemence; so in the inward business we transact with ourselves, we are either, 1, undermined by the fallacy of arguments; 2, disquieted and solicited by the assiduity of impressions and observations; or 3, shaken and carried away by the violence of the passions. Nor is the state of human nature so unequal, that these arts and faculties should have power to disturb the reason, and none to confirm and strengthen it; for they do this in a much greater degree. The end of logic is to teach the form of arguments for defending, and not for insnaring, the understanding. The end of ethics is so to compose the affections, that they may co-operate with reason, and not insult it. And lastly, the end of rhetoric is to fill the imagination with such observations and images as may assist reason, and not overthrow it. For the abuses of an art come in obliquely only, and not for practice, but caution. It was therefore great injustice in Plato, though it proceeded from a just contempt of the rhetoricians of his time, to place rhetoric among the voluptuary arts, and resemble it to cookery, which corrupted wholesome meats, and, by variety of sauces, made unwholesome ones more palatable. For speech is, doubtless, more employed to adorn virtue than to color vice. This faculty is always ready, for every man speaks more virtuously than he either thinks or acts. And it is excellently observed by Thucydides, that something of this kind was usually objected to Cleon; who, as he always defended the worst side of a cause, was ever inveighing against eloquence and the grace of speech, well knowing that no man could speak gracefully upon a base subject, though every man easily might upon an honorable one: for Plato elegantly observed, though the expression is now grown trite, that if virtue could be beheld, she would have great admirers. But rhetoric, by plainly painting virtue and goodness, renders them, as it were, conspicuous; for as they cannot be seen by the corporeal eye, the next degree is to have them set before us as lively as possible by the ornament of words and the strength of imagination. The Stoics, therefore, were deservedly ridiculed by Cicero for endeavoring to inculcate virtue upon the mind by short and subtile sentences, and conclusions, which have little or no relation to the imagination and the will.

Again, if the affections were orderly and obedient to reason, there would be no great use of persuasion and insinuation to gain access to the mind; it would then be sufficient that things themselves were nakedly and simply proposed and proved; but, on the contrary, the affections revolt so often, and raise such disturbances and seditions—

that reason would perfectly be led captive, did not the persuasion of eloquence win over the imagination from the side of the passions, and promote an alliance between it and reason against the affections. For we must observe that the affections themselves always aim at an apparent good, and in this respect have something common with reason. But here lies the difference, that the affections principally regard a present good, while reason, seeing far before it, chooses also the future and capital good. And therefore, as present things strike the imagination strongest, reason is generally subdued; but when eloquence and the power of persuasion raise up remote and future objects, and set them to view as if they were present; then imagination goes over to the side of reason, and renders it victorious.

Hence we conclude, that rhetoric can no more be accused of coloring the worst part, than logic of teaching sophistry. For we know that the doctrines of contraries are the same, though their use be opposite; and logic does not only differ from rhetoric, according to the vulgar notion, as the first is like the hand clenched, and the other like the hand open; but much more in this, that logic considers reason in its natural state, and rhetoric as it stands in vulgar opinion; whence Aristotle prudently places rhetoric between logic and ethics, along with politics, as partaking of them both. For the proofs and demonstrations of logic are common to all mankind, but the proof and persuasion of rhetoric must be varied according to the audience, like a musician suiting himself to different ears.

“Orpheus in sylvis, inter Delphinas Arion.”

And this application and variation of speech should, if we desire its perfection, extend so far, that if the same things were to be delivered to different persons, yet a different set of words should be used to each. Though it is certain that the greatest orators, generally, have not this political and sociable eloquence in private discourse; for while they endeavor at ornament and elegant forms of speech, they fall not upon that ready application and familiar style of discourse which they might with more advantage use to particulars. And it were certainly proper to begin a new inquiry into this subject; we therefore place it among the deficiencies under the title of prudential conversation, which the more attentively a man considers, the higher value he will set upon it; but whether this be placed under rhetoric or politics is of no great significance.

We have already observed that the desiderata in this art are rather appendages than parts of the art itself; and all of them belong to the repository thereof, for the furnishing of speech and invention. To proceed in this view; first, we find no writer that hath carefully followed the prudent example of Aristotle, who began to collect popular marks or colors of apparent good and evil, as well simple as comparative. These, in reality, are but rhetorical sophisms, though of excellent use, especially in business and private discourse. But the labor of Aristotle about these colors has three defects; for 1, though they are numerous, he recites but few; 2, he has not annexed their redargutions; and 3, he seems not to have understood their full use: for they serve as well to affect and move as to demonstrate. There are many forms of speech which, though significative of the same things, yet affect men differently; as a sharp instrument penetrates more than a blunt one, supposing both of them urged with equal force. There is nobody but would be more affected by hearing this expression, How your enemies will triumph upon this:

“Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atridæ,”

than if it were simply said, This will injure your affairs: therefore these stings and goads of speech are not to be neglected. And since we propose this as a desideratum, we will, after our manner, give a sketch of it, in the way of examples; for precepts will not so well illustrate the thing. In deliberatives, we inquire what is good, what evil; and of good, which is the greater, and of evil, which the less. Whence the persuader’s task is to make things appear good or evil, and that in a higher or lower degree; which may be performed by true and solid reasons, or represented by colors, popular glosses, and circumstances of such force as to sway an ordinary judgment; or even a wise man that does not fully and considerately attend to the subject. But besides this power to alter the nature of the subject in appearance, and so lead to error, they are of use to quicken and strengthen such opinions and persuasions as are true; for reasons nakedly delivered, and always after one manner, enter but heavily, especially with delicate minds; whereas, when varied and enlivened by proper forms and insinuations, they cause a stronger apprehension, and often suddenly win the mind to a resolution. Lastly, to make a true and safe judgment, nothing can be of greater use and preservation to the mind than the discovery and reprehension of these colors, showing in what cases they hold and in what not; which cannot be done without a comprehensive knowledge of things; but when performed it clears the judgment, and makes it less apt to slip into error.