ELEMENTS OF RHETORIC.

PART I.

PERSPICUITY IN STYLE.

CHAPTER I.

STYLE.

§ I. DERIVATION AND DEFINITION OF THE TERM RHETORIC. THE term rhetoric is of Greek origin, and was first used to signify that which belongs to the phrwp (rhetor, i. e., orator), a word which is derived from pέw, to speak. The ancient rhetoricians discussed chiefly the art of oratory, leaving to the grammarians the investigation of the beauties of style in general prose composition. In all their definitions of rhetoric they make it the art of persuasion. Isocrates calls it "the worker of persuasion." Plato makes Gorgias define it as "the power of persuasion by speaking." Aristotle defines it as "a faculty of considering all the possible means of persuasion on every subject." Quintilian, after enumerating many definitions similar to these, finally gives his own, and calls it "the art of speaking well."

At the present day the meaning of the word is less restricted; and popular usage involves two separate and distinct ideas. The one refers to arguments, and appeals to the emotions, by which the speaker or writer seeks to convey his own sentiments

to others. The abuse of this sort of rhetoric is ascribed by Milton to Belial :

"His tongue

Dropp'd manna, and could make the worse appear

The better reason, to perplex and dash

Maturest counsels."

On the other hand, writing is said to be rhetorical when it exhibits more than usual ornament. The abuse of this is popularly stigmatized as "rhetorical artifice," "mere rhetoric,” and the like; thus conveying the idea that rhetoric is only an aggregation of plausible words or euphonious sounds, without any adequate sense. The popular idea, though often exaggerated, nevertheless contains the truth, and it is from this that the materials for a proper definition of rhetoric may best be gathered.

From this we see that the term rhetoric has now a twofold meaning, referring both to the subject-matter and to the mode of its presentation.

In the first case it relates to the subject-matter, its choice and arrangement, where the writer's aim is to instruct, convince, or persuade. Here it may be defined as the art of persuasion.

In the second case it relates to the manner of expression, where the writer treats his subject with conscious ornament, not so much in order to win assent as to stimulate the attention and gratify the taste. Here it may be defined as the art of ornamental composition.

§ 2. THE MAIN DIVISIONS OF THE SUBJECT OF RHETORIC. Rhetoric comprehends the following subjects, which will be adopted as the main divisions of the present work:

I. Style, or the choice and arrangement of words.

II. Method, or the choice and arrangement of subject-matter. III. The Literature of the Emotions.

IV. The General Departments of Literature.

3. DEFINITION OF STYLE.

Style refers to the choice and arrangement of words, and may be defined as the peculiar manner in which thought is expressed in language.

§ 4. style difFERS AMONG NATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS. When we consider the subject of style in general, we notice that there are great differences in this respect, as well among nations as among individuals. "If we contemplate,” says Quintilian, "the varieties of oratory, we find almost as much diversity in the minds as in the bodies of orators. The distinction between Attic and Asiatic orators is of great antiquity; the Attics being regarded as compressed and energetic in their style, the Asiatics as inflated and deficient in force. Those who made distinctions in these matters soon after added a third kind-the Rhodian, which they define to be of a middle character between the other two." Such differences as these may always be found. In Oriental literature great license is allowed to the imagination; in European it is held under stricter control. In Europe itself there are strongly marked varieties of national taste. The Italian enjoys a certain warmth of expression which to the Englishman is displeasing. The German, the Frenchman, and the Spaniard, each exhibits in his writings his peculiar characteristics. In every nation also there is a distinctive style at different periods. This is illustrated by the wellknown division of Latin literature into the ages of gold, silver, and iron; while in English the same thing is exemplified in the prose of such writers as Hooker, Addison, Johnson, and Macaulay, each of whom represents a different age. Besides this, we have to consider the personal peculiarities of the individual author, which are so strikingly manifested that a man's writings have come to be considered as much a mark of himself as his face or figure. Thus Bacon exhibits in his essays the force of concise and well-balanced antithesis; Addison, negligent grace; Goldsmith, ease and elegance; Sterne, sprightliness and wit. The style of Johnson and of Gibbon is elaborate and Latinized; that of Bunyan and Defoe is marked by Saxon simplicity; Carlyle displays vehemence and energy; De Quincey, richness and splendor; Emerson, epigrammatic point and sparkle.

There is a different style for different classes of literature. "That is good rhetoric for the hustings," says De Quincey, "which is bad for a book. Every mode of intellectual communication has its separate strength and separate weakness; its peculiar embarrassment compensated by peculiar resources.

to others. The abuse of this sort of rhetoric is ascribed by Milton to Belial:

"His tongue

Dropp'd manna, and could make the worse appear
The better reason, to perplex and dash

Maturest counsels."

On the other hand, writing is said to be rhetorical when it exhibits more than usual ornament. The abuse of this is popularly stigmatized as "rhetorical artifice," "mere rhetoric," and the like; thus conveying the idea that rhetoric is only an aggregation of plausible words or euphonious sounds, without any adequate sense. The popular idea, though often exaggerated, nevertheless contains the truth, and it is from this that the materials for a proper definition of rhetoric may best be gathered.

From this we see that the term rhetoric has now a twofold meaning, referring both to the subject-matter and to the mode of its presentation.

In the first case it relates to the subject-matter, its choice and arrangement, where the writer's aim is to instruct, convince, or persuade. Here it may be defined as the art of persuasion.

In the second case it relates to the manner of expression, where the writer treats his subject with conscious ornament, not so much in order to win assent as to stimulate the attention and gratify the taste. Here it may be defined as the art of ornamental composition.

§ 2. THE MAIN DIVISIONS OF THE SUBJECT OF RHETORIC. Rhetoric comprehends the following subjects, which will be adopted as the main divisions of the present work:

I. Style, or the choice and arrangement of words.

II. Method, or the choice and arrangement of subject-matter. III. The Literature of the Emotions.

IV. The General Departments of Literature.

§ 3. DEFINITION OF STYLE.

Style refers to the choice and arrangement of words, and may be defined as the peculiar manner in which thought is expressed in language.

§ 4. STYLE DIFFERS AMONG NATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS. When we consider the subject of style in general, we notice that there are great differences in this respect, as well among nations as among individuals. "If we contemplate," says Quintilian, "the varieties of oratory, we find almost as much diversity in the minds as in the bodies of orators. The distinction between Attic and Asiatic orators is of great antiquity; the Attics being regarded as compressed and energetic in their style, the Asiatics as inflated and deficient in force. Those who made distinctions in these matters soon after added a third kind-the Rhodian, which they define to be of a middle character between the other two." Such differences as these may always be found. In Oriental literature great license is allowed to the imagination; in European it is held under stricter control. In Europe itself there are strongly marked varieties of national taste. The Italian enjoys a certain warmth of expression which to the Englishman is displeasing. The German, the Frenchman, and the Spaniard, each exhibits in his writings his peculiar characteristics. In every nation also there is a distinctive style at different periods. This is illustrated by the wellknown division of Latin literature into the ages of gold, silver, and iron; while in English the same thing is exemplified in the prose of such writers as Hooker, Addison, Johnson, and Macaulay, each of whom represents a different age. Besides this, we have to consider the personal peculiarities of the individual author, which are so strikingly manifested that a man's writings have come to be considered as much a mark of himself as his face or figure. Thus Bacon exhibits in his essays the force of concise and well-balanced antithesis; Addison, negligent grace; Goldsmith, ease and elegance; Sterne, sprightliness and wit. The style of Johnson and of Gibbon is elaborate and Latinized; that of Bunyan and Defoe is marked by Saxon simplicity; Carlyle displays vehemence and energy; De Quincey, richness and splendor; Emerson, epigrammatic point and sparkle.

There is a different style for different classes of literature. "That is good rhetoric for the hustings," says De Quincey, "which is bad for a book. Every mode of intellectual communication has its separate strength and separate weakness; its peculiar embarrassment compensated by peculiar resources.