It's interesting that we first started this class coming up with a definition (or definitions) of Rhetoric and what it is. On the first day of class I wanted nicely boxed definition that could be tied up in a bow. Now, I think I've finally figured out that there is no all-encompassing definition. Every single one of the rhetoricians we have studied have questioned or defined what rhetoric is. And their definitions vary widely. And although Whately basically calls the exercise of definite rhetoric as a pointless semantic exercise, he later goes ahead and comes up with his own definition anyway:
"In the present day, however, the province of Rhetoric, in the widest acceptation that would be reckoned admissible, comprehends all 'Composition in Prose'; in the narrowest sense, it would be limited to 'Persuasive Speaking'. I propose in the present work to adopt a middle course between these two extreme points; and to treat of 'Argumentative Composition' generally, and exclusively; considering Rhetoric (in conformity with the very just and philosophical view of Aristotle) as an offshoot from Logic."
There are two aspects of his definition and following argument that I found especially interesting. One, that I think he is the first of the people we have studied who brings an extensive composition component into his discussion. Is this where the combined Rhet/Comp idea started?
Second, even though he isn't the first rhetorician we have seen to do this, I find it interesting that he links Rhetoric and Philosophy together. His cataloging of components that make a rhetorical argument is very reminiscent of Aristotle and Cicero, and he treats the subject in a very scientific way. It's interesting that he then has such a strong link between Rhetoric and Philosophy (mostly considered to be within the Arts domain), but treats the subject in such an objective, scientific-study fashion.
I love how you point out his linking of philosophy and rhetoric. It is important to note how he tries to correlate the two together as he attempts to weave—like, as you have pointed out, all other rhetoricians before him—his own definition of what rhetoric means and what it consists of.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is something interesting that makes a crazy counter to the argument you present about the close reading of his text. On page 1005, when talking about Persuasion, in the strictest sense of the word, he defines it as “the influencing of the Will.” Taking this into account, any form of logic and any presentation of logic would simply fall into this idea of persuasion presented in the first portion of your quote: logic becomes persuasion because logic attempts to alter our impulses and make us think in a very specific way. The presentation of logic—no matter the medium—is always to persuade by demonstrating the train of thought that helps us arrive our educated conclusions.
Aside from that, I’d like to attempt to answer your question of if this is where rhetoric and composition started. I would have to politely say no. I think that, when the idea of rhetoric was created, the idea of composition was also formed. In order to speak rhetorically—that is, using Whatley’s definitions here, to speak or write to alter the will, and therefore to speak to persuade by providing copious amounts of logic—requires a level of eloquence in the way we speak or write. Composition is a broad term that can include this eloquence.
I found myself thinking along these exact lines as I was myself reading Whatley. From my standpoint he is the first author who has led any type of meaningful discussion about our modern day perceptions of rhetoric, and in fact his writings are the first the really seemed to describe rhetoric in the form we view it today.
ReplyDeleteHis piece may represent a sort of turning point, at least amongst the literature we read in this class, where it becomes acceptable to even view rhetoric as a tool of persuasion. (Keeping in mind that he also offers one of the first easily understandable, unambiguous definitions of the purpose and characteristics of rhetoric.) Prior to this, especially amongst the Greeks and Romans, rhetoric was more of an art form, a type of discourse, a spreading of knowledge. Only the sophists really upheld it as a means of persuasion.
I don't think one could say, today, that persuasion has no part in rhetoric. It is why we "value" it as an art and science. However, Whatley's ideas of composition holding an equal stake is an admirable one and one that I think we hold true today.
As a side note, I'm not so sure that composition was originally a component of rhetoric. In fact, it seemed an oratory form of communication. Perhaps the definition of composition can be stretched to include eloquence of speech, but generally I think the inclusion of the written word in a definition is a much newer philosophy.