The Ethics of Rhetoric

Has a chapter on "Milton's Heroic Prose."

Flannery O'Connor recommends.

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/...

The prevailing thought on rhetoric is that it is either: (1) only a matter of style or form, or, worse, (2) an attempt at coercion, which is always something frowned upon. Richard Weaver's Ethics of Rhetoric helpfully cuts through the confusion and highlights the central role of rhetoric in society. His main contention is that, while rhetoric can be, and often is, abused, rhetoric seen in its true light is not simply a matter of technique or style, but that it has its own ethic. In other words, Weaver argues that HOW we argue--just as equally as WHAT we argue for--is a moral, value-based act which moves towards some particular end. All rhetoric, he argues, will have one of three consequences: (1) "[i]t can move us toward what is good," (2) "it can move us toward what is evil," or (3) "it can, in hypothetical third place, fail to move us at all."

Every chapter develops different aspects of this full view of rhetoric, including analyses of Edmund Burke's and Abraham's Lincoln's rhetorical tendencies (and the impact those tendencies have), an examination of the arguments advances in the Scopes trial, the rhetorical use of grammar, Milton's "prejudices," the appeal to ultimate terms, and others.

As an aside: in light of the current state of politics, and of the current-day Republcian party, Weaver's comments on political rhetoric in the early 20th-century are enlightening. He argues that the conservatives of his day were going the way of the American Whig party. He traces this back to (surprisingly) Edmund Burke and his reliance on the "argument from circumstance." Here is what Weaver had to say on the topic: The American Whig type poitlical philosophy "turns out to be, on examination, a position which is defined by other positions because it will not conceive ultimate goals, and it will not display on occasion a sovereign contempt for circumstances. . . The other parties take their bearing from some philosophy of man and society; the Whigs take their bearings from the other parties. Whatever a party of left or right proposes, they propose (or oppose) in tempered measure. Its politics is then cautionary, instinctive, trusting more to safety and to present success than to imagination and dramatic boldness of principle. It is, to make the estimate candid, a politics without vision and consequently without the capacity to survive." Going on, he concludes: "'The political parties which I call great,' Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America, 'are those which cling to principles rather than to their consequences, to general and not to special cases, to ideas and not to men.' . . . [A] party which bases itself upon circumstance cannot outlast that circumstance very long; that its claim to make smaller mistakes (and to have smaller triumphs) than the extreme parties will not win it enduring allegiance; and that when the necessity arises, as it always does at some time, to look at the foundations of the commonwealth, Burke's wish will be disregarded, and only deeply founded theories will be held worthy. . . Let it be offered as a parting counsel that parties bethink themselves of how their chieftains speak."

Memorable quotes:
"There is, then, no true rhetoric without dialetic, for the dialectic provides that basis of 'high speculation about nature' without which rhetoric in the narrower sense has nothing to work upon."

"Rhetoric moves the soul with a movement which cannot finally be justified logically. It can only be valued analogically with reference to some supreme image."

"Without rhetoric there seems no possibility of tragedy, and in turn, without the sense of tragedy is to keep the human lot from being rendered as history. The cultivation of tragedy and a deep interest in the value-confronting power of language always occur together. The Phaedrus, the Gorgias, and the Cratylus, not to mention the works of many teachers of retheoric, appear at the close of the age of Greek tragedy. The Elizabethan age teemed with treatises on the use of language. The essentially tragic Christian view of life begins the long tradition of homiletics. Tragedy and the practice of rhetoric seem to find common sustenance in preoccupation with value, and then rhetoric follows as an analyzed art."

"the duty of rhetoric is to bring together action and understanding into a whole that is greater than scientific perception."

"So rhetoric at its truest seeks to perfect men by showing them better versions of themselves, links in that chain extending up toward the ideal, which only the intellect can apprehend and only the soul have affection for."

"In a manner of speaking, Milton always writes from a 'prejudice,' which proves to be on inspection his conviction that as a Christian and as a political and moral preacher, that, as the good has been judged, the duty of a publicist is to show it separated with the utmost clearness of distinction from the bad. Accordingly, Milton's expositions, if one follows them intently, cause one to accept one thing and reprobate another unceasingly."

"An ethics of rhetoric requires that ultimate terms be ultimate in some rational sense. The only way to achieve that objective is through an ordering of our own minds and our own passions."

The Ethics of Rhetoric by Richard M. Weaver (1995)

Weaver's book is not just foundational for the field of rhetorical studies - it's actually still quite good, with lots of practical advice and uncanny observations about the way we talk, communicate, and live. There is very little fat to be trimmed in these analyses of a broad range of topics, from Plato's Phaedrus to Lincoln's arguments from definition to the various ways in which science (both social and technical) gets communicated to lay audiences. There are times when Weaver veers into what eventually seem like personal observations or takes on various political topics or situations, and these are really the main area of complaint with the book, but this, to me, feels very minor overall. In the broader scope, Weaver's book is not only a comprehensive discussion of the art of rhetorical criticism, but it is a thoughtful demonstration of this art in action, thus making this book a complete take on the act, just as he notes the Phaedrus is in the opening chapter.

Very good.

A wonderfully challenging book. I have thoroughly grown in my understanding of language. It was a difficult journey of understanding, but a path I am glad that I took. Highly recommend if you’re looking for some classical rhetorical education.